Nissan 370Z Forum
Page 4 of 11 « First 23 4 56 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 10:23 AM
1 Attachment(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Red__Zed (Post 2512932)
There's zero evidence of when or how the tires got slashed.


Taking down the RR guy would generally be disallowed, although the fact that he hit and run complicates things, as most states enforce as a felony.

Fleeing felon rule - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Coupled with the belief of observed attempted murder/manslaughter, you could probably make a good case for the chase/apprehension. If the driver was knifed as he claimed, things get tougher for the biker responsible, as well as if there's any evidence pointing to needless beating, etc. The fact that he's alive and was released from the hospital in ~2 hrs indicates that there was probably not much gratuitous beating.

Future videos could tell a lot.
There's a 911 call while all this is happening and his wife in the passenger seat. Not a hit and run. He also clearly stops. There's no evidence we've seen that indicates when the tires were slashed, but the tires being slashed at the last incident can certainly be ruled out. A lot of what the bikers are saying is all hearsay. I've seen a few episodes of Law and Order too....

....Now who's claiming stuff that we have no evidence for.....The hospitals discharged him, but all that means is that his injuries are no longer life threatening. He'll likely have to follow up as an outpatient. The only reason the driver wasn't hurt more was the fact that people on the street eventually came to his aid....see the guy two guys.


( Click to show/hide )
S 35.15 Justification; use of physical force in defense of a person.
1. A person may, subject to the provisions of subdivision two, use
physical force upon another person when and to the extent he or she
reasonably believes such to be necessary to defend himself, herself or a
third person from what he or she reasonably believes to be the use or
imminent use of unlawful physical force by such other person, unless:
(a) The latter's conduct was provoked by the actor with intent to
cause physical injury to another person; or
(b) The actor was the initial aggressor; except that in such case the
use of physical force is nevertheless justifiable if the actor has
withdrawn from the encounter and effectively communicated such
withdrawal to such other person but the latter persists in continuing
the incident by the use or threatened imminent use of unlawful physical
force; or
(c) The physical force involved is the product of a combat by
agreement not specifically authorized by law.
2. A person may not use deadly physical force upon another person
under circumstances specified in subdivision one unless:
(a) The actor reasonably believes that such other person is using or
about to use deadly physical force. Even in such case, however, the
actor may not use deadly physical force if he or she knows that with
complete personal safety, to oneself and others he or she may avoid the
necessity of so doing by retreating; except that the actor is under no
duty to retreat if he or she is:
(i) in his or her dwelling and not the initial aggressor; or
(ii) a police officer or peace officer or a person assisting a police
officer or a peace officer at the latter`s direction, acting pursuant to
section 35.30; or
(b) He or she reasonably believes that such other person is committing
or attempting to commit a kidnapping, forcible rape, forcible criminal
sexual act or robbery; or
(c) He or she reasonably believes that such other person is committing
or attempting to commit a burglary, and the circumstances are such that
the use of deadly physical force is authorized by subdivision three of
section 35.20.

jcosta79 10-02-2013 10:26 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Red__Zed (Post 2512939)

Unless they went out that day planning to treat annoying drivers like that, you would have a tough time sticking him with the behaviors of the group.
Here's your proof that they did just that: LiveLeak.com - More footage previous to Range Rover incident

Anyone who has any sympathy for the bikers is an idiot.

Red__Zed 10-02-2013 10:27 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chuck33079 (Post 2512955)
I'd argue this was one of those cases, but a court will decide.



There's a lot of felonies getting slapped on the arrested bikers. Are you suggesting they'll all be dropped?
The legal system doesn't have a safety valve, which is why I said it breaks down....

Charges were already dropped/not pressed against the one. The felonies on the other guy will be hard to stick (he will probably wind up with some traffic misdemeanors sticking...I bet he plea bargains down)


Quote:
Originally Posted by jcosta79 (Post 2512960)
:icon18:

Yeah, and I got a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you if you believe that one!

If your friends decide to rob a bank while you happen to be in the car with them, well guess what? Your *** is going to jail.

Those guys should be thankful this didn't happen in TX. There would be a lot of dead bikers on the highway and their families would have gotten invoices to pay for the cleanup.
Dependent on the situation. There is plenty of precedent contrary to that claim.

Chuck33079 10-02-2013 10:31 AM
I'd love to see a transcript of the 911 call. I'm sure it'll get out at some point.

Red__Zed 10-02-2013 10:31 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cmike2780 (Post 2512972)
There's a 911 call while all this is happening and his wife in the passenger seat. Not a hit and run. He also clearly stops. There's no evidence we've seen that indicates when the tires were slashed, but the tires being slashed at the last incident can certainly be ruled out. A lot of what the bikers are saying is all hearsay. I've seen a few episodes of Law and Order too....

....Now who's claiming stuff that we have no evidence for.....The hospitals discharged him, but all that means is that his injuries are no longer life threatening. He'll likely have to follow up as an outpatient. The only reason the driver wasn't hurt more was the fact that people on the street eventually came to his aid....see the guy two guys.
I'm telling you how the DA is going to look at the situation. You're the only one claiming unfounded things. I simply said he was released promptly, and if you think the bikers couldn't have killed him before the extra guys intervened, I think you are mistaken. Of course, the only reason for that may have been self-concern and legal maneuvering, but the reasoning doesn't really matter (from the court's perspective). At least some of the bikers have a pretty compelling story that largely keeps them clean.


There's no released evidence even saying that his tires were slashed, so the fact that is being assumed at this point shows how strongly biased perspectives may be.

Red__Zed 10-02-2013 10:32 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by jcosta79 (Post 2512982)
Here's your proof that they did just that: LiveLeak.com - More footage previous to Range Rover incident

Anyone who has any sympathy for the bikers is an idiot.

Those videos are a far cry from evidence of conspiracy to commit anything

jcosta79 10-02-2013 10:32 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cmike2780 (Post 2512917)
Correct me if I'm wrong, but vigilante justice on the guy in the Range Rover is hardly lawful either.
That's not vigilante justice. That's self-defense.

Chuck33079 10-02-2013 10:33 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Red__Zed (Post 2512992)
There's no released evidence even saying that his tires were slashed, so the fact that is being assumed at this point shows how strongly biased perspectives may be.
The New York Post article confirms the slashed tires, as well as puts the time of slashing before the final stop of the chase.

Red__Zed 10-02-2013 10:33 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by jcosta79 (Post 2512996)
That's not vigilante justice. That's self-defense.
He's talking about wailing on the driver....

Red__Zed 10-02-2013 10:33 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chuck33079 (Post 2513000)
The New York Post article confirms the slashed tires, as well as puts the time of slashing before the final stop of the chase.
Based on....?

jcosta79 10-02-2013 10:35 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Red__Zed (Post 2512995)
Those videos are a far cry from evidence of conspiracy to commit anything
They are evidence of a group of individuals breaking multiple laws and riding in a way that endangers the lives of others. Why do you think the guy deleted them off his Facebook page?

Are you seriously sticking up for these idiots?

SouthArk370Z 10-02-2013 10:35 AM
Has anyone heard when, in the sequence of events, the 911 call was placed?

Chuck33079 10-02-2013 10:36 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Red__Zed (Post 2513002)
Based on....?
They didn't cite their sources. :rolleyes:

You're a defense attorney, aren't you? :p

Red__Zed 10-02-2013 10:38 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by jcosta79 (Post 2513006)
They are evidence of a group of individuals breaking multiple laws and riding in a way that endangers the lives of others. Why do you think the guy deleted them off his Facebook page?

Are you seriously sticking up for these idiots?
Nope, just getting a slow and painful reminder about how clueless most people are about how our legal system operates.

Just because I think that all bikers like this should be sent out of the country, doesn't mean they don't have legal rights.

Cmike2780 10-02-2013 10:39 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Red__Zed (Post 2512992)
I'm telling you how the DA is going to look at the situation. You're the only one claiming unfounded things. I simply said he was released promptly, and if you think the bikers couldn't have killed him before the extra guys intervened, I think you are mistaken. Of course, the only reason for that may have been self-concern and legal maneuvering, but the reasoning doesn't really matter (from the court's perspective). At least some of the bikers have a pretty compelling story that largely keeps them clean.


There's no released evidence even saying that his tires were slashed, so the fact that is being assumed at this point shows how strongly biased perspectives may be.
Sorry, I didn't realize you knew the DA. I'm just judging by what I saw in the video and what I see in the pictures. Like I said, that's just my opinion. The fact that you would rule it out completely kind of shows bias too. Just say'n.

Z_ealot 10-02-2013 10:40 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Red__Zed (Post 2512968)
can you post a screenshot with an MSpaint circle on what you are talking about? Videos are tough to see detail on.
Will have to wait until I get home can't do that at work here

Red__Zed 10-02-2013 10:41 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chuck33079 (Post 2513008)
They didn't cite their sources. :rolleyes:

You're a defense attorney, aren't you? :p
No, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night.

Ray Kelly is the origin of that claim, and his statement was qualified with an "apparently." He also has a strongly vested interest in getting as many people charged as possible, given his position. It doesn't mean it's not true, but until there's something else backing it up, I will remain open-minded.

Red__Zed 10-02-2013 10:42 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cmike2780 (Post 2513016)
Sorry, I didn't realize you knew the DA. I'm just judging by what I saw in the video and what I see in the pictures. Like I said, that's just my opinion. The fact that you would rule it out completely kind of shows bias too. Just say'n.
I'm ruling nothing out. What makes you think I am?

Cmike2780 10-02-2013 10:42 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Red__Zed (Post 2513022)
I will remain open-minded.
lol

Chuck33079 10-02-2013 10:45 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Red__Zed (Post 2513022)
No, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night.

Ray Kelly is the origin of that claim, and his statement was qualified with an "apparently." He also has a strongly vested interest in getting as many people charged as possible, given his position. It doesn't mean it's not true, but until there's something else backing it up, I will remain open-minded.
We'll just have to see how it plays out in court. What I believe based on what we've seen so far makes me think this is pretty clear self defense. You seem to disagree. It'll be interesting to see what additional information leaks out. I still want a transcript of the 911 call.

I'll bet you a six-pack the driver walks on all criminal and civil issues- you in?

Red__Zed 10-02-2013 10:47 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cmike2780 (Post 2513028)
lol
I guess passive-aggressiveness is your only option.

I'm no friend of guys like these bikers, and I'd prefer if the NYPD would toss them all in jail for their recorded behaviors. But following the law regarding escalation of force is very important.

Red__Zed 10-02-2013 10:50 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chuck33079 (Post 2513037)
We'll just have to see how it plays out in court. What I believe based on what we've seen so far makes me think this is pretty clear self defense. You seem to disagree. It'll be interesting to see what additional information leaks out. I still want a transcript of the 911 call.

I'll bet you a six-pack the driver walks on all criminal and civil issues- you in?
I think it hinges on details that are not yet available to us.

I've already stated numerous times the driver will walk on criminal charges unless something new comes up. Civil comes down to luck and who gets a better lawyer.

911 transcripts and timestamps will be telling as well. It's too hard to judge until those other details are out. Most of what either side did could be attributed to self-defense/bystander fleeing felon pursuit with a good lawyer (and one or two critical facts).

SouthArk370Z 10-02-2013 10:50 AM
meh None of us have all the facts, so I can't get too upset with any theories that conflict with mine.

And this is an Intertubes forum, not a court of law. ;) Regardless of what the law is (and assuming my theory is correct), I think the guy in the RR was justified to react the way he did in that situation. His only option was to get away from the guys. The riders had blocked a major road so that his only path was over those bikes and people. The riders intentionally put themselves in danger. YMMV

DEpointfive0 10-02-2013 10:51 AM
Perfect, thank you.


I'm sharing these on FB

Tazicon 10-02-2013 10:51 AM
This is like picking a fight with a guy, getting beat up then you sue the guy you picked the fight with. This whole thing should have been stopped long before it escalated. The mom suing should look at her son and the way she raised him then sue herself for having been a crappy parent. If her son was raised right he wouldn't have been a part of those stupid actions.

Chuck33079 10-02-2013 10:53 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Red__Zed (Post 2513047)
I think it hinges on details that are not yet available to us.I've already stated numerous times the driver will walk on criminal charges unless something new comes up. Civil comes down to luck and who gets a better lawyer.

911 transcripts and timestamps will be telling as well. It's too hard to judge until those other details are out. Most of what either side did could be attributed to self-defense/bystander fleeing felon pursuit with a good lawyer (and one or two critical facts).
Agreed, I was just suggesting a friendly wager of a mid-grade six-pack to whoever ends up closer to the final outcome.

ElVee 10-02-2013 10:53 AM
I think a *reasonable* person, based on the video evidence, can conclude that the Range Rover driver feared for his life and the lives of his a family and made a move to get himself out of that situation. A situation the bikers continued to force and escalate. We even have plenty of raw footage to support this. And it's not a defense to say he couldn't have been killed in the short period until the others intervened. All it takes is a helmet or other weapon or even a boot to the head and/or a crash to the pavement that can take a life.

Things do change slightly if there is video footage and/or third party witnesses about the RR cutting off the bikers. Even still, there is a certain amount of restraint and responsibility that the bikers should have exerted. If such evidence comes to light, it just means as others have said that the DA has far less interest in this case for either side.

I saw someone claim that the RR guy shouldn't have pursued vigilante justice. If the RR driver did cut off a biker, then it's ok for the bikers to have pursued same?

In the end, it's about what a reasonable person would conclude, and I'd have moved to get myself and my family out of that situation which was clearly going from bad to very, very bad. Me, against a group of people with clear violent intent.

Can you imagine how your life would have been changed right now if you were the RR driver or his family?

Chuck33079 10-02-2013 10:54 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tazicon (Post 2513055)
This is like picking a fight with a guy, getting beat up then you sue the guy you picked the fight with. This whole thing should have been stopped long before it escalated. The mom suing should look at her son and the way she raised him then sue herself for having been a crappy parent. If her son was raised right he wouldn't have been a part of those stupid actions.
The only thing missing from the videos was one guy yelling "Worldstar!" every five seconds. :rofl2:

Red__Zed 10-02-2013 10:54 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by SouthArk370Z (Post 2513049)
meh None of us have all the facts, so I can't get too upset with any theories that conflict with mine.

And this is an Intertubes forum, not a court of law. ;) Regardless of what the law is (and assuming my theory is correct), I think the guy in the RR was justified to react the way he did in that situation. His only option was to get away from the guys. The riders had blocked a major road so that his only path was over those bikes and people. The riders intentionally put themselves in danger. YMMV
That's been my point since the beginning, although perhaps not as well stated.

The initial altercation becomes the major turning point. If something comes up showing a tire slash at the first stop (or other reason to fear for his life), the driver is in the clear. There's a possibility of a civil suit regardless, which will be interesting to see how it goes. There's also no reason the biker could not sue the tire-slashing guy as well...maybe get a 2 for 1.

I'm not sure how NY treats SD manslaughter. Will have to dig up some precedent. Running over the guy is similar to shooting a bystander when you get mugged.

Red__Zed 10-02-2013 10:57 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElVee (Post 2513062)

Things do change slightly if there is video footage and/or third party witnesses about the RR cutting off the bikers. Even still, there is a certain amount of restraint and responsibility that the bikers should have exerted. If such evidence comes to light, it just means as others have said that the DA has far less interest in this case for either side.
That's actually largely irrelevant. The bikers cannot use it as a defense as any immediate danger would have passed and it does little to change whether the RR driver was acting in self-defense when he sped off.

ElVee 10-02-2013 10:58 AM
Definitely depends if that "bystander" is part of the group or not. The biker victim may not have made any actual violent pretense, but as a part of the group he is still participating in intimidation and whatever else the group commits. Not as bad as the actual doers/leaders of the violence, but certainly still a participant.

Red__Zed 10-02-2013 10:59 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tazicon (Post 2513055)
This is like picking a fight with a guy, getting beat up then you sue the guy you picked the fight with. This whole thing should have been stopped long before it escalated. The mom suing should look at her son and the way she raised him then sue herself for having been a crappy parent. If her son was raised right he wouldn't have been a part of those stupid actions.
The only thing in question is who "really" (from a legal perspective) started the fight. There are a number of reasons to assume the bikers, but evidence at this point is still unclear.

ElVee 10-02-2013 10:59 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Red__Zed (Post 2513078)
That's actually largely irrelevant. The bikers cannot use it as a defense as any immediate danger would have passed and it does little to change whether the RR driver was acting in self-defense when he sped off.
I mean to provide no defense for the bikers, just to be clear. :)

Red__Zed 10-02-2013 11:00 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElVee (Post 2513084)
Definitely depends if that "bystander" is part of the group or not. The biker victim may not have made any actual violent pretense, but as a part of the group he is still participating in intimidation and whatever else the group commits. Not as bad as the actual doers/leaders of the violence, but certainly still a participant.
Not under US law (with limited exceptions).

Cmike2780 10-02-2013 11:02 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Red__Zed (Post 2513041)
I guess passive-aggressiveness is your only option.

I'm no friend of guys like these bikers, and I'd prefer if the NYPD would toss them all in jail for their recorded behaviors. But following the law regarding escalation of force is very important.
I'm really not trying to start anything with you and I have nothing at stake here. We can squash it now and let it go or you can continue to google Wikipedia links to educate us all on the legal system.

Red__Zed 10-02-2013 11:02 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElVee (Post 2513090)
I mean to provide no defense for the bikers, just to be clear. :)
I know. I'm just pointing out that even if it comes out that the RR driver was waving a gun at them prior to the video start, it really doesn't matter that much (to the facts of this situation, he could be charged separately for other offenses).

DEpointfive0 10-02-2013 11:05 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chuck33079 (Post 2513037)
We'll just have to see how it plays out in court. What I believe based on what we've seen so far makes me think this is pretty clear self defense. You seem to disagree. It'll be interesting to see what additional information leaks out. I still want a transcript of the 911 call.

I'll bet you a six-pack the driver walks on all criminal and civil issues- you in?
I'm on your side, but fùck it, I'll bet you, lol

SouthArk370Z 10-02-2013 11:06 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElVee (Post 2513062)
... Things do change slightly if there is video footage and/or third party witnesses about the RR cutting off the bikers. ...
If I'm out showing my a$$ (weaving through traffic, changing lanes suddenly, crowding other vehicles, &c) and someone cuts me off, I don't think I have much to complain about. But maybe that's just me. :)

Red__Zed 10-02-2013 11:08 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DEpointfive0 (Post 2513096)
I'm on your side, but fùck it, I'll bet you, lol
I'm in if we make it a 48 pack.


You know what, forget the bet and let's grab some drinks :yum:

ElVee 10-02-2013 11:08 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Red__Zed (Post 2513091)
Not under US law (with limited exceptions).
If you can't tell who the bystanders are apart from the attackers, and they all appear to be part of the same group... Should the RR driver rolled down his window and politely asked for clarification?

The guy run over might have been the good samaritan of the group, but he is still part of the group that escalated things.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:30 PM.
Page 4 of 11 « First 23 4 56 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