genec

Sadly, I agree with you... there is someone out there right now saying "I wanna hire that guy..."

Daniel4

It's too bad you're not an off-duty cop.

I-Like-To-Bike

Even off duty cops can't arrest people over incidents that they "witnessed" only on an edited Youtube video.

It is no wonder that there are so many people running around with their hair on fire and want to take "action", or wave political pitchforks over "something" that they heard about on the Internet; as long as the message fits into their own agenda.

Rollfast

I had a drunk lawyer take out the side of my Chevy with his Mercedes years ago, it was overheard that he hated blue cars. He was disbarred quickly. But this wasn't a You Tube video, it was witnessed by the patrons of the bar next door to the one I was singing karaoke at.

Cocaine is apparently another good way to get disbarred, sadly.

livedarklions

There's two videos and witnesses, he actually confesses on one of the videos. If you think for a second that isn't good enough evidence to make an arrest for misdemeanor assault, you don't know what you're talking about. Whether there's a possible felony charge for the threatening use of the vehicle (deadly weapon) is arguable, but the second video clearly shows him getting into the face of the cyclist and hitting him. The misdemeanor is a slam dunk.

Now whether the cops and/or prosecutors think it's worth the time is another matter.

If you have some reason to believe that the video was faked, by all means tell us, but if the cops authenticate it, it's great very usable evidence.

indyfabz

Assumes he gets invited to parties.

indyfabz

As one licensed to practice in PA, I can say that that is the case in my state. The one pretty certain death knell is if you steal from a client.

eja_ bottecchia

Stealing from the client trust fund account is the #1 sin in California, followed closely by #2 not returning client's files and #3 not returning client's phone calls.

The rest is easy stuff.

CliffordK

The people involved need to call the cops, and file the police reports, hopefully as soon after the events as possible.

I thought I had understood that this individual had been involved in multiple road-rage incidents, so a repeat offender, and may lead to more attention than an isolated event.

The guy really needs to be taken off the road. Perhaps be given a bicycle to ride.

Rick

He is a doctor Thomas Thompson wannabe. This is probably not his first road rage incident. Two videos of the incident in a very public area. Defaming YouTube in his defense. DO YOU DRIVE A BEAMER!

Notso_fastLane

Soon as he lays hands on the bike rider, anything after that is self defense.

Throat punch the driver and walk (ride) away....

I-Like-To-Bike

Ya mean that testimony and complaints from people whose only involvement or knowledge of the incident is from viewing edited YouTube snippets aren't sufficient to indict the evil doer of whatever the offended parties of A&S deem appropriate?

It seems good enough to rouse the usual suspects of the tar and feather mob of A&S to a fever pitch.

livedarklions

The guy got out of his vehicle to hit a guy and was stupid enough to do it while being filmed by two people. You think he's got a valid defense? Seriously?

CliffordK

Yep, we can express our disgust. But, we don't even see the alleged initial impact. Slamming the car with a tire iron?

In the end, it will be the cyclist who will decide if he wishes to press charges and testify.

The duration of the chase & multiple places of interaction might indicate a potential "fake".... Either that, or a very serious incident.

Rick

Hey don't knock it until you've tried it. We could always go with the lock's and stocks.

You make a good point. Maybe it would be appropriate to publicly shame the individual by putting his picture on the evening news and on serial boxes warning people about him.

If someone is a physical threat and there is no way you can get away to safety you have a right to defend your self. Just punching them in the throat might not work. You don't want him following or stalking you waiting for the right moment to get away with running you over.

I-Like-To-Bike

No possible valid defense against whatever charges Internet kibitzers can imagine, based on YouTube videos that were previously edited?

Must take some kind of lawyer to make that interpretation of law, eh? Seriously?

I-Like-To-Bike

Sounds like excellent advice for an A&S electronic lynch mob.

livedarklions

Please offer us your brilliant theory as to how these videos were "edited" to make it look like a man came out of his vehicle, deliberately walked up to a man, yelled in his face repeatedly and hit him, and then defiantly admitted he had hit him. I'll wait.

livedarklions

Yeah, I'll just stick with saying that if the state can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that those videos are authentic, he should be convicted of at least misdemeanor assault.

I-Like-To-Bike

I'm "brilliant" enough to recognize that everything posted on YouTube and other popular social media sites by people trying to influence others to take some course of action, may not necessarily be the whole truth. In fact some people have been known to post deceptive, one-sided presentations that may or may not accurately reflect the whole story.

I am also "brilliant" enough to recognize that some people are so stupid, or gullible or dogmatic in the their opinions that they will believe anything they read or see on the Internet (or Fox TV or the National Enquirer) that supports their viewpoint, regardless of its veracity.

I am also "brilliant" enough to recognize that it is possible to make and edit movies and videos that can deceive the viewers, especially those willing to suspend belief in order to either enjoy the movie/film/video, or in this case in order to reinforce their predetermined outrage.

BTW, any of our Googling Bloodhounds determine if actual legal actions have been initiated against anybody as a result of the OP's quasi-legal shaming campaign against an individual with whom he has never met?

livedarklions

Well, I'm brilliant enough to be able to tell when a video is one continuous shot, unedited, with no jumps or cuts that could actually disguise the whole story, and where there are two such videos from completely different angles that show the same event. So basically, you're discrediting them on the basis of nothing other than it's on YouTube. The videos clearly show him getting out of the car where the bicyclist could not possibly have posed a threat, and striding right up to the cyclist to start a person-to-person confrontation. It is quite clear from the two videos that only one person actually took a swing at the other, and I defy you to identify where anything to the contrary could have been edited out or in.

And I have always qualified that the LE will have to prove the videos are genuine, but if they can, he'd be toast in court. Given the quality of the videos, I don't think it's a stretch to suggest this isn't going to be difficult for the prosecution.

All the lack of google results demonstrate is that this has not been picked up by the media so far--it's theoretically possible he could face Bar discipline, but fairly unlikely.

CliffordK

Do they make Serial Killer boxes?

I-Like-To-Bike

The OP posted one VIDEO filled with jumps or cuts that could actually disguise the whole story. The video captions in fact indicated that the cyclist intended to confront the motorist after being disturbed by the motorist allegedly speeding up to beat traffic lights and being too fast and furious for the cyclist's liking. The video omits that confrontation through editing, and picks up later with the motorist who is obviously very disturbed about something that previously occurred between the two. The video on YouTube also did not show any contact by the motorist though both parties in their emotional exchanges indicated a shove, slap or push happened.

The OP did not refer to any second video, the one he posted was good enough for the OP to start a campaign to affect the motorist's employment and professional status, though the incident had nothing to do with either.

I presume the various lawyers who post on BF, and almost everyone else would not be appreciative of strangers contacting their employer trying to get them fired or disciplined over "something" or "anything" posted on BF or YouTube that didn't meet the approval of the would-be shame mongers.

The existence or content of any second video does not affect in any way the issue of the OP's call to arms (shaming) on shaky "evidence" as stated above.

mr_bill

I see the tar-and-feather mob of one is off on yet another video video video video rant. Can you please take your video thang to EL&G, or LCF, or P&R, or...

-mr. bill

JW Fas

Those doubting the authenticity of the event could have done a little cursory searching. They would have seen the police report filed by the uploader, the tweet by the lawyer's employer (Clinesmith Law Firm) denouncing his actions, the removal of the lawyer's photo and info from said law firm's website, and the removal of his LinkedIn photo. If you think all that would happen in a fabricated encounter, by all means produce evidence demonstrating that claim.