What would you do? Bikers vs SUV

[the_bob_delusion]

http://edition.cnn.com/2013/09/30/us/new-york-bikers-road-rage-video/

The New York City Police Department said a man driving a Range Rover with his wife and 2-year-old daughter inside Sunday struck a motorcyclist on Manhattan's West Side Highway, breaking his leg.

The SUV driver pulled over, and the bikers surrounded his vehicle, hitting it and spiking the tires, police said. The driver pulled away, hitting three more bikers in the process, police said.

Should the driver in the SUV be charged?

What do you think of bikers?

What would you have done if you were the driver in the SUV?

[*crikey*mate*]

---

@*elizabeths-mum* wrote:
I'm glad you clarified your comment about Bloomberg because I was puzzling over where that fitted in. As he didn't however, does that justify the bikers grouping and blocking traffic in the first place?

---

No, and they should be charged accordingly.

(should being a normative statement again)

[*elizabeths-mum*]

You really are keen on drumming up legal work, crikey. 😛

[*crikey*mate*]

hey! I might need a job one day LOLOLOL

[the_hawk*]

Its no different to a heap of football, soccer, cricket or any other spectators blocking a road after a match, it doesnt give people the right to run them down. 

[*elizabeths-mum*]

How about an eBay community spirit rally? Could you run them down then?

[j*oono]

I doubt that there would be enough of us to block the road any more Em.

[lynny_oz]

I am amazed anyone can condone this behaviour. The biker slows in front of the SVU causing the driver to hit him. The driver stops. Normally an ambulance and the police would arrive and statements would be taken etc.

Instead, twenty or more bikers surround the car and his tyres are slashed.

How is it ok for the bikers to behave in this way after a traffic accident? 

[**meep**]

After watching the footage on the news again with more details emerging, I feel the SUV driver's actions were justifed.

[lynny_oz]

So do i Meep. The driver was involved in an accident. He is then set upon with his wife and child in the car. I can't get my head around some people thinking this is ok.

[catsnknots]

---

@crikey*mate wrote:

---

@*elizabeths-mum* wrote:
But my point is that if the person isn't charged, even if a crime is committed, how is a court going to decide I there was a crime?

---

i think we're going in circles?

Bob asked "should the driver or the SUV be charged" (sic)

I said yes, he should. (should is a normative statement)

I don't believe it is up to the police officer to decide whether a person should be charged or not. If a law is broken, then yes, they should be charged. Then the court should take all relevant factors into consideration and make the relevant decision.

Last time I checked, it is illegal to run someone over with your car. It is illegal to cause harm to another person and it is illegal to cause harm to someone else's property. Even if we think they deserve it.

---

Actually it is not illegal to run someone over in self defence... the police are the ones to decide if the act of running someone over was done in self defence and then to lay charges. 

If charges are laid and the defence calls self defence then it is up to the courts to decide. 

Even if you run someone over and it is the middle of the night and you didn't see them because they were wearing all black and it was raining and they were walking on the road you probably won't be charged. 

Some things are just bad accidents... or situations bought upon a person on their own doing.