TexasCHLforum.com

nyj wrote:There's a difference between being in a car and having protection vs 2 wheels and no protection. Silly non-motorcycle-riders will never understand, and continue to think that they are the center of the earth, and that the road belongs to them.

Good Lord, man, give it up. You ride a bike. People don't see you. You should take that into account when you're riding and drive accordingly rather than wasting your energy being angry at the drivers. When I rode a bike, my wife said she was surprised at how hard it was to see me ahead of her, and she worried that other drivers wouldn't notice at all. It has nothing to do with being the center of the earth and the road belonging to them. It has to do with inattentiveness and lack of awareness. Humans are flawed. The sooner you realize that and adjust your life to that awareness the sooner your blood pressure will go down and you'll be able to enjoy riding your bike again.

I've also driven a semi. If I saw someone hundreds of yards down the rode coming down their driveway or merging with traffic, I would immediately take my foot of the accelerator and start slowing down. I would move to the left lane if there was one. Why? Because I didn't want to kill them if they pulled out in front of me. Plenty of people have no concept of how many feet a fully loaded semi needs to stop safely without jackknifing. You need at least the length of a football field. So, as a professional driver, it's your responsibility to account for that when other drivers do stupid things.

There was an accident on I-20 a few years back that killed about 17 Mexicans, adults and children. They were traveling in a full size van. It was so overloaded that the tires were scraping the inner fender wells. They were driving on the shoulder at about 20 mph when they approached a bridge. In order to cross the bridge they had to move partially back in to the right lane. When they did that a refrigerated truck rear ended them. By the time the truck stopped its grill was touching the back of the driver's seat. Everyone aft of there was dead.

There's a reason that you see semis move to the left lane when approaching a vehicle on the shoulder. If they're professionals, they know that if that vehicle pulls out, there is no way they could stop in time. So whose fault was the wreck? The van driver shouldn't have pulled out with a truck approaching. But that truck driver should have been in the left lane.

You're just as dead when you're right as you are when you're wrong.

The ONLY thing in life you can control is your own actions. The sooner you learn that the better off you'll be. Either that or get off the bike now, before you kill yourself or somebody else.

AKC322 wrote:We don't have enough facts to determine whether the driver's actions were justified. He could have been texting, chatting on the phone, eating, fiddling with his GPS or radio, reading a newspaper or book, shaving, having sex, putting out a burning bit of weed in his crotch (I've seen them all). He could have driven the cyclist off the road without knowing it. As a motorcycle commuter, I am "assaulted" on a near-daily basis by inattentive drivers. Cops are not lawyers, and these kinds of situations are very difficult to determine on the scene. Although the cop probably handled this situation appropriately, he could have arrested the driver and let the courts sort it out. And in a lot of places the cop would have had no choice but to arrest the driver. This driver was lucky to have a cop who had some common sense, but there are plenty out there who are sorely wanting in that regard. The driver could easily have been taken to jail over this.

My takeaway from this story is to never, ever draw my weapon until I am absolutely certain there is no other alternative but the use of deadly force.

NONE of this excuses the motorcyclist assaulting him.

Sec. 22.05. DEADLY CONDUCT. (a) A person commits an offense if he recklessly engages in conduct that places another in imminent danger of serious bodily injury.

(b) A person commits an offense if he knowingly discharges a firearm at or in the direction of:

(1) one or more individuals; or

(2) a habitation, building, or vehicle and is reckless as to whether the habitation, building, or vehicle is occupied.

(c) Recklessness and danger are presumed if the actor knowingly pointed a firearm at or in the direction of another whether or not the actor believed the firearm to be loaded.

(d) For purposes of this section, "building," "habitation," and "vehicle" have the meanings assigned those terms by Section 30.01.

(e) An offense under Subsection (a) is a Class A misdemeanor. An offense under Subsection (b) is a felony of the third degree.

So this would be a class A misdemeanor at best.

Sec. 22.02. AGGRAVATED ASSAULT. (a) A person commits an offense if the person commits assault as defined in Sec. 22.01 and the person:

(1) causes serious bodily injury to another, including the person's spouse; or

(2) uses or exhibits a deadly weapon during the commission of the assault.

(b) An offense under this section is a felony of the second degree, except that the offense is a felony of the first degree if:

(1) the actor uses a deadly weapon during the commission of the assault and causes serious bodily injury to a person whose relationship to or association with the defendant is described by Section 71.0021(b), 71.003, or 71.005, Family Code;

(2) regardless of whether the offense is committed under Subsection (a)(1) or (a)(2), the offense is committed:

(A) by a public servant acting under color of the servant's office or employment;

(B) against a person the actor knows is a public servant while the public servant is lawfully discharging an official duty, or in retaliation or on account of an exercise of official power or performance of an official duty as a public servant;

(C) in retaliation against or on account of the service of another as a witness, prospective witness, informant, or person who has reported the occurrence of a crime; or

(D) against a person the actor knows is a security officer while the officer is performing a duty as a security officer; or

(3) the actor is in a motor vehicle, as defined by Section 501.002, Transportation Code, and:

(A) knowingly discharges a firearm at or in the direction of a habitation, building, or vehicle;

(B) is reckless as to whether the habitation, building, or vehicle is occupied; and

(C) in discharging the firearm, causes serious bodily injury to any person.

So you have to go to assault to find out what an offense would be.

Sec. 22.01. ASSAULT. (a) A person commits an offense if the person:

(1) intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly causes bodily injury to another, including the person's spouse;

(2) intentionally or knowingly threatens another with imminent bodily injury, including the person's spouse; or

(3) intentionally or knowingly causes physical contact with another when the person knows or should reasonably believe that the other will regard the contact as offensive or provocative.

(b) An offense under Subsection (a)(1) is a Class A misdemeanor, except that the offense is a felony of the third degree if the offense is committed against:

This seems a bit of a stretch to me. You get to assault by saying the actor threatened the other party and then you elevate it to aggravated by saying the actor used a gun to do the threatening? So the act itself is used to justify elevating the offense? Wouldn't that be known as piling on?

The threat of force is justified in 9:04. It does not say a defense to prosecution. It says justified. Therefore the offense of assault does not exist and the offense of aggravated assault then cannot exist because it fails the first prong which is that an assault must occur for an aggravated assault to occur. I also do not see how deadly conduct would exist since the use of force is justified.

The only thing I can see is that an officer could use their discretion to arrest the actor and charge deadly conduct and the courts would have to sort it out. Personally, if an officer did that to me, I would sue the department for false arrest as soon as the case is settled in my favor. And I'm pretty sure I would win. And retire.

alvins wrote:technically what happened you can be arrested for it. you cannot just pull your gun out to scare someone.that "brandishing" can get you put in jail. And their is no such thing as brandishing; its called aggravated assault which is a felony.

I feel like I'm ganging up on you, but seriously. You need to learn the law before posting legal opinions here. The reason why is explained by several people below. Please do not spread false information about the law. It's hard enough to keep all of it straight without having to sort through posts that completely misrepresent what the law says.