General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region Forumshalfway decent human being quiz
1. Imagine that you are driving in a car and you strike a motorcycle from behind. After stopping your car and surveying the scene for a few seconds, do you
A. call 911
B. get out to see if the motorcyclist needs assistance
C. remain at the scene of the accident
D. drive over the motorcyclist and speed away from the scene of the accident
2. Imagine that you are with a group of friends riding motorcycles, and one of your friends is struck behind by a range rover. The driver stops, then runs over your friend and speeds away. Do you
A. call 911
B. make sure some friends remain with the injured motorcyclist
C. follow the driver to ensure his location is known
D. pull the driver out of the vehicle and beat him in a vigilante mob
If you answer D. to either question, you fail.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
NightWatcher
(39,343 posts)You have your wife and your toddler in the vehicle. A biker puts his bike right in front of your vehicle as the mob continues to harass and scare you. Do you
a. sit in the car and hope they don't hurt you and your family
b. run him over in a move of self defense and in order to get out of a bad situation
If you said A. you are kidding yourself and you deserve whatever the mob of bikers has in store for you.
I can't believe we have people here defending the actions of a violent mob of bikers who drive around with impunity and harass other drivers and evade law enforcement.
bunnies
(15,859 posts)Thats what a "halfway decent human being" would have done. 
d_r
(6,907 posts)stop and then run them over and leave the scene of an accident.
Think about it. The man hit the motorcycle, stops, and then drives over the guy and leaves the scene of the accident.
An accident just happened. Other motorists stop. They are going to make sure their friend is OK.
It is a matter of BIAS to assume that the other motorcyclists were going to hurt anyone.
And no, I wouldn't sit in the car and hope they wouldn't hurt me.
I would jump out of the car and try to help the guy I just hit. Like any decent human being ought to.
You also can't pull someone ouf of the car and beat them. The guy in the landrover was trying to leave the scene of an accident where he had just attempted murder for running over the guy. I understand his friends were upset, but they can't pull him out and beat him. We can not allow mob justice like that.
The guy in the land rover should be at fault for the accident, should be at fault for leaving the scene of the accident, should be at fault for wreckless driving and endangerment after leaving the scene of the accident, and should be at fault for attempted murder or manslaughter or something after running over the guy.
The people on the motorcycles should be at fault for wreckless driving and endagerment and for assault and battery.
Everybody handled this wrong.
bunnies
(15,859 posts)And slashing your tires? How incredibly masochistic of you.
pintobean
(18,101 posts)halfway intelligent human being quiz. 
bunnies
(15,859 posts) Death-wish, I do NOT haz it.d_r
(6,907 posts)before a mob happened. Holy shit, you just ran into the guy. I'd have been out there checking on him.
bunnies
(15,859 posts)Incidentally, that biker who caused the whole thing by intentionally slamming on his breaks? He's in jail.
d_r
(6,907 posts)there was 20 seconds between the car hitting the motorcycle and the driver speeding off.
I didn't know it at the time, but the person that was run over isn't the person who was hit initially.
Another person tried to help the person who was hit, and when the driver raced off he ran over him.
Imagine seeing an accident, running to help the person who was hit, and getting ran over by a hit and driver.
bunnies
(15,859 posts)20 seconds is barely enough time to wrap your head around what just happened.
thank you. That scary mob standing there looking is in shock trying to figure out what happened.
I've never been in an accident in which I hit another car or person. The closest I came was on the interstate in Lima Oh. It was snowing a really wet snow, and ahead of me a car swerved, and then the car in the left lane swerved and they hit each other. I went over to the median thinking that I wouldn't slam my brakes and cause another wreck. I just coasted to a slop on the median and at about the last second of motion my car rolled over down the bank. I almost had it.
I was rear ended once. I was completely stopped and waiting at a red light and this young person was just not paying attention and drove right into me. She was freaked pretty out but I got out and went back and calmed her down until the police came. She was just scared.
I saw an accident right in front of me this summer. An SUV swerved in a rainy wet road in florida an rolled over. I pulled over, told my kids to stay put and my wife to call 911, and I ran up there to the truck. It was on its side and I was afraid for the kids in it to try to climb out the top because it was on a bank and I was afraid it would slide. So I just sat there and talked to them through the window to try and keep them calm until the rescue people arrived, which was just a few minutes.
Also this past summer in traffic in I saw a guy on a motorcycle in the lane next to me run in to a car. It was stop and go traffic and he didn't stop in time and hit the car in front of me. He turned the bike over but he was OK mostly just embarrassed.
It has never occurred to me not to get out after an accident and try to help the other people. I've never thought about how dangerous it can be that a person would freak out and hit and run and drive over you when you were trying to help.
kcr
(15,316 posts)was anyone trying to enter another's car against their will, trying to jerk open a car door. You keep completely changing what happened. They didn't just stand around in shock. They surrounded the car while at least one of them tried to open the door. Completely different.
d_r
(6,907 posts)of the car that the kids were in if I wasn't worried about it rolling over.
I wasn't trying to change the scenario. I was answer the question if I had ever been in an accident as best I could.
kcr
(15,316 posts)How is you possibly opening the door if a car if you can, to help the people inside, remotely the same as a member of a mob violently trying to jerk it open to get at the people inside to retaliate?
d_r
(6,907 posts)I was answering the question if I had been in an accident. I didn't say it was the same.
kcr
(15,316 posts)In response to mentioning they tried to open a car door, you said you'd do it, too. That implies sameness.
bunnies
(15,859 posts)Very kind of you to help all those people. I mean that.
That doesnt change the fact the reaction of the man driving the SUV was due to the circumstances. No one would freak out and run over someone trying to help unless that person felt threatened.
Do you really think this guy just took the opportunity to run over some people because he could? If that were the case charges would be filed on the SUV driver... dont you think?
d_r
(6,907 posts)I don't think he did it for fun. I don't think it was something he wanted to do. But I think it was a bad decision.
I think he should be charged. I don't know if he should be convicted but I think he should be charged.
If the guy on the ventilator dies he may be charged with something more than leaving the scene of the accident.
d_r
(6,907 posts)The biker passed him.
He was too close when he passed and it was wreckless.
The biker is now in front of the car and looks back and the bike on his left and slows down.
The car rear ends the biker.
The driver stops.
Everyone stops. An accident just happened. The other bikers stop and other motorists stop.
Everyone is looking to see what happened. Some of the bikers get off their bikes and start to walk towards the accident.
This is what anyone would do after an accident, to see if the guy is OK.
About 20 seconds after he rear-ended the guy and stopped, while other people are walking towards the accident, the driver of the SUV starts his car, drives over the motorcyclist he hits, hits other motorcycles and speeds away from the scene of the accident.
It is then that some of the motorcyclists begin to chase him. He drives wrecklessly and gets stopped by traffic once. Then he takes off again, the motorcyclists then follow him again, he gets caught in traffic again, and that is when someone uses the helmet to break his window, the man gets pulled out, tires got slashed so that he can't drive away again.
There is no reason to believe that would have happened in the first place if the guy hadn't RAN OVER the motorcyclist he hit as he attempted to leave the scene of the accident. There was no one beating his vehicle, no one slashing tires at that time.
The mob rage came from the suv driver running over the motorcyclist and leaving the scene of the accident. No one attacked anyone before the guy intentionally ran him over.
bunnies
(15,859 posts)But Im sure you know that.
“They take their helmets and they start to dent his car, and apparently his tires are slashed with a knife,” Police Commissioner Ray Kelly said at a press conference Monday.
The panicked dad gunned the engine, striking several bikers — one of whom was seriously injured — as he sped off, with the pack of thugs in hot pursuit, police sources said.
d_r
(6,907 posts)But I also don't see it in the video. But the angle isn't good. But again, I would be trying to help the guy I just hit instead of sitting in the car.
bunnies
(15,859 posts)Which I believe the driver reasonably had, given the circumstances. Sometimes no amount of reasoning can get you out of a bad situation with an angry mob.
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)I imagine many people pretend they know what they would do in any given situation... even a stressful situation in which the safety of one's wife and child are in potential danger.
Though it certainly makes us feel better about ourselves to pretend, pretending is pretty much all it is.
Pretzel_Warrior
(8,361 posts)Let me guess. You just love your motorcycle and gotta speak up for your motorcycle-riding brethren.
Most of these douchebags should be cited for wreckless endangerment for the way they behave on public highways.
CANDO
(2,068 posts)It clearly shows the biker deliberately braking in front of the SUV. Why are you being such a provocateur with this ridiculous thread? Everyone gets it that there is already something going on between the horde of bikers and this SUV, and then you draw up this simplistic scenario that has an SUV running into an innocent biker and so on. Get outta here with that line of bullshit!
ieoeja
(9,748 posts)You slow down a bit trying to get the SUV to slow down til the pack is past him. It is a very common tactic for good purpose to ensure the safety of the group.
And see post #134. You will see that the SUV is not attacked or surrounded by a bunch of people after the downing. One individual walked up to the SUV. When he tried opening the door, the SUV took off and ran over the guy rendering first aid to the fallen driver.
CANDO
(2,068 posts)Doesn't appear to be so, according to the video. Also, if safety were their aim they wouldn't have been riding in such a disorganized manner with cycles scattered all over the place. Try 2x2 with good forward and aft separation. And again, anyone attempting to stand up for these cyclists, didn't watch the same video I did. The guy who "walked" up to try and open the SUV's door? He did so at what appeared to be a dead on rush. He had no right to try to gain entry into the private domain of that SUV. He ripped the door open and at that point the driver fled in fear, probably for his life. The cyclist who ripped open the door is damned lucky the driver didn't have a gun. I'm not a supporter of stand your ground, but in that situation? Absolutely! The guy's lucky he's not dead from a slug through his head.
pintobean
(18,101 posts)and the rest of us should always yield to their wishes - even if we have no clue what those wishes are. Fuck "safety of the group". If they followed the rules of the road, everyone would be much safer.
cpwm17
(3,829 posts)rolling down the freeway. They slashed his tire at the very beginning. Fuck them. Run as many of the fuckers over as necessary to get away from the criminal mob.
"safety of the group" LOL
Here's a picture that TorchTheWitch found showing the wheel with the missing tire: http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014606742#post337
hobbit709
(41,694 posts)You do not linger in the center of mob mentality when they intend to do harm to you and endanger your family. The trouble maker that brake checked the family escalated the conflict. After that it's self defense. 911 should have been called by all involved if possible.
Renew Deal
(81,858 posts)Pretzel_Warrior
(8,361 posts)I'm glad this fucker got run over and it's getting national attention. Maybe these oh-so-cool motorcyclists rampaging on our PUBLIC highways will take it as warning that regular motorists aren't taking their shit.
Politicalboi
(15,189 posts)This poor family will have to live with this day. I wished he would have ran over more of these assholes. I was hoping for a mash up of bikers. LOL! That would have been funnier than shit. This man was only protecting his family. You may think you would "help" the downed cyclist, but you never would have gotten near the downed biker. Your ass would have gotten kicked.
On the Road
(20,783 posts)Under the circumstances, I think you just tombstoned your own argument.
d_r
(6,907 posts)On the Road
(20,783 posts)but it sounded like there were multiple threatening people near the car. Getting out would have removed both the physical protection of the car body and the ability to escape instantaneously.
If that does not fit the situation, I apologize. I was going on other posters' comments.
I walk around dangerous neighborhoods in Baltimore at all hours, but is there were a threatening group standing nearby, i would stay in the vehicle at all costs, especially with other family members in the car.
d_r
(6,907 posts)Its not how it looked to me, but other people think I'm crazy not to think so.
tk2kewl
(18,133 posts)either in an attempt to be hit or an attempt to force the driver to stop so that he could be harassed
I'm a motorcycle rider, but i do not fault the driver in this case based on the available information.
d_r
(6,907 posts)I don't think he was trying to force the driver to stop.
I think he was looking back at the guy with the camera.
It is a driver's responsibility not to hit the person in front of you.
And if you do, you don't stop and then drive over them.
the bikers deliberately corralled the driver
d_r
(6,907 posts)and planned to cause an accident so they could chase him and beat him up.
tk2kewl
(18,133 posts)maybe he passed them and they didn't like it, who knows...
but the tape clearly shows that the bikers surrounded him and tried to force him to stop. it's undeniable.
d_r
(6,907 posts)it looks to me like a group riding bikes together and passing the guy. They are wreckless and acting like idtiots, but I can't see they are trying to force him to stop.
tkmorris
(11,138 posts)"Wreckless" is something this incident definitely was not.
I'm not trying to be a spelling Nazi but since this case revolves around a wreck, the unintentional misspelling of the word is making your intended message quite muddled.
d_r
(6,907 posts)sorry. Reckless.
pintobean
(18,101 posts)Just to muddy things up a little. This thread is recless.
tkmorris
(11,138 posts)tk2kewl
(18,133 posts)d_r
(6,907 posts)I would like to see more video footage to better understand what happened.
I couldn't get a video on that link to work on my computer. I'll try other things. I would like to see it.
The description in text says:
"There's roughly an hour's worth of footage in the seven videos, in which the bikers are more of a nuisance, though, sometimes, they do put themselves and other drivers to risk with their actions. For example, they pass red lights on several occasions (4th video at the 1:20 mark and 6th video at 10:00)), they enter opposite lanes, and ride on pedestrian sidewalks (last video at the 1:15 mark)."
I agree that the drivers were being reckless and that the guy who was first hit was being reckless. I have no doubt of that from the video I did see.
Response to d_r (Reply #21)
Buns_of_Fire This message was self-deleted by its author.
sir pball
(4,741 posts)Which, while it isn't any reason for the ensuing shitshow, having lived and ridden in NYC for several years is something I can very easily see happening. Expensive SUVs automatically make me wary; it's what the brash loudmouths who'll do anything from questioning my sexuality up to trying to push me over a lane at a light tend to drive.
I can understand the temptation to brakecheck the guy if he did run his mouth off, but 1. I'd never trust a cager not to plow me over if I did that, especially an abusive asshat who would damn likely do it on purpose because he's legally in the clear and 2. escalating a situation to that degree is going to end poorly for everybody involved. Just slap his door and be done with it
treestar
(82,383 posts)He is guilty of negligence too and might be at fault for the accident.
the motorcycle drivers were being wreckless and idiots.
bunnies
(15,859 posts)And now he's in jail. Where he belongs.
he was reckless, but I didn't spell it correctly, I said wreckless. Sorry. The guy was being an idiot. No doubt of that from me.
bunnies
(15,859 posts)where NO ONE is hurt, and other bikers (belonging to a notorious thug gang) start threatening you and slashing your tires. Do you really think he could have gotten out of the SUV and been like "Hey, whats up guys? Nice day for a ride."
Come on. Follow the links you were given in the thread. You obviously aren't very clear on what happened.
d_r
(6,907 posts)and his buddy with the camera and hamming it up. I think he recklessly caused an accident but I don't know that it was intentional.
I think it was a "hey y'all watch this"
bunnies
(15,859 posts)Its was a clear break-tap. Some motorists do it when they want the person behind him to get off their ass. You dont cut someone off then slam on the breaks unless its intentional.
d_r
(6,907 posts)I thought the guy was being an idiot and hamming it up for the camera. I don't think he was intending to cause an accident. Nobody on a motorcyle purposefully wants to be hit by a land rover. He assumed the guy behind him wouldn't hit him and he was wanting a picture of his dumbassery.
I give up.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)d_r
(6,907 posts)and why?
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)i am not much into game playing
d_r
(6,907 posts)I am saying that both were wrong.
And I think they were.
I do not think this guy should be treated as an innocent victim because he made the choice to flee the scene of the accident, he made the choice to run right over the guy.
Even after he ran over him, after he fled the scene, after he was chased for blocks and pinned in and attacked no one hurt the toddler. There was no "handing over the child."
Of course we can't allow mobs to beat people. We can't allow vigilante attacks.
But we also can not rear end someone and then intentionally run over them and leave the scene of the accident. The guy made the wrong decision.
That doesn't justify the attack. But pulling in front of someone and slowing down doesn't justify getting intentionally ran over after they hit you. Neither side is right. Both should have done things differently.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)i am sorry you do not see that a person may need to protect family before doing what you describe as the decent thing
d_r
(6,907 posts)if my children are in the car and God forbid we have an accident and I hit someone I will be out of the car checking on the person I just hit.
I'm not sure what he needed to protect his family from if he'd been checking on the person he just hit.
I don't think anybody is attacking the guy if he gets out to see if the guy is OK.
I think they attacked him for running over the guy and speeding away.
kcr
(15,316 posts)Bullshit. He hightailed it out of there to defend himself and his family. When someone joins a mob surrounding and harassing a driver, they can't complain when they get hit. And they certainly can't complain about the mob situation they started in the first place, by being part of a group that surrounded a car on the roadway then turned around and looked behind them while they suddenly slowed their bike down. The SUV driver is blameless.
d_r
(6,907 posts)I see an accident and everyone stopping to check on it. That's what happens after an accident.
Yeah, the kid on the bike was being a dumbass when he slowed down in front of the car. That's totally true. But you can't run away from an accident because the other person was being a dumbass or because other people are coming to the scene of the accident.
kcr
(15,316 posts)No, you can't run away just because people are checking on the accident. But that's not what was happening. They surrounded his vehicle. And given that they later beat the crap out of him? Well, I'm sorry, but I'm going to go with what is more likely. The mob that eventually pulls him out of the car to beat him didn't have good intentions the first time they surrounded his car, either. He floored it because he knew he was in danger. And it turned out he was right. Your interpretations of what happened are beyond ludicrous.
d_r
(6,907 posts)I don't think it is ludicrous.
I am not defending the violence of the mob in any way. We can not allow that. I'm saying that it didn't have to be that way. I think the anger of the mob was inflamed by the driver running people over and leaving the scene of the accident.
There were bikers in lanes on both sides of his vehicle because bikers were driving in lanes on both sides of his vehicle.
ProdigalJunkMail
(12,017 posts)there is no one posing this garbage but you. perhaps YOU are the one with the screwed up version of what happened? ya think?
sP
d_r
(6,907 posts)may be that is how human beings should be. Just run over people if you assume they are dangerous and scary.
Again, I am defending the bikers. They were being reckless and a mob can't beat people.
Both sides made bad decisions, I think.
kcr
(15,316 posts)When there's all sorts of video evidence of them being dangerous and scary?
I wouldn't have been scared of anything other than I hurt the guy.
Maybe I travel in the wrong circles or something.
kcr
(15,316 posts)You don't see the danger the driver was in. I think being surrounded by a bunch of angry shouting bikers would be near the top of my list of scary situations. So do a lot of people. And the law, because they aren't charging him. Rightfully so.
d_r
(6,907 posts)is trying to help someone who just got hit by a car. I never thought about the driver of the car running over you.
kcr
(15,316 posts)if your friends are threatening the driver of the car. They are to blame. I would hope my friends wouldn't be that stupid and violent and completely disregard my safety as I'm giving aid.
kcr
(15,316 posts)They didn't have to surround his car and threaten him after an incident that THEY caused occurred. But they did. The driver is blameless. To think that they ever had good intentions at any time in this is just laughable. Really, I don't see how one can watch the videos of this incident, watch all the various and multiple ways this crowd acted, and then lay ANY blame on the driver. That's totally beyond nuts. The mob was inflamed by the driver's actions? They were a mob from the very beginning! A group of people surrounded the car so thick you could barely even see the car anymore. That in itself is threatening. Did they really all need to be right there to get his insurance information? Please.
maybe I am just nuts, maybe I just trust people too much. I wouldn't have still been in my car if I had just hit the guy, I would have been out there checking on him. Would you have still been in your car 20 secons later? I would have been like "Oh, shit" and jumped out.
kcr
(15,316 posts)I know, it says DU up there, but that's just a cover. We're really the pro-hit-and-run advocacy group! Imagine all of us here in one place like that?
Seriously. Yes, generally speaking, you should get out of your car and check on the person you've hit. Exceptions? When an angry mob threatening violence surrounds your car.
bunnies
(15,859 posts)What percentage do you think are out of the car in under 20 seconds. Not counting, of course, those whose cars catch fire. 
TeeYiYi
(8,028 posts)How does the OP continue to conveniently ignore that little factoid? 
TYY
kcr
(15,316 posts)Someone's claiming they just wanted to talk to the driver, maybe check insurance. By trying to violently rip open the door because that's what all normal people do, why are we judging these people?? Seriously. The twisting and bending over to defend them and paint the driver as a villain is just beyond ridiculous. You think you've seen it all on the internet, and then this.
pintobean
(18,101 posts)I think you just failed a test.
bunnies
(15,859 posts)
virgogal
(10,178 posts)You just take your beating, leave your wife and child defenseless, and hope it turns out for the best. 
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)kcr
(15,316 posts)Really, that seems to be what it's boiling down to. He must have been biased against the group of people who actually did go on to beat him, but never mind their actions, because bias against bikers, wahhhh!.
Those little rascals were just out for a nice bike ride on a lovely day. Then some anti-biker activist decides to go all vigilante while celebrating his first wedding anniversary with his wife and kid. Damn biker haters!
kcr
(15,316 posts)If you're ever confronted with the same situation, by all means, get out of the car, because it's just your bias telling you you're in danger, not your lying eyes! To hell with the safety of your family, you have to have your principles. That angry mob surrounding you probably just wants to talk to you. Don't be biased against angry mobs.
bunnies
(15,859 posts)Nothing to fear about that guy following you in the shadows. Dont let your bias against rapists get in the way of being polite! He's probably just trying to escort you to make sure you arrive safely at your destination. And that knife? Well, he brought it just in case you have a nice pan of brownies he can slice for you.
Also, dont let your bias against strangers stop one of them from trying to take your child. They're probably just going to pop over to chuck-e-cheeses for a little bit of ball-pit time. Little Johnny will be right back. Safe and Sound. You wouldnt want your bias to prevent little Johnny from having stranger-ball-pit-fun at chuck-e-cheeses would you? That would make you a terrible parent.
edit: extra word
steve2470
(37,457 posts)If, as the NYPD is saying, his vehicle was being bashed by the bikers, yes I'd be a bit panicky too. Do I get out or roll down my window and possibly get bashed too ?
The only thing I'm unclear on, is NY state law for self-defense in this situation.
steve2470
(37,457 posts)Self-Defense Law in New York State
Article 35
Defense of Justification
Section
35.00 Justification; a defense.
35.05 Justification; generally.
35.10 Justification; use of physical force generally.
35.15 Justification; use of physical force in defense of a person.
35.20 Justification; use of physical force in defense of premises and in defense of a person in the course of burglary.
35.25 Justification; use of physical force to prevent or terminate larceny or criminal mischief.
35.27 Justification; use of physical force in resisting arrest prohibited.
35.30 Justification; use of physical force in making an arrest or in preventing an escape.
Sec. 35.00 Justification; a defense. In any prosecution for an offense, justification, as defined in sections 35.05 through 35.30, is a defense.
Sec. 35.05 Justification; generally. Unless otherwise limited by the ensuing provisions of this article defining justifiable use of physical force, conduct which
would otherwise constitute an offense is justifiable and not criminal when:
1. Such conduct is required or authorized by law or by a judicial decree, or is performed by a public servant in the reasonable exercise of his official powers, duties or functions;
or
2. Such conduct is necessary as an emergency measure to avoid an imminent public or private injury which is about to occur by reason of a situation occasioned or developed through no fault of the actor, and which is of such gravity that, according to ordinary standards of intelligence and morality, the desirability and urgency of avoiding such injury clearly outweigh the desirability of avoiding the injury sought to be prevented by the statute defining the offense in issue. The necessity and
justifiability of such conduct may not rest upon considerations pertaining only to the morality and advisability of the statute, either in its general application or with respect to its application to a particular class of cases arising thereunder.
Whenever evidence relating to the defense of justification under this subdivision is offered by the defendant, the court shall rule as a matter of law whether the claimed facts and circumstances would, if established, constitute a defense.
Sec. 35.10 Justification; use of physical force generally. The use of physical force upon another person which would otherwise constitute an offense is justifiable and not criminal under any of the following circumstances:
1. A parent, guardian or other person entrusted with the care and supervision of a person under the age of twenty-one or an incompetent person, and a teacher or other person entrusted with the care and supervision of a person under the age of twenty-one for a special purpose, may use physical force, but not deadly physical force, upon such person when and to the extent that he reasonably believes it necessary to maintain discipline or to promote the welfare of such person.
2. A warden or other authorized official of a jail, prison or correctional institution may, in order to maintain order and discipline, use such physical force as is authorized by the correction law.
3. A person responsible for the maintenance of order in a common carrier of passengers, or a person acting under his direction, may use physical force when and to the extent that he reasonably believes it necessary to maintain order, but he may use deadly physical force only when he reasonably believes it necessary to prevent death or serious physical injury.
4. A person acting under a reasonable belief that another person is about to commit suicide or to inflict serious physical injury upon himself may use physical force upon such person to the extent that he reasonably believes it necessary to thwart such result.
5. A duly licensed physician, or a person acting under his direction, may use physical force for the purpose of administering a recognized form of treatment which he reasonably believes to be adapted to promoting the physical or mental health of the patient if (a) the treatment is administered with the consent of the patient or, if the patient is under the age of eighteen years or an incompetent person, with the consent of his parent, guardian or other person entrusted with his care and supervision, or (b) the treatment is administered in an emergency when the physician reasonably believes that no one competent to consent can be consulted and that a reasonable person, wishing to safeguard the welfare of the patient, would consent.
6. A person may, pursuant to the ensuing provisions of this article, use physical force upon another person in defense of himself or a third person, or in defense of premises, or in order to prevent larceny of or criminal mischief to property, or in order to effect an arrest or prevent an escape from custody.
Whenever a person is authorized by any such provision to use deadly physical force in any given circumstance, nothing contained in any other such provision may be deemed to negate or qualify such authorization.
Sec. 35.15 Justification; use of physical force in defense of a person.
1. 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 from what he reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of unlawful physical force by such other person, unless:
(a) The latter`s conduct was provoked by the actor himself with intent to cause physical injury to another person; or
(b) The actor was the initial aggressor; except that in such case his use of physical force is nevertheless justifiable if he has withdrawn from the encounter and effectively communicated such withdrawal to such other person but the latter persists in continuing the incident by the use or threatened imminent use of unlawful physical force; or
(c) The physical force involved is the product of a combat
by agreement not specifically authorized by law.
2. A person may not use deadly physical force upon another person under circumstances specified in subdivision one unless:
(a) He reasonably believes that such other person is using or about to use deadly physical force. Even in such case, however, the actor may not use deadly physical force if he knows that he can with complete safety as to himself and others avoid the necessity of so doing by retreating; except that he is under no duty to retreat if he is:
(i) in his dwelling and not the initial aggressor; or
(ii) a police officer or peace officer or a person assisting a police officer or a peace officer at the latter`s direction, acting pursuant to section 35.30; or
(b) He reasonably believes that such other person is committing or attempting to commit a kidnapping, forcible rape, forcible sodomy or robbery; or
(c) He reasonably believes that such other person is committing or attempting to commit a burglary, and the circumstances are such that the use of deadly physical force is authorized by subdivision three of section 35.20.
Sec. 35.20 Justification; use of physical force in defense of premises and in defense of a person in the course of burglary.
1. Any person may use physical force upon another person when he reasonably believes such to be necessary to prevent or terminate what he reasonably believes to be the commission or attempted commission by such other person of a crime involving damage to premises. He may use any degree of physical force, other than deadly physical force, which he reasonably believes to be necessary for such purpose, and he may use deadly physical force if he reasonably believes such to be necessary to prevent or terminate the commission or attempted commission of arson.
2. A person in possession or control of any premises, or a person licensed or privileged to be thereon or therein, may use physical force upon another person when he reasonably believes such to be necessary to prevent or terminate what he reasonably believes to be the commission or attempted commission by such other person of a criminal trespass upon such premises. He may use any degree of physical force, other than deadly physical force, which he reasonably believes to be necessary for such purpose, and he may use deadly physical force in order to prevent or terminate the commission or attempted commission of arson, as prescribed in subdivision one, or in the course of a burglary or attempted burglary, as prescribed in subdivision three.
3. A person in possession or control of, or licensed or privileged to be in, a dwelling or an occupied building, who reasonably believes that another person is committing or attempting to commit a burglary of such dwelling or building, may use deadly physical force upon such other person when he reasonably believes such to be necessary to prevent or terminate the commission or attempted commission of such burglary.
4. As used in this section, the following terms have the following meanings:
(a) The terms "premises," "building" and "dwelling" have the
meanings prescribed in section 140.00;
(b) Persons "licensed or privileged" to be in buildings or upon other premises include, but are not limited to, police officers or peace officers acting in the performance of their duties.
Sec. 35.25 Justification; use of physical force to prevent or terminate larceny or criminal mischief. A person may use physical force, other than deadly physical force, upon another person when and to the extent that he reasonably believes such to be necessary to prevent or terminate what he reasonably believes to be the commission or attempted
commission by such other person of larceny or of criminal mischief with respect to property other than premises.
Sec. 35.27 Justification; use of physical force in resisting arrest prohibited. A person may not use physical force to resist an arrest, whether authorized or unauthorized, which is being effected or attempted by a police officer or peace officer when it would reasonably appear that the latter is a police officer or peace officer.
Sec. 35.30 Justification; use of physical force in making an arrest or in preventing an escape.
1. A police officer or a peace officer, in the course of effecting or attempting to effect an arrest, or of preventing or attempting to prevent the escape from custody, of a person whom he reasonably believes to have committed an offense, may use physical force when and to the extent he reasonably believes such to be necessary to effect the arrest, or to prevent the escape from custody, or to defend himself or a third person from what he reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of physical force; except that he may use deadly physical force for such purposes only when he reasonably believes that:
(a) The offense committed by such person was:
(i) a felony or an attempt to commit a felony involving the use or attempted use or threatened imminent use of physical force against a person; or
(ii) kidnapping, arson, escape in the first degree, burglary in the first degree or any attempt to commit such a crime; or
(b) The offense committed or attempted by such person was a felony and that, in the course of resisting arrest therefor or attempting to escape from custody, such person is armed with a firearm or deadly weapon; or
(c) Regardless of the particular offense which is the subject of the arrest or attempted escape, the use of deadly physical force is necessary to defend the police officer or peace officer or another person from what the officer reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of deadly physical force.
2. The fact that a police officer or a peace officer is justified in using deadly physical force under circumstances prescribed in paragraphs (a) and (b) of subdivision one does not constitute justification for reckless conduct by such police officer or peace officer amounting to an offense against or with respect to innocent persons whom he is not seeking to arrest or retain in custody.
3. A person who has been directed by a police officer or a peace officer to assist such police officer or peace officer to effect an arrest or to prevent an escape from custody may use physical force, other than deadly physical force, when and to the extent that he reasonably believes such to be necessary to carry out such police officer`s or peace officer`s direction, unless he knows that the arrest or prospective arrest is not or was not authorized and he may use deadly physical force under such circumstances when:
(a) He reasonably believes such to be necessary to defend himself or a third person from what he reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of deadly physical force; or
(b) He is directed or authorized by such police officer or peace officer to use deadly physical force unless he knows that the police officer or peace officer himself is not authorized to use deadly physical force under the circumstances.
4. A private person acting on his own account may use physical force, other than deadly physical force, upon another person when and to the extent that he reasonably believes such to be necessary to effect an arrest or to prevent the escape from custody of a person whom he reasonably believes to have committed an offense and who in fact has committed such offense; and he may use deadly physical force for such purpose when he reasonably believes such to be necessary to:
(a) Defend himself or a third person from what he reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of deadly physical force; or
(b) Effect the arrest of a person, who has committed murder, manslaughter in the first degree, robbery, forcible rape or forcible sodomy and who is in immediate flight there from.
5. A guard, police officer or peace officer who is charged with the duty of guarding prisoners in a detention facility, as that term is defined in section 205.00, or while in transit to or from a detention facility, may use physical force when and to the extent that he reasonably believes such to be necessary to prevent the escape of a prisoner from a detention facility or from custody while in transit thereto or there from.
*looking for more official link now*
official link here:
http://bit.ly/16YLSHk (official link breaks on DU)
DirkGently
(12,151 posts)The actual facts could differ but the version I read indicated
A. A motorcyclist pulled a "boxing in" maneuver on the SUV, brake-checking illegally to force him over so the whole bike crew could pass at once
B. The SUV stopped, but tapped the rear of the bike, causing no damage or injuries, at which point
C. Motorcyclists surrounded the vehicle, slashed all four tires and commenced smashing the SUV and trying to get in, whereupon
D. The driver called 911 -- eventually 4 times I think -- and
E. Only then sped away, injuring one motorcyclist in the process.
No one's required to sit quietly while enraged people force them to the side of the road, then go apeshit slashing tires and attempting violence.
It's shame anyone was hurt, but unless the facts were very different than above, the only sub-human behavior here came from the riders.
d_r
(6,907 posts)but maybe I just can't see it.
But I do see the guy in the SUV intentionally drive over the injured man on the ground. And it is pretty disturbing to see and hear.
HERVEPA
(6,107 posts)d_r
(6,907 posts)I don't think you can leave the scene of accident and purposefully run over some body.
HERVEPA
(6,107 posts)and the life and health of himand his family were threatend would it be OK for him to get out of there?
Of course. But I don't think we can just assume that young people on motorcycles acting like idiots are "scum" or "orcs" or some of the things I've read on here. I don't see physically threatened until after the hit and run. I think that is a bias and it impacts perception of the event.
I think the guys on the motorcycles were wrong. I think they were being reckless, I think they shouldn't have beaten the guy at the end.
bunnies
(15,859 posts)You think bias caused that reputation? Do you know ANYTHING about these assholes youre defending?
DirkGently
(12,151 posts)Best I could tell, SUV guy aimed for the road, and one of the motorcyclists surrounding the SUV got caught up in it.
I don't think the person run over started on the ground -- it wasn't the guy who brake-checked and got "tapped" -- he was fine and ended up being one of the main assailants and smashing in the window with his helmet.
I couldn't see a justificaction for running someone over deliberately if they weren't already being threatening.
But if they were? If they surrounded the SUV, slashed the tires, or were pounding on the truck with their helmets or trying to get in?
I think a reasonable person would read that as life-and-death and take whatever measures they could to get away.
d_r
(6,907 posts)He did hit some people on the passenger side of the suv. I can't tell where the guy who got hit was first, I know he runs over his motorcycle and assumed it was him that get hurt.
After the accident, before the chase, I don't see people hitting the car with helmets or slashing his tires.
When he charges out, his windows aren't broken, his tries aren't flat. There is a point about 5 minutes in where the suv gets caught in traffic and everyone stops. They are trying to talk to the guy. His windows aren't broken, his tries aren't flat, you can see the suv pretty clearly at that point. After a few seconds one person tries to run up and open the door and he speeds away again. Now, that I think could be defended as self-defence.
It isn't until he is stopped the second time that I see helmet bashing against the windshield. My impression is they are trying to stop him because he is trying to hit and run. I don't see any tire slashing but I'm sure that it happened at some point. His tires aren't flat at the end of the video.
DirkGently
(12,151 posts)... I'd agree it's hard to justify taking off in a way that hurt anyone. You can't hurt someone on the basis you imagine they might be dangerous.
But I question the likelihood of a bunch of guys forcing people off the road for their own amusement being all, "Sir, may I have your insurance information, please?" on the side of the road there.
So one question is -- did he try to sit still and wait for the cops, and only gun it when the motorcyclists did something else to make him panic?
Or were the motorcyclists being reasonable and non-threatening, and the SUV suddenly just got scared or angry unjustifiably and callously ran a man down rather than wait for a possible traffic ticket?
I don't think it would require much to show the driver of the SUV reasonably thought that a huge group of guys -- who had just illegally forced his SUV over for kicks -- surrounding the vehicle were a threat he needed to escape, even if it meant possibly harming someone.
If they were just treating the incident as a minor fender bender, why did they surround the SUV in such a way it couldn't drive off without crushing a guy?
Obviously, the specific facts we don't all know yet matter, and crushing a man with your car isn't easily justified.
But I can't help seeing this as a bunch of guys having a great time intimidating people with their bikes, then getting furious when someone they've bullied into a state of panic isn't sufficiently mindful of how fragile bikes and riders are when trying to get away.
d_r
(6,907 posts)that then got ran over or not. I can't tell from the video. But that guy is wearing a white shirt and black vest he wasn't one of the guys basking the sub at the end of video.
Hang on is there another video I haven't seen?
Whiskeytide
(4,461 posts)... during the chase. Its pretty nimble, and I don't think you can do those speeds and maneuvers on flat tires (never tried it, so maybe I'm wrong - but I don't think so). That would suggest that the tire slashing took place after the chase, at the scene of the beating. So I tend to agree with that part of your assessment of the events.
Still don't know if I would have gotten out of my car in the midst of the mob after the accident - especially with my wife and child in the car. There "may" have been a lot of intimidation taking place. There's a difference between "Bobby just got hit - call 911 and get the cops here" and "That asshole just hit Bobby! Get his ass!!!". We'll likely never know with certainty what was said - we'll just hear two wildly different versions..
But I do have an observation to share. I don't know anything about what kind of guy the SUV driver is. But he had to have realized when he gunned it that he was going to hit and probably hurt one of the motorcyclists. Most people wouldn't do that unless their flight instinct had kicked in. Now, that's not an opinion on whether he was justified to be in such fear - maybe he was, maybe he wasn't. But his actions seem to indicate a panicked response.
However, I'm trying to be objective. I hope no one alerts on me.
treestar
(82,383 posts)Though we don't know the driver's story. He is probably guilty of hit and run for not stopping. But his reasons for getting out of there could be compelling.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)If I am involved In a accident and the other people involved in the accident act in a threatening matter I don't think I am morally or legally compelled to stay there.
treestar
(82,383 posts)N.Y. VAT. LAW § 600 : NY Code - Section 600: Leaving scene of an incident without reporting - See more at: http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/nycode/VAT/VI/22/600#sthash.UJ5M0dSy.dpuf
1. Property damage.
a. Any person operating a motor vehicle who, knowing or having cause to know that damage has been caused to the real property or to the personal property, not including animals, of another, due to an incident involving the motor vehicle operated by such person shall, before leaving the place where the damage occurred, stop, exhibit his or her license and insurance identification card for such vehicle, when such card is required pursuant to articles six and eight of this chapter, and give his or her name, residence, including street and number, insurance carrier and insurance identification information including but not limited to the number and effective dates of said individual's insurance policy, and license number to the party sustaining the damage, or in case the person sustaining the damage is not present at the place where the damage occurred then he or she shall report the same as soon as physically able to the nearest police station, or judicial officer.
b. It shall be the duty of any member of a law enforcement agency who is at the scene of the accident to request the said operator or operators of the motor vehicles, when physically capable of doing so, to exchange the information required hereinabove and such member of a law enforcement agency shall assist such operator or operators in making such exchange of information in a reasonable and harmonious manner. A violation of the provisions of paragraph a of this subdivision shall constitute a traffic infraction punishable by a fine of up to two hundred fifty dollars or a sentence of imprisonment for up to fifteen days or both such fine and imprisonment.
2. Personal injury
a. Any person operating a motor vehicle who, knowing or having cause to know that personal injury has been caused to another person, due to an incident involving the motor vehicle operated by such person shall, before leaving the place where the said personal injury occurred, stop, exhibit his or her license and insurance identification card for such vehicle, when such card is required pursuant to articles six and eight of this chapter, and give his or her name, residence, including street and street number, insurance carrier and insurance identification information including but not limited to the number and effective dates of said individual's insurance policy and license number, to the injured party, if practical, and also to a police officer, or in the event that no police officer is in the vicinity of the place of said injury, then, he or she shall report said incident as soon as physically able to the nearest police station or judicial officer.
b. It shall be the duty of any member of a law enforcement agency who is at the scene of the accident to request the said operator or operators of the motor vehicles, when physically capable of doing so, to exchange the information required hereinabove and such member of a law enforcement agency shall assist such operator or operators in making such exchange of information in a reasonable and harmonious manner.
c. A violation of the provisions of paragraph a of this subdivision resulting solely from the failure of an operator to exhibit his or her license and insurance identification card for the vehicle or exchange the information required in such paragraph shall constitute a class B misdemeanor punishable by a fine of not less than two hundred fifty nor more than five hundred dollars in addition to any other penalties provided by law. Any subsequent such violation shall constitute a class A misdemeanor punishable by a fine of not less than five hundred nor more than one thousand dollars in addition to any other penalties provided by law. Any violation of the provisions of paragraph a of this subdivision, other than for the mere failure of an operator to exhibit his or her license and insurance identification card for such vehicle or exchange the information required in such paragraph, shall constitute a class A misdemeanor, punishable by a fine of not less than five hundred dollars nor more than one thousand dollars in addition to any other penalties provided by law. Any such violation committed by a person after such person has previously been convicted of such a violation shall constitute a class E felony, punishable by a fine of not less than one thousand nor more than two thousand five hundred dollars in addition to any other penalties provided by law. Any violation of the provisions of paragraph a of this subdivision, other than for the mere failure of an operator to exhibit his or her license and insurance identification card for such vehicle or exchange the information required in such paragraph, where the personal injury involved (i) results in serious physical injury, as defined in section 10.00 of the penal law, shall constitute a class E felony, punishable by a fine of not less than one thousand nor more than five thousand dollars in addition to any other penalties provided by law, or (ii) results in death shall constitute a class D felony punishable by a fine of not less than two thousand nor more than five thousand dollars in addition to any other penalties provided by law. - See more at: http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/nycode/VAT/VI/22/600#sthash.UJ5M0dSy.dpuf
The "knowingly" element could be up for arguments, I suppose.
treestar
(82,383 posts)DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)He wasn't trying to escape responsibility for the accident by fleeing. Motive is usually one of the elements of a crime. If the version in the news is mostly true his fleeing the scene will most likely be found justifiable.
My thoughts on the matter are contingent on the news reports being largely true. If they aren't my thoughts on the matter will change.
treestar
(82,383 posts)that should do. It's more of an emergency than an ordinary sort of accident.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)If the driver intentionally hit the guy and fled without reason as the OP suggests of course he's liable. But that doesn't seem to be the case. Again, if the news reports are largely true he acted prudently.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)If I have to kill one of those creatures to protect my family, so be it. Self-defense.
d_r
(6,907 posts)they are human beings.
no one hurt the wife or child even after the guy tries to flee the scene of the accident and runs over the biker.
I think that bias is part of the problem.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)So you're going to hang around if dozens and dozens of people are slashing the tires on your vehicle and bashing it with their helmets?
I don't think the law compels you to commit suicide.
reflection
(6,286 posts)Those guys were out to intimidate and harass. The several clips posted online prove it. If a bunch of giggling misanthropes swarm my vehicle and start getting aggressive, especially when my children and wife are in the car, I'm leaving. I hope to hell none of them are in front of me, but if they are and I have no way to go around them, they're going to be street pizza. I'll call 911 immediately and ask for help - both for me and Mr. Squished-in-my-wake.
closeupready
(29,503 posts)Sounds like it. Or play stupid fantasy video games.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)you bet your ass I'd run them over.
Self-defense isn't limited to guns,
Union Scribe
(7,099 posts)is the one where the bikers here were cherubs and the driver should have gotten out of his car to hug them after being mean to them, and sing Free Bird together and everything would have been groovy.
closeupready
(29,503 posts)That should have been your first clue that you are commiserating with keyboard warriors who are 110 pounds strong and have read Lord of the Rings 20+ times. 
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)I can certainly understand why you would trivialize a visceral reaction to protect one's family as a "keyboard warrior"... as quite often, minimizing another person is the only counter many people possess.
However, I'm rather certain you'll rationalize an imaginative distinction without a difference to illustrate that it's actually quite valid when you do what you in fact, indict others for.
Good luck!!!
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)ProdigalJunkMail
(12,017 posts)is complete and utter bullshit and posts like this make DU suck.
sP
d_r
(6,907 posts)I am trying to be clear that the violence was not acceptable. It isn't. We can not allow vigilante mob violence.
I am saying that you also can not leave the scene of an accident and you can not intentionally run people over.
Neither side made good decisions.
Saying that the driver made bad decisions does not justify the reckless behavior of the bikers in the first place or the violence at the end.
That's why I said "either" question.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)"Some ideas are so bizarre only an intellectual could believe them."
Pretzel_Warrior
(8,361 posts)If you hit a motorcycle and then speed away, that is hit and run and you are in big trouble. If, on the other hand, you are being threatened by a mob of scum riding motorcycles and you have a wife and toddler in the vehicle with you..most would understand why you speed away from a very dangerous and potentially life threatening situation.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)This wasn't your garden variety accident scene.
closeupready
(29,503 posts)the point where I just have to reconsider whether I belong here anymore, seriously.
bunnies
(15,859 posts)And Im seriously beginning to question his/her motives. Ive never seen a progressive on DU so unwilling to accept facts.
on edit: Guess I was wrong. The OP is not alone. Your point is made.
closeupready
(29,503 posts)Counting from what I remember yesterday, at least a couple more. And that's a count just off the top of my head.
bunnies
(15,859 posts)Four DUers who are just fine with thugs terrorizing a family. Thats just grand.
ieoeja
(9,748 posts)When I first saw the video the first thing that came to my mind was:
[font size=3]Flash mob on wheels.[/font]
Seriously. To me they looked like a bunch of kids goofing around. But to the rest of the world they apparently look like a rampaging horde bent on destruction.
This guy ran over two of their friends and ran away. He ended up with a few stitches. People get beaten to death for accidently running over people. This guy ran over them on purpose, and just gets a few stitches. Yet, people still think this bunch of kids was bent on death and destruction. What the fuck?!?
First time I saw the video they had excerpts where the bikes and SUV rolled along together for several minutes. Then after the accident it showed one cyclist trying to help the downed biker. The SUV suddenly takes off and runs over the guy.
That guy did nothing. He was not harrassing the SUV driver. He wasn't even paying attention to the SUV driver. He saw the guy on the ground and was helping him up. Heck, if there had been other people around, the SUV driver could just as easily have run over somebody who wasn't even with the bikers.
Everybody sees a bunch of motorcyclists and think "motorcycle gang". Or rather "thugs" which seems to be the mindless, knee-jerk hate term of the 2010s.
I saw a fucking flash mob.
Thank you.
ieoeja
(9,748 posts)I am 51 years old. When I see a bunch of teenagers running towards me in the alley, which happens not too infrequently, I don't freak out and think I'm being attacked. I figure it's a bunch of teenagers running down an alley where I just happen to be.
And I have yet to be attacked.
I've seen people panic when my kid and his friends roll by on their skateboards. I've seen adults get nervous when they ride by on their bicycles. I just don't get it.
bunnies
(15,859 posts)A biker gang with a history of thug behavior isnt kids being kids. A 28 year old man isnt a "kid". And Id hardly call the driver of the SUV an "old person". The justification of these assholes threatening a family is nothing short of disgusting.
Response to bunnies (Reply #97)
closeupready This message was self-deleted by its author.
pintobean
(18,101 posts)The SUV driver is 33. The only kid involved in this incident is the child who was in the SUV.
bunnies
(15,859 posts)Surely he hadnt developed the mental capacity at that young age to know better. And 33?! That old fogey. They're scared of EVERYTHING. No wonder he was worried by the innocent "flash mob on wheels". Poor geezer probably never heard of a flash mob.
pintobean
(18,101 posts)I hate to even call them bikers because they give real bikers a bad name. They do their "stunts" on the four lane road near my house. The other day, my wife and I saw a guy doing a wheelie while standing on the seat with one foot. I would have loved to have thrown a metal rod into his rear wheel and see if he could set a new record for somersaults. We settled for calling the police.
bunnies
(15,859 posts)Bikers to me has a whole different meaning. Maybe Rice Rocketers is a better description. Youd never see a guy on a hog doing hand-stands on his bike. It pisses me off to no end that these people think they're own stupidity is more important that the safety of others. The Ninja driving asshole below me flies up our residential street at like 50 mph. Stop signs? He doesnt need no stop signs. Every time I hear him come or go I expect to hear the crash. Idiots.
closeupready
(29,503 posts)now, or authoritarian or something - instead of people trying to figure out rationally what happened and the sequence of events, we get lots of "Sons of Anarcy!" "Shitstains!" "Mow 'em All Down!"
Fuck that. I'm not interested in doing that, so I think I'm going to pull away, maybe just for now.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)It's only in a right winger's wet dream that they are.
The motorist didn't gun it until the miscreants were slashing his tires and denting his SUV with their helmets. Anybody would have have fled the situation regardless of their ideology; especially with his wife and two year old child in tow.
ieoeja
(9,748 posts)You couldn't see what was happening on the passenger side of the car. Or the rear. Seems odd they wouldn't do all of that near the driver instead.
He had no flat tires for most of the chase. Did the slashed tires fix themselves?
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)Sources said Lien stopped, but “feared for his safety” as several of the wild ones got off their bikes and began to beat on his SUV. The terrified Lien dialed 911 on his cell phone, the sources said.
“He’s surrounded by about 20 to 30 motorcyclists,” Kelly said. “They take their helmets and they start to dent his car and apparently his tires are slashed there with a knife. He’s in the car with his wife. He continues to drive.”
Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/pack-motorcyclists-chase-man-suv-attack-upper-manhattan-street-fender-bender-west-side-highway-article-1.1471585#ixzz2gaAgbVN3
The driver is Asian. This seems like it has the making of a hate crime as well...I wonder if that's why those miscreants targeted him in the first place.
ieoeja
(9,748 posts)DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)This will all be sorted out in the fullness of the time and what we believe to have occurred will be proven to have occurred. That is that a young Asian American man and his wife and two year old child who were minding their own business, driving on a public road, were descended on by a pack of miscreants and fled.
ieoeja
(9,748 posts)What you believe to have occurred has proven to have not occurred. A young Asian American man -- after accidentally (presumably) running into a biker who was trying to create distance between him and a pack of riders -- was approached by one man and fled, running over another man providing first aid to the downed rider.
ieoeja
(9,748 posts)So logged back in. Thinking of quitting again.
I believe I was in a better mood avoiding this place. A bit bored. But feeling at peace.
Sad thing is, I've been here since 2001. First year of the place. On the other hand, I believe it was Bartcop who directed me here, and I stopped visiting his site during the 2004 election when he seemed to develop a hatred of all Democrats not named Clinton. So maybe leaving here kind of follows.
closeupready
(29,503 posts)perhaps they are RW troublemakers, not Democrats or liberals at all - just posing as such.
At any rate, it certainly isn't the left-wing liberal board it used to be. Peace to you!
pintobean
(18,101 posts)Trying to claim that it is, is pathetic. Threatening to leave DU over it is beyond pathetic.
closeupready
(29,503 posts)to the discussion here. But I suppose that would be painful for you...? Don't bother on my account, honey.
pintobean
(18,101 posts)All I've seen from you is score keeping, insults, name calling and a deleted message.
closeupready
(29,503 posts)because I'm giggling at your nonsense. Was that how you meant it?
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)trying their best to make the bikers out to be some kind of victim in this. At the same time they are trying to assign guilt to the family in the Range Rover. The people attempting to do so are nothing but morons. There is one group at fault here. That would be the many pieces of shit in the motorcycle group. Animals need to be locked up for a while.
bunnies
(15,859 posts)The kids being kids crowd is gathering just above you. 
kcr
(15,316 posts)It's too ridiculous.
bunnies
(15,859 posts)Probably the most twisted "logic" Ive ever seen on this site. Good progressives make cookies for angry thug biker mobs. Terrorizing families is good clean fun!
Sheldon Cooper
(3,724 posts)You are attempting to equate the two groups, and failing miserably. And your attempts to declare yourself as somehow more 'decent' than everybody else is laughable. So, stop. Just stop.
bigwillq
(72,790 posts)
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)"Damn that guy for getting in my way when i was recklessly shooting my gun."
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)They should have just called 911 and left it at that.
But instead, they chased down and terrorized a family.
My sympathy for them runs out after that point.
lpbk2713
(42,757 posts)OMFG
ieoeja
(9,748 posts)http://www.rightthisminute.com//video/biker-speaks-out-biker-suv-incident-nyc
The bloodthirsty in this thread are not going to like it. One person walks up and opens the door. The driver then ran over a guy on the ground in front of him.
One person. Not thirty. No slashed tires. No one was beating on the SUV. Nobody else was even close to the SUV.
One person. Who tried to open a door.
kcr
(15,316 posts)Yeah. Why was he opening the door, do you suppose? That just reinforces the opinion that he was right to flee the very dangerous situation. Not seeing how you think this helps your opinion.
ieoeja
(9,748 posts)And to check on insurance, etc. You know. The same reason people always walk up to each other after an accident.
Oh, but that would be normal people. A bunch of people on bikers are not normal people. They are thugs.
kcr
(15,316 posts)You can see his head jerking back and forth. Yeah, he just wanted to check insurance. Do you know what normal people do when they want to talk to another driver in an accident, to get info and so forth? They don't walk up to their car door and try to yank it open.
closeupready
(29,503 posts)And since you guys are fond of dungeon and dragon metaphors, where were the orcs in all this?
bunnies
(15,859 posts) No way that dude was gonna rip him out of the car. No one in their right mind would think that! kcr
(15,316 posts)But anyway, yeah, what a fantastic stretch to imagine that guy had violent intentions by trying to yank on the door. How could I come to such a conclusion. Really, I've participated in some ridiculous discussion on DU, but this is near the top.
bunnies
(15,859 posts)Ive encouraged the name-caller to make an OP about how evil we all are. Fingers crossed!
Response to bunnies (Reply #153)
Post removed
bunnies
(15,859 posts)amirite, pal? Do you accuse every woman you disagree with of having PMS? Or perhaps you've just spread some vile from the pit of your heart just for me. Bless your little sexist heart.
I'll re-post the pic for you. Just in case you wise-up and self-delete. Youre welcome.
closeupready
(29,503 posts)
bunnies
(15,859 posts)Sorry. I dont find it cute. Unless real progressives, such as yourself I guess.
kcr
(15,316 posts)and shows just how rational and thoughtful it is. Way to go!
kcr
(15,316 posts)More entertainment for the afternoon. Maybe they'll leave DU when they see just how disgusting and awful and racist and D&D nerdy the rest of DU is. 
bunnies
(15,859 posts)Guess the mask slipped off. Cuz you now, good progressives ALWAYS accuse women they dont agree with of having PMS!
closeupready
(29,503 posts)?
bunnies
(15,859 posts)closeupready
(29,503 posts) This thread is comedy gold, I'm telling you. bunnies
(15,859 posts)SO cool.
closeupready
(29,503 posts)how some "liberals" on DU have commented on this issue and the racism and anger shown to bikers, and then place that next to threads about animal abuse or beehive collapse or hunger among the US population.
Maybe less funny and more inexplicable (leading to laughter due to tension, but not to humor).
kcr
(15,316 posts)to show condemnation to a bunch of people who threatened, chased, and then dragged out of a car and beat up a guy. How horrible we are.
closeupready
(29,503 posts)How things work on your cable TV shows, but rarely (if ever) in reality.
kcr
(15,316 posts)Your not agreeing with something doesn't make it fantasy. Of course you're free to think that people are free to cause disruption on our roads, threaten the people they snag into that disruption and then claim victimhood when it all goes awry. Of course, you're free to be wrong.
closeupready
(29,503 posts)threw out the cockroach metaphor - early in the thread, they were orcs; yesterday, they were "shitstains"; in the next two minutes, who knows.
But it's sad that so-called "Democrats" are dehumanizing ANYone. Democrats are supposed to be smarter than that.
Talk about some axe murderer on death row, and you'll get a lot of interesting talk about the unreliable justice system, the legitimacy of murdering criminals, the role of vengeance in criminal justice, etc.
But somehow, all bikers who were there were orcs and cockroaches and shitstains and "deserved" to be run over and paralyzed.
Hope you are proud of yourself.
kcr
(15,316 posts)You know what? Of all the things one can do to those who would do what those bikers did? Calling names, low on the list of things to be concerned about in this story? World's tiniest violin.
But all of that aside, claiming the driver didn't have the right to defend himself and his family and should have just waited around for whatever that mob had in mind for him? I don't care what anyone else has done or said in this debate. That's a ludicrous opinion. You know who the guys in front of the car can blame for being run over? The fellow members who thought it was a good idea at that time to start threatening and yanking on his door. That's where they, and everyone else who feels sorry for them, should be pointing the fingers.
ieoeja
(9,748 posts)I can almost see where they originally suspected the riders were up to no good. But the one video clearly shows the first rider was just trying to get the SUV to slow down. The second video does show one of them is pissed off. Who knows, he might have even taken a swing at the guy. We'll never know.
Because fear that one guy might take a swing at him was justification to kill the people on the ground in front of him. At least, according to the vast overwhelming majority on DU.
The disgusting pro-Zimmerman crowd is what made me take a hiatus from DU earlier. But at least they were in the minority, though enough of them to pretty much shout down the decent people here at DU. For some reason decent DUers have turned a 180 degree turn on this issue.
To paraphrase John Lennon it appears that "Riders are the Nigger of DU".
closeupready
(29,503 posts)what the bikers were doing off-camera, what transpired PRIOR to the film's starting point, even what the bikers were THINKING.
So you see, you and I should really let them control the discussions because we're trying to find out the facts without such brilliance. They know everything!
kcr
(15,316 posts)to know that someone yanking violently on someone's door doesn't have warm and fuzzy intentions.
bunnies
(15,859 posts)Omg. We're all racist-authoritarians! I think you should make that an OP for all to see.
And perhaps you should start a fund-raiser for these poor, poor, innocent little boys. Theyre going to need damn good lawyers.
pintobean
(18,101 posts)
And she's the one giggling?
closeupready
(29,503 posts)Presumptuous of you. 
pintobean
(18,101 posts)
bunnies
(15,859 posts)Bless his/her little heart.
reflection
(6,286 posts)the one who was there that day, admits that the first biker who pulled in front of the SUV and slowed down, causing the accident, was brake checking him because he was mad that the SUV pulled in front of him.
Never mind that these cockroaches were weaving in and out of traffic for 15 minutes, running lights and signs, going between cars, and basically ignoring every conceivable rule of the road. The SUV driver had the temerity to pull in front of the biker, so such disrespect couldn't go unchallenged.
This was all so pointless and unnecessary.
Pretzel_Warrior
(8,361 posts)I cannot believe anyone is an apologist for these fucking thugs.
ieoeja
(9,748 posts)That would kind of suck.
You know what would also suck? If some man was lying in front of your car, and you ran over another person who was trying to render them first aid.
Sort of like what just happened in this instance.
But, hey, they looked scary to you. So it's okay to kill them.
d_r
(6,907 posts)that if you ever run into someone, and they are lying in front of you, and people are trying to help him, and someone tries to open your door, that you don't floor it. That would be horrible to live with.
TeeYiYi
(8,028 posts)A. call 911
B. get out to see if the motorcyclist needs assistance
C. remain at the scene of the accident for your ass whoopin'
D. attempt to get away from the escalating mob situation out of complete fear for your life and those of your wife and young daughter; accidentally running over bikers who are attempting to block your vehicle
There. Fixed it for ya.
TYY
Phentex
(16,334 posts)accurately.
d_r
(6,907 posts)smashing fists and helmets in to the car didn't happen until the guy tried to leave the scene of the accident and ran over people trying to help the motorcyclist he hit.
I'm not defending the mob behavior of attacking him. That's why I put both questions up there. Both were wrong. But what you are saying isn't what I see on the video.
You can clearly see one guy's helmeted head jerking back and forth trying to jerk open the driver's car door. That's when he floors it out of there. This was the very first time he stopped, after he hit the guy slowing down in front of him. The people the driver hit while fleeing to safety can blame the guy who threateningly tried to gain entrance to his car.
someone tried to open his car door.
There's a guy in front of him bending down to help the person who just got it.
And somebody opening a car door was reason enough to run him over.
So a guy is paralysed because of that.
OK, you're right, I'm wrong.
People really are scary.
kcr
(15,316 posts)Why do you think they were trying to get into his car? Especially while a bunch of others are also surrounding it?I think it's scary that someone can condemn another for protecting themselves and their family.
http://gawker.com/new-story-of-motorcycle-rampage-emerges-as-one-biker-tu-1436490991
http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/cops-hunt-bikers-wanted-wild-upper-manhattan-attack-article-1.1472419
The fucker that brake-checked the SUV while his cohorts videotaped his bullshit stunt for youtube is completely to blame for the whole event. The driver of the SUV pulled over and was attempting to call 911 when the biker assholes started attacking his car. He panicked and floored it.
The bikers started it and it ended badly.
The videomaking dude has since pulled his youtube account, but not before vids from that day were downloaded and saved to liveleak. http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=3cd_1380579664#ei63Ym5E2DzOuaLQ.99
TYY
Taitertots
(7,745 posts)1. Imagine that you are riding down the highway and see a large SUV in the lane next to you. Do you:
A) Maintain speed and stay in your lane
B) Pass going faster after pulling a reasonable distance ahead of the SUV
C) Cut them off and brake so hard they can't avoid hitting you
2. Imagine you are riding with other people and someone riding with you gets in an accident. Do you:
A) Remain calm and assist your friend after pulling off the road
B) Slow down and ride ahead if the rider appears to have enough people helping them
C) Stop in the middle of the highway, form a violent mob, complain.
d_r
(6,907 posts)the guy on the motorcycle was doing something acceptable. He was being reckless. He was being an idiot.
And I am certainly not defending the mob behavior of attacking the guy.
I'm saying you shouldn't hit and run and run over a person trying to help the guy you hit and leave him paralysed.
Taitertots
(7,745 posts)For everything people claim the guy who was hit did... While he was doing it, he was blocking the SUV driver so his friends could attack the him.
To my knowledge, no charges have been filed against the driver. Basically, the police are saying that it is OK to "hit and run and run over a person trying to help the guy you hit and leave him paralyzed" when put in that situation.
pintobean
(18,101 posts)Wed Oct 2, 2013, 02:16 PM
ieoeja (8,110 posts)
139. That is pretty much how a rider with a pack of motorcycles creates separation for the pack.
You slow down a bit trying to get the SUV to slow down til the pack is past him. It is a very common tactic for good purpose to ensure the safety of the group.
And see post #134. You will see that the SUV is not attacked or surrounded by a bunch of people after the downing. One individual walked up to the SUV. When he tried opening the door, the SUV took off and ran over the guy rendering first aid to the fallen driver.
d_r
(6,907 posts)I think he was being a reckless asshole.
DireStrike
(6,452 posts)After the bike caused an accident, the bike mob began to surround the SUV. Police reports say they then began to hit and damage the vehicle.
At that point, I would run over every single motherfucker on my way out of there.
d_r
(6,907 posts)After he hits him, everyone is looking around to see what happened. he is parked there about 20 seconds. People rush in to try to help the guy who got hit. Apparently one of the guys tried to open the car door, an he hits the gas and runs over two other people in front of him trying to help the guy who got hit. One of them is paralysed now.
Nobody was hitting and damaging the vehicle until after he hit and ran over two people.
DireStrike
(6,452 posts)and that contradicts police reports.
d_r
(6,907 posts)I don't see anybody attacking him. The tires aren't slashed when he drives over the people or when he gets stopped in traffic the first time or when they finally stop him second time. The glass isn't broken, the car doesn't have any dents. You can't hear the sound of anyone hitting it with a helmet when it first stops. You can't see the movement of anyone doing it.
But you are right, it contradicts the initial police report. But so do other witnesses at the scene who said he wasn't attacked before he sped off an ran over two other people.
xfundy
(5,105 posts)Just wow.
cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)cpwm17
(3,829 posts)what do you expect him to do? Here's proof: http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014606742#post337
Even without this definitive evidence, it's obvious to most observers that the SUV driver had a rational fear of the mob. He was clearly justified in fleeing the situation. The criminal that was blocking his right-of-way can only blame himself for his injuries.
Any decent and moral person that has any ability to walk in the SUV driver's shoes can see that his actions were justified.
d_r
(6,907 posts)and two people with that right tire. The "criminal that was blocking his right-of-way" was trying to help another person who had just been hit by the suv and was in front of it. The guy is trying to help the person who was hit, and gets ran over when the suv driver flees the scene of the accident. He's paralysed and he "can only blame himself for his injuries."
Any decent and moral person that any ability to walk in that man's shoes (which he won't walk in again because he tried to help someone after an accident and was then ran over) has to question whether the SUV driver's actions were justified.
