Quote:
Originally Posted by Red__Zed
There's zero evidence of when or how the tires got slashed.
Taking down the RR guy would generally be disallowed, although the fact that he hit and run complicates things, as most states enforce as a felony.
Fleeing felon rule - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Coupled with the belief of observed attempted murder/manslaughter, you could probably make a good case for the chase/apprehension. If the driver was knifed as he claimed, things get tougher for the biker responsible, as well as if there's any evidence pointing to needless beating, etc. The fact that he's alive and was released from the hospital in ~2 hrs indicates that there was probably not much gratuitous beating.
Future videos could tell a lot. |
There's a 911 call while all this is happening and his wife in the passenger seat. Not a hit and run. He also clearly stops. There's no evidence we've seen that indicates when the tires were slashed, but the tires being slashed at the last incident can certainly be ruled out. A lot of what the bikers are saying is all hearsay. I've seen a few episodes of Law and Order too....
....Now who's claiming stuff that we have no evidence for.....The hospitals discharged him, but all that means is that his injuries are no longer life threatening. He'll likely have to follow up as an outpatient. The only reason the driver wasn't hurt more was the fact that people on the street eventually came to his aid....see the guy two guys.
( Click to show/hide )S 35.15 Justification; use of physical force in defense of a person.
1. A person may, subject to the provisions of subdivision two, use
physical force upon another person when and to the extent he or she
reasonably believes such to be necessary to defend himself, herself or a
third person from what he or she reasonably believes to be the use or
imminent use of unlawful physical force by such other person, unless:
(a) The latter's conduct was provoked by the actor with intent to
cause physical injury to another person; or
(b) The actor was the initial aggressor; except that in such case the
use of physical force is nevertheless justifiable if the actor has
withdrawn from the encounter and effectively communicated such
withdrawal to such other person but the latter persists in continuing
the incident by the use or threatened imminent use of unlawful physical
force; or
(c) The physical force involved is the product of a combat by
agreement not specifically authorized by law.
2. A person may not use deadly physical force upon another person
under circumstances specified in subdivision one unless:
(a) The actor reasonably believes that such other person is using or
about to use deadly physical force. Even in such case, however, the
actor may not use deadly physical force if he or she knows that with
complete personal safety, to oneself and others he or she may avoid the
necessity of so doing by retreating; except that the actor is under no
duty to retreat if he or she is:
(i) in his or her dwelling and not the initial aggressor; or
(ii) a police officer or peace officer or a person assisting a police
officer or a peace officer at the latter`s direction, acting pursuant to
section 35.30; or
(b) He or she reasonably believes that such other person is committing
or attempting to commit a kidnapping, forcible rape, forcible criminal
sexual act or robbery; or
(c) He or she reasonably believes that such other person is committing
or attempting to commit a burglary, and the circumstances are such that
the use of deadly physical force is authorized by subdivision three of
section 35.20.