that explains a lot, liberals should lined up against a wall and shot with a bullet of there own fluff...

Can I deduce from the above that Sov is a liberal?

i have no idea :P

lets assume yes!!

i haven't read a single post in this thread

but the motorcycle riders are idiots and deserve anything that came to them. if you got hit by a black suv and you're paralized? you should've thought of your spinal cord before you tried to steal the road from father of a beatiful wife and child.

you can't walk, go cry in a fluffing mirror. how about the loser on a bike who comes to the suv in traffic, and starts PUNCHING the back window, you know, presumably to attack the infant child in the baby seat in the back?

they should all be tied together, walked to a cliff, one shot in the head, and let gravity do the rest, like they did in the thirties.

So many assumptions here lol

Have statements been taken as to why the bikers were slowing the traffic? post sources please

Has anybody traveled with the family in 3 vehicles? I'm talking about your brother's family, your sister's family, and your family to a location and one of you has a problem and pull over to help?

It seems that section of the highway has a limited amount of shoulder.

As the video goes on in the time period where they are all stopped, it does not have ample time to record exactly their intent so it is all speculation and the word of 100s versus that one father.

The stigma bikers have is working against these young men but in a court of law the judge will instruct them to not let that sway their judgment. Facts of law.

From the present evidence, SUV driver was the aggressor and he and his attorney will have a challenging time defending their stance. While the SUV driver does have a lot going for him on his side, I've seen these go the opposite side of popular opinion.

My take, SUV driver should have been more patient.

[quote poster=Atryn; 26635; 492235]

"The Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that police officers at all levels of the government have no duty to protect the citizens of this country. It is the job of police officers to investigate crimes and arrest criminals. We are on our own for protection."

People have to make the correct decisions. Your on your own out there when fluff hits the fan and seconds count.

There are no magic police gonna jet out like Superman to save your ass. .... They are good at giving out tickets!

NATIVE NEW YORK'R YO!

Source?

Also, the reasons for calling 911 were numerous as crimes had ALREADY been committed, reckless endangerment of the public was ALREADY underway, etc. Crime-in-Progress demands response from 911 and law enforcement.

Also, it is every citizen's duty to try and stop a crime in progress. For the off-duty officers that were there during the incident, they likely have policies from their departments about the obligations off-duty both to refrain from participating in and requirements to intervene in a crime in progress. [/quote]

http://gunssavelives.net/...otect-the-general-public/

[quote poster=Xintros; 26635; 494575]

http://m.imdb.com/title/tt0094608/

maybe if you just close your eyes when it's happening.

my take, your a fluffing retard...

my take. don't brake in front of an SUV on a motorcycle unless you know how to pop a wheelie and get the f out of there before it runs you over, Mr. Roadkill.

reminds me of those idiots that were hogging the Pennsylvania Turnpike with their souped up POSs last time i left Detroit. i passed you on the shoulder with a stock Toyota Celica. go hop up and down or something.

lol, 4 age? those things are like little go karts, so much fun to drive.

there is no way this is a serious post. the internet isnt that stupid.

i don't know 4 age. it was a 2001 Celica. had to start off in 3rd gear just to keep it from spinning the tires in snow, ice and rain.

4age is the type of motor, if it was a 2001 i would say it was

toyotas are pretty much all POS. only one worth remembering


http://youtu.be/xKXZT70gwNg

1/2 of the population of the Earth only needs $2.5 a day to live. and they probably don't even bother with consulting the internet. ugh. I'm going to have to argue about your use of the iPhone again. i will capitulate and stipulate that your wife made you do it.

the idiots that i passed weren't driving Toyota.

I was wondering what people with their head up their ass' thoughts would be on this matter. Now i know. Thanks aimless.

Thanks, Marshal. However, I don't think that really changes the conversation here. The SCOTUS was ruling on US Constitutional law. So, while correct in saying that their is no federal constitutional right to force the local police to act that ignores virtually everything else about how police forces are run.

What I asserted was that folks should have called 911 and 911/law enforcement should have responded. That is a local governance issue, not a constitutional issue.

you just quoted fast and furious. you are no longer allowed to weigh in on car talk. thanks.

What about advising the enemy of which buildings to blow up?

please old school starlets ftw!!!

I still can't understand why that guy in the SUV didn't drive to a police station. Apparently they followed him 50 blocks, surely his wife was on the phone to 911 and GPS'ing the nearest cop shop?

Have you ever tried to GPS while on the phone?

Bad mojo, kat.

fluff you F&F is a classic. without F&F there would never have been an influx of ricers to laugh at.

my point stands

says the guy whos name is ford and drives a chevy. dont worry im repping ford for you.

As I said, opposite of popular opinion. The bikers did what illegally BEFORE they chased and beat down the father? Stop traffic? Oh wow, that is a real crime because it doesn't happen when there are accidents etc. They slowed it down to a halt without creating accidents in the back.

My point is that this is not about a biker group proclaiming themselves kings of that road/highway(although they might if not already get charged for that). Also, this is not about whether the father deserved the beating he got. I'm saying that father should get charged for running over the bikers because just as the bikers had their vigilante justice, so did the father when he ran over the biker(s) to get out of there.

He'll get manslaughter if not a similar degree.

fluff, i drive a nissan, race a chevy.

if i got any royalty checks from the ford motor company, i might act a bit different!

It isn't illegal in NY to stop on the road for no good reason? It's fine to just to close the highway down because you want to do illegal tricks? How about the time the same bikers took over Times Square to do tricks and had to be escorted out by cops?

Also, how do you know they didn't create accidents farther back? I'm in traffic DAILY where a slowdowns of that nature cause plenty of accidents "in the back" when there's an unexpected slowdown.

As someone who drives a lot, mostly on highways similar to size and scope as that in the story, if a large group of bikers just decided to slow down/stop, that would be VERY unexpected and could easily lead to accidents. But that goes back to my point about how it's normally illegal to stop on the highway....

I didn't even bother quoting your point re: "vigilante justice" because it makes zero sense. Being scared for the wellbeing of your wife and child != vigilante justice...

Overall, I agree with Heston.

If he does get charged, he'll get off. But I doubt he's charged.

There's zoomed in video showing a biker hitting the side of the vehicle while it was stopped. And stills of a tire rolling down the road pas them as they're chasing him.

It doesn't come down to a question of what they did or didn't do legally (but stopping him, slashing tires, hitting vehicle, etc is illegal anyway) but whether he felt him or his family was in danger.

Speculation until proven otherwise Pang(referring to the accidents in the back unless somebody has come forth?)

He had no reasonable justification of being scared for the well-being of his family BEFORE he ran over the biker. That is what will be looked at in the court of law. You guys are letting your passion drive you and I see this happen in and out. You guys might not like it but it is why I also stated above that the driver does have a lot going for him but in my experience I've seen it go the other way.

Are the bikers in the wrong for stopping traffic? If proven it is for rally and not emergency purposes, then yes. This HAS to be proven and can't just be "are you serious? you think they stopped it for other reasons?"

Likewise, bikers would have to prove the justification if they do go this route but I did read somewhere one of them was using this defense.

Are bikers wrong slashing tires? Yes.

Are bikers wrong in assaulting the father? Yes.

Are bikers wrong in chasing vehicle? No.

Is the father wrong for following too closely? Yes.

Is the father wrong for running over the biker(s)? Yes.


Furthermore, was the wife and child were hurt when the father was assaulted? Is it reasonable to assume before raging the bikers further by running over the biker(s) that they would have administered a lesser punishment if not the same and leaving the wife and child unharmed?

Where in the fluff do you come up with that fluff aimless? You take the pulse of popularity and go with the complete opposite? If you are a man, i feel sorry for whatever poor misguided woman you have fooled into believing you are a provider and protector. You have to wise up or be a victim for the rest of your life. It will all start to get better, if you pull your head out now.
If the suv driver catches a charge and it sticks, i will youtube myself eating my dogs freshest fluff and proclaim aimless my hero.

i was joking every time i said aimless was a retard in the past. im not joking anymore

aimless is a retard.

A group of demanding bikers stopping you anywhere, is never to allow you to admire their bikes and say how do. Aimless you also suggest you have had experiences with this exact situation. Before you try confirm this, i say with 100% certainty that you dont know fluff and you are full of fluff and stfu and fluff you.

Btw aimless, responding to your posts makes me feel like i just punched a blabbering retard in the face that doesnt know what is happening, ever. Thats what the fuq was for in case you go with the opposite of what i said.

ya, this is getting ridiculous to respond to without seeming like I'm punching a child in the face.... but one point:



...the news stories I read said that they stopped to close the highway so they could use the highway to do motorcycle tricks. is that an emergency situation? :p

LOL so by your logic you are saying that a group of demanding bikers were stopping that SUV from the get go to beat him up and thus throwing the argument they were there for a rally to do daredevil tricks...

pang, news stories LOL. Yes, they provide you with insight but they do not provide you with everything and here is a few things what they'll need to establish that.

-Evidence somewhere publicly stated that they were going to use that EXACT SPOT to do their tricks. Otherwise, it is arguable that they had a legitimate reason to stop there and this will come out if there is a trial(which I can see that a lot of you have no experience in and the lengths that people will go through).

-Evidence that they were performing tricks

-Admissions or Confessions

Heston, also to your first sentence, plaintiff/prosecutor will have to establish that the group has a violent past behavior and an established pattern of every time they slow down traffic is to not let you admire their bikes(to put it in your words)

What?
Dddddrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrdddddrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

Stfu aimless.

i win :)

Yep you are a winner. Someone bring this fluffer a balloon and a cookie.

*pops the balloon and eats the cookie* and issues the W.C. Fields quote "Go away kid, ya bother me." to Aimless.

Aimless, every news story says that a biker got in front of the SUV and break checked him. This resulted in the SUV tapping the biker (due only to the biker's actions). At this point the group of bikers began intimidating and menacing the SUV driver. The SUV, in fear for his life, his wife's life, and his young child's life, attempted to escape from the bikers.

Conclusion, the bikers got stupid and one of them got hurt. The bikers are in the wrong in this case and that's just the bottom line. You can pretend otherwise however much you want, but your opinion doesn't change the facts. You lose, because your trying to push some stupid, idiotic comments.

Get Stupid, Get Hurt.

Manslaughter??? Did the guy who got run over die?

And I realize this is probably an exercise in futility, but.. you ask what did the bikers do that was illegal?

I don't know about New York, but where I live, the law is that slower traffic must keep to the right lanes except when passing.

It is also illegal here to intentionally cause an accident, which you can see the one biker doing very clearly in the first few seconds of that video.

Every account I've read or heard about this incident says that some of these guys were beating on the SUV after the initial (intentionally caused) accident and before anyone was run over. I'm pretty sure that's illegal in all 50 states.

And finally, some of the bikers themselves have said that they were trying to stop traffic so that they could perform stunts on the highway, correct?

aimless apparently hasnt seen the other youtube videos of the same biker group doing the same thing on past dates, establishing a pattern of behavior. Aimless is a full on retard, there is no need responding to him further. ignorance of the issue isnt a reason to act that stupid.

biker break checked, got tapped by SUV. bikers beat on windows and shashed tires. SUV driver panicked and drove out of the situation, running over one of the bikers in the process. bikers chased the SUV down and beat the fluff out of him.

bikers fault 100%, from start to finish. quit being flufftarded.

You apparently forgot to read after I sarcastically asked what they did illegal LOL

Also, you are allowed to BRAKE(ahem ford) check if a vehicle is following too closely. A lot of you are throwing this out the window because your passion and narrow mindedness is getting the best out of you.

News story are and will always be half said(whether they are lies or the truth is to be determined) but if given a chance at trial we have barely scratched the surface.

I will not respond to your final point due to your own doubt. Post sources if needed.

mrford, the law is not black and gray and I can think of a dozen routes to dismiss those videos.

Your last statement shows you are not even open to reasonable doubt. Passion drives you dofus.

brake checking is illegal. period. i dont know where you get your info, but it is wrong. it is called impeding traffic, or improper stopping. both are ticketable offenses, look it up. illegal. this isnt an emotional response, this is factual. as i said previously, quit being flufftarded.

You can clearly see the guy slip in front of the suv and hit his breaks. He very clearly did it on purpose...