Mob of bikers surround SUV and get run over in NYC

[georg jetson]

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.

I can see your argument, but we must weigh things out. We must walk a mile in the other's moccasins.

(From the suv point of view) The driver of the suv was illegally stopped and detained. Further, he may have been hit by the biker's rear tire and realizes that this was on purpose. The adrenalin is rising because the gentleman has his wife and child with him and doesn't understand what's happening. Some biker advances in an obviously threatening manner.

(From the injured biker's point of view) The biker is riding with a large number of other bikes looking to illegally stop and detain innocent people in order to perform illegal wreck-less operating. The biker may be a nice guy and just loves the thrill of skin removal at 100mph. He's appalled to find that he's just been run over.

Now ask yourself... why should the law favor the latter?

 

[Brace]

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

Different bikers though. Somewhat by definition since the injured bikers were on their bikes when they were hit, which would have prevented them from personally beating on the vehicle or slashing the tires.

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.

Alright, fair point. Prior history has to be taken into account.

I can see your argument, but we must weigh things out. We must walk a mile in the other's moccasins.

(From the suv point of view) The driver of the suv was illegally stopped and detained. Further, he may have been hit by the biker's rear tire and realizes that this was on purpose. The adrenalin is rising because the gentleman has his wife and child with him and doesn't understand what's happening. Some biker advances in an obviously threatening manner.

(From the injured biker's point of view) The biker is riding with a large number of other bikes looking to illegally stop and detain innocent people in order to perform illegal wreck-less operating. The biker may be a nice guy and just loves the thrill of skin removal at 100mph. He's appalled to find that he's just been run over.

Now ask yourself... why should the law favor the latter?

I don't think it should favor the latter, just balance the interests of all innocent parties to the extent of their innocence. The injured bikers are known beyond a doubt to have been guilty of violating traffic law and asserted to have illegally detained the SUV driver (a matter of legal definition. I don't know enough about the law to take this at face value). They were not necessarily guilty of collusion in assault, harassment and property destruction. The SUV driver was guilty (by technicality or no) of hitting a motorcycle, then later of running over a number of bikers who may or may not have been guilty of collusion in assault, harassment, and property destruction. I'm not saying put the man in prison, but a fine or community service seems necessary just to establish that yes, running people over is serious even when you had a good reason to take the actions that you did, at least to the extent the people you ran over weren't directly and unambiguously that reason.

 

[JustaShooter]

Different bikers though. Somewhat by definition since the injured bikers were on their bikes when they were hit, which would have prevented them from personally beating on the vehicle or slashing the tires.

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.

I don't think it should favor the latter, just balance the interests of all innocent parties to the extent of their innocence. The injured bikers are known beyond a doubt to have been guilty of violating traffic law and asserted to have illegally detained the SUV driver (a matter of legal definition. I don't know enough about the law to take this at face value). They were not necessarily guilty of collusion in assault, harassment and property destruction. The SUV driver was guilty (by technicality or no) of hitting a motorcycle, then later of running over a number of bikers who may or may not have been guilty of collusion in assault, harassment, and property destruction. I'm not saying put the man in prison, but a fine or community service seems necessary just to establish that yes, running people over is serious even when you had a good reason to take the actions that you did, at least to the extent the people you ran over weren't directly and unambiguously that reason.

I strongly disagree. The SUV driver was in a circumstance where he, his wife and child were in imminent danger of being beaten or possibly killed. He had no alternatives, and should not be punished in any way, shape or form because his only means of escape injured an *accomplice* to the assault.

 

[Brace]

I guess the point of disagreement is that they were accomplices beyond a shadow of a doubt, rather than people in the wrong place at the wrong time. If you could establish your premise I would concede the argument.

 

[georg jetson]

Different bikers though. Somewhat by definition since the injured bikers were on their bikes when they were hit, which would have prevented them from personally beating on the vehicle or slashing the tires.



Alright, fair point. Prior history has to be taken into account.



I don't think it should favor the latter, just balance the interests of all innocent parties to the extent of their innocence. The injured bikers are known beyond a doubt to have been guilty of violating traffic law and asserted to have illegally detained the SUV driver (a matter of legal definition. I don't know enough about the law to take this at face value). They were not necessarily guilty of collusion in assault, harassment and property destruction. The SUV driver was guilty (by technicality or no) of hitting a motorcycle, then later of running over a number of bikers who may or may not have been guilty of collusion in assault, harassment, and property destruction. I'm not saying put the man in prison, but a fine or community service seems necessary just to establish that yes, running people over is serious even when you had a good reason to take the actions that you did, at least to the extent the people you ran over weren't directly and unambiguously that reason.

Why punish a man trying to protect himself and his family? If he had a good reason to take the actions he did then why punish him? Exactly what crime do you convict a man of that was trying to defend himself and his family from a thug mob?

The suv driver is NOT guilty of hitting a motorcycle. If there was any contact, it was the fault of the thug motorcyclist.

You admit you "don't know enough about the law to take this at face value". You obviously don't know how serious of a crime it is to hold someone against their will. Legally that is reason enough for someone to defend themselves... even against law enforcement! Resisting unlawful arrest is lawful.

The totality of the evidence presented on the video shows clearly that the driver of the suv was correct in believing his life was endangered. Period

BTW - Do you open carry a properly holstered firearm often? occasionally?

 

[georg jetson]

I guess the point of disagreement is that they were accomplices beyond a shadow of a doubt, rather than people in the wrong place at the wrong time. If you could establish your premise I would concede the argument.

Will you stipulate that they new that they were with a group that was intending to stop traffic so that they could gain access to a public road?

 

[Brace]

Why punish a man trying to protect himself and his family? If he had a good reason to take the actions he did then why punish him? Exactly what crime do you convict a man of that was trying to defend himself and his family from a thug mob?

You keep using these terms like "thug mob" that presuppose certain things that haven't been proven. It's begging the question. If you defend yourself with a gun and hurt bystanders, there's a punishment for that. The punishment is measured against the circumstances but it's still necessary. The point of contention is that the people injured were part of a thug mob. So to answer your question, you don't convict a man that injured members of a thug mob, but I'm not convinced that's what happened here.

The suv driver is NOT guilty of hitting a motorcycle. If there was any contact, it was the fault of the thug motorcyclist.

I have to disagree with this as well. If you're too close to someone, back up. Minimum following distance is something everyone should know and obey when they're on the road, they shouldn't just get in the reactionary habit of only breaking or slowing down when they see a tail light turn on. Failing to do this is tailgating. There's no such crime as being too close to someone from the front.

You admit you "don't know enough about the law to take this at face value". You obviously don't know how serious of a crime it is to hold someone against their will. Legally that is reason enough for someone to defend themselves... even against law enforcement! Resisting unlawful arrest is lawful.

I meant that I don't know that pulling to a stop on the road in an obstructive way counts as detainment.

The totality of the evidence presented on the video shows clearly that the driver of the suv was correct in believing his life was endangered. Period

Yes, this is true. The question is whether he was endangered by the people he ran over.

BTW - Do you open carry a properly holstered firearm often? occasionally?

Daily, for over a year now. Although for the bulk of that time I carried a Kel Tec P-11 using its belt clip, which might not count as "properly holstered". Currently I carry a Sig P-238 and an NAA .22wmr mini-revolver, both in holsters, both concealed.

Will you stipulate that they new that they were with a group that was intending to stop traffic so that they could gain access to a public road?

I think this needs supporting evidence. Even if the group had a history of this behavior, new riders can join an established group without knowing their practices. Certainly a history would be half of the necessary supporting evidence, the other half would be corroborating that the injured bikers specifically were part of prior group rides in which this behavior occurred. If both of those things were established (either hypothetically, since I doubt anyone wants to put the effort in and they shouldn't really have to, or actually), then I would completely concede the argument. I think guilt is probable here, I just refuse to condemn without the necessary information.

 

[HandyHamlet]

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.

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

Incorrect, Sir.

That has got to be the dumbest thing posted in this mess of a thread. Squids are Squids. Ask one. Bikers are bikers. Ask one. A Squid is not a biker and a biker is not a Squid. Nice try trying to rewrite an entire culture because you posted about something you were unaware of. Give it a rest already. No disrespect intended.

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

Link to eyewitness statements please. Not just the poorly written blurbs that claim the tires were slashed. Thanks.

How does the freak behind the wheel drive for miles on flat tires? And why is there no visible damage to the SUV until the very end when he finally gets caught? Rhetorical question, we already know the facts don't matter.

 

[HandyHamlet]

NAA .22wmr mini-revolver

Oh ****. Now you did it. Now the caliber queens are gonna crawl out into the light to rake you over the coals. EVERYONE knows .22s have no place in self defense. Only the lordly .45 1911 shall ever be mentioned. (rolling eyes) Even though the 283 is a 1911 basically.


Further down the rabbit hole we go.

 

[onus]

Based on the two videos I have seen of this incident I can clearly see about 15 riders who are also wearing cameras.

I am guessing none of these guys are going to release their videos to the police or public because they incriminate the motorcyclists.

 

[georg jetson]

You keep using these terms like "thug mob" that presuppose certain things that haven't been proven. It's begging the question. If you defend yourself with a gun and hurt bystanders, there's a punishment for that. The punishment is measured against the circumstances but it's still necessary. The point of contention is that the people injured were part of a thug mob. So to answer your question, you don't convict a man that injured members of a thug mob, but I'm not convinced that's what happened here.

The video shows the actions of a thug mob. What's to debate?

As to your question about hurting bystanders while defending yourself, that does not apply here... unless of course you're telling me that the injured bikers had no knowledge of who they were riding with or why. Maybe you're saying they weren't riding with the group, but just happened to be in the same place as the mob rode by. Please tell us your theory. How are these injured bikers innocent bystanders?

I have to disagree with this as well. If you're too close to someone, back up. Minimum following distance is something everyone should know and obey when they're on the road, they shouldn't just get in the reactionary habit of only breaking or slowing down when they see a tail light turn on. Failing to do this is tailgating. There's no such crime as being too close to someone from the front.

The suv was close to no one until the biker purposefully cut him off and the purposefully attempted to illegally stop the suv. This is plain in the video.

I meant that I don't know that pulling to a stop on the road in an obstructive way counts as detainment.

Really? How is one not detained if they can leave of there own free will because another is purposefully preventing it.

Yes, this is true. The question is whether he was endangered by the people he ran over.

He was obviously endangered by the entire thug mob.

Daily, for over a year now. Although for the bulk of that time I carried a Kel Tec P-11 using its belt clip, which might not count as "properly holstered". Currently I carry a Sig P-238 and an NAA .22wmr mini-revolver, both in holsters, both concealed.

Great!!! Hope you'll hang around for a while.

I think this needs supporting evidence. Even if the group had a history of this behavior, new riders can join an established group without knowing their practices. Certainly a history would be half of the necessary supporting evidence, the other half would be corroborating that the injured bikers specifically were part of prior group rides in which this behavior occurred. If both of those things were established (either hypothetically, since I doubt anyone wants to put the effort in and they shouldn't really have to, or actually), then I would completely concede the argument. I think guilt is probable here, I just refuse to condemn without the necessary information.

Do you think the injured bikers were ignorant of the fact that the suv was forcibly stopped?

 

[Brace]

The video shows the actions of a thug mob. What's to debate?

This isn't a question made in good faith. Don't do this again.

As to your question about hurting bystanders while defending yourself, that does not apply here... unless of course you're telling me that the injured bikers had no knowledge of who they were riding with or why. Maybe you're saying they weren't riding with the group, but just happened to be in the same place as the mob rode by. Please tell us your theory. How are these injured bikers innocent bystanders?

I've already explained alternate possibilities and stipulated exactly what I would need to be satisfied with guilt. If you need to review those possibilities please read my previous posts.

The suv was close to no one until the biker purposefully cut him off and the purposefully attempted to illegally stop the suv. This is plain in the video.

The SUV had three full seconds when the biker was in front of him before the biker brake-checked him, and for several moments the biker was beside him within the same lane, which although illegal, should have prompted the application of brakes as well. If braking would have lead to a tailgating biker colliding with the SUV then that genuinely would have been the biker's fault.

Really? How is one not detained if they can leave of there own free will because another is purposefully preventing it.

The "purposefully" isn't established.

He was obviously endangered by the entire thug mob.

Your insistent terminology is making it hard to take you seriously, but again, the question is whether all of the "thug mob" were intentionally endangering him.

Great!!! Hope you'll hang around for a while.

We'll see. I'm an engineering student and mostly came here to have some practical questions answered. My background and interests don't overlap hugely with the average gun owner so there's a limited cross-section of places where I feel compelled to interact in any way.

Do you think the injured bikers were ignorant of the fact that the suv was forcibly stopped?

It's possible. It's also possible that they were aware, but thought the forcible stopping was for peaceful reasons like the exchange of insurance information.

 

[HandyHamlet]

My background and interests don't overlap hugely with the average gun owner...

I dream of the day this place is inhabited by the average firearms owner.

I am guessing none of these guys are going to release their videos to the police or public because they incriminate the motorcyclists.

I'm guessing they are saving their video for the upcoming civil lawsuit against the insane driver. Since the video we already have shows an undamaged SUV driving over people. I'm also guessing it will be a cold winter. And I'm guessing I may get in one or two more days of fishing in. Even though I never catch anything.

 

[marshaul]

I guess the point of disagreement is that they were accomplices beyond a shadow of a doubt, rather than people in the wrong place at the wrong time. If you could establish your premise I would concede the argument.

Anyone in this mob who decided in would be a good idea to place their vehicle in front of his was definitely an accomplice. You make it sound like the driver was indiscriminately running over random bikers, GTA-style (perhaps turning back around for a second pass?). Everyone who got hit was, obviously and necessarily, among those directly responsible for his illegal capture.

If I have to shoot my way to the door to escape, and you're standing in it, then you're involved. If you weren't, you wouldn't be there.

Oh, and it doesn't matter at what point they damaged his car. They illegally stopped him, boxed him in, and in doing so gave him every reason to fear for himself his family. Furthermore, the accident changes nothing, because they caused it during their illegal capture of this man and his family (you can be responsible for being rear ended, if the other guy can prove you directly caused it). There's no "citizens' arrest" here, no "insane driver". There's only a group acting exactly like a gang, and capturing a man and his family during the course of their juvenile attempts to hijack the road for their little stunts.

Self-defense.

 

[Brace]

Anyone in this mob who decided in would be a good idea to place their vehicle in front of his was definitely an accomplice. You make it sound like the driver was indiscriminately running over random bikers, GTA-style (perhaps turning back around for a second pass?). Everyone who got hit was, obviously and necessarily, among those directly responsible for his illegal capture and the subsequent violent actions.

Out riding with some friends and the group they introduced you to

Get out in front because you don't like riding so close to other people

Pass SUV

Suddenly hear a crumpling sound, tires squealing, bikes braking

Look over your shoulder, see everyone coming to a stop, follow suit so as to stay with the group

What the hell is goi-OH GOD I'M BEING RUN OVER

If I have to shoot my way to the door to escape, and you're standing in it, then you're involved. If you weren't, you wouldn't be there.

I can think of an awful lot of common reasons to be in a doorway that aren't malicious, even in a crisis scenario. A person runs to the door to escape upon hearing gunshots, then realizes they've left their family behind and need to go back for them. By your logic that person is now dead. A person is walking in the doorway and freezes in their tracks when the shooting starts because they don't know how to respond. By your logic that person is now dead. A plainclothes police officer rushes to the scene of gunfire as a first responder. By your logic that person is now dead. And so forth.

When you use a word like "necessary", it should actually mean "necessary". What you're really arguing is that it's probable, which I don't deny, but don't consider sufficient.

 

[marshaul]

I can think of an awful lot of common reasons to be in a doorway that aren't malicious, even in a crisis scenario.

Maybe in your scenario. Not in mine, which is actually analogous to this event. :lol:

I ain't gonna play that game.

Again, any biker who intentionally placed their vehicle in front of his is necessarily involved. Again, these were the only bikers he hit, for obvious reasons.

These are self-evident observations. Your denial only underlines that your apologia comes from an emotional, rather than logical, place.

Your story (the one in italics), while cute, has nothing to do with what is displayed in the video.

 

[Brace]

Maybe in your scenario. Not in mine, which is actually analogous to this event. :lol:

Only because you've prejudicially decided on your interpretation of the event in advance of evidence or deliberation.

Again, any biker who intentionally placed their vehicle in front of his is necessarily involved. Again, these were the only bikers he hit, for obvious reasons.

Intent isn't established. You're assuming it.

These are self-evident observations. Your denial only underlines that your apologia comes from an emotional, rather than logical, place.

And gun control is common sense. People who like guns are just compensating for some insecurity or acting out of emotional instability.

You don't know what logic means, or what any of the terms associated with logic means, so I'm not going to accept your authority on logic as sufficient for casting judgement on me. Emotion and logic aren't even formally at odds, that kind of dualism has been dead in legitimate philosophy for half a thousand years or more.

Your story (the one in italics), while cute, has nothing to do with what is displayed in the video.

You have no idea what you're looking at in that video and neither do I. Welcome to the real world.

 

[marshaul]

Only because you've prejudicially decided on your interpretation of the event in advance of evidence or deliberation.

Pot, kettle.

Intent isn't established. You're assuming it.

It's evident. Go back and watch the video.

You don't know what logic means, or what any of the terms associated with logic means, so I'm not going to accept your authority on logic as sufficient for casting judgement on me.

:lol:

Sure, we can go there.

Emotion and logic aren't even formally at odds, that kind of dualism has been dead in legitimate philosophy for half a thousand years or more.

"Formally at odds"? Don't make me laugh. What do you even imagine that means?

Emotion and logic are practically at odds, as you can see from the apologia by obvious bikers in this very thread.

And, no, emotion and logic aren't necessarily or inherently at odds. (But then, I never implied otherwise.) They merely are in your case. :lol:

 

[Brace]

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

 

[WalkingWolf]

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 are showing how incredibly ignorant you are. Besides the fact that your constant insults and stupid asinine assumptions clearly demonstrate that YOU are not playing with a full deck. The same as your buddies in the video. Hopefully NYPD catches up to you if you were one of them.