tossy wrote: » There is a right way and a wrong way to deal with things,those Bikers need a lesson in the difference between right and wrong. Smashing the windows of a range rover with a kid inside is a disgrace no matter what he did wrong.
wotzgoingon wrote: » I hope they dragged him out of the RR and kicked the **** into him, he drove over two bikes with lads on them.
Kenny Logins wrote: » He was surrounded by a large gang of angry bikers with his wife and young child in the car. If I had to make a quick decision, drive over bikers or possibly get stabbed in front of my wife and child (all it takes is one headcase in the pack), I'd drive over the bikers every time.
wotzgoingon wrote: » That's why you would get bet up too so. He drove over two bikes with guys on them. The weight of that RR, he is lucky he is not in prison now for the man slaughter of two guys. It could have easily gone another way.
ARGINITE wrote: » According to reports the RR driver is in a coma and at least one biker was killed.
Wexfordian wrote: » According to the Daily Mail article, the cops have flatly denied anyone was killed, and the driver has lacerations. However I'd love to know what happened just prior, because the bikers orchestrated the stop. The bikes in front are stopping even as the RR nudges the bike that brake tests him, then they surround the RR. I'd say that he was probably in a certain amount of fear (justified or not) that they were going to as wotzgoingon puts it "drag him out of the RR and kicked the **** into him". Proportional? Hard to say, depends on what is being said to him, whether there were actually guys on the bikes in front of him, how much danger he felt his family was in.
CiniO wrote: » Smashing the windows of a range rover with kids inside is nothing comparing to running over few people. Imagine you are riding bikes with your friend, and some maniac runs over few of you. Would you just let him go? They had to stop him some way.
Kenny Logins wrote: » Driver watching every angle for bikers and bumped one? Easily done when you have them coming from all directions.
Wexfordian wrote: » I'd entirely agree with that, and in fact I think he did quite well at that point considering the amount he was having to watch at the same time. But that motorcyclist was intent on stopping the RR, as I say when the RR bumps the bike, the other motorcyclist ahead of him are already slowing to a halt. But by prior I mean before the start of the video. The biker he eventually bumps is engaged in verbals with him prior to the stop.
ARGINITE wrote: » The bikers started damaging the RR when the drivers stopped the first time BEFORE the RR drove off and over their bikes only. Also I was wrong the only one that was injured in the incident was the RR driver.
kaimera wrote: » ****ing prat. Them or me was it? Real ****ing big of him in his RR v a bike. "possibly get stabbed"? gtfo. Way to stereotype. and the driver was a middle lane hogger
Kenny Logins wrote: » It's not Vs. a bike though, it's Vs. an angry mob. Doesn't matter if they're bikers or joggers. BTW, stereotype? Isn't that the whole point of wearing a back patch or 'kutte', or Battle Jacket? To display membership of a club with a reputation for violence? :pac:
kaimera wrote: » Wasn't an angry mob until the driver hit the bike and then drove over x of them.
Kenny Logins wrote: » I presume that was after he had bumped one, and others began damaging his car?
