If the whole group is blocking his escape so he can be attacked,they are all taking part in the attack. In order to "hit" the one guy attacking him,he would have to back up,and cut the wheel so he could drive toward the divider. That would also mean he was trying to deliberately hit someone,which he was not. He was not trying to attack back,he was trying to escape. Had there been a space for his car to go through without hitting anyone,i am certain he would have taken it.
The person who holds your arms behind your back while his buddy punches you in the face is also part of the attack, and is also trying to cause you physical harm. This is common sense, and any judge, jury, police officer, etc understands it. You're trying to pull loopholes out of your ass that would even make defense attorneys cringe. How am I supposed to interpret the following statement "The subsequent beating he received pretty definitively says no. had he just let them beat his car, he could have walked away untouched with just a damaged car." other than to assume you are saying that the subsequent beating he received "definitively" showed that he could have walked away untouched if he had let them continue in their first assault? Why do serial killers often torture their victims before killing them? Because they get a thrill out of it. Your made up logic is complete bullshit. The fact they were able to get him out of his SUV so quickly just highlights the importance of getting out of that situation as quickly as possible.
by understanding what I actually stated. before he ran them over, all they were doing was damaging his car. there was still the possibility that was all they were going to do. after he ran them over, the situation was escalated and they escalated their attack and subsequently beat him. you can continue to speculate they would have beaten him anyway, but it is simply fantasy and only supported anecdotally. an anecdotal possibility isn't a stronger argument than the argument supported by facts and evidence which show it had yet to escalate to violence against his person and was targeted against just his property. no what I said at all. I said the subsequent beating showed running them over guaranteed they were going to beat him because that is what occurred. bumping the first cyclist had only shown that they were going to destroy his car. you can continue to ignore what actually occurred, but don't pretend as if you are arguing anything that is backed by evidence and is simply dependent on anecdotal examples. no it doesn't, otherwise they would have gotten him out of the car before he had a chance to run them over if that was their initial intent. you have to now dispute the differences in the situation to show how they aren't different at all and are identical. you can't because they aren't. so you instead simply ignore the differences that dispute your position and want to claim that ignoring the differences is a logical argument. that is nonsense.
no, you would interpret it as such, and you may be wrong or right depending on the specific situation. don't argue what all people would do in a situation, it isn't a reasonable argument. you are dug into your position and now want to make arguments that can neither be validated or disputed with any evidence, which is a meaningless argument. is that really what you want to argue from a position of, meaningless statements that cannot be backed up by supporting evidence.
no, they aren't taking part in the attack, which is why the initial charge against the biker is unlawful imprisonment, not battery. the law clearly doesn't think they are one in the same, especially when considering the victim hadn't yet to be attacked so there was no attack to defend himself against. ask yourself, if your interpretation is correct why is the biker that is currently charged with the initial stop and attack against the car not being charged with an assault or battery against the driver? if your interpretation of the law is correct, he would be. again, actual evidence disputes your position.
They were part of it enough that they put themselves at risk of getting hit by blocking him in. I wasn't arguing that should all be charged with battery,but they should get other charges and the driver should not face anything for putting one of these asses in a coma.
Yes, but that's not what you said. You didn't say there was a "possibility", you said it was definitive. There was also a very strong possibility that the angry people who had surrounded his car, started acting in a violent manner, and some of whom were already brandishing weapons, were going to try to hurt someone if they stuck around. This is the whole idea of "reasonably believing" that "imminent physical harm" was going to occur, which the law states is a justification for physical force in self-defense. Everything is "fantasy" up until the very moment that it happens. When someone pulls a gun on you and pulls the trigger, the danger is still "fantasy" until the moment that the bullet enters your brain and ends your life. Maybe the gun wasn't loaded. Maybe it wasn't even a real gun! But people have the ability to assess other's attitude and behavior and predict what might happen next. When there is a strong possibility that what might happen next is physically harmful, the law calls that an "imminent" threat, and lists it as one of the justifications for self-defense. The law does not expect you to wait for that bullet to enter your brain. It does not expect you to wait to get pulled out of your car and beaten either. Well then again you are wrong. Escaping the situation didn't guarantee they were going to beat him. It gave him a very good opportunity to escape potential harm. Did that happen? No. But it very well could have worked out that way. Most motorcyclists, after seeing their friends get run over by a SUV driver, are not going to get in front of that driver to try to corner him. Even if they did, they likely never would have been able to stop him without other traffic being in his way. Also, when they finally did get him, he was 5 blocks away from a police station, headed in that direction with his wife on the phone with a police dispatcher. Basically he was a couple of minutes, or less, away from sure safety. His actions could have saved him in a number of different ways, even though it did not end that way. No. The fact that someone choooses to terrorize you before they hurt you does not mean that they didn't plan on hurting you. I'm only willing to repeat myself so many times, but both the law and common sense allow you to defend yourself against someone whose behavior is aggressive and threatening, even if they haven't physically touched you yet.
As always JetBlue takes the side of the aggressor. What is this fascination with people inflicting excessive harm on others, and finding loopholes to justify it? The biker was at fault for the accident. The gang was at fault for the rest. They have no right to block traffic for their convenience. A bunch of bikers start attacking my car, I do the same exact shit. They are breaking several laws by doing that. There's no reason to think you aren't in danger at that point.
Not to pile on, but I think this is where you first went wrong. You started out by thinking Range Rover guy must have been at fault, that the motorcyclists wouldn't have bothered him for no reason, and that Range Rover guy must have done something to provoke them. As a rider, I have to confess that this was my first thought, when I heard the first teaser news report. After I found out who the motorcyclists were, I had a pretty good idea of what probably happened. These punks are known for causing trouble. They gang together, intimidate people, and provoke contact just like this, in order to shake people down. The shiny, expensive Range Rover must have been an enticing target. I'm sorry, but your subsequent posts look like those of a defense attorney with a loser of a case, desperately throwing every strained argument out there, hoping against hope, refusing to give up, and not knowing when to stop. I applaud you for the effort. You made some interesting and entertaining arguments, but these punks really do need to be locked up. As for the guy who got hurt, well he's like a guy who joined all his pals in holding up a store. It was supposed to be an easy mark. No one was going to get caught or hurt. Well, the store owner shot him, and now he wants to blame the store owner. He should blame himself and the punks he was with.
I should have been more clear. Any REASONABLE person in that situation wouldn't stop to make sure the members of the mob in their way were the ones directly involved in attacking them before possibly hitting them while fleeing. Since you are unreasonable enough to want to wait to see if they will attack the wife and child before leaving, I guess you might have a different reaction.
