Is this the fifteenth-century? You're arguing for the merits of execution for adultery?

Look at the photos of where he was hit and watch where he was hit in relation to the RR. He parked to the side and started to walk forwards when he was hit.

I agree he was with assholes, and I'm not trying to make any arguments for his moral character. But this is a preposterous position to take legally...'he was around bullies, so he should be treated like one.'

You're getting into some pretty pedantic arguing here that detracts from the actual circumstances and relies on a few implied pieces of 'fact.' For example, you refer to his 'holding up traffic.' There is no evidence he did that. There were stopped vehicles behind him and in front of him. By that standard, stopping in…

He didn't surround the car, he only pulled over. As for riding with the group—douchey, yes. Illegal? Sometimes. But is there any evidence he did anything illegal? No. Thus the burden of proof is absent.

For hitting the bikers who surrounded him and attacked him, absolutely. For hitting the bikers who stopped to the side further on the road without any intention of attacking? Less so.

Uh, no it's not. It's pretty simple really. The guy who was the victim of one crime but the perpetrator of another should not be let off the hook for the second offense.

You seem to be confused by what self-defense is. If I try to rob you with a gun and you shoot me, that's self defense. If I try to rob you with a gun and you shoot a friend of mine 10 feet away, that's no self-defense. The paralyzed biker was not involved in the attack or the slowdown.

Accomplice and/or co-conspirator? Is there any evidence whatsoever of his intentions here? The burden of proof is missing on this one...

Like a thousand people haven't stopped in the middle of a highway when an accident occurs? It's a little hard to say that paralysis is a fair punishment for a common piece of laziness.

The new punishment for driving without a license is paralysis? You have to admit it's a little ludicrous to link his injuries with a bureaucratic at best offense.

It's not legally justified; that's not how being an 'accessory' works in the legal system. If you were a lookout, absolutely. But being friends with somebody who is a criminal has never been a precedent for punishment. Same thing here.

Who? The man I'm referring to—I believe his name was Mieses—didn't come into contact with anybody, he just remained crushed on the road until an ambulance came.

No, this was a guy who stopped to the side about thirty yards down the road because he saw that the other bikers had stopped. He was not blocking anybody—the guys who stopped in front of the car, they definitely were blocking.

I define innocent as not being guilty of anything illegal. Is there any evidence that the paralyzed man did anything or illegal, or merely that he was amongst a larger group? And to further that, is there any evidence that he supported the actions of the larger group or even knew what was going on? There are too many…

Your example doesn't match; the escaping criminal is still breaking and entering, and punishment is justified. The guy that was paralyzed had zero proven involvement in the beating. I'm not saying he was the greatest guy in history, but he was objectively innocent, and when you start to say that it's fine to mow down…

Unpopular opinion:

I can't imagine Ferrari takes too lightly to companies using their headlights, but maybe if you pay enough...

The California says hello.

Shitty video, but still one of the greatest startups for the me is the first-gen Gallardo SL: