Nissan 370Z Forum
Page 18 of 29 « First 81617 18 192028 Last »
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

Nissan 370Z Forum (http://www.the370z.com/)
-   North East Region (http://www.the370z.com/north-east-region/)
-   -   Bikers Attack Driver After Accident: Caught on Tape (http://www.the370z.com/north-east-region/79613-bikers-attack-driver-after-accident-caught-tape.html)

Cmike2780 10-02-2013 02:51 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by andre12031948 (Post 2513352)
I remember not too long ago when many people said that a person(nameless) had NO right to protect himself after his nose was broken & head busted up. :p Ye, if the bikers started beating him through the window, I wouldn't blame him from trying to get away. I only heard that he might have been threatened
...you really went there. Agree or not, that case also concluded with a not guilty verdict.

A reasonable perceived threat of death or bodily harm is enough for you to try and get away. It kind of sounds like you're saying they had to physically harm the driver before he's allowed to defend himself and his family.

Red__Zed 10-02-2013 02:58 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cmike2780 (Post 2513505)
...you really went there. Agree or not, that case also concluded with a not guilty verdict.

A reasonable perceived threat of death or bodily harm is enough for you to try and get away. It kind of sounds like you're saying they had to physically harm the driver before he's allowed to defend himself and his family.
The big difference in this case is who he hurt, with the added uncertainty on what the initial altercation consisted of.

You can't shoot guy 2 because guy 1 threatened you.

cossie1600 10-02-2013 03:07 PM
In Texas they operate differently

Red__Zed 10-02-2013 03:08 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by cossie1600 (Post 2513547)
In Texas they operate differently
Texas has similar laws, as anyone who was ever obtained a CCW license there can readily share.

Cmike2780 10-02-2013 03:12 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Red__Zed (Post 2513516)
The big difference in this case is who he hurt, with the added uncertainty on what the initial altercation consisted of.

You can't shoot guy 2 because guy 1 threatened you.
...and if guy 2 is an accomplice?

Considering the one who got hit as merely a bystander is also an uncertainty. We obviously don't know exactly what the RR guy was feeling or who he saw as a threat or who was an actual threat. I'm just saying it's plausible that the RR guy felt they were all going to attack him. It's also plausible to conclude that the motorcycle guy who's in a coma was one of the riders that used his bike/body to detain the SUV in the middle of the highway.

jcosta79 10-02-2013 03:14 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Red__Zed (Post 2513552)
Texas has similar laws, as anyone who was ever obtained a CCW license there can readily share.
In Texas I can shoot anyone that's on my property. I don't have to be in any "danger".

I'm sure the laws in NY are NOT the same.

Tribalpinoy91 10-02-2013 03:15 PM
Man thats crazy. I would of felt threatened and would have reacted the same way as the guy in the RR. Glad to be a PA Resident concealed weapons permit baaziing.

jcosta79 10-02-2013 03:16 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Red__Zed (Post 2513516)
The big difference in this case is who he hurt, with the added uncertainty on what the initial altercation consisted of.

You can't shoot guy 2 because guy 1 threatened you.
Yes you can if they are committing the crime together.

Just because the driver of the getaway car didn't actually rob the bank, the cops can still shoot him when they all try to escape.

Red__Zed 10-02-2013 03:31 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by jcosta79 (Post 2513570)
In Texas I can shoot anyone that's on my property. I don't have to be in any "danger".

I'm sure the laws in NY are NOT the same.
Castle doctrine is irrelevant to an altercation on public roads, and you are terrifyingly unfamiliar with Texas law.

TX allows for you to use force as necessary to stop trespassing, but you may not escalate to deadly force unless required.

In addition, the castle doctrine protects your habitation (which precedent indicates as covering a forced entry to or removal from a vehicle), but not "property" as you state. Detached garages and land have been declared as not covered under the law.

Red__Zed 10-02-2013 03:33 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by jcosta79 (Post 2513573)
Yes you can if they are committing the crime together.

Just because the driver of the getaway car didn't actually rob the bank, the cops can still shoot him when they all try to escape.
What crime did the biker that got run over commit?

(Driving a getaway car is a felony by itself, nevermind the precipitate involvement in conspiracy).


If they can find evidence that crushed-femur-dude had been involved in planning this (say, they decided they'd rob some dude by getting in an accident and slashing his tires), then he becomes an accomplice. Otherwise, the connection is tenuous.

Huck 10-02-2013 03:45 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DEpointfive0 (Post 2511916)
Back in Dallas, a group of bikers closed down the 75 Freeway, a MAJOR freeway leading in/out of Dallas. I lived in the center of down town and took the 75 often to go to school, shopping, whatever.
Fast forward a year, and there were threats that the same bikers would close the 75 again. One day during the time that we had the news forecasts, there was an officer outside our apartment, this is how the conversation went.
DE.50-"So, if I'm on the 75 and they close the freeway ahead of me, what do I do?"
Officer-"You got a gun?"
DE-"Yeah, why?"
O-"Good, carry it, they stop in front of you car shoot them, you got a big car?"
DE-"Um... Yeah..." (I had a Maxima at the time)
O-"Gooooood, get your gun, SHOOT the bikers and run them over, then when you're back home, call the police, tell us you killed a few of the bikers, and give me a call, I got you covered" (and he gave me his business card)
DE-I laughed and said "Really?"
O-"Yeah, ****'em, shoot'em. Have a good night" (and he left)


It was weird/awesome at the same time
One of the best stories I've heard in a while, there should be more cops like that.


I survived Zdayz 2013... (barely)

jcosta79 10-02-2013 03:51 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Red__Zed (Post 2513584)
Castle doctrine is irrelevant to an altercation on public roads, and you are terrifyingly unfamiliar with Texas law.

TX allows for you to use force as necessary to stop trespassing, but you may not escalate to deadly force unless required.

In addition, the castle doctrine protects your habitation (which precedent indicates as covering a forced entry to or removal from a vehicle), but not "property" as you state. Detached garages and land have been declared as not covered under the law.
1. I was not trying to say it was the same as something that occurred on public roads. I was merely giving an example of the difference between two state's laws.

2. Here's everything you need to know about castle doctrine (or whatever you call it) here in TX: Everyone here is armed and everyone here WILL shoot you if they find you in their home. If you want to argue legal technicalities with a TX homeowner pointing a gun at you, go right ahead.

ElVee 10-02-2013 03:55 PM
Texas has the "Law of Parties," when it comes to felony murder cases. Essentially, if a second person is a "party" to the one who commits the murder, that second person can be convicted of murder as well.

jcosta79 10-02-2013 03:56 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Red__Zed (Post 2513585)
What crime did the biker that got run over commit?
This is article 120.14 of the NEW YORK penal law:

Quote:
S 120.14 Menacing in the second degree.
A person is guilty of menacing in the second degree when:
1. He or she intentionally places or attempts to place another person
in reasonable fear of physical injury, serious physical injury or death
by displaying a deadly weapon, dangerous instrument or what appears to
be a pistol, revolver, rifle, shotgun, machine gun or other firearm; or
2. He or she repeatedly follows a person or engages in a course of
conduct or repeatedly commits acts over a period of time intentionally
placing or attempting to place another person in reasonable fear of
physical injury, serious physical injury or death; or
3. He or she commits the crime of menacing in the third degree in
violation of that part of a duly served order of protection, or such
order which the defendant has actual knowledge of because he or she was
present in court when such order was issued, pursuant to article eight
of the family court act, section 530.12 of the criminal procedure law,
or an order of protection issued by a court of competent jurisdiction in
another state, territorial or tribal jurisdiction, which directed the
respondent or defendant to stay away from the person or persons on whose
behalf the order was issued.
Now please go troll somewhere else. Adults are talking.

DEpointfive0 10-02-2013 04:01 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElVee (Post 2513619)
Texas has the "Law of Parties," when it comes to felony murder cases. Essentially, if a second person is a "party" to the one who commits the murder, that second person can be convicted of murder as well.
I believe a lot of states are like that, no?

Associate to the crime or something?


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:50 PM.
Page 18 of 29 « First 81617 18 192028 Last »
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2