Updates on the NYC Rider vs SUV

[FZ09Bandit]

This brings up something: I notice sometimes vehicles with very dark tinted wiindows, even the driver's side. How does one get away with it? I imagine that cops must be very wary of walking up to a vehicle of which one can't even see what passengers/driver are/is doing. I guess they try to order occupants out of the vehicle?

It's really random on what cops really care about tint % most state troopers here will get you for that where as sherriffs and local pd will kinda let you slide.

With that being said, my tint on my car is legal, but very dark. Whereas my last car I got it pretty much blacked out (it's a 06 carolla) never been messed with. Of course I always roll my window down when cops pull me over. I can assure you I wouldn't for a bunch of motorcyclist trying to pull vigilante justice and attack me. I also have a spot I set my phone to record and set it in the cup holder to catch a clear view I the police action.

 

[trepetti]

Neal, I don't know you and I respect your rights to voice your opinions. But this should be a discussion, not an argument. I disagree with your statement as it applies to this circumstance. Making a citizens arrest does not warrant the use of violence, regardless of the alleged crime. Your responses seem geared towards provoking a fight, not attempting to make a convincing argument.

Again, I respect your right to your opinion, but this topic is very important to all of us regardless of which side we are on. If we continue to squabble aimlessly then this thread will also be shut down and no one benefits from that.

 

[pookamatic]

This brings up something: I notice sometimes vehicles with very dark tinted wiindows, even the driver's side. How does one get away with it? I imagine that cops must be very wary of walking up to a vehicle of which one can't even see what passengers/driver are/is doing. I guess they try to order occupants out of the vehicle?

Different states handle it differently. Some at the inspection station (DE), some on the road (PA/NJ... I believe).

I have light tint on the front driver/passenger windows, medium everywhere else back. It does not pass state inspection in Delaware without a certified letter from an optometrist stating a medical condition. To make everyone more comfortable, the windows go down before the officer gets out of their vehicle.

 

[Ssky0078]

Catching a fleeing felon is not a criminal act, which is why the cop on the scene helped the bikers get the perpetrator.

You are the one advocating letting the criminal get away and living in the delusion that the cop was bad and the whole place was just full of bad people the your proof? they were on motorcycle.

Your stance is absurd in the mathematical sense, what is reasonable to believe is their was only one criminal there and he was in the SUV, not your whole world against the one random SUV for no reason conspiracy nonsense.

Dude, I'm done with you. What is your problem? :ban::ban::ban::ban:

 

[Ssky0078]

Neal, I don't know you and I respect your rights to voice your opinions. But this should be a discussion, not an argument. I disagree with your statement as it applies to this circumstance. Making a citizens arrest does not warrant the use of violence, regardless of the alleged crime. Your responses seem geared towards provoking a fight, not attempting to make a convincing argument.

Again, I respect your right to your opinion, but this topic is very important to all of us regardless of which side we are on. If we continue to squabble aimlessly then this thread will also be shut down and no one benefits from that.

Well said, thank you.

 

[Tailgate]

Dude, I'm done with you. What is your problem? :ban::ban::ban::ban:

I think one's entitled to opinion. I think readers understand that others may not agree even if one doesn't provide a rebuttal. :noworries:

 

[Neal]

Neal, I don't know you and I respect your rights to voice your opinions. But this should be a discussion, not an argument. I disagree with your statement as it applies to this circumstance. Making a citizens arrest does not warrant the use of violence, regardless of the alleged crime. Your responses seem geared towards provoking a fight, not attempting to make a convincing argument.

Again, I respect your right to your opinion, but this topic is very important to all of us regardless of which side we are on. If we continue to squabble aimlessly then this thread will also be shut down and no one benefits from that.

You are spreading misinformation. The law doesn't care what your opinion is and neither do I.

Non-lethal force may be used against a Fleeing Felon that is the law. You can chase the guy down tackle him and beat him down to subdue him if necessary to stop him from getting away that is the law not an opinion.

The only possible issue of debate is was the guy in the SUV a fleeing felon or guy who had the right to run.

 

[iSteve]

I'm not a lawyer but I don't even think the cops have a right to catch a suspect and then beat him down.

 

[mave2911]

My opinion, should I have been the driver if the SUV.

Note, this is based on the laws governing the good ol' United States of Oz.

The motorcyclists were behaving in a way to suggest they were 'boxing' the SUV in, i.e. depriving him of his liberty. His partner and child were in the car, and in this case, I as a man, would take any and all reasonable action to ensure their safety.

The motorcycle that suddenly slowed (brake check irrelevant) in the front of the SUV did so with the intention of controlling the movement of the SUV (i.e. deprivation of liberty, again)

The once this happens, the SUV/bikes suddenly slow and come to a stop.

The driver of the SUV felt in mortal danger for himself and his family, as the bikers 'boxed' him in and made motions/came toward him in an aggressive manner, making the potential threat real and immediate.

The SUV then got himself out of this situation, and if by doing so hurt persons actively depriving him of his liberty, then IMHO, they got what was coming to them.

I am shocked the SUV driver showed restraint and didn't swerve from lane to lane/brake check and collect as many as possible, until the danger to himself and his family, had subsided. (you better believe I would have - I would have created such a perceived hazard to the rest of the bikers, to make them rethink pursuing myself and my family)

The only 'mistake' that video shows, on the side of the SUV driver, was he left a freeway and entered city streets, with traffic. (which resulted in him bring assaulted)

The Police Officers involved in the incident should be stood-down for engaging in/or by omission of action, allowing, this assault to be perpetrated.

Just think, if the riders weren't riding like dicks, everyone most likely would have gotten home safely, and this whole episode wouldn't have happened.

Remember, the SUV driver had real, and verifiable concern for his safety and the safety of his family - if that happened to you, I'll bet most of you would do the same thing.

The off-duty cop that allegedly broke the window did not identify himself as such, he did not place the driver, who was stuck in traffic, so wasn't going anywhere, under arrest.

There was no need to smash the window, nor pull him out of the car/further assault him.

This is why we have Police, to call and act impartially (yes, really!) and contain the situation in a lawful manner.

The bikers had 'gang mentality', individually probably none of them would behave in this way (most likely), but in a 'gang', defined not by all wearing a pretty patch, or belonging to some gang, or organisation, but by their actions, I personally consider the actions of the SUV driver to be justifiable.

My thoughts, and remember, yes I ride, my bike has been my sole means of transport for the majority of the last 20 years, and I have and do ride in groups, but never, ever would I, or have I, engaged in this sort of activity.

Cheers,
Rick

P.S. Interestingly, in Oz, these riders would have been deemed to have broken so many laws, long before the motorcycle suddenly slowed in front of the SUV.....

 

[Ssky0078]

I'm not a lawyer but I don't even think the cops have a right to catch a suspect and then beat him down.

they don't. It's called police brutality, and the police officers that cross that line can be charged with the same criminal charges as a civilian, assault and battery, criminal mischief, vandalism, etc.

 

[Ssky0078]

I think one's entitled to opinion. I think readers understand that others may not agree even if one doesn't provide a rebuttal. :noworries:

the gross error of calling someone a felon before they are actually tried and convicted of said felony is just plain ridiculous to me. It defies reason and a basic understanding of the legal system. Efforts have been made to point out this error and yet it persists.

Also in regards to the forum member again advocating that someone is entitled to commit criminal acts such as vandalism, assault and battery, etc is no longer an opinion but an egregious act that sets a terrible standard and message for the whole community. The long term consequence is someone comes along into the forum and reads these post and reads that the forum member advocated dragging someone out of their vehicle and beating them. You never know what is going to inspire the acts of another. If this so called "opinion" is of a criminal nature it is against forum policy because I believe the forum owner had the foresight to not allow posting of criminal activity on this wonderful internet place because of what trouble may follow.

EDIT: it's the same as with any group, self-policing is better than waiting till the point that an outside authority has to intervene.

 

[Neal]

I'm not a lawyer but I don't even think the cops have a right to catch a suspect and then beat him down.

You are semi-right, the cops wouldn't have beat down a fleeing suspect in a vehicle. They would GUN THEM DOWN, even if you are a grandma.

Grandma shot, killed by New Hampshire state troopers after car chase - U.S. News

 

[Neal]

the gross error of calling someone a felon before they are actually tried and convicted of said felony is just plain ridiculous to me. It defies reason and a basic understanding of the legal system. Efforts have been made to point out this error and yet it persists. Also in regards to the forum member again advocating that someone is entitled to commit criminal acts such as vandalism, assault and battery, etc is no longer an opinion but an egregious act that sets a terrible standard and message for the whole community. The long term consequence is someone comes along into the forum and reads these post and reads that the forum member advocated dragging someone out of their vehicle and beating them. You never know what is going to inspire the acts of another. If this so called "opinion" is of a criminal nature it is against forum policy because I believe the forum owner had the foresight to not allow posting of criminal activity on this wonderful internet place because of what trouble may follow. EDIT: it's the same as with any group, self-policing is better than waiting till the point that an outside authority has to intervene.

The gross error is your reasoning. You didn't have a trouble assuming the bikers were felons before they were convicted in a trial. You advocated running people over in an SUV after accidents in a hit and run chase, which may cause death or serious injury. You don't seem to care about the long term consequences of running over people with a vehicles instead of exchanging insurance information after an accident.