|
Statute Relevance (Town Liability at bottom of page)
Both crimes with which pedestrian is charged-- Disorderly and Threatening -- fall far short of knowledge and intent requirements on the face of the statutes themselves, via biker's police reports alone, and not even requring pedestrian's poly, which he passed. Disorderly, although a catch all in many jurisdictions, is normally about trying to start a fight, and it is clear even from biker's own fabricated accounts that they left immediately, and there was no possibility of retaliation or fighting.
The specific Disorderly statute states: "A person commits DC if, with the intent to disturb the peace or quiet of a neighborhood, family or person, or with knowledge of doing so... uses abusive or offensive language to any person present in a manner likely to provoke immediate physical retaliation by such person." A. It is the bikers that were disturbing the peace, and recklessly endangering, the neighborhood, for a week prior. B. The biker's statements on their face show the statement was "SLOW DOWN." C. The biker's statements, on their face, was that they immediately turned and left after pedestrian's 9 word, 3 SECOND, defensive startle reaction to their speed and presence. No one mentioned fighting or retaliation at all! D. "To any person present" -- Biker 3 was NOT present, by all the evidence including pedestrian poly, and biker 3's own fabricated account vs. Biker 2.
Forensic Linguistics (and even simply the Dictionary and case precedents) define the difference between threatening and protecting as initiating vs. responding, and this clearly was a response by pedestrian to a surprise approach by bikers, not an initiation. If you add in disparity of force, and his knowledge and intent relating to his previous wife's death, and documented concern for the bikers themselves, neither charge comes close to meeting a reasonable person standard.
The specific threatening statute states: "A person commits threatening or intimidating if the person threatens or intimidates by word or conduct to cause physical injury to another person." A. The SLOW DOWN statement clearly shows that it was the biker's own force that was the threat. B. Pedestrian said "You'll break your necks" and bikers fabricate that somehow a 10 ounce cane from 30 feet away was the threat. Pedestrian's wife was killed in a 4 wheeling accident where she broke her neck, and pedestrian had to identify her limp body after the accident. "She looked like a little rag doll" pedestrian recalls. C. Bikers did not even hear the short statement, and have fabricated the account given 270 decibels of noise from 30 feet away with helmets and motocross RACING uniforms on. What is more likely, three bikers fully dressed in racing uniforms were racing, or an elderly, infirm, medically disabled pedestrian could suddenly and magically become a threat with a cane? Disparity of force makes pedestrian's brief statement PROTECTIVE AND DEFENSIVE, NOT threatening. The TWIN tests of threatening vs. protecting are 1. Was it an initiation, or a response? and 2. Where was the disparity of force? No one will argue that bikers initiated the encounter, in fact, there was late breaking exclupatory evidence that bikers purposely initiated the encounter due to a moments before previous encounter with their sister on a quad (pedestrian's counsel was denied access and due process since she was a juvenile). 2. The disparity is clearly in favor of a disabled pedestrian who can't run or jump out of the way vs. three motor vehicles. The "words" may be three vs. one, but the "force" is three against one.
Pedestrian's knowledge-- that in a 35 mph bike crash the human brain goes from weighing 3 pounds to over 75 pounds-- and that being hit by a bike at 30 mph is like having the same bike dropped on you from 30 feet high-- is potent evidence that his intent was to protect both bikers and any other pedestrians and vehicles they might encounter at high speed over a blind hill.
Pedestrian's Intent: To defend and protect, including the lives of the bikers themselves, and anyone they encountered at recklessly high speed over blind hills! It is highly offensive that pedestrian, who was legitimately concerned about his life, the lives of the bikers, and the lives of others they might have literally run into, would have his motives trivialized with the "you scared my dog" fabrication of his motive.
Three tests: The three tests for threatening under case precedents are 1. Initiate vs. react; 2. Protect vs. attack or retaliate; and 3. Disparity of Force. NONE of these three tests arise to threatening by pedestrian under any case precedent definition of threatening, and a decision against defendant will set disparity rulings back by decades. By bikers own statements, this was a reaction, not an initiation by pedestrian. Intent to attack, or even means and opportunity by a disabled pedestrian from over 30 feet away with a 10 ounce cane, is absurd. Disparity of force is beyond obvious here.
Town Liability
Finding for plaintiff in this case will expose the Town to significant liability. The pedestrian's private road, on which the first part of the incident occurred, was described as public by complainant in his statement to police, and is recorded in the police report. The Town and the County both have recorded and confirmed that this road is private, not public as claimed by complainant, making residents responsible for liability. Acting on that status, the County has posted signs about non maintenance, based easements on that status, and charged residents for improvements on their own sections rather than assessing. These actions will cause significant payments due by the Town, including moving homes and bridges, if road is now deemed to be public as complainant incorrectly claims. Pedestrian and other residents also will now be required by insurers, due to these citations, to post private liability signs due to complainant claims, not to exacerbate neighbor conflicts, but to protect residents from liability.
|
|