The burden for being a participant of a riot requires active encouragement, not merely presence.


There are a lot of legal tricks that could be used against roadkill, but claiming he was part of a riot is pretty unlikely. The group (from all appearances) was largely non-violent and the aggressive actions were that of the minority (most of the guys stayed planted on their bikes even during the beating). If you could build a case that there was a riot, you would need to show participation by roadkill, which is a challenge as he got run over before anything started. Then, to my knowledge, there's no precedent saying that if you are threatened by part of a rioting group you can use deadly force against any of them.


It would be a very uphill legal battle and there are easier methods to get the guy, if that's the route they want to take.

Yup, just referencing the broader legal concept as more people are likely to be familiar with the global terminology.

I'd love to disagree here, as I think there is precedent on who is considered included in a riot (aka mob violence) or not, but I'm not versed enough in it. I can just futilely say I disagree and whimper into the corner. :)

Damn there are some funny memes online

To be clear here I'm not arguing what I think should be the case, I'm just pointing out what is. My personal opinions on matters like this is they should never happen because guys that recklessly endanger the public like this should have been placed in jail a long time ago.

The dude that got run over was cited many times for driving without a license. The fact that he's free indicates a painful failing of the legal system. This should have never happened because half those bikers should have already been in jail.

But, it's important to not set dangerous precedents either. Built by association seems fine in this case, but it would be a bummer if you were on a forum that got out of hand and you wound up in jail because of it.

Caving to bad rules in order to catch bad guys in one case leads to things like a ball-fondling surcharge on your plane tickets, or rules like the Canadian-street-racing car impound (if you're in a nice car near a street race, you lose your car)

you sound like a lawyer

Part of me wishes I had gotten into law way back when, since this stuff fascinates me and gets the juices going.

But then I realize I dislike people and get over it. :)

no, but I play one on TV

:icon17:

everything about the legal process seems so stressful
it's like your job is conflict management... and people's lives/money/etc are at stake
i dont think i could ever do that kind of stuff

what if I came up to a crowd of people/a picket line
 

They are parading all over the street & I'm not able to drive through. Then they give me the finger & come knocking on my window. Am I allowed to drive OVER them because I felt threatened????

The freaken guy gunned his SUV straight at the riders in front of him. If they wouldn't have reacted as quickly as they had, many would be run over & dead!!!! He felt threatened/scared????? He & his family was NOT touched & weren't going to be. Just because he thought different does not give him the right to accelerate straight right into & over a bunch of people.

Even after he ran over & possibly killed a person, the driver was not beat up/hurt that badly.

You can't just drive over people!!!!!! When someone points a gun to your face you should feel threatened, not if someone made a gesture to slice your tires or knocks/bangs on your car door.

Prosecutor material^^^^

were you born on 12/03/1948?

if yes i think im detective material :icon17:

I can't tell you that, but I can say that I'll be 65 before the year ends:(

i have no clue why but you remind of me tweety bird

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...0px-Tweety.png

If you're young & female, let's talk. Utherwise:tiphat: