he doesn't know their past...so how can that be part of his reason to do what he did?

that says physical force..not lethal force.

he already got into an accident...what are you talking about?

so again....way to make completely invalid points thinking they applied.

youre right he didnt know their past, i was referencing that, however he didnt need to know their past to draw the conclusion that his life was in danger, so he acted reasonably and got out of there, is it his fault that he ran over a biker that was surrounding his vehicle? nope.

lets hear your defense for the bikers, instead of "herp but the suv drivers life wasnt in danger herp!111!!!1"

notice how other people here that ride motorcycles say "they were passing him on both sides" and not "they were surrounding him"? thats because they realize the most reasonable explanation is they were passing him and he was in the middle lane causing them to split..not because they are special forces baby killing squad about to pull off some black ops maneuver.

how is pointing out his life wasn't in danger a "herp a derp"? without that factor in place it makes his actions unjustified. lethal force can only be justified by lethal force...not assumptions.

so where is the lethal force on part of the bikers?

This post was edited by Subwoofer on Oct 7 2013 09:21pm

when this goes to trial, and what i said will happen, happens, i'll post back here to laugh, and ask you to explain to me why the judge got the conviction wrong, because you obviously know more about the law than i, or a judge does lol

and there's the dodge reply again.

do you even realize the shit storm that setting legal precedent like this would bring? basically any time someone "feels threatened" it would allow them to use lethal force.

i didnt dodge... youre sounding like masofaggot now.. should probably stop.

i explained countless times to you, others have explained countless times to you, idk what itll take to convince you that you are wrong in this situation.

Oh hey, this thread is still here.

Hmm, its beginning to look a lot like every other thread too.

someones gotta try and drill sense into subs thick thick head.

IE Travon






Many states have stand your ground laws. Running over someone that hasn't personally threatened you is morally wrong to me. Flee yes. Stand your ground yes. Castle law applied to vehicle yes.

It still isn't right to use the lethal force of your vehicle to run someone over that is standing there.


imagine he pulled a gun and shot the guy in the chest before driving off. Does that sit differently with you people? Its the same thing. If he shot someone that was attempting to get into his vehicle that would be ok. Same as if he ran him over.

Lets also refrain from pretending that the beating and vandalism sensationalized by the media was going to happen whether he ran that guy over or not.


It was a direct response to watching the friend get run over. It was blood rage. Nothing else would make a guy like that drop his bike on the ground. That I can promise. He was ready to go to jail at that point.


By running that guy over he escalated the situation drastically. That is what I was talking about in my last post.


And JDH, I see lots of sportbike riders acting like that. Always remember that they are taking their own life in their hands when they do that shit, not yours. You are safe in your 3000-80000lb vehicle. Keep on as you normally would. That is the best thing you can do.

I havent bothered to follow the story much but werent the guys scratching and denting his car after he bumped into the biker?
If thats the case its plenty enough reason for me to want to get the hell out of there.