freeway motorcycle shutdown - SUV runs them over (graphic)

[dufremle]

The lawyer will try to get any charges against him reduced, if any. Then probably try to get him some money in a civil suit. Win or lose, she's getting publicity for her practice.

[shilka99]

The lawyer will try to get any charges against him reduced, if any. Then probably try to get him some money in a civil suit. Win or lose, she's getting publicity for her practice.

Which is why she's no doubt working pro bono too.
Although I just heard from a lawyer friend that if someone is injured while committing a crime they are not entitled to make a civil claim. And this idiot was blocking traffic on a highway and riding without a license.
And apparently a number of the license plates recorded on traffic cameras came up as stolen.

[fixxervi6]

For those of you on android, go to the play store and look up hollywood stunts bike crew... you won't regret it.

https://play.google.com/store/apps/deta ... tsBikeCrew

[Polokid69]

http://gma.yahoo.com/christopher-cruz-b ... ories.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[fireblade]

This guy is an asshat!! He's like a little kid that doesnt want to be in trouble so he's lying and trying make up weak excuses. I'm not surprised at all with his actions and excuses, I am disappointed with the cops that were there and didnt do anything at all to stop this.

[Stardog]

Cops are not immune to retardation. I have seen them drink their fill and get on their Harlies. I have seen them drive drunker than cooter brown (and been in the passengers seat singing along a time or two despite my personal policy on drinking and driving). I am not at all shocked to find that a few of those guys were cops playing with the other side.

[Dragonfly]

I heard on the news this morning, 4 cops are under investigation for their involvement in this incedent.

[U-Turn]

The Weirding took hold.
Groups act very different than individuals.
But yea, as a motorcyclist this behavior, rage instead of compassion for the sad situation of an accident is deplorable.
But once the riders turned into a gang I don't fault the driver one bit for "punching it" to get the hell outta there. I would. Showed restraint in not using the SUV as a weapon and running more bikers off the road.
It could have easily been a massacre. Suppose the driver pulled a concealed weapon and popped a shot off, then 5 ~ 15 ~25 bikers pulled theirs? Massacre.
Sad situation.

[Striple]

Showed restraint in not using the SUV as a weapon and running more bikers off the road.

He DID use the SUV as a weapon, and used potentially lethal force. The guy whom he ran over in the process is paralyzed.

[Polokid69]

Showed restraint in not using the SUV as a weapon and running more bikers off the road.

He DID use the SUV as a weapon, and used potentially lethal force. The guy whom he ran over in the process is paralyzed.

I think his force was justified. Put yourself in his place with your wife and a young child. What you have done and no, you don't have a gun ?

[Striple]

Showed restraint in not using the SUV as a weapon and running more bikers off the road.

He DID use the SUV as a weapon, and used potentially lethal force. The guy whom he ran over in the process is paralyzed.

I think his force was justified. Put yourself in his place with your wife and a young child. What you have done and no, you don't have a gun ?

Being afraid is not an automatic free pass to kill. Unless there is very specific evidence that his or his passenger's lives were in immediate danger (such as by the bikers brandishing guns, etc.), his use of deadly force is not morally justified. Had there not been anybody in his way, then perhaps driving off may have been considered to be cavalier, but driving over people and potentially killing them without a very specific and immediate lethal danger is not morally justifiable. This is not the Congo--we (presumably) value human lives in this culture, and killing people just because you are afraid is a poor testament to our social and cultural standards.

If we're going to open the door to let anyone use lethal force anytime they're afraid, where do we draw the line? Ever been in a bar fight? Some of those can be scary, especially when you're dealing with several people. Can I kill if somebody swings at me? What about the person that is full of road rage on the highway? If I feel threatened, can I kill them too? People really need to think about when the use of lethal force is morally justified, rather than worrying exclusively about the legal aspects involved. Otherwise, what makes us any different than some of the cultures where human lives are not valued?

Those bikers were clearly a bunch of tools, but we happen to live in a culture where one of the freedoms that we enjoy is to be whatever comes natural. We may despise their approach and subculture, but using lethal force because we assume that we know what is about to happen is an immoral gamble that the driver of the SUV lost in this case.

[U-Turn]

Showed restraint in not using the SUV as a weapon and running more bikers off the road.

He DID use the SUV as a weapon, and used potentially lethal force. The guy whom he ran over in the process is paralyzed.

Yea, I was thinking later on in the chase. Weaving in and around in traffic.

[fixxervi6]

Being afraid is not an automatic free pass to kill.

Yes, actually it is, according the law, fear of death or bodily harm means the justified use of lethal force to defend yourself and I am proud that this law exists. For example, a wife who's husband beats her on a regular basis, but never gets close to killing her, one day he goes to beat on her and she pops him due to fear of being beat up again - totally justified use of lethal force.

Unless there is very specific evidence that his or his passenger's lives were in immediate danger (such as by the bikers brandishing guns, etc.), his use of deadly force is not morally justified. Had there not been anybody in his way, then perhaps driving off may have been considered to be cavalier, but driving over people and potentially killing them without a very specific and immediate lethal danger is not morally justifiable. This is not the Congo--we (presumably) value human lives in this culture, and killing people just because you are afraid is a poor testament to our social and cultural standards.

If we're going to open the door to let anyone use lethal force anytime they're afraid, where do we draw the line? Ever been in a bar fight? Some of those can be scary, especially when you're dealing with several people. Can I kill if somebody swings at me? What about the person that is full of road rage on the highway? If I feel threatened, can I kill them too? People really need to think about when the use of lethal force is morally justified, rather than worrying exclusively about the legal aspects involved. Otherwise, what makes us any different than some of the cultures where human lives are not valued?

Those bikers were clearly a bunch of tools, but we happen to live in a culture where one of the freedoms that we enjoy is to be whatever comes natural. We may despise their approach and subculture, but using lethal force because we assume that we know what is about to happen is an immoral gamble that the driver of the SUV lost in this case.

If you wait until a gun is pointed at you, the window for self preservation closes very fast.

Fear of death or bodily harm = lethal force is justified and the law backs this up.

Can you kill if someone swings at you, depends, if it's some 110 pound girl and you kill her, will you honestly be able to claim fear of death or bodily harm? highly doubtful.

Can you kill if a 380lbs roided up 7' monster with brass knuckles is trying to beat your skull in, yep, or do you wait for them to actually make contact with your skull before you deem self defense a moral option?

I fully support the actions of the SUV.

If they would have pursed me I would have taken more of them out, using my vehicle as a weapon.

I value human life, but not at the sacrifice of my own or my families lives.

Did you hear what happen to the Jaguar in Dallas that managed to get past the rolling road block of stunters?

[Striple]

Being afraid is not an automatic free pass to kill.

Yes, actually it is, according the law, fear of death or bodily harm means the justified use of lethal force to defend yourself and I am proud that this law exists. For example, a wife who's husband beats her on a regular basis, but never gets close to killing her, one day he goes to beat on her and she pops him due to fear of being beat up again - totally justified use of lethal force.

Legally, perhaps, but morally certainly not. Being afraid is highly subjective, and provides a terribly poor standard for the use of lethal force. There has to be a very specific and credible threat of death that is based on evidence in order for the use of lethal force to be morally justifiable. Based on the videos that have surfaced, that standard was not met in this case.

If you wait until a gun is pointed at you, the window for self preservation closes very fast.

Fear of death or bodily harm = lethal force is justified and the law backs this up.

Can you kill if someone swings at you, depends, if it's some 110 pound girl and you kill her, will you honestly be able to claim fear of death or bodily harm? highly doubtful.

Can you kill if a 380lbs roided up 7' monster with brass knuckles is trying to beat your skull in, yep, or do you wait for them to actually make contact with your skull before you deem self defense a moral option?

I fully support the actions of the SUV.

If they would have pursed me I would have taken more of them out, using my vehicle as a weapon.

I value human life, but not at the sacrifice of my own or my families lives.

Did you hear what happen to the Jaguar in Dallas that managed to get past the rolling road block of stunters?

Whatever the law does or does not say has no bearing on the morals of a given situation. The moral standards for the use of lethal force should be very high in any culture that deems itself as progressive and free. If there is no physical evidence that my life is in immediate danger, then acting on the presumption that it is anyway is a massive gamble. If he and his family really were in danger of losing their lives, then why didn't they? After all, the bikers eventually caught up with them, but all that the driver received was just an ass-whooping, and that was AFTER he had seriously injured one of them.

I don't think there are any innocent parties in this situation. Yes, you shouldn't ride around like a bunch of assholes and take over the highway. And yes, you shouldn't aggressively confront another driver after an accident. But you also shouldn't use lethal force where it isn't justified. So he was scared--so what? Based on the video, there was no evidence that he was about to be in danger of his life.

Can you kill if a 380lbs roided up 7' monster with brass knuckles is trying to beat your skull in, yep, or do you wait for them to actually make contact with your skull before you deem self defense a moral option?

That character lives mostly in video games and in the minds of the paranoid. In a real fight without weapons, roid monsters are usually the first to go down.

[fixxervi6]

That character lives mostly in video games and in the minds of the paranoid. In a real fight without weapons, roid monsters are usually the first to go down.

I'll be the first to admit that I am a very paranoid individual

[shilka99]

Based on the video, there was no evidence that he was about to be in danger of his life.

It sounds to me like there was ample evidence. When the Range Rover stopped the first time the riders started beating on it and even knifed one or both of the tires on the passenger side. Evidence of this can be seen shortly after he pulled away (and ran over the d-bag in the process) when you see a shredded tire being left behind.
When armed assailants start attacking my vehicle thats all the reason I need to take deadly force to get my family out of there.

[fixxervi6]

Based on the video, there was no evidence that he was about to be in danger of his life.

It sounds to me like there was ample evidence. When the Range Rover stopped the first time the riders started beating on it and even knifed one or both of the tires on the passenger side. Evidence of this can be seen shortly after he pulled away (and ran over the d-bag in the process) when you see a shredded tire being left behind.
When armed assailants start attacking my vehicle thats all the reason I need to take deadly force to get my family out of there.

Some of the news pictures show bare rims on the passenger side as well.

[Striple]

I haven't seen those images, but even if we assume that there is evidence of slashing tires, then that only means that his property was at risk. That does suck, but the desire to protect your vehicle does not supercede the fact that you should not assume the risk of killing someone. Its not about him defending his family, its about how he chose to do that. Call the cops, crack the window, tell them that everything is going to be sorted out: i.e., try your best to diffuse the situation. If (and only if) guns are being brandished or knives or other weapons are being used to attempt to assault you (not just your tires), then it is reasonable to believe that your life is in danger, and you are then morally justified to use lethal force.

If we don't set the standard for the use of lethal force appropriately high, then our cultural standards have no leg to stand on in comparison to those that many of us despise.

[fixxervi6]

I haven't seen those images, but even if we assume that there is evidence of slashing tires, then that only means that his property was at risk. That does suck, but the desire to protect your vehicle does not supercede the fact that you should not assume the risk of killing someone. Its not about him defending his family, its about how he chose to do that. Call the cops, crack the window, tell them that everything is going to be sorted out: i.e., try your best to diffuse the situation. If (and only if) guns are being brandished or knives or other weapons are being used to attempt to assault you (not just your tires), then it is reasonable to believe that your life is in danger, and you are then morally justified to use lethal force.

If we don't set the standard for the use of lethal force appropriately high, then our cultural standards have no leg to stand on in comparison to those that many of us despise.

The standard for use of lethal force has already been set, and from what I can tell from the news, we don't have people killing each other by the hundreds and then claiming "I was afraid", so I don't see the problem.

Family man 1, thugs, 0, they fucked with the wrong SUV and got what was coming to them. If anything they got off easy, he could have done way more damage with that SUV.

I hope the law crucifies anyone remotely involved with the assault on the SUV and it's driver.

[Striple]

The standard for use of lethal force has already been set, and from what I can tell from the news, we don't have people killing each other by the hundreds and then claiming "I was afraid", so I don't see the problem.

Family man 1, thugs, 0, they fucked with the wrong SUV and got what was coming to them. If anything they got off easy, he could have done way more damage with that SUV.

I hope the law crucifies anyone remotely involved with the assault on the SUV and it's driver.

The LEGAL standard (which, again, is VERY different from the moral standard) may have been set, but even that standard continues to be tested. It is clearly far from perfect, otherwise we wouldn't have the George Zimmerman-type of scenarios that split the public opinions into several highly-polarized camps.

And if we're going to take score, it looks more like SUV d-bag 2, squids 1. The idea that the SUV driver was an innocent family man is preposterous, at best. He overreacted, used lethal force and paralyzed another person. Over what, his tires? That is also why he got his ass kicked, which he thoroughly deserved.

Again, there are no innocent parties in this situation. This is not a good vs. evil type of situation. This is d-bag vs. squids.

[fixxervi6]

The standard for use of lethal force has already been set, and from what I can tell from the news, we don't have people killing each other by the hundreds and then claiming "I was afraid", so I don't see the problem.

Family man 1, thugs, 0, they fucked with the wrong SUV and got what was coming to them. If anything they got off easy, he could have done way more damage with that SUV.

I hope the law crucifies anyone remotely involved with the assault on the SUV and it's driver.

The LEGAL standard (which, again, is VERY different from the moral standard) may have been set, but even that standard continues to be tested. It is clearly far from perfect, otherwise we wouldn't have the George Zimmerman-type of scenarios that split the public opinions into several highly-polarized camps.

And if we're going to take score, it looks more like SUV d-bag 2, squids 1. The idea that the SUV driver was an innocent family man is preposterous, at best. He overreacted, used lethal force and paralyzed another person. Over what, his tires? That is also why he got his ass kicked, which he thoroughly deserved.

Again, there are no innocent parties in this situation. This is not a good vs. evil type of situation. This is d-bag vs. squids.

The Zimmerman trial is a poor comparison, the only reason it received the attention it did was the race issue.

He didn't run someone over because of tires, he stopped (video proof) they attacked his vehicle and slashed his tires (video and picture proof) he claimed fear of life or bodily harm (prove him wrong) and escaped the only way he could, even after being surrounded again he did not attempt to take out more bikes with the vehicle so a claim of "escape" is completely plausible. His wife also placed 3 calls with the police during the entire ordeal.

In the end they did do bodily harm to him, they also have reports that they were also trying to pull the wife out of the car too, a by-stander stepped in and helped (it would have been worse) stomping on someones face to the point they need stitches is a bit beyond an ass beating imo. I'll put someone down before I allow them to injury me to the point I need stitches.

[Striple]

The Zimmerman trial is a poor comparison, the only reason it received the attention it did was the race issue.

Actually, the Zimmerman case is the perfect example of a situation where one person used lethal force because he feared for his life. The moral question in that scenario (as in this one) was whether it was reasonable for Zimmerman to believe that his life was in danger. Nevermind the reason why that case received media attention, which is a separate issue altogether.

He didn't run someone over because of tires, he stopped (video proof) they attacked his vehicle and slashed his tires (video and picture proof) he claimed fear of life or bodily harm (prove him wrong) and escaped the only way he could, even after being surrounded again he did not attempt to take out more bikes with the vehicle so a claim of "escape" is completely plausible. His wife also placed 3 calls with the police during the entire ordeal.

In the end the did put upon him bodily harm, stomping on someones face to the point they need stitches is a bit beyond an ass beating imo. I'll put someone down before I allow them to injury me to the point I need stitches.

The moral burden of proof rests on the party that caused the significant bodily harm, in this case the injury to the now paralyzed biker. The SUV driver was clearly wrong about being in danger of losing his life--again, because he didn't. All they did was kick his ass, even after he used lethal force and severely injured one of their guys.

stomping on someones face to the point they need stitches is a bit beyond an ass beating imo

Happens all the time in bar fights. If you take a solid punch, there is a good chance that you are going to be cut and require stitches. Do you really believe that it is reason enough to kill?

I agree with you more than you might think: if people are endangering you, then you should definitely be able to defend yourself. I just disagree with the benchmark that is applied for taking someone else's life.

[fixxervi6]

Happens all the time in bar fights. If you take a solid punch, there is a good chance that you are going to be cut and require stitches. Do you really believe that it is reason enough to kill?

Depends on the situation, did I escalate it? Do I think I can take them in a fair fight? How many are there? Any weapons?

In the SUV's case someone just bashed in the window with a helmet, there are so many of them that even if you can fight like Bruce Lee your going down, in that case it would be guns a blazin.

If I'm in a bar and I grab some chicks ass and her dude pushes me and I'm like it's on bitch and I get my face split open, well I got what was coming to me and only a pussy would shoot in that situation.. my opinion of course.

If i didn't escalate it and the person is just out for a fight and leaving/escaping/evading is not working and they continue to pursue me with intent to do bodily harm and I think they are capable of it, yes, I will use my weapon. Only I have the right to alter my face, I mean, it's not the prettiest mug in the world but it's the only one I've got. My mamma gave it to me so I'm kinda sentimental about it.

[Striple]

Depends on the situation, did I escalate it? Do I think I can take them in a fair fight? How many are there? Any weapons?

...well I got what was coming to me and only a pussy would shoot in that situation.. my opinion of course.

...and I think they are capable of it, yes, I will use my weapon.

Exactly! Being afraid for one's life is highly subjective, which is also why that is a terrible benchmark to use when it comes to using lethal force to defend oneself. It has to be tied in with an objective state that involves some very specific parameters, such as the brandishing and use or threatened use of a deadly weapon with the intent of producing potentially lethal harm. If I get into a fist fight with somebody, and I'm losing the fight and the other guy is yelling that he is going to kill me while he is peppering my body with his fists, and I'm getting scared, can I just pull out my piece and shoot the guy? And I don't care about the legality of it, but is it morally defensible? I don't think so. Now, if he suddenly takes out a knife and then says that he is going to kill me, the situation has now changed dramatically, and it may be reasonable to assume that my life is in danger, and thus use lethal force.

Most fights that I've ever seen or been involved in (I used to work as a bouncer for a while when I was in college) involved threats of bodily harm of some sort at one point either before, during or after the physical altercation. However, it is still not morally justifiable to use lethal force just because some asshole threatens you with violence. If somebody swings at you, hit him back. Hell, beat his ass. That concept has worked since the beginning of time. If he comes at you with a deadly weapon, then defend yourself accordingly. There is zero need to use lethal force preemptively, just because you have a hunch that something might be going down.

[shilka99]

Seems to me there are several key differences here: Fixxer and I are both of the same school of thought when it comes to physical threats, not to ourselves but to our families.
If I'm in a car on my own in this kind of situation I'll behave differently than if my family is in the car with me. If some random assholes threaten my family with knives they do so at the risk of their lives. I'm not going to wait and see what happens if I think my kids are at risk of being hurt by a pack of assholes. Nothing is more important to me than the safety of my family. Nothing at all.

There is also a cultural difference at play - I think Americans are much more gung-ho when it comes to personal conflict. Long before I moved here to the US I had a friend who was transferred to Sydney for work. When asked by our boss if she needed a cell phone in case of emergencies, she said "No, not really. If an emergency happens I have my gun."
Us Aussies were horrified that she thought that way, but it underlined the key difference between Americans and other cultures when they are threatened. Perhaps Germans are more like Aussies in this regard?