OC for ME
Regular Member
Motorcyclists are motorcyclists, this is true, not all obey the law, as the videos in this thread display for any who care to see what they are looking at.
-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
Mob of bikers surround SUV and get run over in NYC
- Thread starter Kirbinator
- Start date
stealthyeliminator
Regular Member
Uploaded with ImageShack.us
notice the window of the wife is smashed in ?
I wish the range rover driver had a gun.
Cementing the fact that david.ross is a flat out liar, IMO. Thanks for posting the picture.
ETA: Beating a dead horse I think but a 'citizens arrest' wouldn't have been valid (not that they were legitimately attempting such anyway, this is a case of pure violence) because they pursued the SUV without a reasonable belief that the SUV drive posed an immediate danger to the life of others. As soon as he left the scene, the bikers had no right to pursue, even if they could have originally made a legitimate citizens arrest (which they couldn't have). Basically, authority to arrest and authority to pursue are separate and require different justifications. IMO in this case the bikers lacked justification for both, but even if you believed they had authority to arrest, that doesn't mean they had authority to pursue. So, the position as a whole is flawed despite the details which clearly show they had no authority to do either.
There was something else I was going to reply to... Can't remember. It'll take a while to dig through all 5 pages of this behemoth of a thread.
Last edited:
OC for ME
Regular Member
Update
It seems that premeditated lawlessness is manifest.
HandyHamlet
Regular Member
Or the truth is coming out.
Wrong. Don't obey the law? Not a motorcyclist. Biker? Squid? Stunt rider? Maybe.
A clip is just a mag. Right?
Last edited:
OC for ME
Regular Member
The truth is coming out that lawlessness was premeditated. Motorcyclists, squid, biker, stunt rider.....all the same. Your attempt to change this fact is a noble cause, prey continue.
david.ross
Regular Member
Nice, name call instead of debate. Stay classy.
I'm getting more of the eye for an eye feel out of the whole event. The SUV driver shouldn't have ran over people at random.
While I don't know New York's citizen's arrest laws, however a citizens arrest would be valid in many states as laws allow pursuit. Try to do some research next time before speaking so I don't have to correct you on an open forum.
So if a small group of open carriers committed a crime during an OC event and the media portrayed the whole group as an organized mob, you'd support that too?
to anyone calling people squids, many are clearly wearing armored jackets and back armor. Squids are usually the people who wear nothing except a tshirt and shorts/jeans. Don't try confusing the issue by labeling everyone there, unless you want to also label every gun owners as the fringe open carriers or those who commit crime with a gun.
WalkingWolf
Regular Member
It would take a moron to not realize that the driver of the SUV was in fear for his family and his life. He was justified to use deadly force, and the only form was his vehicle. The a$$holes brought it on themselves. This incident colors all people who ride unfortunately, and all should be prosecuted including for traffic offenses that broke the law. The remainder should be ashamed of themselves for not stepping up to stop the insanity. Again hopefully HA takes care of this problem.
Fallschirjmäger
Active member
Incorrect, Sir. One, magazine has a different lexicographical (that means dictionary) meaning than clip.
Two what you are implying is - -
that it's not black people who riot, it's the N:cuss:,
It's not the white people that are racist, just the honkies,
It's not the police that are bad, just the pigs,
It's not just the automobile drivers that don't respect motorcyclists, just the cagers.
When you call one sub-set of people by a discriminatory name, you tar everyone in the same group with the same brush. A mature adult shouldn't stoop to such tactics and neither should you.
noname762
Regular Member
I had never heard the phrase 'Cager' till the last 3 days or so. I drive a truck as opposed to a car. I also drive like a responsible adult as opposed to the riff raff of these rice rocket maggots. The maggot with 2 broken legs, a broken back and like as not a paraplegic for the rest of his days will have lots of time to reflect on his deeds in the years to come.
I trust his parents will eventually learn the error of their ways raising their son to be a lawless puke. I can only hope they don't raise any more kids.
I trust his parents will eventually learn the error of their ways raising their son to be a lawless puke. I can only hope they don't raise any more kids.
david.ross
Regular Member
So you're going to damn a biker merely by association even though he may have not committed any crime? The guy was hit due to a driver trying to get away from other people. If you were hit by a stray bullet from a self defense case, what would you be thinking?
Stay classy with the insults and insinuation.
The SUV driver is asian, what's your point? #racismonopencarrydotorg
What the **** happened to the online open carry community? You're being no better than people who watch the media and believe every word of it without looking at all the sides.
georg jetson
Regular Member
Lol!! What would a gay supremacist know about classy.
Guilt by association is a fallacy regardless of how homosexual someone is, but a disciplined biker should carefully vet anyone they intend to ride with anyway. Riding a bike is one of those things... you're not formally responsible for the behavior of anyone else on the road, but if you don't act like it's your responsibility to be aware of it and respond appropriately then you're going to end up a smear on the highway either way. This was just one more risk that someone with a proper mentality should have been able to avoid. Not to victim blame, I think ultimately the driver bears the burden of responsibility for injuring (potentially) innocent parties, but there are clear extenuating circumstances which should lessen the seriousness of the consequences they face, and certainly the bikers who were injured could have stayed out of harm's way if they'd been thinking more clearly.
Last edited:
eye95
Well-known member
This is not a situation of "guilt by association." This is voluntary participation in a mob that is, as a group, illegally threatening a person, making him reasonably believe that he and his family were in imminent mortal danger. It was reasonable for him to escape the mob--even if that meant some of the mob are injured or killed as a result. Anyone participating in the collective action of the mob is as guilty as everyone else in the mob.
This was a mob of thugs and bullies who are responsible for every bad thing that happened to anyone during their mob action.
This was a mob of thugs and bullies who are responsible for every bad thing that happened to anyone during their mob action.
That's convenient, but I don't buy it. You're just trying to define a special case where guilt by association is valid. Even if you were successful in that respect we would still need to know more about the situation and the mindset of the bikers who were injured. The mentality you're promoting would support opening fire with lethal ammunition on a group of protesters if two or three of them started breaking windows.
That's equally convenient...these are not protestors. Even if they are protestors, I don't think it is unreasonable to believe that my life is in danger should they choose to break windows in a location I am currently in, be it my car, my home or a place of business. I really don't want to sit around and wait if they are just being "rowdy" or what have you.
Last edited:
No, but let's consider some different possibilities here:
1. The group was a mob who felt entitled to the entire street and harassed a man to produce an excuse for a fight. The injured bikers were party to this mentality and when they parked in front of the SUV, it was their intention to prevent him from escaping so that he could be more effectively harassed, have his property destroyed, be injured, or whatever.
This is the interpretation most people are proposing
2. Some of the group genuinely had this mob mentality and acted accordingly. When one of the biker's brake-checked the SUV to produce the excuse for a fight, however, the injured bikers didn't realize that was what was happening due to their attention being split between multiple things, so they thought the SUV had just hit the biker. They parked in front of the SUV to keep the SUV from escaping because they thought the intention was for the situation to be resolved peacefully by discussion and the exchange of insurance information.
3. The injured biker's weren't paying attention at all since their eyes were forward, but when they heard something serious happening behind them (tires squealing, bikes revving down etc), they stopped primarily to gawk and watch the scene; in essence they were rubbernecking, like idiots are prone to do with all accidents, and didn't realize what was actually happening until it was too late.
In the second two scenarios the injured biker's aren't really a party to the harassment and assault, and you'll need to work hard to convince me that these scenarios aren't completely within the realm of plausibility. Granted, they can't be proven given the limited knowledge of the situation (nor can the first scenario), but at least legally there's always an assumption of innocence whenever there's a reasonable doubt. I think there's reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the injured bikers (but certainly not as to the guilt of those who actually harassed and assaulted the man and destroyed his property).
That's completely understandable. If in the course of shooting at the people who broke your windows though, you hit other protesters, you should be prepared to face the consequences of this, just as if you run over people who weren't breaking your windows when trying to escape from those who are. It's a mitigating circumstance but it doesn't completely absolve you of responsibility. Cases like this are why judges should be allowed discretion in sentencing.
Last edited:
david.ross
Regular Member
They could easily be open carriers during a OC march. Just because one or two breaks the law doesn't give anyone the right to gun everyone down.
People can peacefully ride together, peaceful assembly and all, but unfortunately a small portion of the people ended up engaging in unlawful activity.
eye95
Well-known member
One or two. That's a good one. One or two.