N.C. Man Gets 120 Days in Jail for Shooting Cyclist in Head
Charles Diez, an Asheville firefighter, admittedly shot a bicycle rider in July
because he was angry the man was riding with his 3-year-old child on a busy road. Considering the bullet lodged in the helmet instead of striking his head, the driver survived the shooting.
Many states call this attempted murder. And so did Asheville, N.C. police who immediately arrested Diez (pictured left) and charged him with attempted first degree murder.
Fast forward to this week when Diaz was sentenced to only 120 days in jail for his crime. So what happened?
Turns out a grand jury reduced charges against Diez from attempted first degree
murder to felony assault in August. While "assault with a deadly weapon with intent to kill"
can carry a lengthy prison term, the judge felt differently.
According to Mountain Xpress, "convictions on such a charge result in an average 20-39 months in prison for the
defendant. But in the sentencing, Superior Court Judge James Downs found that
Diez's military service, along with testimony from former colleagues about his
good character, were mitigating factors, and chose to sentence him to 15-27
months instead. Downs suspended all but four months of that sentence unless Diez
breaks the law again in the next 30 months."
Brian Merchant of TreeHugger had this reaction :
"Oh, I see. If you have some good character witnesses, and have served in the
military, then for you, shooting someone in the head at point blank with the
intent to kill was probably just a flash in the pan. He probably just had a case
of the Mondays, the poor guy. And here we are shipping him off to jail for four
whole months. All he did was point a lethal weapon at someone's head and pull
the trigger--it was a bad day!
Seriously, though, this decision is an embarrassment to our legal system.
Tolerating this kind of behavior--towards cyclists or anyone--is absolutely
unacceptable. Four months in jail is a joke for such destructive, dangerous
behavior."
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
OV Social
You all must learn to read. Diez didnt have a son that was part of this incident.
"he was angry the man was riding with his 3-year-old child on a busy road."
The man was riding with his son.
As in the man shot was riding with his own son.
Now apply your faulty logic to the real circumstances.
RE: "he was angry the man was riding with his 3-year-old child on a busy road."
You may have a point, but "he" certainly refers to Diez and there's no reason to assume "his" does not. It isn't the reading, but rather the writing, that makes it ambiguous. A competent journalist would have used proper names throughout.
Based on your interpretation, if it's correct, I'd have to agree. A person who walks up to strangers and shoots them in the back of the head needs to be taken off the streets for a VERY, VERY long time.
Judicial corruption is indicated.
It's people like this that fuel the fire for the anti crowds. I agree totally, this guy should have been sentenced for attempted murder . Regardless who he knows or how swell a person he is. Hey, kinda sounds like what happens when politicians do stupid stuff, get a slap on the wrist. Maybe the jury was just trying to make him feel like he WAS a politician. Having firearms is a serious responsibility people. And what's more, being mature enough to control emotions. Maybe this guy will get his butt stomped in jail for being so ignorant.
Apparently, this is something OV found on some blog site:
http://www.streetsblog.org/2009/11/23/charles-diez-gets-120-days-for-shooting-cyclist-in-the-head /
No other source I can find reported the story. Virtually everything that happens in a criminal case is a matter of public record and is available for copying at the courthouse where the case was handled. It is fantastically easy to get hold of records to find out what basis a judicial decision is based on, and if the record supports the decision.
If the above link is accurate, which seems questionable, Diez shot the guy in the back of the head after an argument about the incident. If so, I don't see any way that can be viewed as other than an intent to kill. Kicking the guys arse may have been justified under the circumstances. If Diez's kid had been injured or killed, one might stretch the imagination far enough to sympathize with the reaction.
On the other hand, as a first responder, Diez probably has seen more than a few horrors involving similar incidents, but that still doesn't justify what he did.
Whatever. He goes to jail and loses his right to keep and bear arms. Maybe justice requires more, but it sounds like the situation has been handled.
1) Get a good helmet. It might save your life.
2) Don't carry a gun owner's 3 year old child in heavy traffic on your bike; you could get shot. Feel free to endanger non-gun owners' children -- There is nothing they can do about it. That's not entirely true, actually... they might write you a sternly worded letter.
I would not have tried to kill the cyclist, but would have likely tried to stuff his bike up his arse if he endangered my child. He got off lucky.
The plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data'.
Thank, Solar, I don't think I could have put it better. Succint point on why we should reserve the 2nd Amendment for select citizens.
What if the cyclist had a gun, too? And you don't need a gun to "stuff his bike up his arse" so what's your point? If he used a stick would that warrant endangering the child again or a more severe punishment.
I mean seriously, a freaking spade is a spade and attempted murder is more than 120 days. Stop being silly.
"Succint point on why we should reserve the 2nd Amendment for select citizens."
And just what bunch of elitists will determine who gets to exercise their Constitutional rights?
But I do agree, something smells really bad in the case. Were we told all the facts? Why was the guy endangering the kid? Many other questions remain open. Including the level of punishment.
Unequal protection under the law , in your opinion?
"What if" questions aside, I think that people who obey the law are not the dangerous ones. Ironically, it would be only these non-dangerous people who would observe any gun ban in the first place. How does making laws to prevent gun violence even make sense in light of this logic?
I'm not being silly, and he was not convicted of attempted murder . So...What are you talking about?
The plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data'.
I was being facetious on that point, but I believe there should be regulated criteria for gun ownership and use, and there is so...
But if you shoot someone, its deadly force, and if you aim and hit their head, you intended to kill them.
This judge should be fired for lack of judgement.
I understand your statement was sarcasm. lolz.
Gun ownership is indeed regulated, sometimes to such extremes that it is impossible to legally own a gun. Even in one's own home. SCOTUS is on the case, stay tuned.
I agree that any shooting of a common self-defense / hunting firearm at a person is deadly force, even if the target in the sights is not the head or center mass. That's why I don't advise leg shots, or similar trick shots. If one is going to shoot another, deadly force better be warranted and homicide better be the aim.
"This judge should be fired for lack of judgement." - More tongue-in-cheekery? Gawd I hope so. Or else one might think you are going off half-cocked without having a freaking clue about what transpired in the trial. Surely you would not jump to that conclusion.
The plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data'.