|
Disparity of Force
In every US State, and most other countries, disparity of force rules govern conflicts where either physical or verbal force comes into play. In the Three Biker's case, a strong argument can be made that given the elderly pedestrian's health, three motorized vehicles present a disparity which make pedestrian's verbal "Slow Down" reaction not only reasonable, but reserved. (SEE PIPE AND CANE EXAMPLE at bottom of this page).
Imagine a bear jumps out at you and you bluster and swear. No one would even care about the specific language, if the bear leaves without harming you, there is "no harm, no foul" -- this is an example of disparity of force. The question: "Do you think he hurt the bear's feelings?" would seem absurd because of this disparity. To try to spin the bikers as "threatened" by a feeble pedestrian will only fly with the sleight-of-hand of asking the Judge to "look the other way" at the raw force of three motorbikes vs. a lone, disabled pedestrian.
In another part of the County, a friend of pedestrian confiscated two biker's bikes and chained them to a fence, making the bikers walk home and tell their parents they were speeding. The police cited the bikers for excessive speed. If this were the equivalent wealthy neighbor's bikers, in pedestrian's Town, the pedestrian's friend would have been charged with grand theft of the bikes, and felony assault, instead!
On the blind hill in question, on a previous occasion, a car leaving pedestrian's driveway narrowly missed a woman on horseback. She shouted "Watch out, you SOB!" to the driver. If the driver called the police, would the woman be charged for swearing? The absurdity of this example comes from the disparity of force, and is a perfect analogy for the absurdity of these citations. "He who calls police first is the victim" seems to be the rule driving this case, rather than "let neighbors work these things out between themselves," which is the published Town policy. Instead of doing unto others as you'd want to be done to you, the Town rule is becoming do unto others before they do unto you!
Pedestrian did NOT call police first on the bikers even though they were driving at reckless speeds over the blind hill, because: 1. He did not know who they were 2. The Town has no police patrols, the road is on pedestrian's private property, and response time is days in the area and 3. He told police he did not want bikers to have police records, and did not believe in calling police on neighbors.
PEDESTRIAN knows all too well about death and these deadly vehicular effects, as he was previously struck from behind at 55 mph by a drunk driver while walking destroying his knees and hips, his 34 year old wife was killed when she broke her neck in a 4 wheeling roll over, not to mention he lost his second wife at only 36 to breast cancer, leaving him with three young children.
How real is the disparity? The pedestrian, old, frail, disabled and with medically compromised mobility, was walking on a steep rocky hill with a 10 ounce aluminum cane. Three bikers were travelling at deadly speeds that raise the weight, through inertia, of the human brain from 3 pounds to over 75 pounds. Being hit at only 30 mph is the equivalent of having three bikes dropped on the disabled, handicapped pedestrian, from 30 feet high. Disparity in this case is beyond obvious. Had the bikers arrived swinging steel pipes or carrying chain saws (see below), the disparity would not have even been questioned, yet the bikes pose more danger than pipes or chain saws would have!
What about the youth (unknown to pedestrian) of the teen age bikers? Does this add or subtract from the disparity balance? Given the fact that bikers were on vehicles, at a long distance from pedestrian, there was no motive, means or opportunity for their harm, yet due to the mobility and speed of the bikes and the immobility of an elderly pedestrian, there was an immediate threat and danger to pedestrian's safety. In many other cases involving youth, it has been proven that young people often do not know how deadly their actions can be, whether in bullying, or using vehicles, and this information adds to the disparity of force arrayed against pedestrian. IMPORTANT PERCEPTION: Two of the bikers are adult size, and all three were wearing full racing uniforms and reflective helmets. It was impossible for pedestrian to know the age of these bikers given the noise, speed, and their uniforms, and they easily could have been adults rather than teens.
Did the police, parents and bikers KNOW about this disparity? The bikers lies themselves provide a resounding YES to this question. ALL the lies were intended to take the focus off of the disparity of the biker's speed and threat, and make the pedestrian sound (absurdly) menacing. 1. They could not have been menaced or frightened by only 9 WORDS LASTING 3 SECONDS (a defensive startle reaction), so they had to fabricate longer statements. 2. The disparity would have been clear had they admitted speeding, so they had to lie to take the focus off themselves and their reckless speed over blind hills, and put it on the pedestrian. 3. Calling a 10 ounce cane 30 feet away from you a "stick" makes pedestrian look less infirm and more menacing, even though the biker's fibs disagree about the cane. 4. Trivializing pedestrian's motives with a fabricated "you scared my dog" statement, then magnifying and expanding his actions, are directly and intuitively attempts to take the focus away from the disparity of force. 5. Police saying it is the "word" of three bikers vs. one pedestrian (even though bikers have glaring contradictions), takes the focus off the fact that it was the FORCE of three against one.
|
|
In the photo on the right, an assailant is striking an elderly person multiple blows with a piece of steel, and the victim fends off the blows with a light aluminum cane. This is the equivalent of bikers riding with reckless speed for a week, and endangering a medically frail pedestrian. When the steel is seen, the disparity of force is obvious-- any reasonable person would see that a cane is no match for multiple steel blows, and a disabled pedestrian is no match for three motorcyles at high speed with reckless disregard for pedestrian's immobility.
|
 |
| In the wide shot, steel pipe is seen |
|
|
|
In this photo, steel is cropped out, and only the cane remains. This is the equivalent of trying to make the pedestrian seem menacing by removing all references to the reckless speed by bikers, and taking the focus off of multiple bikers vs. a lone pedestrian, by fabricating multiple statements that pedestrian never made. Fabricated multiple statements by pedestrian both attempt to remove the focus from multiple threats by bikers and at the same time make pedestrian seem menacing. Only the most absurd "cropping" can make this fabrication by bikers work.
|
 |
| Photo cropped to hide pipe and make cane seem menacing |
|
|
|