Discuss: The Biker Gang vs. Family in SUV video

Alpha Unit

Insurgent
its clear cut what happened...

the bikers were looking to have a field day on a long strip...

they blocked entrances to the highway to start their joy ride...

the range dude DISOBEYED THEIR AUTHORITY and or did not slow down

so they FORCED HIM to slow down by getting in front of the bike
or one of them did

and it went from there....

THOSE ARE FACTS...

if they were just riding bout their biz and dont have a history of being ASSHOLES who will get violent
then no problem

in any case 90% of comments I have seen and people I have spoken to have said the bikers were wrong....
they might say the range didnt have to do that yet they UNDERSTAND totally....

not sure what kinds of people would be brave in that situation or not run even more over...

dude even had restraint by NOT having take out couple more of them....
in any case as I said there is somethi9ng I am not getting....
Understanding what he did doen't mean he didn't break the law. Understanding what he did does not mean his reaction wasn't irrational or more than the circumstance required. I guess everyone can understand why the driver did what he did yet no one understands why they beat the shit outta him when they caught him right? Dude allyuh biased beyond any measure or reason to not see that this man made the situation worse and contributed to the end result. I doubt anyone here would be so understanding if that SUV driver lick dong one of their closest friends or family in the process.

See, as a chick that is where nuff argument gets completely lost on me. I dont have enough testosterone get this. He didnt bown down but his wife and kids had to witness him getting his ass beat later on?
I suspect some of the responding parties aren't regular drivers. Guess he have a story to tell his grandkids about the day he stood up to a mean ass menacing mob of biker thugs :rolleyes:
 
J

Juan Dan

Guest
anyway this feels like its going in circles.
I havent argued that the bikers, even the one who slowed down in front of the driver wasnt wrong. So I dont know why that keeps being pulled into the discussion.
The point everyone jumped on was when they all stopped after he hit the guy, did they threaten the driver unprovoked. From the video you cant say factually that happened. They all sat on their bikes to look back and only one guy approached the driver. It is from there I question if the driver up the ante by chatting sh8t and acting aggressively too. If you are afraid would you do that?

At that point, from a woman's perspective, d*ck slinging is the order of the day and I'm not letting NONE of them off the hook for the melee that ensued.
I can tell you that IF he was to be talking shit
it was cause he was going or coming from his wedding anniversary celebration....
yet I doubt he would talk shit to so many bikers...
yet hey...
 
J

Juan Dan

Guest
Understanding what he did doen't mean he didn't break the law. Understanding what he did does not mean his reaction wasn't irrational or more than the circumstance required. I guess everyone can understand why the driver did what he did yet no one understands why they beat the shit outta him when they caught him right? Dude allyuh biased beyond any measure or reason to not see that this man made the situation worse and contributed to the end result. I doubt anyone here would be so understanding if that SUV driver lick dong one of their closest friends or family in the process.



I suspect some of the responding parties aren't regular drivers. Guess he have a story to tell his grandkids about the day he stood up to a mean ass menacing mob of biker thugs :rolleyes:
ok lets separate a key point....

YOU dont think his tires were slashed or stabbed...
YOU dont think he was in immediate danger that he felt he HAD TO do that....

HE made the situation worse?
wow

as I just told lb

DO I HAVE TO TELL YOU OF THE PEOPLE I KNOW WHO HAVE DIED IN ROAD ACCIDENTS
ON BIKES AND IN CARS?

whats so difficult about that to understand?

you keep thinking a person has a certain opinion cause they dont ride bikes or dont like bikers or this or that

in any case you know why you feel the way you do
 

Alpha Unit

Insurgent
ok lets separate a key point....

YOU dont think his tires were slashed or stabbed...
YOU dont think he was in immediate danger that he felt he HAD TO do that....

HE made the situation worse?
wow

as I just told lb

DO I HAVE TO TELL YOU OF THE PEOPLE I KNOW WHO HAVE DIED IN ROAD ACCIDENTS
ON BIKES AND IN CARS?

whats so difficult about that to understand?

you keep thinking a person has a certain opinion cause they dont ride bikes or dont like bikers or this or that

in any case you know why you feel the way you do
I am dealing with only what I see. Not what anyone else has added. If we are going to accept that the tires were "slashed" then shouldn't we also accept the biker's statements that after seing a child in the vehicle he turned away?. Or is it that only one side could be truthful and the other not?

can you point out when the tires were slashed?

Describe the immediate danger?

Who was the threatening party?

You don't have to go into who you know that died, that is of no significance in this discussion.

If your mom got runover by that SUV driver, would you be so understanding of his situation?
 
J

Juan Dan

Guest
I am dealing with only what I see. Not what anyone else has added. If we are going to accept that the tires were "slashed" then shouldn't we also accept the biker's statements that after seing a child in the vehicle he turned away?. Or is it that only one side could be truthful and the other not?

can you point out when the tires were slashed?

Describe the immediate danger?

Who was the threatening party?

You don't have to go into who you know that died, that is of no significance in this discussion.

If your mom got runover by that SUV driver, would you be so understanding of his situation?
the biker who went in front of the range who STARED into the car didnt see the baby and woman fore he went in front and braked?

well maybe he didnt see the baby

immediate danger is a bike braking in front of you to FORCE YOU TO STOP whilst his dozens of other bikes are around and in front of you
and if they beat on the car and were getting aggressive then thats immediate
even STARING into the car and pulling in front to stop the driver is BADMAN GANGSTA MOVE

who was the threatening party?
lol
lol

why would my mom be run over by the suv driver?

she would have more of a chance of being in an accident cause of those bikers

suv driver was going bout his biz

bikers were looking to disturb EVERYBODY IN THEIR WAY

dont get that?
as I said maybe its somethign I dont get
honestly
 

Alpha Unit

Insurgent
the biker who went in front of the range who STARED into the car didnt see the baby and woman fore he went in front and braked?

well maybe he didnt see the baby

immediate danger is a bike braking in front of you to FORCE YOU TO STOP whilst his dozens of other bikes are around and in front of you
and if they beat on the car and were getting aggressive then thats immediate
even STARING into the car and pulling in front to stop the driver is BADMAN GANGSTA MOVE

who was the threatening party?
lol
lol

why would my mom be run over by the suv driver?

she would have more of a chance of being in an accident cause of those bikers

suv driver was going bout his biz

bikers were looking to disturb EVERYBODY IN THEIR WAY

dont get that?
as I said maybe its somethign I dont get
honestly
Luckily you aren't a judge and hopefully not a perspective juror lol
 

LB

Peace Love n Pretty Tings
Sorry Carlos, dont get how what you are saying is a counter-argument to anything I've said.

you boys can carry on with the discussion.
 
J

Juan Dan

Guest
Luckily you aren't a judge and hopefully not a perspective juror lol
hey as I said there are some high emotions in this thing here, not sure why....
and I will admit yes I might not get it...
we can leave it at that...
lets hope you become a juror and free all those guys and send the man to jail or make sure he punished....
 
J

Juan Dan

Guest
Sorry Carlos, dont get how what you are saying is a counter-argument to anything I've said.

you boys can carry on with the discussion.
this is not an arguement and wasnt looking to counter....
maybe that is NORMAL REGULAR bike culture and I dont know nothing about such things....
we can leave it at that...
 
J

Juan Dan

Guest
he go discuss by heself untill he figure it out, I done.
very amusing....

maybe this can be boiled down to circles and crowds....

the folks you know as you said the majority of them agreed with you

the folks I know they understand and would do the same as the rover driver

maybe thats all it is
a matter of perception/perspective
 

BacchanalDiva

Registered User
Instead of going around in circles as LB said, can someone state what the law really is regarding "perceived threat ". Do you have to see a weapon, or a person plainly state their ill intentions or what? I know "menacing" depending on degree ranges from misdemeanor to felony. At what point does a person's menacing legally justify you fighting for your life?
 

Alpha Unit

Insurgent
Instead of going around in circles as LB said, can someone state what the law really is regarding "perceived threat ". Do you have to see a weapon, or a person plainly state their ill intentions or what? I know "menacing" depending on degree ranges from misdemeanor to felony. At what point does a person's menacing legally justify you fighting for your life?
one is guilty of second degree menacing when:

1. He or she intentionally places or attempts to place another person
in reasonable fear of physical injury, serious physical injury or death
by displaying a deadly weapon, dangerous instrument or what appears to
be a pistol, revolver, rifle, shotgun, machine gun or other firearm; or
2. He or she repeatedly follows a person or engages in a course of
conduct or repeatedly commits acts over a period of time intentionally
placing or attempting to place another person in reasonable fear of
physical injury, serious physical injury or death; or
3. He or she commits the crime of menacing in the third degree in
violation of that part of a duly served order of protection, or such
order which the defendant has actual knowledge of because he or she was
present in court when such order was issued, pursuant to article eight
of the family court act, section 530.12 of the criminal procedure law,
or an order of protection issued by a court of competent jurisdiction in
another state, territorial or tribal jurisdiction, which directed the
respondent or defendant to stay away from the person or persons on whose
behalf the order was issued.
Menacing in the second degree is a class A misdemeanor.

S 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 or she
reasonably believes such to be necessary to defend himself, herself or a
third person from what he or she 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 with intent to
cause physical injury to another person; or
(b) The actor was the initial aggressor; except that in such case the
use of physical force is nevertheless justifiable if the actor 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) The actor 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 or she knows that with complete personal safety, to oneself and others he or she may avoid the
necessity of so doing by retreating;

Deadly physical force can be used when and to the extent that one reasonably believes it is NECESSARY to defend himself or a third person from what one reasonably believes to be a kidnapping, forcible rape, forcible sodomy, robbery, burglary as well as stopping another from using deadly physical force on them.
 

CaribKaraoke

CaribKaraoke.com Owner
What are the actual illegal activities in this video, here's what I see:

1) Biker Gang - The brake check - dangerous driving. Do that to an officer or in front of one, and you get a ticket
2) Biker Gang - Impeding a driver and blocking them in. Not sure what the law is, but if you do that to an officer or in front of one, that's a ticket at least
3) SUV Driver - Hit and run on multiple drivers. Do that to multiple police cars and you are going to jail at the least and could get attempted murder at the most it seems
4) Biker Gang - Smashing the car windows. Do that to a police car, jail time and fine
5) Biker Gang - Attacking the SUV Guy. Do that to a police officer, jail time at could be attempted murder.

By law, that seems like what was done wrong. Both parties are wrong. But I ain't no lawyer
 

Alpha Unit

Insurgent
What are the actual illegal activities in this video, here's what I see:

1) Biker Gang - The brake check - dangerous driving. Do that to an officer or in front of one, and you get a ticket
2) Biker Gang - Impeding a driver and blocking them in. Not sure what the law is, but if you do that to an officer or in front of one, that's a ticket at least
3) SUV Driver - Hit and run on multiple drivers. Do that to multiple police cars and you are going to jail at the least and could get attempted murder at the most it seems
4) Biker Gang - Smashing the car windows. Do that to a police car, jail time and fine
5) Biker Gang - Attacking the SUV Guy. Do that to a police officer, jail time at could be attempted murder.

By law, that seems like what was done wrong. Both parties are wrong. But I ain't no lawyer
reckless driving, impeding the flow of traffic, hit and run, fleeing the scene of an accident, speeding, driving with depraved indifference to human life (not the propper term, when I remember will edit), destruction of property, assault, aggravated assault, assault with a deadly weapon, attempted manslaughter, more when I identify them.
 

BacchanalDiva

Registered User
one is guilty of second degree menacing when:

1. He or she intentionally places or attempts to place another person
in reasonable fear of physical injury, serious physical injury or death
by displaying a deadly weapon, dangerous instrument or what appears to
be a pistol, revolver, rifle, shotgun, machine gun or other firearm; or
2. He or she repeatedly follows a person or engages in a course of
conduct or repeatedly commits acts over a period of time intentionally
placing or attempting to place another person in reasonable fear of
physical injury, serious physical injury or death; or
3. He or she commits the crime of menacing in the third degree in
violation of that part of a duly served order of protection, or such
order which the defendant has actual knowledge of because he or she was
present in court when such order was issued, pursuant to article eight
of the family court act, section 530.12 of the criminal procedure law,
or an order of protection issued by a court of competent jurisdiction in
another state, territorial or tribal jurisdiction, which directed the
respondent or defendant to stay away from the person or persons on whose
behalf the order was issued.
Menacing in the second degree is a class A misdemeanor.

S 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 or she
reasonably believes such to be necessary to defend himself, herself or a
third person from what he or she 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 with intent to
cause physical injury to another person; or
(b) The actor was the initial aggressor; except that in such case the
use of physical force is nevertheless justifiable if the actor 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) The actor 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 or she knows that with complete personal safety, to oneself and others he or she may avoid the
necessity of so doing by retreating;

Deadly physical force can be used when and to the extent that one reasonably believes it is NECESSARY to defend himself or a third person from what one reasonably believes to be a kidnapping, forcible rape, forcible sodomy, robbery, burglary as well as stopping another from using deadly physical force on them.
Ok, I was following until the end cause that reads like you can only use equal force..deadly force only if the other person is threatening deadly force and I do remember that now...but then it says you can use deadly force to avoid robbery :confused: Phrases like "reasonably believes" are confusing too..I guess its up to judge and jury to decide what's reasonable?

This makes me think of the last episide of SVU...the lady shot the boy cause he was following her with a hoodie over his face down a dark street then into her gate..she told him to go away and he kept coming so she shot him. He also fit the description of a serial rapist. They found out he wasn't the rapist and that the woman was a crazy southern racist. The jury found her not guilty tho.
 

BacchanalDiva

Registered User
Idk, this just make it look like he gave as good as he got int he acting aggressively department. D8ck slinging never ends well so how does it keep the driver off the hook if he was escalating things just as well? How is he less culpable?
So as long as two wrongs make a right its okay?

Everyone reacts differently under stress and cant always keep a clear head. I agree. But it doesnt mean the way you react is always justified, or should I say in this case legal. I guess you can always justify your choices but it doesnt always mean you are on the right side of the law when you do.

Both sides took it too far, but what I am saying is I am just not willing to cut the driver as much slack as everyone else seems to be.
This is the thing with all concerned...I think both the driver and the bikers.
 

Hello BKLYN

Searching For Answers
heard on the news this morning that the biker in the coma's family retained this high powered well known attorney... when they said her name i was her name sounds familliar, think i heard it in some other high profiled case that was all over the news but the name escapes me now
 
J

Juan Dan

Guest
heard on the news this morning that the biker in the coma's family retained this high powered well known attorney... when they said her name i was her name sounds familliar, think i heard it in some other high profiled case that was all over the news but the name escapes me now
damn dey gon make this tred go all the way to page 2?
with all the new revelations n all
tred kind a quiet like elmer fudd
sheeeeeesh
lol@there being couple brooklyn bikers including a capper in the lot
 
Top