[Ninong]

Please read this story:

An elderly San Francisco man and a parolee remained jailed today after a bizarre road-rage incident on the Embarcadero left an innocent jogger shot in the ankle.

The incident began when 73-year-old motorist Jon Ek honked at a bicyclist riding erratically on Tuesday night. Police later identified the cyclist as parolee Damien Silva, 30, said Lt. Leroy Lindo of the SFPD's General Work investigations unit.

The motorist continued on and stopped at Brannan Street on the Embarcadero at about 7:15 p.m., Lindo said. Silva then rode up and hurled his bike at Ek's Dodge Neon, Lindo said.

"He put the bicycle's front end through the passenger window," Lindo said. The motorist grabbed a small handgun and opened fire, missing Silva but hitting the unidentified 28-year-old jogger in the ankle, Lindo said. She was being treated at San Francisco General Hospital for her injury.

Ek was booked for illegal possession of a weapon and on two counts of assault, one for the cyclist and one for the jogger, Lindo said.

Silva was being held on a parole hold as well as a charge of felony malicious mischief for slamming the bike into Ek's car. "He smashed the bike through the window, there's no doubt about that," Lindo said.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...sn=001&sc=1000

Under the new Florida law, the old man would have been within his rights to open fire, right? What happens if an innocent bystander gets hit? Is that covered in Jeb's new "shoot first and ask questions later" law?

[schrocat]

I'll have to read the statute again...but from what I understood, it would depend on the actions of the Parolee after the glass was broken.

He would have to keep coming through the car window, meanacingly acting as if he were about to attack and\or acting in a manner where the old man feared for his life.

I assume that wasn't the case.

I would assume the parolee was shot at for breaking a window, and an innocent person was hit. I would also assume that the witnesses to this didn't add anything to help the old man's "i feared for my life" story.

Don't worry, Florida is still safer than Houston. Which is as safe as Baghdad.
So bring the kids!


UPDATE!!!***
Scratch that Ninong!!! I thought the shooting WAS in Florida.
I think it would be legal...
But now I'm curious as hell...I need to ask SeaBean.

[schrocat]

Ninong,
SeaBean's brain was unavailable last night.
No mood for speculating...

I'll ask tonight.

She's been overwhelmed this week.
Our State has seen a rash of Oxy thieves recently and they dominated the conversation, so last night wasn't the usual legal roundtable (where she rolls her eyes and wonders why she married me):slap:

It's a sad scene these Oxy heads. (I call them Dittoheads)

Some of these people have no priors, they rob the pharmacies with an unloaded weapon...and "tada!" get a mandatory 10 year minimum tacked on their sentence.

Idiots.

If they'd just "doctor shop" they might get probation.

[Ninong]

Originally Posted by schrocat

If they'd just "doctor shop" they might get probation.

Three years probation and community service, but so far he has refused to accept it.

[Ninong]

Speaking of OxyContin Boy, I see where the maker of OxyContin is laying off 825 employees:

July 1, 2005, 1:49 PM EDT

STAMFORD, Conn. -- Purdue Pharma is laying off 825 employees, or 38 percent of its work force, after losing a patent case that paves the way for sales of a generic version of its powerful painkiller OxyContin, company officials said Friday.

OxyContin, which accounted for more than 75 percent of the company's revenue, was initially hailed as a breakthrough in the treatment of severe chronic pain when it was introduced in 1996. Abuse of the drug, however, has become a problem in recent years after users discovered that crushing the time-release tablets and snorting or injecting the powder yields an immediate, heroin-like high.


Looks like sales have plunged now that Rush is in rehab.

[schrocat]

Originally Posted by Ninong

Looks like sales have plunged now that Rush is in rehab.

:slap:

[SurfStone]

The shooting would be legal if the old man feared for his life which is probable because he had a bike thrown in his window. The law has good intentions but their is just a lot of room in it for abuse. before it was almost illegal to protect yourself and your place of business with a fire arm meaning you couldn't really use it on a robber without being prosecuted yourself. Which simply meant under florida law before you could be sued yourself for shooting the person that robbed you. This new law is intented to protect people from this scenario but their is to much potential for abuse IMO and It could have been thoughtout better because the is the potential of loop hole all over this law Gang violence for example hate crimes you name it could use this loop hole to get away with their crimes. I do feel that people have the right to protect themselves and this law is a step in that direction but it needs a major overhaul.