Since when is driving in your own lane reason for a mob of bikers to force him to stop so they can pull him (and possibly his family) out of the car so they could beat him? I'm sorry but that's completely moronic and just pointlessly contrarian. It's not like he was zig zagging in between a crowd of bikers. He was driving in his own lane at what appears in a completely acceptable speed. And even in your hypothetical scenario which you have absolutely zero proof or reason to believe happened, I don't care if the guy recklessly cut off a biker. You're not allowed to take things into your own hands and pass judgment on someone. Trail behind him, mentally note his plates and report him.

It was also reported by the police that the bikers were purposefully trying to debunk the investigation and were not cooperating. Which makes perfect sense considering they were a. involved and b. likely friends with those in question.

Joyriding is fine. Traveling in groups is fine. Being giant ****, cutting people off, brake checking cars, beating people, smashing windows, smashing car doors, etc. is not fine. That is not legal. That is not morally acceptable regardless of what happened prior. Unless the driver took out a gun and started firing or purposefully ran over a motorcyclist unagitated (which isn't what happened, he rode over a guy as he panicked as a mob circled around his car and started smashing windows with his wife and child inside).

You should probably see my first post where I called the biker behavior "machismo bullcrap" and said the scenario could have easily been avoided. Never did I say the bikers were being reasonable. I just think it's entirely possible for someone to feel like they have reasons for being unreasonable.

However, I am balking against the overwhelming fury and disgust being expressed here, specifically in light of the fact that, yeah, we don't know exactly what happened. I don't think it's pointlessly contrarian to look at posts saying someone deserved to be run over and disagreeing.

I personally thing the "lol ur dum" style of debate is a pretty good way to convey thought.

Huh? No, I was referring to the "I wasn't posturing I KNOW what I said was right." Which is kind of like a joke on posturing that I thought was funny. I may need to start implementing emoticons into my posts again.

Besides magic, I don't think I've seen you post anything besides casual conversation, trolling, and complete gibberish with some 5-dollar words sprinkled in to try to give the illusion of competency. A monkey with a dictionary can talk like an ****. Get off your high horse and stop being a dweeb.

Mod edit please no masking to get around the filter

It's okay tony, keep trying.

All you are doing is proving my point champ.

Just because you're unable to understand my argument doesn't make it "gibberish".

I apparently am too subtle for myself. I didn't get it...clearly.

I'm pretty much willing to call a group of people thugs based on their actions. A group that decides to take action on a sense of vigilante justice, in a region of the world that has a comparatively effective police force, by pulling a person from their vehicle and physically beating that person — that group of people deserves to be called thugs, independent of whether the person did something that they allowed themselves to be provoked by.

Whether the community as a whole gets to be called thugs, well, that's why I presented quotes from the self-styled leadership of that community itself. Based on what I read, it's probably a bit too far to call the community on average thugs, or a gang, but it's clear they've presented themselves as a high-risk group for such behavior, documented at least two years into the past. I certainly don't hold a system to blame that restricts that high-risk behavior from being around more densely populated areas. Honestly, I think the system has the responsibility to do that, until the community can manage to bring down its own pattern of risk to something more normal.

As for using you as a source, you give some good insight into the conditions of the environment where this specific event took place, but your description of the event itself was, by your own admission, very third-hand. You acknowledged that when you wrote it, which was great; but that meant the rest of the comments had nothing concrete to use to have any real understanding of any party involved beyond the initially linked NY Post article. And plenty of insinuation was made about whether we were giving the group of bikers a fair shake or whether a larger system was to blame. So, I hunted down the bikers' own presentation of themselves, direct from their own mouths; now each person can come to their own, better informed conclusion.

From that, I think the people condemning the group have been fair in their assignment of blame, even though some language I feel has been exaggerated. I certainly don't hold the system accountable for this. I think it's the system's job to reasonably limit risk (let's not go slippery sloping this, please), and I don't think, based on their own presentation of their character, this specific community is able to internally handle that well. So, I'm not surprised that this event occurred, just glad it didn't get to occur in Times Square itself.


In one sense I recognize that you're exposed to a certain risk of consequences based on the kind of person you are and the kind of people your friends are. I think "deserve" is a pretty heavy word, but it's pretty synonymous with being held liable for your own actions, and then getting the consequences you reap from them. Based on what I've seen of the situation, I certainly don't hold the guy in the SUV to blame for anyone who got hurt.

Maybe this particular biker didn't deserve what he got, to be paralyzed and in a coma. Maybe he was the nice guy of the group. But did the group as a whole deserve for someone within it, in general, to get hurt like this? Probably. Unfortunately, I'm pretty sure it won't make the group actually think twice about the group of thugs that they are.

You seem reasonable enough to understand that I find this unreasonable. I can agree to disagree.

Yeah, that's completely understandable.

come on guys, be mature about this