Z4 driver shot and killed another driver over road rage

[DR Z4]

Originally Posted by SD Z4MR

Ok, back to the facts of the case...

A King County judge today set bail of $10 million, 10 times the amount that the defense had requested. No reports yet as to whether he has posted bail or not, although prosecutors believe that he will not be able to post the high bail.

In a defense memorandum by one of the killer's attorney, they stated "The State has not and cannot show by clear and convincing evidence that Mr. Bowman has a propensity for violence and that he presents a substantial likelihood of danger to the community.". Well, except for the fact that he shot a complete stranger three times in the head as he sat in his car. So other than that.

What the lawyer presumably meant by that is that such evidence does not exist in the prior, proven conduct of the accused (not "the killer" as you have referenced him). If the only proof of substantial likelihood of violence comes from the the offence for which he is seeking bail, then it can only be relied upon by presuming him to be guilty before he has had a trial.

One cannot point to the current allegation as proof of prior conduct or a pattern of behavior.

[SD ///M4]

Originally Posted by DR Z4

What the lawyer presumably meant by that is that such evidence does not exist in the prior, proven conduct of the accused (not "the killer" as you have referenced him). If the only proof of substantial likelihood of violence comes from the the offence for which he is seeking bail, then it can only be relied upon by presuming him to be guilty before he has had a trial.

One cannot point to the current allegation as proof of prior conduct or a pattern of behavior.

You are correct. In the eyes of the law, he is the accused, and is innocent until proven guilty. In my prior posts I should have referred to him as the accused or by his name. Somehow it just seemed easier to call him a killer, especially since there were eyewitnesses, video, and overwhelming corroborative evidence, particularly as regarding his Z4 M Roadster. But again, you're right, he's innocent...for now.

[Jstic]

While I understand the point about the bail and only the current offense as evidence of danger to society, I believe that no bail, or a high bail is soley at the the discretion of the judge and is largely based on the body of evidence and nature of the offense for which the accused is charged. Previous crimes are also taken into consideration, but in this case the evidence is so overwhelming that I am shocked he set bail at all. This is not a circumstantial case, there are eyewitnesses, physical evidence from his car and other places, as well as strong circumstantial evidence. I just hope he does not make bail and turn this into an international manhunt. Bowman is no dummy.

[chickdr]

Originally Posted by Jstic

While I understand the point about the bail and only the current offense as evidence of danger to society, I believe that no bail, or a high bail is soley at the the discretion of the judge and is largely based on the body of evidence and nature of the offense for which the accused is charged. Previous crimes are also taken into consideration, but in this case the evidence is so overwhelming that I am shocked he set bail at all. This is not a circumstantial case, there are eyewitnesses, physical evidence from his car and other places, as well as strong circumstantial evidence. I just hope he does not make bail and turn this into an international manhunt. Bowman is no dummy.

10 million is a very high bail. He would need to come up with 1 million for the bail bondsman. I think the judge wanted show he was willing to set a bail but made it so high as to make it unlikely to be attained.

[RichardTS]

Originally Posted by itdnwiwbp

I'm no expert on gun violence statistics either here or abroad so I'm not trying to enter the discussion or push my opinions. I see many good points on both sides but I don't see legislation as the answer. The article I'm going to link to here is about a topic that I rarely see discussed in debates such as these - the original reason for the 2nd amendment. This is a very old article but I believe it accurately describes the purpose. I won't bother to paraphrase. Here it is: http://www.wnd.com/1998/08/5248/.

I too have seen this before and it would be a good idea for most everyone to think about.

It's fine that we are looking at background checks, bans, etc. but when is someone going to aske the real question:

What is going on in our society and culture that has contributed to this ever increasing violence? Without the answer to that question we will never fix the problem.

I grew up in the 50's and the 60's and events like the ones in the past two years were EXTREMELY rare. Something has changed and we need to figure out what. I suspect that if we look at this question we will find several items, each of which are fairly innocuous, have all combined to create the societal problem. We need to identfy them.

[papitosabe]

Originally Posted by RichardTS

I grew up in the 50's and the 60's and events like the ones in the past two years were EXTREMELY rare. Something has changed and we need to figure out what. I suspect that if we look at this question we will find several items, each of which are fairly innocuous, have all combined to create the societal problem. We need to identfy them.

I completely agree.... if we look back at most of these mass shootings, you'll find that a majority were on some type of FDA approved psychotropic meds... we probably won't see this as a main story played out on the MSM because the pharmaceutical field spends so much money in lobbying, and advertising on these corporate run networks... its really a shame because its our kids that start off so young being put on these drugs that affect their neurotransmitters in a slow long term negative way imo...

[the dink]

Laws, Laws, Laws and more laws. More laws are NOT going to do NOTHING! Cars can be weapons and any idiot can get a drivers license. Its funny how people on the west and east coast have been brain washed into believing that government can take care of this or that guns are the problem. The problem is kids that didn't get the crap beat out of them when they messed by a dad that cared enough to do so, then they grew up to be self centered punks. That's my 2 cents let see who that fires up.

[Twisted Six]

I agree with so much of what is being said her, both about the case and society. I grew up in the early 60's and had a heavy hand raise me. I came out with no mental issues or scarring, just respect for others, decent breeding, strong work ethic. But my dad would have my brother and I strap on boxing gloves when we rivaled as siblings.......worked like a charm !

[Caddyshk]

Lets blame Video Games; that's a popular belief right now...

Of course in my influential years it was Bugs Bunny and Daffy Duck cartoons that caused many to be social deviates...

[Twisted Six]

Oooooh ! That would make mine The Tas,lol

[papitosabe]

Originally Posted by Caddyshk

Lets blame Video Games; that's a popular belief right now...

Of course in my influential years it was Bugs Bunny and Daffy Duck cartoons that caused many to be social deviates...

it is the video games fault. Thats why I go around driving crazy and speeding, and running people off the road wherever I go...because of Burnout 3: Takedown. If you can't see that, you're delusional

[Devious21]

Originally Posted by David70

Does anyone here know why anyone, either for protection or for hunting needs an assault rifle and/or more than a 10 round magazine?

To address this, I'm going to use a metaphor, so please stick with it. Imagine that there is a surge of deaths from illegal street racing. Actually, let's stick with deaths we currently have and just imagine that the media focused on them more and created public outrage. Here's some examples from the last couple of months.

May 2013 - Street racing responsible for local mother's death
June 2013 - Street racer kills two teens in Woodstock
July 2013 - Street racing death of Antoich teen

Imagine - Every month, there is a new horror story of senseless death from street racing. It's on all the papers, websites, and tv. Media would draw parallels to The Fast and the Furious. Outraged, people start asking seemingly sensible questions.

Moderates - "Why do we have cars with 300+ horsepower that can go in excess of 140mph? Why do you NEED a car like that? I don't think you should have that car taken away, but all cars should have electronic speed limiters set at 75mph. Why would you legally need to ever drive faster than that?"

Car enthusiasts would say that they go to the track and practice their hobbies responsibly and that the number of people who street race illegally, although they seem numerous because because of the media attention, are truly the minority. Some people don't track but just want to be able to own the cars they want without being modified or changed. Plus, people intent on breaking the law would simply remove the limiters anyway, thus only penalizing law abiding citizens.

The media might paint these people who go to the track as car nuts who are wannabe race car drivers and "if you want to do that, just become a race car driver and leave driving at the track to professionals".

Conservatives - "These dangerous high horsepower race cars shouldn't be allowed on the road. Why do you need so much power to just get from point A to point B? Plus, some of these cars (like my BMW Z4M) can get as low as 17MPG. Any car on the road should be required to get at LEAST 25MPG city AND have less than 300hp."

Then there would also be those with just enough knowledge of cars to be dangerous: "Street racers love the use of rear wheel drive cars, which allows them to "drift" and are inherently hard to control. If someone wants a "fast car", they could just drive something like a Mini Cooper. It's front wheel drive and 200 hp is MORE than enough to do anything legal. No RWD cars."

Extremists - "Why do we even have cars? Other countries don't have nearly as many cars as we do. Places like Hong Kong have very little private car ownership and most people use public transportation, ride bikes or walk. There is actually a long wait and a lottery to have the privilege of owning a car there and I don't see why we couldn't be like them. Outlaw cars or at least and make them VERY hard and expensive to obtain. There is no reason anyone NEEDS a car, let alone these dangerous RACE CARS."


Bottom line
Think of any activity you love or any thing you like or want to own and imagine if I said "Tell me why you NEED to have that. Justify it or it's illegal". We should always need to justify why we CAN'T have freedoms not why we CAN.

We don't need a lot of things. The nice thing about living in a free country is the right to do what you want. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. When we give up our freedoms because irresponsible people are irresponsible, that's very sad.

[Devious21]

Originally Posted by David70

If a company/university/city found that everyone of their 40 competitors did some function better than they did they would consider doing some of the things that the other do. It's logical thinking. I can only imagine someone saying in a meeting that "no comparison, all of those companies are different than us" and ending the meeting.

Imagine you work for Corona and in order to increase profits, someone makes a comparison to the distribution model of Pepsi. Depending on the circumstances, it may or may not be relevant. But just because they are both "companies that sell drinks" doesn't mean you can ignore the fact that they operate differently and market a different product towards different consumers. For example, selling Corona at Burger King may or may not make sense. But you can't assume it does because it works for Pepsi.

Everything may not be applicable when you take the differences into account and oversimplification is something you have to be aware of when making a comparison.

[David70]

Originally Posted by Devious21

To address this, I'm going to use a metaphor, so please stick with it. Imagine that there is a surge of deaths from illegal street racing. Actually, let's stick with deaths we currently have and just imagine that the media focused on them more and created public outrage. Here's some examples from the last couple of months.

May 2013 - Street racing responsible for local mother's death
June 2013 - Street racer kills two teens in Woodstock
July 2013 - Street racing death of Antoich teen

Imagine - Every month, there is a new horror story of senseless death from street racing. It's on all the papers, websites, and tv. Media would draw parallels to The Fast and the Furious. Outraged, people start asking seemingly sensible questions.

Moderates - "Why do we have cars with 300+ horsepower that can go in excess of 140mph? Why do you NEED a car like that? I don't think you should have that car taken away, but all cars should have electronic speed limiters set at 75mph. Why would you legally need to ever drive faster than that?"

Car enthusiasts would say that they go to the track and practice their hobbies responsibly and that the number of people who street race illegally, although they seem numerous because because of the media attention, are truly the minority. Some people don't track but just want to be able to own the cars they want without being modified or changed. Plus, people intent on breaking the law would simply remove the limiters anyway, thus only penalizing law abiding citizens.

The media might paint these people who go to the track as car nuts who are wannabe race car drivers and "if you want to do that, just become a race car driver and leave driving at the track to professionals".

Conservatives - "These dangerous high horsepower race cars shouldn't be allowed on the road. Why do you need so much power to just get from point A to point B? Plus, some of these cars (like my BMW Z4M) can get as low as 17MPG. Any car on the road should be required to get at LEAST 25MPG city AND have less than 300hp."

Then there would also be those with just enough knowledge of cars to be dangerous: "Street racers love the use of rear wheel drive cars, which allows them to "drift" and are inherently hard to control. If someone wants a "fast car", they could just drive something like a Mini Cooper. It's front wheel drive and 200 hp is MORE than enough to do anything legal. No RWD cars."

Extremists - "Why do we even have cars? Other countries don't have nearly as many cars as we do. Places like Hong Kong have very little private car ownership and most people use public transportation, ride bikes or walk. There is actually a long wait and a lottery to have the privilege of owning a car there and I don't see why we couldn't be like them. Outlaw cars or at least and make them VERY hard and expensive to obtain. There is no reason anyone NEEDS a car, let alone these dangerous RACE CARS."


Bottom line
Think of any activity you love or any thing you like or want to own and imagine if I said "Tell me why you NEED to have that. Justify it or it's illegal". We should always need to justify why we CAN'T have freedoms not why we CAN.

We don't need a lot of things. The nice thing about living in a free country is the right to do what you want. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. When we give up our freedoms because irresponsible people are irresponsible, that's very sad.

At some point we created restrictions on who can drive a car (license) , the process of getting this license, and many restrictions on how you use the car. What I find is odd is that as poor as our license process is for the car, it still seems to be far more involved than what is required for the gun. Most states you still have to take a written and driving test and then are restricted when you use the car as a beginner. For the gun, most places you just need money and a gun show and nothing else?

I don't want to ban the car or guns but I also don't think removing all restrictions on how cars are operated would be a good one.

We don't live in a free country and I can't think of any part of my life where I am not restricted on the things I do. From noise, speed limits, taxes, permits, laws, insurance, nudity, driving, etc. Our society has created many laws based on making the overall system work. If you really want to live in a free country you are probably going to have to move to a 3rd world country that is in some type of lawless condition. Good luck in the "free country", there you will need the gun.

Originally Posted by Devious21

Imagine you work for Corona and in order to increase profits, someone makes a comparison to the distribution model of Pepsi. Depending on the circumstances, it may or may not be relevant. But just because they are both "companies that sell drinks" doesn't mean you can ignore the fact that they operate differently and market a different product towards different consumers. For example, selling Corona at Burger King may or may not make sense. But you can't assume it does because it works for Pepsi.

Everything may not be applicable when you take the differences into account and oversimplification is something you have to be aware of when making a comparison.

If I worked for Corona and every other beer maker in the world had some better outcome to a process they performed I would want more information on why it was impossible for us to do the same. If I wasn't happy with the current state of this operation I wouldn't be ok with having everyone just say "they're not the same" without hard facts on why we couldn't do the same. After I took in all the information, I would make a decision on what I thought should be done, possibly without knowing what the final outcome would be, if I thought moving forward was the best plan.

[Devious21]

Originally Posted by David70

At some point we created restrictions on who can drive a car (license) , the process of getting this license, and many restrictions on how you use the car.

Yes, that is correct. To be clear, you don't need a license to own or drive a car. You need a license to drive it on public streets. If you purchased the car and only drove it on private property, you would not need a license. Important to remember when we starting talking about licenses.

Also, something to remember is that firearms are a protected right where as driving a vehicle is a privilege. But yes, both are regulated and this is mostly irrelevant to the original question regarding restricting certain features or accessories and who needs to justify why.

Originally Posted by David70

I don't want to ban the car or guns but I also don't think removing all restrictions on how cars are operated would be a good one.

I never accused you of wanting to ban guns and I wasn't making the point of removing all restrictions, so you'll forgive me if I don't understand why this statement is relevant.

Originally Posted by David70

We don't live in a free country and I can't think of any part of my life where I am not restricted on the things I do.

"Free" is relative. If you think we're not free, watch a documentary on North Korea. Freedom doesn't mean lawlessness. We understand certain things are illegal. That your freedom to swing your fist ends at my nose and certain things should be regulated if needed.

My point was that the burden of proof lies on those that wish to regulate and remove freedom, not the other way around. "Justify why you need this" is a clear shifting of the Burden.

Originally Posted by David70

If I worked for Corona and every other beer maker in the world had some better outcome to a process they performed I would want more information on why it was impossible for us to do the same. If I wasn't happy with the current state of this operation I wouldn't be ok with having everyone just say "they're not the same" without hard facts on why we couldn't do the same. After I took in all the information, I would make a decision on what I thought should be done, possibly without knowing what the final outcome would be, if I thought moving forward was the best plan.

By starting with "every other beer maker" you're begging the question. In the metaphor, different countries are different business. In your example here, they are automatically businesses making the exact same type of product.

If you are going to compare us to other countries, you have to ask... which country and why? Brazil has less guns, more gun control and more gun deaths. But why should we compare ourselves to them? Should we have less gun control here because there is more gun violence there? I'm assume you're not going to argue for that. If you're going to make a comparison to a different country, first you need to show why they are relevant.

You also have to decide if you are looking at curbing murder or simply murder with firearms. Restricting or banning firearms may get you the desired result of reducing firearm deaths. But will it reduce violent deaths or will we have the same violence with less freedom (or the absolute worst case, more violence and less freedom). Here's a very recent study out of Harvard looking at gun control in Europe.
http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/...useronline.pdf

CONCLUSION
This Article has reviewed a significant amount of evidence
from a wide variety of international sources. Each individual
portion of evidence is subject to cavil—at the very least the
general objection that the persuasiveness of social scientific
evidence cannot remotely approach the persuasiveness of
conclusions in the physical sciences. Nevertheless, the bur‐
den of proof rests on the proponents of the more guns equal
more death and fewer guns equal less death mantra, espe‐
cially since they argue public policy ought to be based on
that mantra.149 To bear that burden would at the very least
require showing that a large number of nations with more
guns have more death and that nations that have imposed
stringent gun controls have achieved substantial reductions
in criminal violence (or suicide). But those correlations are
not observed when a large number of nations are compared
across the world.

Over a decade ago, Professor Brandon Centerwall of the Uni‐
versity of Washington undertook an extensive, statistically sophis‐
ticated study comparing areas in the United States and Canada to
determine whether Canada’s more restrictive policies had better
contained criminal violence. When he published his results it was
with the admonition:

If you are surprised by [our] finding[s], so [are we]. [We] did
not begin this research with any intent to “exonerate” hand‐
guns, but there itis—a negative finding, to be sure, but a nega‐
tive finding is nevertheless a positive contribution. It directs us
where not to aim public health resources.

[Caddyshk]

Beer at fast Food Restaurants is a good idea anyway you slice it Even if it's tasteless Mexican Crap

[mtrhed]

Originally Posted by Caddyshk

Beer at fast Food Restaurants is a good idea anyway you slice it Even if it's tasteless Mexican Crap

That's what I took from this! But only if they allow open carry......

[David70]

I skimmed your reply above but I am not interested enough in this debate with you enough to read all of it. There is no "burden of proof" needed to create laws and many laws are created without guaranteeing the outcome. When we create laws that don't work we have the ability to alter or remove them. I am not happy with the current system and its' results when it comes to gun violence and believe we should try something else. I am open to ideas on how to change the current system to make it better. You are welcome to believe otherwise. I also believe this one of many problems our society has and in the big picture of my life this isn't something I dwell on. I am also pretty sure neither of our opinions on this issue will change.

[Vanne]

Originally Posted by Hawkeye

It doesn't get really bad until you start reading news from the middle east. This is childs play compared to some of that crap.

Come on mate, actually the locals here are sometimes very thoughtful,generous and kind, just sometimes extremely impolite.

[Hawkeye]

Originally Posted by David70

Does anyone here know why anyone, either for protection or for hunting needs an assault rifle and/or more than a 10 round magazine?

Same question above for a reason to own more than 2 handguns?

Why do you assume everyone owns weapons for protection or hunting? Personally I do not think an "assault" rifle is good for either of those things.

The reason it is a right to bear arms is to protect the people against a tyrannical government. Sure, nobody wants to think that will ever happen, but it very well could happen. It will be a lot more difficult to become that way with millions of civilians armed with weapons that almost rival the ones the military is issued. If we all only had 1 handgun and 10 round mags without the ability to quickly change them, then the government/military would have a much much more significant advantage.

As it stands, the right to bear arms is a protection for all of us. The reason I bear arms is to protect your rights as well as mine. You are welcome.

Plus, they are a hell of a lot of fun to shoot

[Huz-Z]

I've seen political discussions go seriously wrong on other forums; be sure to avoid that big ugly pothole here. I view this to be a domestic issue for debate by my US buddies so I won't offer any views on this topic other than the above.

[the dink]

Originally Posted by Devious21

To address this, I'm going to use a metaphor, so please stick with it. Imagine that there is a surge of deaths from illegal street racing. Actually, let's stick with deaths we currently have and just imagine that the media focused on them more and created public outrage. Here's some examples from the last couple of months.

May 2013 - Street racing responsible for local mother's death
June 2013 - Street racer kills two teens in Woodstock
July 2013 - Street racing death of Antoich teen

Imagine - Every month, there is a new horror story of senseless death from street racing. It's on all the papers, websites, and tv. Media would draw parallels to The Fast and the Furious. Outraged, people start asking seemingly sensible questions.

Moderates - "Why do we have cars with 300+ horsepower that can go in excess of 140mph? Why do you NEED a car like that? I don't think you should have that car taken away, but all cars should have electronic speed limiters set at 75mph. Why would you legally need to ever drive faster than that?"

Car enthusiasts would say that they go to the track and practice their hobbies responsibly and that the number of people who street race illegally, although they seem numerous because because of the media attention, are truly the minority. Some people don't track but just want to be able to own the cars they want without being modified or changed. Plus, people intent on breaking the law would simply remove the limiters anyway, thus only penalizing law abiding citizens.

The media might paint these people who go to the track as car nuts who are wannabe race car drivers and "if you want to do that, just become a race car driver and leave driving at the track to professionals".

Conservatives - "These dangerous high horsepower race cars shouldn't be allowed on the road. Why do you need so much power to just get from point A to point B? Plus, some of these cars (like my BMW Z4M) can get as low as 17MPG. Any car on the road should be required to get at LEAST 25MPG city AND have less than 300hp."

Then there would also be those with just enough knowledge of cars to be dangerous: "Street racers love the use of rear wheel drive cars, which allows them to "drift" and are inherently hard to control. If someone wants a "fast car", they could just drive something like a Mini Cooper. It's front wheel drive and 200 hp is MORE than enough to do anything legal. No RWD cars."

Extremists - "Why do we even have cars? Other countries don't have nearly as many cars as we do. Places like Hong Kong have very little private car ownership and most people use public transportation, ride bikes or walk. There is actually a long wait and a lottery to have the privilege of owning a car there and I don't see why we couldn't be like them. Outlaw cars or at least and make them VERY hard and expensive to obtain. There is no reason anyone NEEDS a car, let alone these dangerous RACE CARS."


Bottom line
Think of any activity you love or any thing you like or want to own and imagine if I said "Tell me why you NEED to have that. Justify it or it's illegal". We should always need to justify why we CAN'T have freedoms not why we CAN.

We don't need a lot of things. The nice thing about living in a free country is the right to do what you want. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. When we give up our freedoms because irresponsible people are irresponsible, that's very sad.

RIGHT ON THE MONEY!! AMEN