Thanks to their stupidity In filming and posting,hopefully the eyes will be out for these assholes and their ride will be over.
Talked to a friend in ny law enforcement today. Turns out 1 turned himself in and they have picked up a few more. The fines are going to be big,then the child endangerment charge could give some up to 15 years. Bye bye assholes
there is no doubt the biker caused the initial accident. the question was what insitigated them to harass the driver? that doesn't mean whatever it was that instigated them to harass him justified their actions, just that something had to occur for them to decide to harass him. there was an action and a subsequent reaction. that doesn't equate to the reaction being justified, just that there was something that occurred to instigate it. the same for the driver running them over, which was a reaction was caused by the bikers destroying his car. just because the reaction had a cause doesn't equate to the reaction being justified. even the Chief of Police agrees with me that whether the driver was justified will depend on the totality of the situation: http://news.yahoo.com/wife-biker-husband-victim-nyc-altercation-063414964.html so either he and I are both idiots, or everyone is over simplifying the situation to fit into their own neat ideas that aren't supported by the laws.
of course it is an assumption, only an idiot would attempt to criticize it as such. and as such, there is a broader relevance to the position -- that there was an incident taht occurred before the video that caused the bikers to harass him. maybe I am wrong about the exact incident, but that doesn't negate the actual point of my argument -- that there was something that occurred from the driver (or his family) that caused the bikers to harass him. to dispute my specific "guess" of what that incident may have been and think it defeats the actual point, that there was an incident, is what someone who can't grasp meaning would think is actually an argument. the specific assumption was secondary to the point, which is the primary argument. you can't dispute the primary argument, so you are now grasping at straws and trying to deflate the assumption that nobody could assume I was even attempting to declare was a fact. only an idiot would think I was coming from such a position. congratulations for fitting that bill.
Kelly's comments just point the fact that they will go through the procedures . By watching their videos I would bet their recklessness caused the driver to at worst flick them off. After that they decided to become terrorists and thugs. Word is they are a bunch of groups that were already bBing looked at for their lawless menacing ways on the roads,and covering their actions with numbers.
I have already agreed that they are scumbags and got what they deserve. the question is whether attempting to kill someone, and running over someone intentionally can easily be described as such and validated by the law, is justified just because they are destroying your car. it is nice to see that they got run over emotionally, but we are talking about legal justification, not simply about making us feel good about some assholes getting what they deserve.
Your first words, repeat first words out of the block was a perjorative assumption that the beleagured SUV driver did something to bring it on himself--BEFORE you had any facts to go with. That was it in a nutshell-had nothing to do with viewing it in the "greater context." Again, I was simply referring to your out-of-line cynicism. Idiot.
I see what you're saying. I'm pretty sure he will be justified by law,his only escape was through them,as they had him blocked in. I'm sure if anyone who is cornered in the middle of the highway does not think they just want to hurt his car. The case itself is easy.
it is not cynicism, it is reason. do you think the bikers simply arbitrarily harassed him, or there was a preceding incident? which is more likely? that isn't cynicism to say it is more likely that something happened. the problem you have painted yourself into is that you are committing the exact same assumption to dispute my position, just the opposite side. if you are criticizing the assumption that something occurred to instigate the harassment, you are inherently taking the position that it is more likely to assume nothing occurred to instigate it. problem is you have no facts to support that position either. if you aren't taking a stand whatsoever, you can't criticize either position, that something or nothing happened. so you are not only an idiot but now a hypocrite.
if they are just slashing his tires and denting his car, I don't think that necessarily means the person that is frightened should automatically assume they are going to break into his car and kill him. now, if they came after his window or tried to open his door, then yes, it is easy to come to that conclusion. but what was going on at that moment isn't very visible in the video. the question is does being frightened provide him the leeway to over react? I am not so much concerned with or advocating that he should be prosecuted, but I don't think it is so simple as the idea that he is completely justified in trying to kill them just because his car was being damaged, which is all we know at this time. likely, the deciding factor will be his daughter was in the car and it was reasonable to over react out of fear for her safety. that is the legal side of the argument. there is another side to the situation though that everyone seems to be ignoring. had he not run them over, maybe al they would have done is damaged his car and left. that is what car insurance is for. abyzmul, the simpleton, wants to mock that without actually grasping that is the only point of mentioning insurance. but by running them over, what did he bring upon himself. he got his ass kicked and faced fucked up? was that worth it to run them over and get himself nearly killed rather than just let him destroy his car? I guess that is what health insurance is for, right abyzmul, to inflame a situation and actually put your life in danger just to protect your car and not have to worry about making a claim against your car insurance.
It's reasonable to assume that a mob acting together beating on your car when you have your wife and kid in the car aren't looking to exchange license and registration and wait for the police to fill out a report. The minute this guys started working over his car the guy had every right to protect his family and property. This wasn't individual bikers who happened to be in a swarm, they were a gang, turned into a mob. Sorry the kid got run over. I'm glad this was stopped before these maniacs hurt his wife and kid. The fact that one of these assholes slashed him says it all. As someone who rides a bike often, I give Asian drivers a wide birth. No offense to my Asian bros and hoes.
he didn't try to kill anyone ,he tried to get away . And I dont believe there are many people's in that situation that would be comfortable with thinking they will prob just wreck my car. Its not everyday a gang of 40+completely stop traffic and act out mad max Times.
let's look past whether it was justified. knowing the outcome, was it the wise move to run them over and instigating their buddies to chase him down and fuck him up? or would it have been wiser to let them just destroy his car and move on? let's not assume, absent of any eye witness testimony to the contrary, that all they were doing was destroying his car. take a position only in account of what is known. they were destroying his car, he ran the over, so they fucked him up. was it worth running them over and putting his life in actual jeopardy when all that was in danger up to that point was his car?
