Bicycle Carry

mete said:
Even carrying on a bicycle can be a good idea. ...BTW those of us who are seasoned citizens should be aware that we are targets for crime !!...
Click to expand...

Cycling leaves you open and vulnerable and as often the case, like this gentleman, far from home and alone. This was my exact incentive to get my original carry license about twenty years ago.

Glad it turned out well for him.
 
I don't ride bicycles but I do ride motorcycles. I don't vary my carry methods when I'm on a bike.

I do most of my practice one handed so that's not an issue.

My wife and grandduaghter play at Mounted CB Action shooting. We have a roping arena we use for practice.

I don't PLAN on having to shoot from my Sporster, but it is a lot of fun playing with it, shooting wify's MCBAS baloons.

Just another shooting sport.
 
Hey kraigwy: is it harder to hit a moving target or to be a moving shooter?
I never thought I'd ever ask that question, but you seem to be one of the few to be able to answer.

Glad it turned out okay for the old guy.
 
Personally I think its harder to shoot while you're moving then to shoot a moving target but that's just me.

I think it might have more to do with the idea that I practice shooting movers more then I practice shooting from a horse or bike.

Shooting as in Run 'n Gun doesn't matter that much to me, I don't move that fast any more. More like slow motion even if I'm going as fast as I can.

I think it has to do more with which one you practice the most.
 
I brought this subject up a while back. A point I tried to make was that people on bikes just seem to be natural targets. a pedestrian can step out into an intersection, and be given right of way, but when a cyclist interferes with traffic, you can count on some jackass in a car to brush him off the road.

This guy may or may not pack a gun when he is out shopping, but he packs when he is on his bike, simply because this is probably not the only time that he's been assaulted while biking, either by drivers or people on foot.

I don't know if it has been reported here, but there is a new "game" making the rounds. Groups of kids target an old person, then beat that person down, while recording the video on a phone. The video is posted to the internet. People have been killed; locally, a guy spent weeks in a coma, and has serious brain damage after an attack.

It is highly probable that the third was hanging back from the attack because his role was "photojournalist," and if this was the case, according to what I have read, this guy probably had only a 25% chance of escaping with his life. Most of the vicitms do wind up with some sort of permanent injury.
 
Along the same lines

A 65 year old man shot two teens when three of them knocked him off his bike that then tried to attack him. One was killed, one wouldnt and the thrid sent to a youth center.

The 65 year old was released without charges.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/46143485/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/

I often wondered if an old man, lets say, he had a bad ticker, would be required to take a Butt Whipping from an much younger, stronger guy, instead of using his hand gun to protect himself.
 
I often wondered if an old man, lets say, he had a bad ticker, would be required to take a Butt Whipping from an much younger, stronger guy, instead of using his hand gun to protect himself.
Click to expand...

Kraig,

Civil law has a concept called the "eggshell skull" doctrine, which basically says an attacker takes the victim as he finds him -- that when someone commits a negligent act that leads to another person getting injured, then that person is culpable for the entire extent of the injury even if the victim had some pre existing condition that turned what should have been a minor problem into a major one.

In criminal law, a similar doctrine applies in self defense. The attacker doesn't have to know he is putting you in legitimate & reasonable fear for your life. You simply have to know it and be able to articulate your reasonable belief that (for example) someone about to punch you in the head was actually about to use deadly force against you whether he fully realized it or not. A man with a known issue such as a "bad ticker" would almost certainly find relief in such a rule.

See http://www.useofforce.us/ for a really good overview.

(Disclaimer: IANAL, simply a firearms instructor who's also an autodidact with a wickedly obsessive reading habit.)

pax
 
I always carry when my son and I are out mountain biking. For me it's either a Ruger speed-six .38 or a S&W 4006 .40 in a fanny pack.

I'd also like to take just a moment to thank the members here. My best friend and shooting partner passed away in 2003. Since then I've bounced many ideas off you guys and always appreciated the feedback both positive and negative.

Thank you, Bill (formorly HFPD#16)
 
bike like car?

In Texas I can carry a gun in my car without a licence would my bicicle count like my car or as on my person like I was walking?
 
My Glock 26 is my biking gun, as I shoot it best one-handed and equally well with each. It's only cover is a safety vest, and it rides OWB in a Michaels of Oregon Kydex at 3:00. Biking is one of the few times I change from my EDC.
 
Dear Pax,

Thank you for that example. I am a hemodialysis patient and have a blood access in my left upper arm which could easily be damaged in a fight of any sort let alone if they had a knife or something. Any damage to my blood access could end in fatal complications or require surgery and other types of procedures to stay alive on dialysis.

In addition, I heal much slower than normal so cuts and scrapes and even bruises could be devastating. I have assumed that my medical condition could be a justification for use of my weapon in the event of a single attacker larger than me. I am only 5' 6" inches since I have shrunk in my "old age" of 53.

In addition, even though I am still fairly muscular, I have very little sustained exercise tolerance at high levels for more than a little bit of time. Quite a complicated explanation dealing with oxygen utilization differences in dialysis patients, but once again, I won't have as much fight in me as someone without this medical condition even though I still have a fair amount of my strength.

I haven't seen it written anywhere before, but I have asked folks if this a viable defense against a single person who is hell bent on doing harm. I hope I never have to put it to a test, but it is something that I have thought about in the disparity of force argument of self defense. Simply put, after a very short burst, I would not have the oxygen carrying capacity to sustain a full fighting potential compared to someone else with my weight and muscle mass at my age.

If you have some case law that goes into that in detail, that would be very helpful to know in advance.

Thank you,

By the way, if you live long enough, you will become as decrepit as I already am.
 
All that said, I suspect the DA will not take your word for all that. Doctors statements, lab tests, medical records I think would all need come into play. Ultimately I think it is a jury that decides if ones action was reasonable. If a DA wants to press it, I suppose he could. The DA is not out of any pocket expenses. However the same might not be true for you. No matter how rational, reasonable, or justifiable you believe your actions would be, I doubt that your fate depends upon them.
 
pax said:
...In criminal law, a similar doctrine applies in self defense. The attacker doesn't have to know he is putting you in legitimate & reasonable fear for your life. You simply have to know it and be able to articulate your reasonable belief that (for example) someone about to punch you in the head was actually about to use deadly force against you whether he fully realized it or not...
Click to expand...
I'd say that's correct. The key is that one be able to articulate why a reasonable and prudent person in like circumstances (including having the same medical indisposition) would conclude that the attacker had the ability to wield force sufficient to cause death or grave bodily injury. So medical issues get factored in.

Hook686 said:
...I suspect the DA will not take your word for all that. Doctors statements, lab tests, medical records I think would all need come into play...
Click to expand...
And I think that's correct too.

If you're going to claim that you are particularly fragile and thus reasonably feared death in circumstance in which a more robust person might not, you may need to establish a sound basis for your belief.
 
Last edited:
I'd say that's correct. The key is that one be able to articulate why a reasonable and prudent person in like circumstances (including having the same medical indisposition) would conclude that the attacker had the ability to wield force sufficient to cause death or grave bodily injury. So medical issues get factored in.
Click to expand...
I had a friend that had had 2 skull fractures, one when he was little, another in a horriffic motorcycle accident where he was thrown headfirst into a tree. The second was enough that the Doctors told him he could take no more blows to the head. He asked, "You mean like if somebody punches me in the face...." and the doctor finished, "It could very well kill you." I always wondered if he ever applied for a CW permit or even if he changed his life. Haven't talked to him in many years, but I would consider him a prime example that medical conditions would indeed be factored in.
 
Proving my medical condition would be as simple as rolling up my sleaves and quoting medical studies on what an injury to my fistula would entail, or quoting medical studies on oxygen usage in dialysis patients compared to those with kidney disease. Lots of pictures and other issues. So that wasn't really what I was asking.

I would really like to know if there is any actual case law where that was brought to force as a successful defense proving the disparity of force issue. Documenting my medical condition would not take long and I could do that myself as an expert witness since I have testified as an expert medical witness in the past. The question, is, is there any case law where this was used as a successful defense.

Of course, you must have the elements of jeopardy, imminant threat of grave bodily harm or death, opportunity and ability. The disparity of force issue goes into the ability portion of the self defense criteria. For myself, there are many issues where I would not tolerate a beating as others might. Platelet dysfunction in renal disease promotes easier bleeding, poor wound healing, the need for continued dialylsis which after bodily injury is subject to the need to anti-coagulate the blood during dialysis or risk clots, blood loss when I am already 20% lower levels of blood than normal people, fragile bones from the mineral bone disease of secondary hyperparathyroidism, i.e. we break bones easier and could be disabled in a fight quicker.

That is just a partial list of physiologic changes from renal disease that would be very easy to document. But once again, that is not the question. The question if anyone has it, is physical disability a known and proven case law to show that a single attacker equals disparity of force for someone in my condition. I am interested in the actual case law history of this type of self defense. I asked one CCW instructor, he did not have a specific answer, but felt by opinion that it would be a reasonable disparity of force documentation. Once again, this goes to the ABILITY aspect of a lawful self defense.

Thank you,

Alaska
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top