Does anyone happen to remember back in July when an Asheville man shot at a biker, hitting his helmet and narrowly missing his head? It made the BCC press
here and
here, as well as attracting state and local attention. In case you missed it -- or if you blocked the case out of your mind in an attempt to ride happy -- here are the basic, undisputed outlines of the case:
The cyclist Alan Simons was riding on a busy road in Asheville with his wife (on her own bike) and his young child (in the bike seat behind him). The driver Charles Alexander Diez (el douché grandé), became incensed at the bikers, and pulled his truck over to convince them of the error of their ways. He was particularly troubled that the Simonses were putting their child's life in danger by riding their bikes on the road. The two men argued, and Simons turned to walk away, presumably to get back on his bike. At this point Diez (wanker-in-chief), fired a pistol at Simons' head. The bullet traveled through Simons' helmet, but thankfully missed his head. No one was injured. Diez (he-of-the-minescule-penis) then got back into his truck and fled the scene. He was captured later at his home after witnesses recorded his license plate number.
To summarize, Diez (biggest-pigfucker-of-them-all) fired his pistol at the back of Simons' head, missing his head but striking the helmet. No one disputes this fact.
Diez (he-who-fucks-goats) was charged with simple assault with a deadly weapon, and not attempted murder. As you can well imagine, the penalty for the former is significantly less, but the bar for conviction is much lower. And convicted he was: Diez was quickly found guilty, the trial lengthened only by the parade of character witnesses for the defense, all of which said the Diez was in fact a good guy, none mentioning any proclivities on his part to actively and aggressively pursue copulation with various farm animals.
So the judge must have thrown the book at him, you say? Gave him the maximum sentence for such an act? Threatened to have him indicted on harsher charges?
Surely, you jest.
Diez (he-of-the-Miss-Piggy-costume-for-"special"-nights-in) was sentenced to four months in jail. Four months.
Let that one sink in a little bit, why don't you?
Let me put it this way: Diez (oh-he-of-the-blow-up-sheep-collection) will get less than half the time for shooting at and hitting a person, than if he had simply been carrying an unlicensed firearm (one year minimum). So as long as you've got a permit for that there pea-shooter, feel free to fire away! Especially if your target is a cyclist. With his wife and child. And you're mad. Because he's endangering his wife. And child.
I'm not sure what my message is here, other than this is a gross miscarriage of justice. The judge cited "mitigating factors present for sentencing purposes in this case include that Diez has good character, served in the military, supports his family financially, has a positive employment history and has a good support system in the community. The judge found no aggravating factors, and Diez had no criminal record." (Read the full story
here.) And really, I'm happy that the guy doesn't kick kittens or spit in his co-workers' food, and always washes his hands after he pees.
But really, he tried to kill another human being. And if you don't think that's what he tried to do, that he was instead trying to "fire a warning shot" (his defense), don't you think that anyone who consider shooting within an inch of another's head a "warning shot" and therefore reasonable needs to be locked up for longer anyway? In no story is Simons ever shown as assaulting Diez (man-of-greatly-diminished-mental-capacities-and-non-existant-love-life), nor does he himself have a gun, or a weapon of any kind. With that in mind, what could he have been doing that he needed to be warned? Talked loudly? Yelled? Called Diez a carbuncle-encrusted oozing vagina? (Well, that one would be true.)
No, in fact, there's only one reason that Diez shot Simons: Simons was riding a bike, and Diez therefore saw him as less-than-human, so much so that Diez didn't think twice about discharging his deadly weapon at the man.
Sorry to bring you down folks, but it gets worse: by failing to punish him to the full extent of the law, the judge affirmed this belief, essentially saying: "yes, it was bad what Diez did, but can't we all understand? Doesn't it make sense that he'd want to shoot a cyclist? Sure he went too far, but only a little bit so."
That's all I've got. No happy ending for this one. Only a pic of Diez (pus-ridden-canker-sucker) so that you know to get out of his way when he's on the road, 'cause now he knows he can shoot at you and only receive the lightest of slaps on the wrist.
Charles Alexander Diez, 42.
The biggest ass in all the land.
Whew! Rant over. You kids be careful out there.
