Not to beat a dead horse (others posting here have summed this up much better than I could), but to think that this guy and his family were engaged on "a level playing field" is as absurd as the following scenario (however lame): The SUV guy with his wife and 2-year old girl had nothing to worry about; nothing to justify him fleeing in a panic? Sure... .
that depends on the laws of the state you live in. it certainly isn't an absolute law and that isn't what I have argued. I am happy to let the law make that decision whether he was right based on the situation, but nobody in this thread has provided any legal example or evidence that his actions were legally justified, so it is an opinion that he should have had that right, as opposed to a declaration that he had that right legally. and I am not condemning him for being scared and responding accordingly. but was it the right decision or did he over react when all that would have been damaged was his car (because that was all that was being damaged to begin with)? 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. his possible over reaction, even if justified, put his life and health in danger. I don't know how you make decisions, but I would certainly rather have my car damaged then get my ass kicked unconscious and my face cut up. I am not pretty enough to begin with to make scars look bad ass. he certainly didn't do anything to deserve it. that isn't the question. the question is could he have avoided getting his ass kicked and almost killed if he just let them destroy his car? except when the bikers actually got a hold of the driver, they did not touch the wife or the baby, so your possibility not only is a weak appeal to emotion or extreme argument, but the totality of the situation and what occurred reveals that it was very unlikely taht would have occurred. again, your dependence on making appeals to emotion or extreme arguments, and that is what the "stab your wife for the second time" question is, reflects an inherently weak argument.
nice strawman, but since I am the only person who has taken a contrary stance in this thread and thus this could only be directed at my argument, and I have never stated that he wasn't justified to be terrified and fleeing, you are continuing to make a poor argument or dispute anything I have said.
Okay now you have finally agreed he was slashed beat up and had his property destroyed without provocation. As to your hypothetical question. The answer is who the fuck knows.
I am calling total bullshit on this one pal. 1st of this was no "leisurely motorcycle run on a Sunday afternoon" These guys were out to cause trouble, that motorcycle club has a history of doing dumb things. Lets also point out that most of the bikes had no insurance and illegal tags. Why would you need illegal tags? oh, maybe cause you don't want to get in trouble for doing stupid shit. From what I understand, the bikes were taking up the highway and were taunting drives (as they always do) by cutting cars off and slowing down. The guy in the SUV bumped the back of the bikes tire so the bikers decided to get in front of the SUV and surround it. Then while still on a highway get off their bikes and approach the SUV (some one mentioned they had knives in hand, but I didn't read about that) What exactly were these bikes trying to do or though what was going to go down? The man panicked with a two years old and wife in his car and ran over the STOPED bikes that wouldn't move. I believe he beeped his horn and the bikers didn't move. What happens here if the man doesn't move and the bikers get their "street justice" and kill the man? Or the man had a gun then what. I think is horrible that the biker was seriously hurt, but he shouldn't have stopped in front of an SUV on a highway. They probably thought the man was just going to stay there while they scared him and fucked his car up while they got a good laugh and put it on YouTube. And as far as I know, Bikes follow the same rules as cars do. The man did not have to move out of the way for the bikes, and the fact "Cops are powerless" is complete bullshit.
The guy that cut him off was clearly at fault. Look at the picture. Biker guy fucks around dangerously on his bike and gets hit. His friends attack the person who accidentally hit him as if its his fault. What a bunch of scumbags. I'd have done the same thing. Survival >>>>. Motorcycles are dangerous. If you're going to fuck around like that, don't buy one in the first place.
depends. did he say that before or after he said this, which was ran in an article on Tuesday: http://news.yahoo.com/wife-biker-husband-victim-nyc-altercation-063414964.html
that is an interesting situation. why shouldn't he assume some of the responsibility for all of the subsequent events for his actions that started this mess?
which events? What started this was a group of bikers that thought they had the right to block cars from entering the highway,and stop and attack any that got through. This guy did not even flick them off to anger them,he simply did not follow their jungle law.
I'm actually enjoying JB's fight against the tide. It's like watching an injured African water buffalo fight for it's life against a pride of lions. But you just know that buffalo is getting ripped to shreds and will die soon.
If someone breaks into your 2-year old daughters bedroom in the middle of the night with a gun, what do you do? a) wait for him to aim the gun at your daughter, pull back the hammer, and put his finger on the trigger since his initial intentions are unclear b) stop him immediately by any means necessary Maybe you will answer A, but I'm pretty sure that 99.999% of the general population would agree with me that choosing option B is not morally questionable in any way. It is common sense. Why would anyone wait to protect themselves and their family when waiting could have deadly consequences, and when the other party knowingly created a dangerous situation and prevented you from otherwise escaping that situation? As far as the letter of the law goes, I think his actions are pretty easily justified: Unless the driver of the SUV intentionally tried to cause physical harm to one of the bikers beforehand (which no one is claiming he did), there is no question that he acted within the law. The subsequent beating proves that he could have walked away untouched? Umm... what?!?! All anyone can do is speculate as to what would have happened if he had initially allowed them to continue with their attack. It's very likely that the same thing would have happened. They would have broken a window, pulled him out of his SUV, slashed at his face with a knife, beat him to the ground, then stomped on his head and left him there bleeding unconscious on the pavement. And in case this needs to be explained to you, those actions can very easily end someone's life. I'm clueless as to how you are coming up with the idea that he ever had a "definite" opportunity to walk away untouched. Maybe you are comfortable second guessing someone's judgement when they are surrounded by 20+ violent, angry, armored people and his families life is at stake, and maybe you are comfortable throwing around words like "definitive" while you do so, but personally I'm going to side with the guy who was being cornered, intimidated, threatened, and terrorized.
this is like when Big Blocker used to make ridiculously verbose posts because he was "practicing" his arts. Note to JB. You are a much better debater than Big Blocker. You're still all kinds of wrong here. But we all know that.
I don't usually comment on discussions like this, but this seems to be going on and on beyond reason- July 4, 1987, Red Oak, TX- I'm driving around with my wife and 2 collies on a rural road around 9 pm. Without provocation, I'm surrounded on all 4 sides by 5-7 Harleys. My wife is screaming in fear, they're throwing stuff at my car and I decided that, if anything was broken on my car like a window or headlight, I was gonna take out the guy on my left first, on my right next, run over the one in front and jam on my brakes so the ones in back slid under my car. NO WAY was I going to stop and ask them if they had any criminal intent. Would I have been justified, or should I have stopped and asked them if they were gonna kill me or were just gonna damage my car? You speak like a professor in college teaching law. Life isn't that simple. Do you think the NYC bikers were very polite while surrounding him and told him if he didn't resist they would only damage his car, not his wife and newborn? They were menacing him and that in and of itself is a crime. I've found most of your previous comments on other topics to be intelligent and well thought out, but you're backing a loser here, my friend. These weren't Sunday afternoon bikers out for a ride; they were riding illegal and uninsured bikes on public streets in a dangerous fashion. If their intent was originally harmless fun it deteriorated into a dangerous situation because of the bikers' actions ALONE, specifically the one who caused the accident. Whether the driver gave them the finger or not, and I highly doubt it because of their intimidating numbers, NOTHING justified the bikers' actions. If the driver gets charged with anything at all I'll even consider starting a defense fund for him.
I think all it takes is one wolf from a wolf pack and it becomes a feeding frenzy without any of them knowing what's going on, they will jump in. The guy who slowed down so all his buddies can pass becomes the antagonist in the situation. Its one thing is these bikes were in one lane and two bikes shared a lane and they all maintained that but they were coming from every angle not even leaving the Range Rover and out option if he didn't want to be in the crowd. Nobody should be forced to slow down to a crawl on a US Highway unless trafficc warrants it or law enforcement or a work crew deems it necessary. From the video the guy bumped the guys bike so no harm no foul don't stick your 500lb bike in front of a 2 ton suv and not expect a collision. If it was two cars for instance and a car pulls in front of you and jams on the brakes you would believe that driver has road rage. Its unfortunate that the guy got ran over and got hurt but reports from over 200 callers state that these motorcyclist were riding through neighborhoods recklessly on side walks, against traffic, doing wheelies, endos, burnouts and a lot of them didn't even have license plates on their bikes or they had their license plates bent up so you could not read them. That only indicates that they are not out for your friendly ride they are out to cause havoc. Whether its police chases or running tolls etc, Unfortunate someone got hurt but these motorcylist were no angels or victims as they claim to be. Any time someone comes up to your car with a knife stabbing your tires that becomes an immediate threat and they left the guy no route to escape. Some say wait for the cops but through the whole video not one cop was present so good luck waiting on them to respond. No discredit to law enforcement it just would of been a couple of minutes until they got there and a ass whooping will seem like years in a couple of minutes.
The Biker is in the wrong from the get go, he performs a "break check" where he gets in front of a Ranger Rover and the guy taps the bike tire? And how convenient the guy with the gopro cam happens to be recording it at the time. These guys probably wanted to spend a nice Sunday afternoon driving around fucking with cars and trucks, then put it on YouTube latter on for a few laughs. The guy who posted the video couldn't have been that bright, he posts a video with incriminating evidence on the internet for the world to see.
None of them were bright. Just a bunch of tough guys with 30 of thrir friends to back them up. They are scum bags
I was referring to the biker that slowed down and got bumped, not the driver. you seem to be overlooking one glaring hole in your application of the law. the law you quoted allows you to use force only against the exact person who you believe will use imminent force against you. A person may, subject to the provisions of subdivision two, use physical force upon another person when and to the extent he reasonably believes such to be necessary to defend himself or a third person fromwhat he reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of unlawful physical force by such other person. did the driver use force against who he was afraid was going to attack him, or against other bikers simply blocking him? those are two entirely different situations, and the law is pretty specific about which of those two you are allowed to respond to with equal force. there is likely another law that could work in conjunction with this law to permit him to use force against someone who was imprisoning him, but this law alone actually defends my position, not disputes it because it is very specific against who that force can be used against. what, exactly. I never made such a statement. what exactly are you talking about here? that is nonsense. look how quickly those guys got him out when they wanted to. if they were so intent on beating him just for bumping their car to the same extreme as running them over, how come the window wasn't already broken. clearly the situation was escalated by his running their buddies open, so to claim they would have responded identically to both situation runs contrary to what they were doing during the initial stop and what they did after subsequently catching him. the events dispute your speculation.
Holy dumb. Anyone in that situation would be convinced that any and/or all of the members of the mob would attack them. You don't look through the faces of an attacking mob and determine which of them are more of a threat. At that point, the mob is one entity.
