would a dash cam help the driver of the Range Rover who was attacked by hundreds of bikers in NYC?

There is compelling evidence that one of the tires was slashed during the first stop. Less than three minutes later, an entire tire appears to come off the SUV. There is audio evidence that might also add to this theory. Two distinct swishing sounds are heard during the stop. Right after one of these sounds, one of the bikers on the SUV's right side appears to flinch away from the vehicle and two of them start to leave, perhaps knowing the situation is getting worse.
I didn't hear a swishing noise. I'll listen to it again. To me, it could have been a knife or a puncture that happened when he ran them over. The tire didn't rip off immediately so it didn't hit me as such.

These guys in front could have had no clue what was going on. Most didn't even seem to know each others as it seems organized by a forum. Does punching the side of an SUV constitute an attack worthy of running over people? Really? Same way windows break but it takes more than one hit into them. You get 100 people with spoons they won't do much to your suv. Especially if only one or two are at it. I said it before, if he was really attacked or a knife was out slashing his tires, then yes, flee. But there's no guarantee of what happened. Even news articles are vague about it except for the one CNN article. Others limit to attack.

The way I see it, people are going with what seems likely and that's it, it's set in stone. In bella's case, it looks like the lack of plates did them in since the beginning and didn't need much else.
 
People go with what seems likely because that's how life works. You evaluate a set of parameters, try to connect them and then form a conclusion based on what is more likely than not. Unless facts are known with absolute certainty then there is always some level of uncertainty. Still, at some point it's natural to come to a conclusion. Even the justice system works this way. People are convicted or set free all the time based some legal threshold of certainty. And sometimes there are mistakes.

In this case, there are multiple new stories that cite an "NYPD spokeswoman" or "Investigators" that state the SUV was pounded and the tire slashed before Lien fled and ran over the biker. So how do they know that? Perhaps Lien and/or his wife made that statement to them. Perhaps investigators have interviewed other bikers at the scene and have gotten the same information. We don't know exactly because the case hasn't gone to trial. But we do know several news stories have stated that and they attribute it to official sources such as an "NYPD spokeswoman" or "Investigators". Now you could choose not to believe that because the new stories made it up, got the source wrong, or the driver/wife lied. There is almost an infinite number of reasons one could come up with to not believe something. Heck, some people still believe we didn't go to the moon.

But it all comes back to what is more likely than not. In many people's minds, based on the entire body of evidence as we know them, it is likely the SUV driver felt threatened after being purposely brake checked several times, being boxed in, his car punched, and his tire slashed (as stated by an "NYPD spokeswoman"). It is likely the individual(s) who were in front of the SUV were not there to "help" him. It is likely the SUV driver fled out of fear and not malice because he never attempts to run over another biker afterwards even though he has many opportunities to do so.
 
Last edited:
You can't tell clearly what happened in the video when he stopped.

You can clearly see they block him in (as evidenced when he had to run over a bunch of them to get out). You can clearly see them moved towards his car (which in and of itself is threatening, nevermind it's done in a threatening manner). You really don't need to know more than that to see he was justified.

Like I said, if it was just a couple bikes, it'd be much grayer. But since it's 100 bikers, it's definitely threatening.

And as glider said, an SUV is hardly a 'cage'. 5 grown men can easily flip an SUV. If you've been in or witnessed a riot you'd know this, but I'm sure there are plenty of videos online you can see of just a couple men flipping SUVs. Not to mention they break that cage in all of 3 seconds at the end of the video.

Does punching the side of an SUV constitute an attack worthy of running over people? Really?

YES, WHEN YOU HAVE 100 FELLOW BIKERS, IT DOES. 100 people closing in on your vehicle is threatening, and it's assault. Add on top of that that these are big, menacing bikers.

If it was an old women coming towards you car, it's not a big deal. If it's a big, male, biker, eh, you go to court over it and argue the fine details. When it's 100 bikers, it's extremely intimidating and the bikers need to be careful not to assault anyone.

in this case, they clearly assault the SUV. They block him in, they close in on him and invade his personal space (way closer than any rational person should get to a motor vehicle, whatever the line is, is definitely seen to be crossed at the video). SUV is fully within it's rights to get the **** out by any means necessary.

These guys in front could have had no clue what was going on. M

Yes, which is why they need to be especially careful to not be intimidating. Even if the bikers meant no harm and just emotions were high and they wanted to talk to the SUV driver, by nature of being a mob of 100, it's threatening and therefore assault. You simply cannot do that.

The bikers were wrong to confront the SUV driver as they did. Even if it was a single biker, if you get an accident and you pull that **** (getting within 1 foot of the driver), you are guilty of assault.

The bikers should have given the SUV space, maybe they could block him in (but not so close as to trap the SUV), and called the police. This is why vigilantism is not allowed. If the SUV driver wants to flee, he's allowed to, and the bikers just call the police on a hit and run.

They can follow him, but civilian's are not allowed to break traffic laws in the pursuit of another vehicle or trying to affect a citizen's arrest. And, the SUV clearly did not do a violent felony so the bikers had no right to try to detain the SUV driver.

You get 100 people with spoons they won't do much to your suv.

wut? Are you delusional? 100 people with spoons is extremely deadly. That's the whole point. By being a mob of 100, you are a very dangerous group. It only takes ~5-6 adults to flip an SUV easily.

You can see the end of the video, it only takes 2 bikers to pull the SUV driver out of the car, in all of ~5 seconds. Bust the window with your helmet (or spoon), pull driver out, you have 99 other guys backing you up - even if they aren't, it appears so to the SUV driver and the SUV driver is right to assume they are all hostile. It's clear they are all hostile when all of them give chase, anyways.

And they are all armed too, by the way. Helmets, motorcycles, these are all weapons that in the hands of 100 people, is extremely dangerous.
 
Last edited:
People go with what seems likely because that's how life works. You evaluate a set of parameters, try to connect them and then form a conclusion based on what is more likely than not. Unless facts are known with absolute certainty then there is always some level of uncertainty. Still, at some point it's natural to come to a conclusion. Even the justice system works this way. People are convicted or set free all the time based some legal threshold of certainty. And sometimes there are mistakes.

In this case, there are multiple new stories that cite an "NYPD spokeswoman" or "Investigators" that state the SUV was pounded and the tire slashed before Lien fled and ran over the biker. So how do they know that? Perhaps Lien and/or his wife made that statement to them. Perhaps investigators have interviewed other bikers at the scene and have gotten the same information. We don't know exactly because the case hasn't gone to trial. But we do know several news stories have stated that and they attribute it to official sources such as an "NYPD spokeswoman" or "Investigators". Now you could choose not to believe that because the new stories made it up, got the source wrong, or the driver/wife lied. There is almost an infinite number of reasons one could come up with to not believe something. Heck, some people still believe we didn't go to the moon.

But it all comes back to what is more likely than not. In many people's minds, based on the entire body of evidence as we know them, it is likely the SUV driver felt threatened after being purposely brake checked several times, being boxed in, his car punched, and his tire slashed (as stated by an "NYPD spokeswoman"). It is likely the individual(s) who were in front of the SUV were not there to "help" him. It is likely the SUV driver fled out of fear and not malice because he never attempts to run over another biker afterwards even though he has many opportunities to do so.

Exactly! In belial's case everything is set in stone and proven. At the end of the day, it's not beyond a reasonable doubt with the current information provided about the beginning of this story. The actual attack is on tape and that's what they've been getting charged for.

I don't see what the fuss is about my position. The conclusion is when it will go to trial.

EDIT: Specified which parts lack info before somebody tries to single out a phrase and imply I'm talking of the entire event.
 
Last edited:
Because it's pretty clear from the video, and i think there's a lot of naivete on your part on what 100 men can do (comments like 100 people not being threatening, an SUV being an impenetrable cage when it's clearly broken into within 5 seconds in the video itself, the biker clearly brake checking and driving like an asshole and knowing what he was doing). I can understand the video might be from a limited perspective, but all that means is that we might not really know who was right or wrong at the start, at which point it's a simple, minor traffic offense.

What we can clearly see, is 100+ bikers trapping the SUV, you know, as evidenced by him having to run them over to get out. I'm not even mentioning all the news articles like stuff about slashed tires (which gilden has made clear just by analyzing the video), which further solidify the case. 100 bikers in and of itself is threatening, and nearly assaulting by it's nature. Those 100 bikers closing in on the personal space of a vehicle, is assault.

Like I said, if this was 1 biker, or even 5 bikers, it'd be a very, very, very gray case. But as I said, 100 bikers so much as with spoons comes within 1 foot of your vehicle, and you are pretty much justified in whipping out a machine gun and going full auto.

I mean time and time again you've thrown goofy what-ifs and hypotheticals that are just wrong. Things like waiting to be attacked first, what if you were accosted in a bar. If 100 people close in on you, you are being assaulted, and you can do whatever it takes to escape (in some states, you can do whatever it takes to defend yourself, but the SUV driver clearly shows to be escaping, not defending).

As for trial, the SUV driver won't go to (criminal, civil is another matter) trial because the video exonerates him, and further evidence only does so further. That said, there's always a DA trying to make a name for himself so anything can happen.

I mean all this information has been available at the start - evidence of slashed tires, the biker clearly seeing the SUV driver and then intentionally brake checking him, weaponized bikers in the form of helmets at the very least, the SUV driver having no where to go.

You just either don't watch the video and continue to comment on it, or you are watching it with a heavy bias, because we keep pointing things to you that you weren't aware of. But none of it really matters, because all we need to know is 100 bikers closing in the on SUV in the middle of the freeway

Like i said, you pull this kind of **** to anyone after an accident, and you'll be lucky they don't knock your ass out. You don't get in the face of someone after an accident occurs, you back off, and if tempers flare (either the other party or yourself), you call the police to mediate. At worst these bikers hostilely attacked the SUV in a mob, and at best it's a mob that's trying to citizens arrest him without justification (2 reasons to react in self defense on the SUV's part).
 
It's important to consider "Reasonable Doubt" in any criminal case. If changed with assault and if the evidence suggests that his attack was malicious, IF there's reasonable doubt that maybe he did it as self defense, the jury must vote "Not Guilty". Not Guilty does not mean innocent, it means that the standard to come to the conclusion of Guilty has NOT been met. Because of so many things that would lead to doubt on the part of a jury, a criminal charge is not very likely.

A civil trial is quite possible. The standard for a civil trial is the majority of evidence suggests guilt.
 
He's definitely going to end up in civil court, no doubt about that. Every self defense case goes to civil court, regardless of criminal outcome. OJ Simpson, etc ad nauseum. Still, the idea is that it's better you ran over those bikers and escaped with your life and be in court the rest of your life and end up bankrupt, than if you didn't defend yourself.

I do know the zimmerman case made news because it didnt go to civil trial, but that case was pretty clear cut.
 
Has there been any verdict so fr as convictions go?
 
Back
Top