Bikers Attack Driver After Accident: Caught on Tape

Cmike2780 · 10-02-2013, 12:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andre12031948

Bikers were wrong, but they were just ricers. They weren't gangsters. Running over someone & keep going should only be done after some MAJOR action by the bikers. Their behavior was awful & wrong, but they don't deserve to be run down & killed.

Ricers/gangsters has nothing to do with it. I doubt that distinction was going through the SUV driver's mind.

What exactly constitutes a "MAJOR" action? Are you honestly suggesting they should have stabbed or beat him first?....before he's "allowed" to run them over?

andre12031948 · 10-02-2013, 01:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cmike2780

Ricers/gangsters has nothing to do with it. I doubt that distinction was going through the SUV driver's mind.

What exactly constitutes a "MAJOR" action? Are you honestly suggesting they should have stabbed or beat him first?....before he's "allowed" to run them over?

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.

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

Chuck33079 · 10-02-2013, 01:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andre12031948

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.

Aw ****. You went there.

andre12031948 · 10-02-2013, 01:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chuck33079

Aw ****. You went there.

The moderators here appear to be more mature & have some sense of humor.

You think that ^^^^^^ will work???

Cmike2780 · 10-02-2013, 02:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andre12031948

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.

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

...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.

Cmike2780 · 10-02-2013, 03:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Red__Zed

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.

ElVee · 10-02-2013, 04:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cmike2780

...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.

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.

Red__Zed · 10-02-2013, 04:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ElVee

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.

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/"

jcosta79 · 10-02-2013, 03:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Red__Zed

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, 03:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jcosta79

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.

jcosta79 · 10-02-2013, 03:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Red__Zed

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.

Cmike2780 · 10-02-2013, 04:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Red__Zed

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.

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?

Cbtech · 10-02-2013, 06:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Red__Zed

Driving without a license is insufficient to characterize someone as being at fault.

I don't know what country you live in but if you're driving/riding a motor vehicle and have no license you are IMMEDIATELY at fault as you should not have been driving a vehicle without the license to do so.

Example:

Had he had a license he most likely would have cited for unsafe lane change
Sacto 9-1-1: Coroner identifies motorcyclist killed near Negro Bar

Had she had a license she might have been sited for speeding and wreckless driving
Darriean Hess arrested, charged in crash that killed bicyclists | SeacoastOnline.com

Had she had a license she might have never been charged.
Allegedly unlicensed driver in fatal Muskegon River flats crash fails to appear in court | MLive.com

etc etc...

Had he not been on the road (brake check biker) breaking the law he would have never been bumped causing the chain of events.

Red__Zed · 10-02-2013, 07:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cbtech

I don't know what country you live in but if you're driving/riding a motor vehicle and have no license you are IMMEDIATELY at fault as you should not have been driving a vehicle without the license to do so.

Surely you are trolling. I live in the United States of America, where exactly ZERO of the 50 states determine fault based on licensure. Most states assign fault based on who is at fault, with a couple refusing to assign any fault at all. A simple google search would have made this fact clear to you.

Quote:

Example:

Had he had a license he most likely would have cited for unsafe lane change
Sacto 9-1-1: Coroner identifies motorcyclist killed near Negro Bar

You said:
"Had he had a license he most likely would have cited for unsafe lane change"

Article says nothing of the sort. Charges are in-line with behavior.

Quote:

Had she had a license she might have been sited for speeding and wreckless driving
Darriean Hess arrested, charged in crash that killed bicyclists | SeacoastOnline.com

Article says nothing of the sort. Charges are in-line with behavior. Your misspelling of "reckless" is a nice touch.

Quote:

Had she had a license she might have never been charged.
Allegedly unlicensed driver in fatal Muskegon River flats crash fails to appear in court | MLive.com

Article says nothing of the sort. Charges are in-line with behavior, especially since most of them are related to failure to appear

Quote:

etc etc...

Had he not been on the road (brake check biker) breaking the law he would have never been bumped causing the chain of events.

You also seem very confused about the chain of events. The biker that was rear-ended appears to have had his license suspended following the event, which would indicate he had a license during.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
a bad day for bikers in california	Z_ealot	The Lounge (Off Topic)	2	02-01-2013 03:29 AM
Calling all Bikers!!!	Togo	Other Vehicles	173	07-10-2011 10:15 PM
When polishing, tape off edges of lights, etc., with painter's tape?	kree	Detailing / Washing / Waxing / Cosmetic Maintenance and Repair	2	04-17-2011 04:31 PM
For the bikers among us	In2Deep	The Lounge (Off Topic)	3	04-08-2010 04:19 PM
Nissan GT-R SpecV: Super-Godzilla Caught On Tape	AK370Z	Other Vehicles	12	01-30-2009 04:03 AM