Mob of bikers surround SUV and get run over in NYC

[Brace]

One or two. That's a good one. One or two.

So what's the magic number then? Three? Seven?

 

[eye95]

It was a MOB, behaving as a MOB.

Saying "one or two" is a stupid misrepresentation of what happened.

Get it? Cuz I ain't gonna explain again.

 

[Brace]

You're not even arguing at this point, just making the same baseless assertion over and over again. How many members of a group of people need to be misbehaving to give you the right to use lethal force against the group indiscriminately? Obviously you don't think two is enough. Maybe 10? 20? At what point does it become ok to murder potentially innocent people?

 

[Brace]

Sure, but you don't get to endanger or kill someone and then weasel out of the consequences. You can use whatever basis you like for making decisions but don't expect the law to be sympathetic when you cross the lines it lays down.

 

[Brace]

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.

 

[WalkingWolf]

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.

I agree with you completely on this. If the injured rider had continued on his way instead of being in the way of driver of the SUV escaping he would not have been injured. His participation which brought about his injuries is on him.

 

[WalkingWolf]

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.

Welcome to OCDO. Now since you just arrived on the scene, and seem to personally invested. Are you one of these riders? The injured riders were clearly NOT innocent, if the rider had continued to ride as required by law instead of blocking a vehicle the dumb a$$ would not have been run over.

 

[Brace]

Welcome to OCDO. Now since you just arrived on the scene, and seem to personally invested. Are you one of these riders? The injured riders were clearly NOT innocent, if the rider had continued to ride as required by law instead of blocking a vehicle the dumb a$$ would not have been run over.

I'm not. I'm just distressed by the attitude on display here, which seems to be that if you ever feel endangered, other people's lives suddenly stop having significance even if they aren't the ones endangering you.

 

[WalkingWolf]

I'm not. I'm just distressed by the attitude on display here, which seems to be that if you ever feel endangered, other people's lives suddenly stop having significance even if they aren't the ones endangering you.

Well that is too freaking bad! I am distressed that jack rear side jerks threatened another law abiding citizen to the point of terror. The SUV had no other choice, these back side of donkeys should be charged with terrorism, and the RICO act. I hope they burn in hell for what they did, that family will never get over this, only live with it. It is horrible what those bastids did and I am appalled by someone stepping in with no creds to defend them. Hell I am appalled those with some creds defending these jerks.

I just fined it interesting you show up ONLY to be focused on this one subject. NOT buying it, I think you are one of the riders, this would not be the first time this has happened.

 

[Brace]

I ride a motorcycle, but I'm not one of the riders in question. I live in Colorado. An admin can check my IP address and verify this if they really want to. The overall point I'm making has nothing to do with my feelings but with the excess bias towards condemning others and finding justification for lethal force that exists on these boards. I suppose it's a good thing everyone here carries openly since if you carried concealed, other people wouldn't give you a sufficiently wide berth to prevent you from opening fire on them. Congratulations on being an undisciplined lunatic with a gun.

 

[WalkingWolf]

I ride a motorcycle, but I'm not one of the riders in question. I live in Colorado. An admin can check my IP address and verify this if they really want to. The overall point I'm making has nothing to do with my feelings but with the excess bias towards condemning others and finding justification for lethal force that exists on these boards. I suppose it's a good thing everyone here carries openly since if you carried concealed, other people wouldn't give you a sufficiently wide berth to prevent you from opening fire on them. Congratulations on being an undisciplined lunatic with a gun.

I can get a IP from anywhere in the world, our opinion on these jack wagons has nothing to do with owning a gun or making a person a lunatic. The more you post, the more you divulge, including that you are a anti that makes assumptions and insults based on a members opinion. The real lunatics were these stupid riders who broke numerous laws.

Your insult gives it away that YOU ARE probably one of these riders.

 

[Brace]

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.

 

[stealthyeliminator]

Nice, name call instead of debate. Stay classy.

There is no debating that ALL occupants of the SUV were threatened and endangered by the gang. By saying that only the drive was threatened or endangered, you're lying. The truth is clear. Lying is not classy, either.

Obviously 'citizens arrest' laws differ from state to state. I don't know what NY's are either, and to be honest, I'm not going to spend the time to try to look them up. I don't think it's that important or relevant to the discussion. I was speaking generally, but as I said, even if they would have been justified in making a citizens arrest, and even if they would have been justified in pursuit, legally or morally, that's clearly not what they did or were attempting to do. So, it doesn't matter. It's not a good defense either way.

 

[marshaul]

This is clearly self-defense.

It's equally clear that every apologist for the bikers is also a rider himself, or watched a different video than I did.

 

[georg jetson]

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.

Not really. There's plenty of actual arguments mixed in with some bs and levity. So what... happens all the time.

There is no video evidence either way that the bikers that were injured weren't directly attacking him. For sure the mob they were part of was attacking them.

You don't have to wait to be attacked to defend yourself. If a reasonable person would think that their life or the life of their family is endangered then they may act in self defense.

Someone part of a mob, doing mob things, doesn't get to claim innocence when the mob they are part of commits a crime. That would be analogous to the get-a-way driver defending himself by saying he didn't actually rob the bank.

BTW - welcome to OCDO!

 

[JustaShooter]

This is clearly self-defense.

It's equally clear that every apologist for the bikers is also a rider himself, or watched a different video than I did.

And apparently read different witness reports as well - remember, after the "bump" (I'll not call it an accident because it wasn't, and it also wasn't a wreck), the mob of bikers started beating on the SUV and slashed its tires. Yes, it is remotely possible that some of the participants in this mob were unaware of what was happening, however unlikely that may be, but they were still accomplices and I feel little remorse for those that were injured when the driver of the SUV plowed through them.

I cannot recall which wise person told me this, but the best way to stay out of trouble is to not do stupid things in stupid places with stupid people. You can usually get away with violating one one, often two, but rarely can you escape unscathed when you violate all three.

 

[georg jetson]

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.

Or they could be a group of gay supremacists like yourself. However if a group of gay supremacists like yourself attempts to falsely arrest, detain and assault someone minding their own business, it would be understandable if that person does what it takes to defend himself. Even if some of the gay supremacists like yourself are harmed injured or killed in the process. We would not be talking about a street full of random people, but a group of gay supremacists like yourself acting together with the intent to harm others.

 

[Brace]

Not really. There's plenty of actual arguments mixed in with some bs and levity. So what... happens all the time.

There is no video evidence either way that the bikers that were injured weren't directly attacking him. For sure the mob they were part of was attacking them.

You don't have to wait to be attacked to defend yourself. If a reasonable person would think that their life or the life of their family is endangered then they may act in self defense.

Someone part of a mob, doing mob things, doesn't get to claim innocence when the mob they are part of commits a crime. That would be analogous to the get-a-way driver defending himself by saying he didn't actually rob the bank.

BTW - welcome to OCDO!

Thanks. Thanks for advancing the discussion also.

The lack of video evidence is, in conjunction with legal presumption of innocence, sufficient to cast doubt on the guilt of the injured bikers. I don't deny that it's reasonable they may have been guilty, I just don't think it's true beyond a shadow of a doubt.

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.

 

[georg jetson]

And apparently read different witness reports as well - remember, after the "bump" (I'll not call it an accident because it wasn't, and it also wasn't a wreck), the mob of bikers started beating on the SUV and slashed its tires. Yes, it is remotely possible that some of the participants in this mob were unaware of what was happening, however unlikely that may be, but they were still accomplices and I feel little remorse for those that were injured when the driver of the SUV plowed through them.

Very good point and one I'd like to expound upon. It has been status quo in the 50 states for someone involved in an accident that has front end damage to take the blame for the accident(typically). This is especially true in cases where the other vehicle has rear end damage. We're all responsible for the direction we're traveling. We make this assumption because historically we don't have video to give us an instant replay. In this case however, the biker specifically illegally forced the suv to stop and we have video for instant replay. The biker is not deserving of the usual assumption. If there was an "accident", it was clearly the biker's fault.

I cannot recall which wise person told me this, but the best way to stay out of trouble is to not do stupid things in stupid places with stupid people. You can usually get away with violating one one, often two, but rarely can you escape unscathed when you violate all three.

Amen!

 

[JustaShooter]

Thanks. Thanks for advancing the discussion also.

The lack of video evidence is, in conjunction with legal presumption of innocence, sufficient to cast doubt on the guilt of the injured bikers. I don't deny that it's reasonable they may have been guilty, I just don't think it's true beyond a shadow of a doubt.

There are also witness statements that show the bikers slashed the SUVs tires and were beating on the vehicle before it plowed through them.

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.

Except this mob has shown this behavior in the past, they were not "just a large group of bikers out for an unspecified "event" - do a little Googling, watch their videos and read the reports. This is not their first rodeo.