Mob of bikers surround SUV and get run over in NYC

[WalkingWolf]

Alright, this is no longer productive. Thanks for playing.

The door is thattaway!

 

[Brace]

Something amusing about showing up to claim victory after abstaining from the entire battle. Anyway, I haven't lost anything. I've explored the argument as fully as it can possibly be explored and narrowed it all down to a single proposition, one that's presently unproven but could easily be proven. If someone wanted to say to me "I'm confident that prior history establishes guilt for the individual bikers who were injured, but I can't be arsed to prove it since I'm not a prosecutor", that would be a perfectly satisfactory end to the discussion. Instead I'm being told that the video evidence is sufficient to prove that lethal force against those individuals was justified, which I've gone to great lengths to establish as untrue. For irrational reasons various people are unwilling to accept this, and since I can't force anyone to be rational the argument is as played out as it's going to get. It's all laid out, I'm not going to sit here and have personal attacks and meaningless utterances about how "obvious" things are thrown at me across the gap between actual debate and entrenched biases because that's useless.

 

[WalkingWolf]

Alright, this is no longer productive. Thanks for playing.

Something amusing about showing up to claim victory after abstaining from the entire battle. Anyway, I haven't lost anything. I've explored the argument as fully as it can possibly be explored and narrowed it all down to a single proposition, one that's presently unproven but could easily be proven. If someone wanted to say to me "I'm confident that prior history establishes guilt for the individual bikers who were injured, but I can't be arsed to prove it since I'm not a prosecutor", that would be a perfectly satisfactory end to the discussion. Instead I'm being told that the video evidence is sufficient to prove that lethal force against those individuals was justified, which I've gone to great lengths to establish as untrue. For irrational reasons various people are unwilling to accept this, and since I can't force anyone to be rational the argument is as played out as it's going to get. It's all laid out, I'm not going to sit here and have personal attacks and meaningless utterances about how "obvious" things are thrown at me across the gap between actual debate and entrenched biases because that's useless.

Typical of Yankees, unable to keep their word.

 

[Brace]

edit: [video=youtube;v582kPp43Mg]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v582kPp43Mg[/video]

 

[marshaul]

Alright, this is no longer productive. Thanks for playing.

Hah! :lol:

 

[countryclubjoe]

Not a cop to be found.

Interesting.

CCJ

 

[marshaul]

If someone wanted to say to me "I'm confident that prior history establishes guilt for the individual bikers who were injured, but I can't be arsed to prove it since I'm not a prosecutor", that would be a perfectly satisfactory end to the discussion. Instead I'm being told that the video evidence is sufficient to prove that lethal force against those individuals was justified, which I've gone to great lengths to establish as untrue.

"Prove lethal force was justified"?

That isn't how it works. Nobody has to prove squat to let the man be. "Proof" is only relevant when seeking a criminal conviction, which, thanks to that video, no prosecutor could secure in a million years.

You're right, the video doesn't "prove" anything. But I'll tell you what it establishes: reasonable doubt.

So, I repeat: self-defense.

 

[Brace]

Depends on who goes to trial, which is contingent upon interpretation of the video, which is again up for debate, but I'll accept that. It's just taking the same logic and assigning a different defendant.

 

[marshaul]

OK, but for the record I, personally, don't feel the bikers need to be prosecuted. Being run over will do. :lol:

Edit: Then again, there was that bit right at the end... :uhoh:

 

[eye95]

They are still accomplices. In an armed bank robbery where one perpetrator kills a teller the getaway car driver is guilty of murder under the law...

In an earlier post, I recounted a very specific crime here in Fairborn where the accomplices were convicted in the death of one of their own at the hands of their "mob's" intended victim.

Oh, to the moronic assertion that those injured or killed were not accomplices: It was a MOB action. Everyone participating in the MOB action is an accomplice, even if all they did was pull in front of the SUV, blocking its path, allowing the other MOB members to try to forcefully enter the SUV.

Thugs and bullies.

 

[Logan 5]

I look at the video and you can see it's a set up.. Look how the biker is sitting when he brake checks the SUV.
Too bad the SUV driver wasn't packing. Even a can of bug spray would have evened the odds a little bit in his favor.

 

[OC for ME]

So, a clip is not a mag for you but a Squid is a motorcyclist for me. Weakest sauce ever. <snip>

The practical, everyday usage of the English language clips and mags are the same, non sequitur. Squids, bikers, motorcyclists are the same. However, a "biker" is routinely viewed as the "Sons of Anarchy" variety of motorcyclists, just as a squid is another variety of motorcyclist. Your defense of those thugs, and yes, you are defending them, despite your "I don't condone..." crapolla, has been exposed for what it is, crapolla.

The SUV driver was engaged in a SD situation and used the tools he had at the time to defend himself, his family, and his property. Parsing the mob members into criminals and non-criminals is intellectual dishonesty.

Simplicity itself.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

Self defense clearly.

The accusations of "indiscriminately" running over bikes ridiculous.

I ride a bike.

What idiotic would decide his bike is going to stop a SUV?

 

[Sir Diealotz]

Alright, this is no longer productive. Thanks for playing.

^ Rage Quit LOL

 

[F350]

There's a woeful lack of actual arguments in this thread. Yes, there are times when breaking the law is justified. This may have been one of them. The SUV driver still ran over people who weren't directly attacking him and had at best an indirect role in the incident. This may blow your mind, but it's possible for both of those facts to be true simultaneously. Consequently it makes sense that the driver's actions, though reasonable, still require some sort of sanction or penalty, ideally to be lessened in light of the circumstances.

In the law I suppose you have never heard of the concept of "conspiracy" or if it goes that far "felony murder" where someone not directly involved is held legally liable?? If someone "only" helps plan a crime but does not participate they face legal consequences, if 3 guys rob a store and kill the clerk the guy waiting in the car faces murder charges as well even though he did not pull the trigger.

Sure the injured thugs were not directly involved in the assault "at the time" but they were involved in the mob action and just as liable.

 

[F350]

I think that if this had been a 1%'er club like the Hell's Angels or Mongols or so forth, then the driver's response would have been 100% justified because then there would have been an established association and consequently a shared motive and mentality could be reasonably assumed. The fact that this was just a large group of bikers out for some unspecified "event" is what disentangles the individuals from one another and makes it impossible to treat motive as distributive like you would in the other case. It's less like being a party to a crime and more like being out in public during a riot because you were drawn to the event where the riot occurred.

So because these "sport bikers" weren't riding Harleys they couldn't be 1%ers, they were actually out selling Girl Scout cookies and collecting donations to fight cancer? Look at the video, most had no license plates, the paralyzed thug had never had a drivers license, many of the bikes are reportedly stolen etc. You trying to say they weren't 1%ers because they don't ride a Harley?

 

[Freedom1Man]

Does it??? I think your tinfoil hat divulges the fact that you should rightly have been institutionalized at some point and thus be incapable of passing a 4473. The deductive chain is at least a lot stronger there. With the exception of a few INDIVIDUALS, the riders broke traffic laws, and the last I heard doing so wasn't a capital offense. Apparently caring about human life except your own is not only unnecessary but IMPOSSIBLE since that's the hidden premise behind your brilliant deduction.

You're yet another who cannot read the law. Great.

Please cite the law requiring a Form 4473 to be used to buy from a licensed dealer who is only operating within a state of the union and not in a federal property.

You're new here but you'd better be ready to back up what you say.

I too used to ride motorcycles but I would NEVER have gotten involved with a MOB such as what was displayed in the videos. The riders in the videos are criminals. When anyone threatens my life they get to meet their maker or suffer in some other way. The riders getting run over asked for it.

 

[Freedom1Man]

Self defense clearly.

The accusations of "indiscriminately" running over bikes ridiculous.

I ride a bike.

What idiotic would decide his bike is going to stop a SUV?

That bears repeating.

 

[Fallschirjmäger]

I ride a bike.

What idiotic would decide his bike is going to stop a SUV?

That bears repeating.

True, but you can see/hear reports of motorists in 4,000lb auto's cutting off and 'brake checking' 80,000lb semi's on an almost weekly basis. They're not trying to "stop", they are trying to inconvenience and then relying on the quicker acceleration of the smaller vehicle to get them away.
It works because most people, even in those that outweigh smaller vehicles have an inherent desire not to be involved in the waste of time and money a traffic accident causes. The smaller, quicker vehicle's operator is almost guaranteed to be able to cause inconvenience and then escape easily from the consequences.

 

[Fallschirjmäger]

It's sad that I formed an initial opinion (prejudicial, I admit) just from reading the lawyer's name and what I've come to know about her. I have formed an opinion about what I expect from her based solely upon previous experiences I've heard about her and that's probably sad.

On the other hand, I've been sprayed by skunks more than once and I've come to expect that when there's a skunk nearby there might be more sprayin', if you catch my drift.