Biker / Jeep Incident - New York (uncivil posts get a paddling)

Wexfordian

Damien M wrote: »

Lol at all the feigned outrage and the liberal left getting up in arms after their one of their ilk gets run over.

Anyone who has bothered to research the story will see that there is up to 7 videos of these animals on a 'cruise' breaking lights, LIVELEAK I think has them all; harassing traffic and if reports are to be believed it is a common tactic to harass and intimidate drivers into giving them money. Why else would Animal No 1 break suddenly in front of the guys jeep. An insurance and or shakedown scam. Animal No 2 was just out for a drive, yeah right, giving he had no licence and insurance and more parking tickets than you could count. A right bunch of 'ne'er do wells' !!! Yeah it's a 2.5 tonne vehicle and a pretty safe one at that.

I wonder when or if all the liberal brigade on here were surrounded by a pack of baying animals, with their wife and 2 year old kid in the back , would get out, pen and paper and bother with the nuances of swapping numbers ! LMAO!
When your 2 year old kids life is in danger you make use of Land Rover's TERRAIN RESPONSE® 2 AUTO, and get the hell out of dodge!

Now I might not have reversed over any of them, but anyone that endangers my child will be crushed like that rat they are on my escape route.

Where in the name of all thats holy are you getting "liberal left" from??

Damien M

It's what the liberal left do-support the lazy welfare class-look at the reception arson-killer Mick Philpott used to get on Jeremy Kyle.

The law abiding citizen who wants to provide for their family are the worst when they use force, however reasonable or unreasonable is necessary.

vibe666

Wexfordian wrote: »

Where in the name of all thats holy are you getting "liberal left" from??

maybe he's confusing his left from his right?

looks like he might be one of these guys.

P.C.

The problem with this (and related threads) is that is all comes down to the us Vs them mentality.

We do not have enough information to make a judgement.

We have no way of knowing what started this whole thing off.

We have no way of knowing who was right or who was wrong.

GreeBo

P.C. wrote: »

The problem with this (and related threads) is that is all comes down to the us Vs them mentality.

We do not have enough information to make a judgement.

We have no way of knowing what started this whole thing off.

We have no way of knowing who was right or who was wrong.

based on the footage available I think we have more than enough.
Add in the testimony of the injured driver and its case closed.

We can all see a reason why the driver had to drive over the "bikers" to escape.
Can you provide any reason why the "bikers" had to beat the crap out of him?

Wexfordian

Damien M wrote: »

It's what the liberal left do-support the lazy welfare class-look at the reception arson-killer Mick Philpott used to get on Jeremy Kyle.

The law abiding citizen who wants to provide for their family are the worst when they use force, however reasonable or unreasonable is necessary.

Ignoring the whole if you are on the left you are not going to be law abiding bit insinuated here, you have decided that anyone supporting the bikers here (all two of them) must be this odd scary left wing bunch that exist in your head, and no doubt you justify it by things like this thread. galwaytt and visual are the main two in support of the bikers, can you find a single thing either of them have ever posted (outside of their support here) that would suggest they are in any way left wing?

P.C.

GreeBo wrote: »

based on the footage available I think we have more than enough.
Add in the testimony of the injured driver and its case closed.

We can all see a reason why the driver had to drive over the "bikers" to escape.
Can you provide any reason why the "bikers" had to beat the crap out of him?

You have already made up your mind.

Pity you can't see past what is in the video - what happened before the footage started?

Do we have statements from any of the bikers?

Supergurrier

Jesus some of the bikers in here can't see the forest for the tree's

I wouldn't give a damn if i had nevr sat foot in a car or bike. There is right and there is wrong its not them versus us.

Troll elsewhere.

1. The biker caused the bump.
2. They then descended on a family vehicle like a bunch of apes trying to slash tyres and hitting the vehicle.
3. Driver was boxed in so was left with no choice whatsoever but to proceed forward and protect his family.
4. Bikers broke multiple laws in pursuit and most bikes have no plates/illegal exhausts.
5. Bikers then broke window slashed mans face up and ran off.

Im sure we would all love to hear the bikers side of the story. But we won't because the people that commited the assault are cowards.

thecomedian

Is there anywhere we can see the video?

From reports the driver was right in what he did. It must have been terrifying with his family in board, Jesus you would do anything to get away.

As far the injured biker, at least he would be able to do it again.

Eight Ball

hansfrei wrote: »

RR driver was very restrained. I'd have done something horrendeous.

What s h I t your pants.

Wexfordian

thecomedian wrote: »

Is there anywhere we can see the video?

Here

Viserion

GreeBo wrote: »

based on the footage available I think we have more than enough.
Add in the testimony of the injured driver and its case closed.

We can all see a reason why the driver had to drive over the "bikers" to escape.
Can you provide any reason why the "bikers" had to beat the crap out of him?

The bikers "beat the crap out of him" because he ran over their friends.

vibe666

galwaytt wrote: »

I should be less concerned that someone was hurt (paralysed ?) over some perceived opinion of what people think of what I ride ? Seriously ???

I see a person being driven over with a 2.5t vehicle. I don't care if/whether he's a biker.

so you're saying you aren't actually a biker yourself then? no, of course not. :rolleyes:

galwaytt wrote: »

And as sure as you may be entitled to defend you & yours (natural), RR man is constrained by the same law others are breaking.

yes he is. The laws of new york city/state which fully entitle him to use anything up to and including deadly force to protect himself and his family from a criminal gang that he reasonably believed meant to do him and his family harm.

he was perfectly within his legal rights to run them down in order to escape the threat of harm to himself and his family, just exactly the same way he would have been entitled to use deadly force if their lives had been threatened in any other circumstance. the manner in which he did it is largely irrelevant to the law.

Viserion

Wexfordian wrote: »

Basically your position is that if you have a large vehicle you cannot use it to protect yorself, and that isn't a realistic position.

So if I drive a truck I can just run over whoever I like because my vehicle is a weapon?

kona

If this was Ireland the victim could be up for some serious jail time for what he did.

Have to wonder why the **** he came off the motorway into NY , Id have stayed on it and called the cops. Id let the 2 1/2 tons of SUV protect me and whoever else. Running over people is retarded no matter how much GTA you play or how much of a Hero you are!

Wexfordian

Viserion wrote: »

So if I drive a truck I can just run over whoever I like because my vehicle is a weapon?

No, if you do need to defend yourself, and your only available weapon is a truck, you can't be blanketly banned from using it.

Could I point out that sticking in daft asides like "whoever I like" is just reduction of the worst order and does nothing for the point your making? If you are arguing against a point that hasn't been made, then you aren't really paying attention.

drumswan

Viserion wrote: »

So if I drive a truck I can just run over whoever I like because my vehicle is a weapon?

If you are in New York and feel that doing so is a reasonable course of action to protect yourself and your family from imminent physical threat, then yes you can use your vehicle as a weapon.

If these guys were on foot and this thread was in AH none of you biker guys would be defending these thugs.

P.S. Im a bone fide, signed up member of the liberal left

vibe666

kona wrote: »

Running over people is retarded no matter how much GTA you play or how much of a Hero you are!

not as retarded as being part of a gang of thugs and thinking you can brake test a range rover on a bike and not get the sharp end of the stick. :rolleyes:

Viserion

Wexfordian wrote: »

No, if you do need to defend yourself, and your only available weapon is a truck, you can't be blanketly banned from using it.

Could I point out that sticking in daft asides like "whoever I like" is just reduction of the worst order and does nothing for the point your making? If you are arguing against a point that hasn't been made, then you aren't really paying attention.

You more or less said that anyone driving a large vehicle should be entitled to use it as a weapon - that to me is a daft statement.

There really is no need for the snide remarks either.

vicwatson

Viserion wrote: »

The bikers "beat the crap out of him" because he ran over their friends.

The RR driver ran over his "friends" to escape a mob of intimidating people on motorcycles.

visual

GreeBo wrote: »

It was not a sanctionned event, these lads just rocked up (as they did every year). The cops had been keeping them down to smaller groups (there were hundreds of them). not much else they could do tbh.

He tried driving at slow speed and they stopped in front of him. later when he slowed down in traffic they started hurling helmets at his car, smashing his windows. Whats your next plan?

Again with the racism in this thread..seriously?


He was defending himself. If you break your fist on my elbow while punching me and I defend myself is that my fault or your fault for punching me? He was doing what you are supposed to do...running away. If they surround him, where else can he go? Would you have stopped for a chat? he beeps his horn and they keep closing him in.

Your perception is odd. The only time his RR was attacked was after he had drove over two motorcyclists on two occasions.

Both times he used his vehicle as a weapon

There was nothing to stop him calling for help and to keep the jeep rolling with doors locked.

When some one "check brakes" the rules of the road still apply. He continues to keep driving too close and using the RR size to force his will.

His wife should consider leaving him as a nutter in a big 4x4 using it as a weapon can't be a very rash man.

When he spend off he didn't even floor it anywhere near the RR top speed. Nor did he lock his doors.

The only time he had any excuse to use the vehicle in defence was when his window was smashed at the end of video clip.

I have driven both types of vehicles and know how vulnerable motorcyclists are.

I seen cyclists act the maggot in traffic here including blocking and hitting cars. But I wouldn't expect the car driver to run them over.

Viserion

vicwatson wrote: »

The RR driver ran over his "friends" to escape a mob of intimidating people on motorcycles.

Yeah because that was a rational reaction.

thecomedian

Viserion wrote: »

You more or less said that anyone driving a large vehicle should be entitled to use it as a weapon - that to me is a daft statement.

There really is no need for the snide remarks either.

We'll if you're in a truck and I've a shotgun standing in front off you with 50 other lads around me and I'm pointing it at you. The others are trying to surround your truck.
I think if you drove over me you would be ok.

Wexfordian

Viserion wrote: »

You more or less said that anyone driving a large vehicle should be entitled to use it as a weapon - that to me is a daft statement.

There really is no need for the snide remarks either.

So scenario. You are driving down the road in your large truck. Guy steps into the middle of the road with an automatic weapon and starts firing into your windscreen. Now your position is that you are not entitled to use your vehicle as a weapon. Mine is that if its all thats available to you and you feel your life is in danger you can. What do you do here?

And it wasn't even remotely snide. Your comment was such a daft reduction of the original point as to render your argument meaningless. "So if I drive a truck I can just run over whoever I like because my vehicle is a weapon?" I genuinely have no idea how you could have ended up with this interpretation of what I said.

vibe666

Viserion wrote: »

You more or less said that anyone driving a large vehicle should be entitled to use it as a weapon - that to me is a daft statement.

anyone driving anything is entitled to use it as a weapon to defend the lives of their family from a gang of thugs out to do them harm.

the biker gang acted outside of the law with the intention of doing harm to a man and his family. the RR driver acted within the laws of the state of new york to defend himself and his family from harm. it really isn't very complicated and i'm baffled that a few people here seem to find it so hard to understand?

vicwatson

Viserion wrote: »

Yeah because that was a rational reaction.

Too right it was, the driver was intimidated and was protecting himself and his family, the bikers were lucky he didn't have a gun on his possession I say.

Viserion

Wexfordian wrote: »

So scenario. You are driving down the road in your large truck. Guy steps into the middle of the road with an automatic weapon and starts firing into your windscreen. Now your position is that you are not entitled to use your vehicle as a weapon. Mine is that if its all thats available to you and you feel your life is in danger you can. What do you do here?

And it wasn't even remotely snide. Your comment was such a daft reduction of the original point as to render your argument meaningless. "So if I drive a truck I can just run over whoever I like because my vehicle is a weapon?" I genuinely have no idea how you could have ended up with this interpretation of what I said.

I didn't see the part of the video where the bikers were firing shots at the jeep.

Grand so, it went over your head.

thecomedian

I've seen the start of the video.
Bikers acting the prick. Driving too close to the RR making it move of its track.
Then one braked in front of him... What did he expect? 10 bikes around the RR, he is probably watching all around him.

Then they all surround him, he had to get out of there. What was his other option?

Viserion

vibe666 wrote: »

anyone driving anything is entitled to use it as a weapon to defend the lives of their family from a gang of thugs out to do them harm.

the biker gang acted outside of the law with the intention of doing harm to a man and his family. the RR driver acted within the laws of the state of new york to defend himself and his family from harm. it really isn't very complicated and i'm baffled that a few people here seem to find it so hard to understand?

How do you know they had the intention of causing him harm? From what I see in the video there is no "harm"until he runs over a few of the bikers.

GreeBo

Viserion wrote: »

The bikers "beat the crap out of him" because he ran over their friends.

I didnt ask what they did, I asked *why* they did it.
We know why he drove over them, to escape. The beat the crap out of him...why?

P.C. wrote: »

You have already made up your mind.

Pity you can't see past what is in the video - what happened before the footage started?

Do we have statements from any of the bikers?

Who cares what happened?
Is there a reason why you should be allowed to beat and stab a man now?