Thanks for the tip. I'll keep it in mind next time I'm arguing against people who cannot keep two different arguments about the same situation separate in their mind.

I'm sorry to have caused so much head-shaking. Hope your neck doesn't go sore or anything.

35.15.2 a) The actor reasonably believes that such other person is using or about to use deadly physical force.

If you read my later comments, you might realize that after more viewings, I noticed the hit on the car (as in, "I was wrong about thinking no bikers were touching or threatening the car"); however, I still would like to know what evidence they have that the tires were slashed in the first encounter.

To mug???? Where is your proof? You're saying 50 riders went on a group ride just to find this specific RR and mug the guy and his family? Wowzers. I must be really dumb to have missed that. So were they scouting out the family's driving routes, too?

I happen to live in a world that is not black and white, i.e. just because one person (or 50) did wrong, does not mean that any reaction from the wronged is right.

No. I already mentioned the actions of the bikers are indefensible; however, to me, their actions do not justify the reaction of the SUV driver (unless, as mentioned above) they actually did slash his tires at the first scene (rather than later), or otherwise posed an imminent danger.

This penal code is irrelevant. "Under no duty to retreat" does not equate to plowing through people. Retreat = backward, plowing = forward. What's the middle ground? Oh, right, not moving.

I define imminent danger?

You don't just get to run people over for being aggressive; it has to be a self-defense mechanism employed when you have no other way of keeping yourself (and family, etc) from undue bodily harm.

Of course it's fucking aggressive. I said "imminent danger".

I agree. The unfortunate part is that neither the first biker (brake-check) nor the ones responsible for the smashing, slashing, etc. were the ones that he ran over. And it might be very difficult for the NYPD to actually ID them. This is just FUBAR.

Again, I'm not defending the bikers.

Right, and to me, that deserves the same scrutiny as shooting him.

I would like to refer you to http://jalopnik.com/how-to-not-be-…

I am not defending the fucking bikers. I am only looking at his first reaction. I would have a hard time convicting him, but I think, in this case, he should be charged and evidence for and against the charge should be brought to court, and then judged by a jury. Dismissing it outright, without a single thought,…

They "tried to open the door repeatedly and then pull a man out and beat him in front of his child" after he had already run over a bunch of them. Obviously, they deserve what they get for those actions, but to me, "I have no doubt" is not justification.

I think that rock was the first object he ran over. At least the one that I saw; might've been another earlier that I missed.

I did not know about the tire slashing until someone responded to my comment, and I was solely referring to the first encounter. Everything else is obviously justified on his part.

Nevermind. I looked at it again and saw the elbow(?). To me, still not life-threatening danger, but I do understand his reaction better. Thanks for the details.