Mob of bikers surround SUV and get run over in NYC

[WalkingWolf]

Even with all that has been said so far, he'll still get a pay off from the SUV driver's insurance company.

Smart attorneys would go after the other bikers who participated in the first incident, leading to the attack. It will be interesting if the state does not prosecute the bikers involved for the injuries of the paralyzed biker.

 

[9026543]

The officers will never be charged. Also now their is speculation that off duty corrections officers were present also. Could this be a gang of mostly off duty NYPD and corrections officers? Still no charges will be brought.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...kers-involved-Edwin-Mieses-Jr-SUV-attack.html

 

[stealthyeliminator]

Now we really are into bizarre-o land.

The SUV stopped after tagging the biker in front of him. Otherwise we would have two mangled bodies. But we don't. Facts don't matter in a good lynching.

Some riders stopped as they realized someone was down. Some stopped because a dumbass SUV just stopped in the middle of the road in front of them. Others stopped because everyone in front was now stopped and blocking them. The camera guy and the front of the group was far ahead and had to look back after they stopped. Because most never even knew a rider was down. All they saw was everyone stopping and then an SUV run bikes and people over. So of course they chased the @hole and stopped him. Only to have yet another guy get run down. Of course they continued the pursuit and beat the driver. They say him running people over. Twice.

Maybe the cops did not step in because the truth has nothing to do with the inflammatory rhetoric surrounding the story.

'Of course'???? No, not of course. It sounds as though you are trying to excuse their behavior. Also you say dumbass SUV stopped in road, I presume you mean from the biker's perspective. That is unlikely the case, though. They intentionally stop people regularly and take their right of ways, the bikers behind knew exactly what happened. They were not surprised that the SUV stopped. It was them that stopped it, after all

 

[onus]

It will be interesting if the state does not prosecute the bikers involved for the injuries of the paralyzed biker.

This.

If you and your buddy go to rob a bank and while robing the bank a security guard shoots your buddy, YOU are criminally responsible for your buddy being shot.

In the NYC case, the people criminally liable for the biker being run over are the people who caused the driver to fear for his life.

 

[WalkingWolf]

The officers will never be charged. Also now their is speculation that off duty corrections officers were present also. Could this be a gang of mostly off duty NYPD and corrections officers? Still no charges will be brought.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...kers-involved-Edwin-Mieses-Jr-SUV-attack.html

AFAIK the officers can't be criminally charged. The courts have ruled that officers have no obligation to protect the public. Now how the department handles the embarrassment is another story, the LEA has the right to terminate the officers for any reason including moral turpitude.

 

[eye95]

The officers will never be charged. Also now their is speculation that off duty corrections officers were present also. Could this be a gang of mostly off duty NYPD and corrections officers? Still no charges will be brought.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...kers-involved-Edwin-Mieses-Jr-SUV-attack.html

The officers will probably be charged or not charged according to how the other members of the MOB were charged or not charged. If others in the MOB (who did not behave significantly differently from the cops) are charged and the cops are not, then you might have a point. Otherwise you don't and you are participating in mindless speculation and/or cop-bashing.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

 

[eye95]

The common law common purpose or joint criminal enterprise doctrine.

Earlier in this thread, I cited a case of a robbery that occurred a few blocks from my house where a roommate shot two of five robbers, killing one. The four survivors were charged with murder, pleaded guilty to manslaughter, and sentenced to 10 years each.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

 

[Firearms Iinstuctor]

All I can say is that the bikers were lucky this guy was running scared and not mad.

If they would have done that to the wrong person there would have been a lot more bikers laying on the road.

This driver didn't us his vehicle as a weapon.

 

[david.ross]

AFAIK the officers can't be criminally charged. The courts have ruled that officers have no obligation to protect the public. Now how the department handles the embarrassment is another story, the LEA has the right to terminate the officers for any reason including moral turpitude.

Not being criminally liable doesn't mean they can't get fired. Depending on what the department policies are, the police officers may be facing sanctions or termination based on an internal affairs investigation.

 

[eye95]

All I can say is that the bikers were lucky this guy was running scared and not mad.

If they would have done that to the wrong person there would have been a lot more bikers laying on the road.

This driver didn't us his vehicle as a weapon.

Excellent point. That he only did what was necessary to extract himself, his family, and his vehicle speaks volumes about his motive. Clearly, his aim was to protect himself, his loved ones, and his property, and not to exact vengeance. Just as clearly, the final motivation of the MOB was to exact revenge. (Originally, it was to satisfy their own selfish motives by violating the rights of others.)

Astute observation. Thank you.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

 

[eye95]

Not being criminally liable doesn't mean they can't get fired. Depending on what the department policies are, the police officers may be facing sanctions or termination based on an internal affairs investigation.

Of course the officers who participated in the MOB activity can be charged just as any other member of the MOB. If any were acting in official capacity, that could change things. It seems to me that would be a defense to their criminal activity. IMO, it shouldn't be, but it probably is.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

 

[WalkingWolf]

Of course the officers who participated in the MOB activity can be charged just as any other member of the MOB. If any were acting in official capacity, that could change things. It seems to me that would be a defense to their criminal activity. IMO, it shouldn't be, but it probably is.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

My interpretation was that they did not participate but took no action to stop the attack. If that is the case there is no way they could be criminally charged, they were under no statutory obligation to intervene. It is time for people to realize, especially in NYS that the police are not there to protect you, or even serve you.

 

[WalkingWolf]

Here is where is gets sticky~~in some states a private citizen can be ordered to intervene by a police officer who has no obligation to intervene. It is a crime in those states to refuse. I am not sure of the legality of a on duty police officer ordering a off duty police officer to take action, maybe one of our lawyers can clarify.

 

[eye95]

My interpretation was that they did not participate but took no action to stop the attack. If that is the case there is no way they could be criminally charged, they were under no statutory obligation to intervene. It is time for people to realize, especially in NYS that the police are not there to protect you, or even serve you.

I was under the impression that someone in this thread had stated that some of the MOB members were officers. My statements would be based on that premise.

On a citizen being legally required to intervene upon being ordered to do so by a LEO, I'd have to ask for a cite on that one. I can see them being ordered to stop doing something or to leave, but to take proactive action to stop a crime??? I am more than skeptical about that.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

 

[WalkingWolf]

I was under the impression that someone in this thread had stated that some of the MOB members were officers. My statements would be based on that premise.

On a citizen being legally required to intervene upon being ordered to do so by a LEO, I'd have to ask for a cite on that one. I can see them being ordered to stop doing something or to leave, but to take proactive action to stop a crime??? I am more than skeptical about that.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

It would depend on the state for a cite~~which state do want a cite from? I am not sure about Ohio if they have that law, but many states do. Do you want a cite from all 50 states and the territories under the US? In that case look them up yourself, otherwise tell me which state.

New York State statute

S 195.10 Refusing to aid a peace or a police officer.
A person is guilty of refusing to aid a peace or a police officer
when, upon command by a peace or a police officer identifiable or
identified to him as such, he unreasonably fails or refuses to aid such
peace or a police officer in effecting an arrest, or in preventing the
commission by another person of any offense.
Refusing to aid a peace or a police officer is a class B misdemeanor.

If you want other states get off your lazy butt.

 

[F350]

My interpretation was that they did not participate but took no action to stop the attack. If that is the case there is no way they could be criminally charged, they were under no statutory obligation to intervene. It is time for people to realize, especially in NYS that the police are not there to protect you, or even serve you.

You and I decide to rob a liquor store; you stay outside to drive the getaway car while I go in to do the robbery. While I'm at it I kill the clerk; you you think you will get a good citizenship award for not participating in the actual murder?????

That pack of bikers was made up of people who had no drivers license, riding unregistered/illegal/stolen machines while breaking every traffic law on the books. Any cop that took part should be fired and prosecuted for every possible violation.

 

[WalkingWolf]

You and I decide to rob a liquor store; you stay outside to drive the getaway car while I go in to do the robbery. While I'm at it I kill the clerk; you you think you will get a good citizenship award for not participating in the actual murder?????

That pack of bikers was made up of people who had no drivers license, riding unregistered/illegal/stolen machines while breaking every traffic law on the books. Any cop that took part should be fired and prostituted for every possible violation.

Unless they conspired the most they could get prosecuted for is traffic offense unless they actually took part in the assault of the family. By either participating in the assault or actively harassing and stopping the couple. If they did not take part in the actual intimidation they cannot be charged IMHO. Maybe USER can clarify.

 

[F350]

I was under the impression that someone in this thread had stated that some of the MOB members were officers. My statements would be based on that premise.

On a citizen being legally required to intervene upon being ordered to do so by a LEO, I'd have to ask for a cite on that one. I can see them being ordered to stop doing something or to leave, but to take proactive action to stop a crime??? I am more than skeptical about that.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

C.R.S. 16-3-202 (Copy w/ Cite)
Pages: 2
C.R.S. 16-3-202

COLORADO REVISED STATUTES

*** This document reflects changes current through all laws passed at the First Regular Session
of the Sixty-Ninth General Assembly of the State of Colorado (2013) ***

TITLE 16. CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS
CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
ARTICLE 3. ARREST - SEARCHES AND SEIZURES
PART 2. AUTHORITY OF PERSON NOT A PEACE OFFICER TO MAKE AN ARREST

C.R.S. 16-3-202 (2013)

16-3-202. Assisting peace officer - arrest - furnishing information - immunity



(1) A peace officer making an arrest may command the assistance of any person who is in the vicinity.

(2) A person commanded to assist a peace officer has the same authority to arrest as the officer who commands his assistance.

(3) A person commanded to assist a peace officer in making an arrest shall not be civilly or criminally liable for any reasonable conduct in aid of the officer or for any acts expressly directed by the officer.

(4) Private citizens, acting in good faith, shall be immune from any civil liability for reporting to any police officer or law enforcement authority the commission or suspected commission of any crime or for giving other information to aid in the prevention of any crime.

HISTORY: Source: L. 72: R&RE, p. 200, § 1. C.R.S. 1963: § 39-3-202.L. 77: (4) added, p. 851, § 1, effective July 1.



Cross references: For refusing to aid a peace officer, see § 18-8-107; for authority of sheriffs to command aid, see § 30-10-516.

ANNOTATION

Aid of citizen does not make him agent of state in state action cases. The mere existence of the common-law right of a private citizen to aid in an arrest is not such significant state involvement as to make him an agent of the state, for in state action cases it has been required that the state enforce or require adherence to some unconstitutional private act and the mere fact that the state common law or custom permits the act is not sufficient to support a finding of state action under the federal civil rights act. Warren v. Cummings, 303 F. Supp. 803 (D. Colo. 1969) (decided under repealed § 39-2-20, C.R.S. 1963).

Applied in People v. Lott, 197 Colo. 78, 589 P.2d 945 (1979).

======================================================================================

C.R.S. 18-8-107 (Copy w/ Cite)
Pages: 1
C.R.S. 18-8-107

COLORADO REVISED STATUTES

*** This document reflects changes current through all laws passed at the First Regular Session
of the Sixty-Ninth General Assembly of the State of Colorado (2013) ***

TITLE 18. CRIMINAL CODE
ARTICLE 8. OFFENSES - GOVERNMENTAL OPERATIONS
PART 1. OBSTRUCTION OF PUBLIC JUSTICE

C.R.S. 18-8-107 (2013)

18-8-107. Refusing to aid a peace officer



A person, eighteen years of age or older, commits a class 1 petty offense (just under a felony) when, upon command by a person known to him to be a peace officer, he unreasonably refuses or fails to aid the peace officer in effecting or securing an arrest or preventing the commission by another of any offense.

HISTORY: Source: L. 71: R&RE, p. 456, § 1. C.R.S. 1963: § 40-8-107.

So in Colorado not only CAN LEO "commanded" assistance it is a crime to refuse.

I know it is the same in Indiana from when I rode with a deputy sheriff buddy, we went through the ritual of him asking for my assistance each time I rode with him just so we could honestly swear in court that assistance was requested.

 

[F350]

LOL, like made air-tight, stiffed and then having to pay the pimp. Now that's a violation!

Damned auto spell correction

 

[WalkingWolf]

So in Colorado not only CAN LEO "commanded" assistance it is a crime to refuse.

I know it is the same in Indiana from when I rode with a deputy sheriff buddy, we went through the ritual of him asking for my assistance each time I rode with him just so we could honestly swear in court that assistance was requested.

It is the same in Illinois, while I was a officer there I would use the statute to get PITA's out of my way by ordering them to direct traffic, or guarding a yard. I put lookyloos to work. Ca must not have this statute or they would use it on CAP whenever he followed them around.