Motorcycles vs. SUV

[MJS]

I'm sure you've all heard about the group of people on motorcycles in NYC, that attacked a family in an SUV.
http://news.yahoo.com/wife-biker-husband-victim-nyc-altercation-063414964.html

Of course, while watching the news this morning, they were talking to a legal expert, who was answering questions about the incident, potential lawsuits, etc. Of course, I saw the guys wife or mother, crying, saying that because of the SUV driver, who is the real criminal, that now the m/c driver is paralyzed.

I thought it would be better to post this here, rather than the study, because this was a SD situation. So, in your opinion, who do you feel was at fault? If you were in the shoes of the SUV driver, what would you have done?

While we only have what we saw on the video clip, it appears that the guy on the bike intentionally cut in front of the SUV, and slowed or stopped, causing the initial crash. Even if the guy in the SUV did something that we don't see, the guy on the m/c, further added to the incident, by doing what he did. Sure, we could say that the SUV driver was 'safe' in his vehicle, as long as he didn't get out, but it's an SUV, not a tank. Windows can be broken, and as we saw, the driver was pulled from the vehicle. IMO, his options were limited, he was most likely in fear for his life, as well as his wife and child, and probably did the first thing that came to mind...drive off. Hey, you're dumb enough to stand in front of a large, heavy vehicle...well, you get what you deserve.

The news showed another clip from a similar incident that happened with this same group of punks, in another state, California I believe.

 

[ballen0351]

I'd lock the doors. Call 911 and sit in the car. As soon as they even attempted to break a window I'd run them over and get out of the area.

If I had my gun with me which is 99% of the time I do all the above plus pull my gun yell at them to back off. Then run them over if they still tried to get in

 

[Zero]

I'd lock the doors. Call 911 and sit in the car. As soon as they even attempted to break a window I'd run them over and get out of the area.

If I had my gun with me which is 99% of the time I do all the above plus pull my gun yell at them to back off. Then run them over if they still tried to get in

It would be interesting from a use of force/self defence mitigant perspective what the view of a court and jury would be where you were carrying and elected to defend yourself/family by (i) driving over/through them in the SUV or (ii) firing at them with the pistol and then driving off. Obviously using the gun involves either rolling down the window or shooting through the window or windscreen glass depending on the desperation of the situation (ie people on the bonnet trying to smash their way in).
I wonder what, from an emotive factor (which often plays with a jury) would be seen as more extreme, using the vehicle (which we have less experience of seeing done in a SD, or any, sense) or use of the gun?
The gun could be seen as use of a more controllable weapon, the SUV more akin to use of a bazooka if ramming at speed.

I think I agree with you that from a practical perspective it may be more efficient/certain in an SD situation to simply use the vehicle to get out of there by whatever means rather than try to use the gun (particularly given several potential attackers from different angles).

 

[granfire]

I'd lock the doors. Call 911 and sit in the car. As soon as they even attempted to break a window I'd run them over and get out of the area.

If I had my gun with me which is 99% of the time I do all the above plus pull my gun yell at them to back off. Then run them over if they still tried to get in

well, you are a trained professional...

I am not.
Plus as it is, when you need it most, the cellphone is dead or has no signal...(at least in my case) or I left it at the house.

So basically, the group instigated this incident.

What got me (see thread in the study) was how mom cried and blamed the SUV driver and his rich lifestyle - I am assuming because he drove a car instead of the bus?

While I understand her feelings of having a child (however grown and stupid) in the hospital, I wanted to smack her so bad....

 

[MJS]

well, you are a trained professional...

I am not.
Plus as it is, when you need it most, the cellphone is dead or has no signal...(at least in my case) or I left it at the house.

So basically, the group instigated this incident.

What got me (see thread in the study) was how mom cried and blamed the SUV driver and his rich lifestyle - I am assuming because he drove a car instead of the bus?

While I understand her feelings of having a child (however grown and stupid) in the hospital, I wanted to smack her so bad....

Ahh...my apologies. I didn't see the study thread. But to comment on what you said here....yes, likewise, I'd have loved to have smacked her as well. Gee, heaven forbid someone drives an SUV, in this case a Range Rover. While not as pricy as a RR, my wifes 2011 Pathfinder, which we bought new, was over 45k, and we are by far, not living a rich lifestyle. LOL! No, sorry lady...how about blaming your punk son and his stupid behavior for his injuries. Oh that's right...God forbid someone actually takes the blame for their actions, rather than blaming someone else.

 

[MJS]

It would be interesting from a use of force/self defence mitigant perspective what the view of a court and jury would be where you were carrying and elected to defend yourself/family by (i) driving over/through them in the SUV or (ii) firing at them with the pistol and then driving off. Obviously using the gun involves either rolling down the window or shooting through the window or windscreen glass depending on the desperation of the situation (ie people on the bonnet trying to smash their way in).
I wonder what, from an emotive factor (which often plays with a jury) would be seen as more extreme, using the vehicle (which we have less experience of seeing done in a SD, or any, sense) or use of the gun?
The gun could be seen as use of a more controllable weapon, the SUV more akin to use of a bazooka if ramming at speed.

I think I agree with you that from a practical perspective it may be more efficient/certain in an SD situation to simply use the vehicle to get out of there by whatever means rather than try to use the gun (particularly given several potential attackers from different angles).

I was thinking the same thing...the jury will look at this and of course think the worst. Like I said to my wife this morning...in a situation like that, any reasonable person would be fearing for their life. For anyone on the jury, in the same situation, I'd be curious as to what they would do. Then again, one would think someone wouldn't be stupid enough to stand in front or continue to stand in front of a vehicle that is moving..lol.

 

[crushing]

I was thinking the same thing...the jury will look at this and of course think the worst. Like I said to my wife this morning...in a situation like that, any reasonable person would be fearing for their life. For anyone on the jury, in the same situation, I'd be curious as to what they would do. Then again, one would think someone wouldn't be stupid enough to stand in front or continue to stand in front of a vehicle that is moving..lol.

I certainly can't say I would have done it any differently than the driver of the automobile, especially if my wife and any children were in the car with me. Fortunately, according to the article, once the gang did catch up with him and smashed their way in to his car his wife and daughter weren't harmed.

 

[colemcm]

Living in northern CA, I don't have much sympathy for motorcyclists anymore. To actually see a m/cs obeying traffic laws and driving defensively is an astoundingly rare occurrence. The idea that car and truck drivers should look out for them (which they should) has come to mean that they don't have to look out for themselves and it's never their fault.

 

[Instructor]

If everybody had been acting like adults and driven responsibly the entire incident would not have happened. From what I've seen in the video I feel compelled to side with the SUV driver in this one. I know it's not the whole story. It looks like many of the bikes in this "club" aren't even street legal. Surrounding a car with motorcycles like they do in Mad Max movies seems like a real bad idea to me.

 

[Rich Parsons]

I'm sure you've all heard about the group of people on motorcycles in NYC, that attacked a family in an SUV.
http://news.yahoo.com/wife-biker-husband-victim-nyc-altercation-063414964.html

Of course, while watching the news this morning, they were talking to a legal expert, who was answering questions about the incident, potential lawsuits, etc. Of course, I saw the guys wife or mother, crying, saying that because of the SUV driver, who is the real criminal, that now the m/c driver is paralyzed.

I thought it would be better to post this here, rather than the study, because this was a SD situation. So, in your opinion, who do you feel was at fault? If you were in the shoes of the SUV driver, what would you have done?

While we only have what we saw on the video clip, it appears that the guy on the bike intentionally cut in front of the SUV, and slowed or stopped, causing the initial crash. Even if the guy in the SUV did something that we don't see, the guy on the m/c, further added to the incident, by doing what he did. Sure, we could say that the SUV driver was 'safe' in his vehicle, as long as he didn't get out, but it's an SUV, not a tank. Windows can be broken, and as we saw, the driver was pulled from the vehicle. IMO, his options were limited, he was most likely in fear for his life, as well as his wife and child, and probably did the first thing that came to mind...drive off. Hey, you're dumb enough to stand in front of a large, heavy vehicle...well, you get what you deserve.

The news showed another clip from a similar incident that happened with this same group of punks, in another state, California I believe.

This is a bad situation.

Having done security for some events and been involved with some vehicle to person incidents with me being the person, it is something people should respect. I have rolled over hoods, and been clipped by doors and bumpers and even had to try and clear a Tahoe. I ended up on the hood. Good think I could do a face forward break fall.

So vehicles are weapons.

In my state, knives are considered an offensive weapon and a firearm a defensive weapon.
So how does a vehicle fall into this in a legal manner? I do not know.

So, if one has a firearm in the state I live in, one could defend themselves with said firearm assuming they had the appropriate license (CPL) to have a firearm within a vehicle. This should be easier to claim self defense as there are laws stating that firearms can be used in this specific instance.

To use the vehicle and run someone over I think it will come down to state of mind and how you answer to the police and or the investigator(s).

If you say, "I was afraid and I just wanted out of there and I just left. " This is just a reaction to the fear and no premeditated thoughts. One was afraid and one reacted with fear and ran.

On the other hand if one were to say, " I was afraid , and I decided to run them over to get them out of my way and to get free to protect myself and my family." This is saying that the driver choose to run people over so their state of mind will be argued that they were not in real fear, and that they choose to end that person's life.
(* Please ignore the fact that the above firearm has the same argument, as stated laws are in place to justify the use of this force when threatened to you and your families life. This is all about semantics for the law *).


As to what would I do?
It depends upon the what I had with me and who I had with me.

 

[Zero]

This is a bad situation.
On the other hand if one were to say, " I was afraid , and I decided to run them over to get them out of my way and to get free to protect myself and my family." This is saying that the driver choose to run people over so their state of mind will be argued that they were not in real fear, and that they choose to end that person's life.

Rich not sure what State you are in but pretty sure the same general legal position will apply. I agree with you in that what you say/how you say it and how the message is conveyed to authoroties or a jury is of massive importance to any case. But to be clear, making an active decision on how to act in self defense or defense of another does not dilute the mitigant of a self defence claim. You can absolutely actively (rather than instinct/reflex only) decide how to respond in the moment to a threat - technically, you can "decide" to shoot someone, run someone over, etc "to save yourself or your family". The success of your claim will come down to - with an appreciation that the nuances change between jurisidictions - was the action/response to the threat a "proportionate", "justified" or "reasonable" use of force in the situation faced (this is an objective test) and did that person believe (this is the subjective limb of the test) they, or another, were under threat.

As commented above, totally agree that the use of a vehicle, unlike a firerm (where there is specific legislation and much experience and jurisprudence) may prove problematic for a jury, and possibly for public perception.

Peace.

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

I'm sure you've all heard about the group of people on motorcycles in NYC, that attacked a family in an SUV.
http://news.yahoo.com/wife-biker-husband-victim-nyc-altercation-063414964.html

Of course, while watching the news this morning, they were talking to a legal expert, who was answering questions about the incident, potential lawsuits, etc. Of course, I saw the guys wife or mother, crying, saying that because of the SUV driver, who is the real criminal, that now the m/c driver is paralyzed.

I thought it would be better to post this here, rather than the study, because this was a SD situation. So, in your opinion, who do you feel was at fault? If you were in the shoes of the SUV driver, what would you have done?

While we only have what we saw on the video clip, it appears that the guy on the bike intentionally cut in front of the SUV, and slowed or stopped, causing the initial crash. Even if the guy in the SUV did something that we don't see, the guy on the m/c, further added to the incident, by doing what he did. Sure, we could say that the SUV driver was 'safe' in his vehicle, as long as he didn't get out, but it's an SUV, not a tank. Windows can be broken, and as we saw, the driver was pulled from the vehicle. IMO, his options were limited, he was most likely in fear for his life, as well as his wife and child, and probably did the first thing that came to mind...drive off. Hey, you're dumb enough to stand in front of a large, heavy vehicle...well, you get what you deserve.

The news showed another clip from a similar incident that happened with this same group of punks, in another state, California I believe.

As a motorcyclist, I found their behavior deplorable. They rode in such a way as to create the circumstances that led to the initial bump, at which point, they suddenly cried foul and went after the SUV. Once they did that, then the consequences are their own. This is pretty much the feelings of other bikers that I know. I haven't seen much, if any support from the biker community for these riders, who most bikers feel make them look bad.

My own bike was rear ended last month. Nobody was hurt, nobody died. I got up, dusted myself off and asked the driver if he was alright. He was apologetic. Other bikers stopped and asked if I was alright, wished me luck, shook hands and rode on. The police report was filed and his insurance took care of the bike. The driver and I shook hands and went on with our evenings. Life goes on. Screaming at him, chasing him, smashing up his car, etc. would have done nothing but make a bad situation into a terrible one.

These guys turned a bump, which was actually less substantial than the one that my bike took, into a tragedy. And sadly, the tragedy befell one of their own. And they had nobody to blame but themselves.

I feel badly for the rider who is paralyzed, and my prayers go out for him and his family, but I cannot fault the driver.

 

[MJS]

This is a bad situation.

Having done security for some events and been involved with some vehicle to person incidents with me being the person, it is something people should respect. I have rolled over hoods, and been clipped by doors and bumpers and even had to try and clear a Tahoe. I ended up on the hood. Good think I could do a face forward break fall.

So vehicles are weapons.

In my state, knives are considered an offensive weapon and a firearm a defensive weapon.
So how does a vehicle fall into this in a legal manner? I do not know.

So, if one has a firearm in the state I live in, one could defend themselves with said firearm assuming they had the appropriate license (CPL) to have a firearm within a vehicle. This should be easier to claim self defense as there are laws stating that firearms can be used in this specific instance.

To use the vehicle and run someone over I think it will come down to state of mind and how you answer to the police and or the investigator(s).

If you say, "I was afraid and I just wanted out of there and I just left. " This is just a reaction to the fear and no premeditated thoughts. One was afraid and one reacted with fear and ran.

On the other hand if one were to say, " I was afraid , and I decided to run them over to get them out of my way and to get free to protect myself and my family." This is saying that the driver choose to run people over so their state of mind will be argued that they were not in real fear, and that they choose to end that person's life.
(* Please ignore the fact that the above firearm has the same argument, as stated laws are in place to justify the use of this force when threatened to you and your families life. This is all about semantics for the law *).


As to what would I do?
It depends upon the what I had with me and who I had with me.

Good points Rich. Another reason why, when dealing with SD situations, its very important to choose your words very carefully. On one hand, it would seem that anyone with half a brain, would not stand in the way of a moving vehicle, but stupid is as stupid does..lol. Given what we saw on the clip, I'd say that man was in fear for his life and his family. Given the no way out situation, I'd wager to say that he was probably hoping anyone around the vehicle would've got the hell out of the way, but unfortunately, stupidity on the part of the punks won out.

I just hope this man isn't on the receiving end of numerous civil suits.

 

[Instructor]

When you put yourself in front of a vehicle you are counting on the driver of the vehicle being "afriad to hit somebody". But the trouble with that logic (or lack thereof) is it doesn't account for panic and fight or flight response. When the SUV driver felt that fear for himself and his family the survival of the occupants of his vehicle became of supreme importance and the guy in his path was probably percieved as an aggressor.