Originally
posted by
Pang:
Originally
posted by
Aimless:
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.
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.
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?