Not to be pedantic, but change "plausible" to "reasonable" up above, and you have some valid legal arguments. :)

a- For the first part, it probably is reasonable that RR guy was feeling imminent threat to himself and his family; in fact, life-and-death threat.

b- For the second part, we're dealing with mob violence or even a riot (it's a legal thing, not talking a race riot here), i.e. a group of persons coming together with shared intent. In this case, if that biker is part of the biker group, he'll probably be considered part of the riot group and responsible for violence caused by such group, even if he's suddenly not "feeling" like being a part of it anymore. It is probably reasonable to say RR guy would not have distinguished that guy as *not* part of the group.

To turn that around to be less awkward, RR guy probably reasonably believed that biker a part of the riot group and not an innocent bystander.

The law almost certainly will consider that guy part of the riot group.

A lot of this is thanks to the biker's own video.

So far you've established that you don't even know your own states self-defense laws, and resorted to personal attacks.

I haven't seen any charges pressed against roadkill for menacing.

I haven't seen any behaviors from roadkill that would constitute evidence supporting a charge of menacing.

Menacing is a Class A misdemeanor and does not give the victim the right to exercise deadly force. I see you edited that one line out from the section of the penal code:p

Next?

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. Menacing in the second degree is a class A misdemeanor. - See more at: N.Y. PEN. LAW § 120.14 : NY Code - Section 120.14: Menacing in the second degree



New York also allows the use of reasonable force against home invasion.

Only if you have an active engagement in the planning, commission, or cover-up.

Yep, reasonable is the right word here. Plausible has a different meaning.


Self-defense goes against the "reasonable person" test.

Where are you getting the idea of a "riot group/"

Agree. No one really knows yet....that's why no charges have been filed. This is all just a friendly discussion.



On another note, doesn't everyone think it's rather odd that the video cuts out right before they pull the guy out of the SUV and start beating him. They also didn't post anything before the "first" incident. The guy who film it knew to edit it out. The question is why?

They've already decided not to file charges against the driver or biker2, which jives with my belief that no major criminal charges will come of this (unless there were weapons used or gratuitous beatings inflicted).

Possibly because they wailed on the guy. Possibly because the camera man thought they might wail on the guy. It's possible the footage is around somewhere if he edited it (rather than just turning the camera off).

Oh, a group of people with a common malicious intent causing terror.

You already know the answer to this. It is to not have video evidence incriminatating his fellow bikers.

Nothing like Texas. Yeah, there are accomplice laws, but if you and a buddy are out and your buddy shoots and kills someone while you're standing there, you can be tried for felony murder and sentenced just as harshly (possible death penalty) as your friend who actually pulled the trigger. It's a big step up in Texas. :)

Where is your legal backing for the scenario you have drawn up?

*If* there was sufficient evidence to point to this event being a riot (unlawful assembly is far more likely), the guy in question is *at best* a participant and even that is a difficult reach.

That's called felony murder and most states have a similar law (though other states are not quite as liberal with the death penalty). The big difference in TX is that you can be charged even if you didn't show up that day (ie, you planned the bank robbery but called out sick when it came time to do the job).

In New York it becomes 2nd degree murder if you are party to the originating felony.

The guy who turned himself in didn't actually beat the guy. Nothing suggest the DA won't follow up will larger charges later. It's still ongoing. They're treading carefully until all the evidence from the investigation is complete. They're also still looking for the suspect that actually assaulted the RR guy. With a ton of media attention, the DA is waiting for the big fish before proceeding with anything. They'll come back to that guy to get him to talk against the one who did the actual beating.

I'm likely not going to get a very accurate legal definition, but a riot is just a group of people with common intent to cause violence.

"Riot" is very often associated with political meanings, picketing, looting, public assembly. But it's more broad than that. In regards to unlawful assembly, the inclusion of violence is what moves that term up to "riot."

From there, you get down to who is a participant in a riot or not, and typically if you're in the vicinity, you're a participant. It's even more damning if you're previously part of the group, in shared uniform, or otherwise moving in concert with the group.

There is (I should say "should be" since I'm not smart enough nor in the legal field and experienced in looking it up) case precedence that nearby persons are charged/tried as participants when they've said they were not.

More than likely that is all arguable based on context and whether a prosecutor in a criminal case feels it worthwhile to pursue.

Friedman-Agnifilo said they won't prosecute him. Doesn't mean they won't, but it doesn't sound like they're planning to.

Yes, I think we're talking pretty much the same thing there. It's called "law of parties" in Texas.