Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

steve2470

(37,481 posts)
35. self-defense statute in NY state
Wed Oct 2, 2013, 10:46 AM
Oct 2013
http://selfdefenses.com/forcespray/SD-law.html

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)

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Imagine you are being harrased by a mob of bikers who block your path NightWatcher Oct 2013 #1
Apparently, the man should have taken his ass-kicking right there on the highway. bunnies Oct 2013 #3
You can't hit someone d_r Oct 2013 #4
Youd have jumped out of your car with a gang of bikers beating your vehicle? bunnies Oct 2013 #6
That looks like a pintobean Oct 2013 #9
More like a death-wish quiz. bunnies Oct 2013 #18
honestly I would been out of the car d_r Oct 2013 #31
What makes you think there was time? bunnies Oct 2013 #34
I watched the video d_r Oct 2013 #183
Have you ever been in a car accident? bunnies Oct 2013 #185
exactly d_r Oct 2013 #203
And in none of the experiences you mention kcr Oct 2013 #207
I would have tried to open the door d_r Oct 2013 #211
Yes, you are trying to change it. kcr Oct 2013 #212
kcr, I'm not trying to compare d_r Oct 2013 #214
You're implying it. kcr Oct 2013 #215
The situations you describe are very different from the one we're discussing, though. bunnies Oct 2013 #209
I'm sure he *felt* threatened d_r Oct 2013 #213
except that is not at all what happened d_r Oct 2013 #10
NYPD disagrees with your account. bunnies Oct 2013 #13
No I didn't see that d_r Oct 2013 #20
We'd ALL get out to help but for fear of our lives. bunnies Oct 2013 #22
I imagine many people pretend they know what they would do in any given situation. LanternWaste Oct 2013 #118
You would make a shitty eyewitness Pretzel_Warrior Oct 2013 #86
You didn't watch the same video the rest of us have. CANDO Oct 2013 #136
That is pretty much how a rider with a pack of motorcycles creates separation for the pack. ieoeja Oct 2013 #139
A "good tactic"? CANDO Oct 2013 #182
Because it's their road pintobean Oct 2013 #196
You can see the tire at 3:04 in the video just after it had been ripped off the vehicle cpwm17 Oct 2013 #220
It certainly wasn't wreckless but it was reckless. hobbit709 Oct 2013 #192
DoubleDerp seveneyes Oct 2013 #30
You can if they're holding knives outside your window and your baby is in the car Renew Deal Oct 2013 #40
No these fucking motorcyclists should all fucking land in jail! Pretzel_Warrior Oct 2013 #65
You can if they are threatening you and your family Politicalboi Oct 2013 #169
"I would jump out of the car and try to help the guy I just hit." On the Road Oct 2013 #201
sorry I don't get it d_r Oct 2013 #205
Maybe I Misunderstood the Situation On the Road Oct 2013 #218
I guess it is perception d_r Oct 2013 #219
the biker deliberately applied the brakes in front of the car tk2kewl Oct 2013 #2
I don't think he was trying to be hit d_r Oct 2013 #5
bullshit tk2kewl Oct 2013 #7
so they just picked out this guy d_r Oct 2013 #11
my guess is something happened earlier that isn't on the vid tk2kewl Oct 2013 #14
I agree we don't know context d_r Oct 2013 #21
Reckless dude. RECKLESS tkmorris Oct 2013 #46
yeah you are right d_r Oct 2013 #51
Recless pintobean Oct 2013 #88
Hah! Nice tkmorris Oct 2013 #154
you should follow the links in this post... tk2kewl Oct 2013 #54
thank you for the link d_r Oct 2013 #61
This message was self-deleted by its author Buns_of_Fire Oct 2013 #59
One of the riders claims he pulled up alongside them and started hurling obscenities and threats sir pball Oct 2013 #108
No, if the biker was looking back treestar Oct 2013 #24
yes agreed d_r Oct 2013 #28
Turns out, he caused the accident intentionally. (shocking) bunnies Oct 2013 #37
Yeah I said d_r Oct 2013 #52
ok. So the biker intentionally causes an accident, bunnies Oct 2013 #62
I thought he was looking back d_r Oct 2013 #67
Do you drive? bunnies Oct 2013 #71
yeah I drive all the time of course I drive d_r Oct 2013 #78
*sigh* bunnies Oct 2013 #85
do i just hand them my 2 yr old also? seabeyond Oct 2013 #8
who would you hand your two year old to d_r Oct 2013 #12
you are talking about a real event, an event video'd. and you tie it in with "decent person" seabeyond Oct 2013 #15
not playing a game d_r Oct 2013 #26
a father had good reason to fear the safety of wife and child. that simple. seabeyond Oct 2013 #29
I have children d_r Oct 2013 #32
Even if they were surrounding your car and pounding on your windows? kcr Oct 2013 #42
again I don't see that happening on the video d_r Oct 2013 #47
Oh, right. They were surrounding his car just to check on things. kcr Oct 2013 #49
I don't see it the way you do. d_r Oct 2013 #55
your version of events is completely and utterly fantasy ProdigalJunkMail Oct 2013 #58
may be so d_r Oct 2013 #70
How was he merely assuming they were dangerous and scary? kcr Oct 2013 #77
I don't see it d_r Oct 2013 #79
And that's what makes your opinion on this so cuckoo pants. kcr Oct 2013 #87
another thing that is dangerous d_r Oct 2013 #189
It's especially dangerous kcr Oct 2013 #190
RIght, it didn't have to be that way kcr Oct 2013 #63
serious question d_r Oct 2013 #74
Okay, dude, you're on to us. kcr Oct 2013 #81
Wanna bet this OP has never been in a car accident? bunnies Oct 2013 #91
...AND brandishes knives; slashing your tires. TeeYiYi Oct 2013 #144
The OP and a few others. kcr Oct 2013 #148
You wouldn't check on your wife and child first? pintobean Oct 2013 #95
Would that be the decent human being test? bunnies Oct 2013 #109
You are a friggin' saint. There. Happy now? virgogal Oct 2013 #128
Nah. bunnies Oct 2013 #17
Ya, that. Nt seabeyond Oct 2013 #19
Well, apparently that's what he gets for being biased against bikers. kcr Oct 2013 #90
Exactly. bunnies Oct 2013 #92
And remember, everyone. kcr Oct 2013 #113
And for the Women: bunnies Oct 2013 #119
from information so far, I'd say the biker who brake checked is at fault.... steve2470 Oct 2013 #16
self-defense statute in NY state steve2470 Oct 2013 #35
E.) Escape the people slashing your tires & trying to kill you? DirkGently Oct 2013 #23
I don't see C on the video d_r Oct 2013 #27
Are you purposely being obtuse? HERVEPA Oct 2013 #33
No I am absolutely not d_r Oct 2013 #39
OK. If the driver and his family were being physically threatened (which most people think), HERVEPA Oct 2013 #56
Yes d_r Oct 2013 #66
They have a history of being scum! bunnies Oct 2013 #75
Just what I read. You can see them surrounding the SUV DirkGently Oct 2013 #38
I keep looking at the video d_r Oct 2013 #43
If no one was threatening the SUV when it first pulled over DirkGently Oct 2013 #94
I don't know if it was the guy who was slowing down and got hit d_r Oct 2013 #50
The SUV doesn't "look" like its tires were already slashed... Whiskeytide Oct 2013 #72
After the initial accident, both sides call 911 treestar Oct 2013 #25
If I am involved In a car accident DemocratSinceBirth Oct 2013 #80
Hit and Run rules can be very stringent treestar Oct 2013 #125
but there could be defenses: treestar Oct 2013 #126
The SUV driver called 911 at least four times. DemocratSinceBirth Oct 2013 #131
Yeah, I think if he called 911 from the car treestar Oct 2013 #132
If the driver intentionally hit the guy and fled as the OP suggests DemocratSinceBirth Oct 2013 #133
Scenario 1: Flee with my wife and child from the orcs on those bikes geek tragedy Oct 2013 #36
they aren't "orcs" d_r Oct 2013 #44
Yes, people are biased against violent thugs on motorized bikes terrorizing other drivers nt geek tragedy Oct 2013 #45
So you're going to hang around if dozens and dozens of people DemocratSinceBirth Oct 2013 #48
Damn skippy. reflection Oct 2013 #57
Do you watch 10 hours of Sci Fi Channel every single day? closeupready Oct 2013 #96
No, but if a bunch of thugs were threatening the safety of me and my family geek tragedy Oct 2013 #103
The only fantasy I see in this thread Union Scribe Oct 2013 #105
Hint: "Orcs" aren't real, lol. closeupready Oct 2013 #130
I can certainly understand why you would trivialize a visceral reaction... LanternWaste Oct 2013 #135
smh/nt DemocratSinceBirth Oct 2013 #41
your attempt to justify the bikers' behavior ProdigalJunkMail Oct 2013 #53
then you misunderstood d_r Oct 2013 #64
My friend had this quote which he attributed to Orwell but i can't find confirmation, ergo: DemocratSinceBirth Oct 2013 #68
Your post is ridiculous. Under general circumstances Pretzel_Warrior Oct 2013 #60
I don't understand why that it is so hard for the OP to understand. DemocratSinceBirth Oct 2013 #69
this topic, once again, shows how DU's membership has degraded to closeupready Oct 2013 #73
The OP is out on the limb alone on this one. bunnies Oct 2013 #82
No, he's not. There are at least four of us, by my count. closeupready Oct 2013 #98
Fantastic. bunnies Oct 2013 #106
It appears you and I are the only two people who saw it that way. ieoeja Oct 2013 #76
thank you. d_r Oct 2013 #83
Young people behaving youthfully scares the shit out of a lot of old people. ieoeja Oct 2013 #89
This kids being kids nonsese it absolute bullshit. bunnies Oct 2013 #97
This message was self-deleted by its author closeupready Oct 2013 #101
The other suspect who was arrested is 42. pintobean Oct 2013 #114
Wow. That other "kid" is older than me! bunnies Oct 2013 #122
I guess every city has these "bikers" pintobean Oct 2013 #124
I agree with you re: calling them bikers. bunnies Oct 2013 #127
Count me in, too. I'm thinking I need to move on; DU is conservative closeupready Oct 2013 #93
Being a progressive and acting rationally aren't mutually exclusive DemocratSinceBirth Oct 2013 #104
The video didn't show any of that. ieoeja Oct 2013 #111
Here DemocratSinceBirth Oct 2013 #116
Ah! Because he said so. Whom should I believe, him or my lying eyes? n/t ieoeja Oct 2013 #117
This will all be sorted out in the fullness of time DemocratSinceBirth Oct 2013 #121
Check out video at post #134. ieoeja Oct 2013 #137
I stopped for a couple weeks. But lurked, saw something that I just couldn't *not* comment on. ieoeja Oct 2013 #110
Many commenters are fairly new, and part of me thinks closeupready Oct 2013 #129
This isn't a D/R or left/right issue pintobean Oct 2013 #138
It would be fun if you could actually contribute something closeupready Oct 2013 #141
Thank you Mrs. Potts pintobean Oct 2013 #147
lol, do you have a Ph.D. in wisecracking, closeupready Oct 2013 #156
There are a group of idiots out there... NCTraveler Oct 2013 #84
Not just "out there" apparently. bunnies Oct 2013 #100
We're conservative authoritarians now, too. kcr Oct 2013 #115
I noticed that. bunnies Oct 2013 #120
Your OP, and every subsequent post in this thread, is ludicrous. Sheldon Cooper Oct 2013 #99
This thread gets a big fail bigwillq Oct 2013 #102
This reminds me of the Cheney defense when he shot his hunting partner in the face DemocratSinceBirth Oct 2013 #107
If the bikers felt they were wronged by the driver at the outset of the incident NuclearDem Oct 2013 #112
Isn't it great fun to reduce life to its most simplistic form? lpbk2713 Oct 2013 #123
This video shows how the bikers attacked the SUV before he ran from them. ieoeja Oct 2013 #134
"One person walks up and opens the door" kcr Oct 2013 #140
Probably to give him a piece of his mind. ieoeja Oct 2013 #142
The guy was yanking violently. kcr Oct 2013 #143
You are overreaching. And inserting fantasy here. closeupready Oct 2013 #146
Im sure the door was just stuck. bunnies Oct 2013 #149
First we were conservative and authoritarian. Now we're D&D nerds. kcr Oct 2013 #151
And Racist! Racist-Authoritarian D&D nerds! bunnies Oct 2013 #153
Post removed Post removed Oct 2013 #159
Sexism is AWESOME! bunnies Oct 2013 #162
It goes with the whole orc-y, D&D theme; report, if you wish. closeupready Oct 2013 #170
I dont know what the fuck an "orc" is but I now sexism when I see it. bunnies Oct 2013 #173
Wow, that really solidifies your point of view kcr Oct 2013 #163
Oh, I hope they do. kcr Oct 2013 #160
And now closeupready has pulled the sexism card. bunnies Oct 2013 #166
Did you alert? closeupready Oct 2013 #171
No way. I'd rather leave it out there for everyone to see. nt bunnies Oct 2013 #174
Because you are such a sensitive human being? closeupready Oct 2013 #176
Sexists are SO cool. bunnies Oct 2013 #177
It's honestly funny to juxtapose closeupready Oct 2013 #145
Yeah, I know, how ridiculous kcr Oct 2013 #150
Horrible, yes, I agree - the rest, again, is mostly fantasy. closeupready Oct 2013 #155
You keep saying things are fantasy kcr Oct 2013 #157
You and your ilk here are embellishing - someone 5 minutes ago closeupready Oct 2013 #164
Oh, they called them names? kcr Oct 2013 #168
There do not appear to be many people passing the "halfway decent human being" test on DU. ieoeja Oct 2013 #161
Except that most biker-haters here are psychic, so they know closeupready Oct 2013 #167
Right, because it takes a psychic kcr Oct 2013 #175
Racism now too? bunnies Oct 2013 #152
Do you know what race "bikers" are? pintobean Oct 2013 #165
How do you know I'm not an it? closeupready Oct 2013 #172
? pintobean Oct 2013 #217
Any excuse to call DUers names will do, it seems. bunnies Oct 2013 #179
The biker who was interviewed in that video, reflection Oct 2013 #158
If someone ever tries to open my car door while I'm stopped. I'm flooring it. Deal with that. Pretzel_Warrior Oct 2013 #180
Hopefully if that ever happens none of your loved ones will be in front of your car. ieoeja Oct 2013 #181
I really hope d_r Oct 2013 #186
Your first scenario is missing something... TeeYiYi Oct 2013 #178
That reads more Phentex Oct 2013 #184
but that isn't what happened d_r Oct 2013 #187
You're wrong. kcr Oct 2013 #188
OK d_r Oct 2013 #193
Someone trying to open his car door is reason enough. Yes. kcr Oct 2013 #195
Links... TeeYiYi Oct 2013 #197
Should you ride a motorcycle quiz Taitertots Oct 2013 #191
I don't think anyone has said d_r Oct 2013 #194
You shouldn't be put in a situation where you need to do that Taitertots Oct 2013 #199
I think someone did. pintobean Oct 2013 #200
well I never said it d_r Oct 2013 #210
Have you read anything about the story, or just watched the first 10 seconds of video? DireStrike Oct 2013 #198
I've watched it really closely d_r Oct 2013 #206
I don't think it's really possible to see that in the video DireStrike Oct 2013 #208
you are right d_r Oct 2013 #216
Wow. And I thought I'd seen stupid OPs before. xfundy Oct 2013 #202
This isn't a halfway decent ANYTHING. cherokeeprogressive Oct 2013 #204
They slashed his tire cpwm17 Oct 2013 #221
he ran over motorcycles d_r Oct 2013 #222
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»halfway decent human bein...»Reply #35