If you want to get out of your car to get in the way of a gang of psycho, meth-head bikers, be my guest.

What about the ones in front during the chase?

I wish I could go back to a time when special meant special & there was no such thing as "hate crime" & "like crime" but ALL crime was bad. Did anybody ever use a defense where he claimed to have killed a guy because he liked him too much :confused:

Good point^^^^^

99% of them were not involved. I don't think the victim that's going to die or be paralyzed knew what hit him.

It's usually not conducive to talk about hypotheticals in too much detail, but the intent of the ones in front would probably be questioned.

Mob violence/actions complicate the situation quite a bit. We'd start having to talk about "common intent."

LMAO!!! Usually the biker gangs that are associated with meth are the REAL biker gangs that ride Choppers, not crotch rockets

I'm flying through Houston this weekend. Come to the airport and I'll buy you a beer.

Bikers on hogs deal meth. Bikers on crotchrockets use meth. A subtle, but important distinction. ;)

My conscious would feel a lot better than witnessing a possible death in my eyes. Plus as a a parent now, I am way more sensitive to anything with a child involved. You bet I would help the little girl first.

Now let's get rid of the asshats narccist who rise loud motorcycles too or cars

Hobby or Bush?

Bush.

You think anyone in Washington heights would help an Asian guy being beaten and sliced up?

They did, but too little to late. I'm assuming it happened pretty quickly with a lot of bystanders not knowing what was going on. It could have been a lot worst if they were in the middle of nowhere.

And if you want to get out of the car to ask them which category of biker gang they fall into, be my guest as well. :rofl2:

I live in CA now... ;-(
If you come to beautiful Sunny Southern CA, shoot me a message

EDIT: I read this as a place in Houston

And HELLLL no I don't... Well...
It depends... In TX, especially Houston, more than likely, at least ONE of the bikers would've had a gun, and in Houston, odds are that THAT CAR has it's own designated gun. So the outcome would have, and could have been WAYYYYYY different.

...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.

In Texas they operate differently

Texas has similar laws, as anyone who was ever obtained a CCW license there can readily share.

...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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

One of the best stories I've heard in a while, there should be more cops like that.


I survived Zdayz 2013... (barely)

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.

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.

This is article 120.14 of the NEW YORK penal law:

Now please go troll somewhere else. Adults are talking.

I believe a lot of states are like that, no?

Associate to the crime or something?

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.