nyc suv runs over bikers

[allanoue]

:b eatdeadhorse::bea tdeadhorse:

Originally Posted by az3200

:b eatdeadhorse::bea tdeadhorse::beatd eadhorse::beatdea dhorse::beatdeadh orse::beatdeadhor se:

[choneofakind]

It's also still not an optical illusion of any sorts. It's relative motion viewed from a non-inertial point of view. There's no trickery there.

Read up. Stop calling it optical illusion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativ...elative_motion

[NevadaWolf]

WTH safari?? Stop opening random pages.

Sorry! Going away now!

[n4mwd]

Originally Posted by Alex

No, no, and no. He couldn't move right because there were bikes directly to the right of his vehicle. As already stated in this thread, it's quite possible much of his attention is on those bikes, trying to figure out how not to hit them while moving to the right side of the lane to avoid moron #1 who just cut him off. You state his obvious intent is to hit a biker, while the only thing that is truly obvious is that you're being willfully obtuse. You're ascribing intent where there is none, and misrepresenting video that is in fact obvious to almost all but you.

Lien isn't going to get charged with anything. I'm pretty sure you know that and are just posturing.

I just looked at the video once again. IT shows two maybe three bikers in the far right lane. He was in the middle lane. The bikers in the right lane are NOT lane splitting with the SUV. He had plenty of room to slide over a little bit to avoid the collision. He most certainly could brake. His actions prove that he did not have any concern about hitting any of them. If he wasn't looking where he was going, then he was also driving carelessly.

Lets not forget that witnesses have said that the SUV had already struck another biker and threw bottles at other bikers prior to the video starting.

As far as lien getting charged. Two days ago I said it was hopeless. Now, with the new witnesses, I'm not so sure.

[Alex]

I give up trying to have a rational discussion with you; if anything has been proven, it's that you are either incapable or unwilling. Your views are extreme, and not in line with what just about anyone but you has when viewing the same videos. This doesn't make you perceptive, it makes you tedious.

I'm out. Seems it's about time for everyone else to bow out as well.

[Trubin]

Let our justice system decide at what point its OK to run over others

[n4mwd]

Originally Posted by choneofakind

It's also still not an optical illusion of any sorts. It's relative motion viewed from a non-inertial point of view. There's no trickery there.

Read up. Stop calling it optical illusion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativ...elative_motion

An optical illusion is something that looks like one thing, but is actually something else. If you ever get to go to California, go visit some of the movie sets. Super cool stuff. Those guys have mastered optical illusions for the purpose of cinematic trickery. For example, a lot of the trees and other objects you see on screen are actually made of flat cardboard. In person, they look like flat cardboard. On screen, they look real. An optical illusion.

Anyhow, nuff said on that.

[az3200]

Originally Posted by Alex

I give up trying to have a rational discussion with you; if anything has been proven, it's that you are either incapable or unwilling. Your views are extreme, and not in line with what just about anyone but you has when viewing the same videos. This doesn't make you perceptive, it makes you tedious.

I'm out. Seems it's about time for everyone else to bow out as well.

[Panda]

From the video you can should be able determine relative speeds of the person filming, christopher cruz, and the RR. I was going to do the math and mark up the video but I figured before I wasted my time I'd see what christopher cruz had to say. It follows that if the RR driver "stomped on the gas". Then he would definitely be shouting about that.

A quick google search and Mr. Cruz's own words he says, "my hand came off the throttle a little, but the driver didn't slow down".

This is a picture of a whammy.



For the sake of argument lets completely side with Mr. Cruz and say he is 100% honest and trustworthy. Mr. Cruz has every motivation to inform everyone that Mr. Lien "stomped on he gas" yet he doesn't.

Mr. Lien didn't accelerate. No optical illusion. Just facts.

[deeno415]

I guess his cover is blown now!

http://news.kron4.com/news/off-duty-...-biker-mayhem/

" ...a 10-year veteran of the police force, had only witnessed other bikers attacking the vehicle. But investigators discovered video evidence showing him punching an already damaged back window, then twice kicking the side of the SUV before leaving the scene, according to two people familiar with the case."

^^^ WTF?!?! The undercover officer participated in the vandalism?!^^^

There are other news reports saying that there were up to 6 undercover officers at the scene, and did nothing to prevent this whole thing!


What is this world coming to???


NO WHAMMIES... NO WHAMMIES!!!

[dfox]

I'm sure undercover police officers have done and seen much worse to keep from blowing their cover...

[n4mwd]

Originally Posted by Panda

Mr. Lien didn't accelerate. No optical illusion. Just facts.

Cruz had the worst vantage point in the whole thing. If HE said the SUV was accelerating, then I would know he was lying. All he knew from his POV was that there was a collision. He stated that he was looking for friends, not at the SUV.

While I still believe that the video evidence shows an acceleration of the SUV, I hope we can agree is that there was no deceleration of the SUV prior to impact. Because if there was, there wouldn't have been an impact.

Originally Posted by deeno415

"...10-year veteran of the police force ... punching an already damaged back window, then twice kicking the side of the SUV..."

...

There are other news reports saying that there were up to 6 undercover officers at the scene, and did nothing to prevent this whole thing!

Could it be because the 6 undercover cops know the whole story and we don't? I read somewhere that Lien called 911 during this, but I haven't seen the recording anywhere. There is also rumored to be numerous other videos in the possession of the police (traffic cams, etc.) and where is that?

The group was swarming and pissing off a lot of other drivers. You can't keep pissing people off for very long before somebody snaps. Mr. Lien snapped.

[lgk]

Originally Posted by dfox

I'm sure undercover police officers have done and seen much worse to keep from blowing their cover...

True.

[Trubin]

Originally Posted by deeno415

I guess his cover is blown now!

http://news.kron4.com/news/off-duty-...-biker-mayhem/

" ...a 10-year veteran of the police force, had only witnessed other bikers attacking the vehicle. But investigators discovered video evidence showing him punching an already damaged back window, then twice kicking the side of the SUV before leaving the scene, according to two people familiar with the case."

^^^ WTF?!?! The undercover officer participated in the vandalism?!^^^

There are other news reports saying that there were up to 6 undercover officers at the scene, and did nothing to prevent this whole thing!


What is this world coming to???


NO WHAMMIES... NO WHAMMIES!!!

I guess they thought that the beating was a good idea.

[massacremasses]

Originally Posted by Trubin

Quote:
Originally Posted by Motofool View Post
This witness disagrees with your frame shots and descriptions:
http://video.bostonherald.com/EXCLUS...c&VID=25226249

This is the video I'm talking about he says same thing as what I herd on Sunday from the dirt biker. And most likely the fact that no one comes forward that he hit them is because the rider was either not insured or unregistered etc.

edit: I wasn't alone there, TC young was with me and herd him say it. I'm not saying its true but i think we should take it into the account. that its two eye witness reports.

motofool was being sarcastic....

A witness was disagreeing with video footage? which are you going to beleive.

Also that link sent me to a video of Phil Robertson. I like him, but thats not what I wanted.

[Panda]

Originally Posted by n4mwd

Cruz had the worst vantage point in the whole thing. If HE said the SUV was accelerating, then I would know he was lying. All he knew from his POV was that there was a collision. He stated that he was looking for friends, not at the SUV.

While I still believe that the video evidence shows an acceleration of the SUV, I hope we can agree is that there was no deceleration of the SUV prior to impact. Because if there was, there wouldn't have been an impact.



Could it be because the 6 undercover cops know the whole story and we don't? I read somewhere that Lien called 911 during this, but I haven't seen the recording anywhere. There is also rumored to be numerous other videos in the possession of the police (traffic cams, etc.) and where is that?

The group was swarming and pissing off a lot of other drivers. You can't keep pissing people off for very long before somebody snaps. Mr. Lien snapped.

Now you don't believe the witness, who was there, that has every reason to say there was acceleration.

I'm out.

[Motofool]

Originally Posted by massacremasses

motofool was being sarcastic....

Yes, I was, because this witness was saying that Cruz did fall and got hurt and that the problem with the SUV was coming from two miles aft.

The beautifully dissection of the video, shown in the link provided by massacremasses (Post #201 to which I referred), shows that Cruz kept rolling after impact while the SUV fully stopped, that he crabbed his bike back to the SUV while others dismounted and started walking toward the SUV (including Mieses, who was riding his green bike next to Cruz), that it was not until the walking bikers were next to the SUV that the driver stumped on the gas, that Mieses must have been very close to the left front tire as to not have time to jump back (was he distracted while reaching to stab that tire?) and that that very front tire was disintegrating a few moments after the run over.

However, Mr. Cruz claims that he was not aware of that previous situation or the belligerent SUV and that he was just looking for his friends, while surrounded by riders that he did not know and being unexpectedly rear ended by that SUV.

We don't know what really happened, or what the intentions of each part was, or what errors and bad decisions each made and took: we can only speculate.

What is clear to me is even when things like this happen everyday, regarding road rage, disrespect, abuse, violence, unlawful driving and riding, etc., they are rarely published so much and debated to the point of strong polarizations.

This case is a snow ball because some influential powers and interests want it to be.
Someone wants to wash the brain of scared regular drivers, showing the wildness of these groups and the vulnerable that they are, especially having little hope of being protected by the police they pay for in the very moment of danger.
Hence the high demand for information about the criminal record of the bikers, the damage to the SUV and to the driver and the unethical move of the police officers that were present.
Nothing however has been published about the damage to the bikes, the ineffectiveness of 911 and police response or even the driving record of the SUV driver.
We see what we see because somebody wants us to see only that, unless until we all make a per-judgement.

Almost everyday, we discuss in this forums that most drivers don't know or don't care how to drive in traffic, we expect them to hurt us during their dumb moves, we train ourselves to be alert and defensive and street-smart in order to survive our daily and good mannered commute in those conditions.
We know that we are vulnerable and we adapt to that reality.

Suddenly, this crazy event has changed reality for some riders who are expecting a high degree of attention, courtesy, good manners and care from a regular driver, while supporting that a motorcyclist can afford being sloppy, aggressive, defiant and unlawful, just because he is riding in a huge disorganized group.
At the moment of impact, the driver could have been looking to his side, just like Cruz was doing, or as distracted as everyday drivers are all the time or simply not seeing a brake light that never shined.

A million questions can be asked:
If an innocent accident, why anyone but Cruz had to approach to the driver?
Why the beaters didn't wait with the two good Samaritans for the police to accuse the driver of such a crime and abandonment of the scene of the roll over?
Why police delayed response?
Why we don't know about the first rider annoyed or offended by the SUV?

The problem is not who offended first and last, the problem is how each participant reacted to the situation perceived from his own point of view and based on his own believes, principles and believed rights and duties.
The problem did not start that afternoon, but many years earlier when these persons started or not to be educated in their feelings, social skills and attitudes.

Worse things than this accident-confrontation will be seen, unless we, as a human group, decide taking responsibility over our personal lives, intentions and actions; having a less violent and entitled approach to simple everyday situations and disagreements; treating others with the respect and consideration that we believe we deserve to be treated.

Starting from each home, a little love and respect is all we need, but maybe we have been systematically brain washed to think, feel, act and react in the opposite direction.
"Divide et impera." - The Art of War

[Aggrotech]

Originally Posted by dfox

I'm sure undercover police officers have done and seen much worse to keep from blowing their cover...

this. Just think of the old Hells angel days, theres a documentary floating around somewhere regarding motorcycle gangs and some cops had to be undercover for 5+ years. Wonder how much illegal **** they had to do not to get their cover blown.

[allanoue]

Originally Posted by n4mwd

I hope we can agree is that there was no deceleration of the SUV prior to impact. Because if there was, there wouldn't have been an impact.

The flaw in your logic is simple and shows how obtuse you are being.
Cruz said he he was engine braking if only by accident (he is clearly lying IMO) and he cut very close to the front of RR and with no brake light to warn RR of rapid deceleration RR was late on his brake do to being human. Then the gang of thugs assume the bump is RR fault when it is Cruz who is at fault.

[lgk]

Originally Posted by Panda

Mr. Lien didn't accelerate. No optical illusion. Just facts.

braking takes reaction time, might lose 50-60ft of distance before actually applying braking force.

if the RR accelerated, it would delay reaction time further, and increased stopping distance. he would have plowed through everyone in front of him.

that's why no one should be arguing the SUV accelerated. the evidence draws no such conclusion.

[miss_syn]

God these court pictures are great. Not even a business casual appearance.

[Motofool]

The family in the SUV



The Man Behind Hollywood Stuntz Swears He Doesn’t Have a Real Biker Gang



Meet the cop arrested in biker gang’s attack on family man

[Felipe the Ant]

I clearly see both the nose of the RR dive just before impact, and not rise one bit while maintaining the same speed as the green bike in the background before impact. Just sayin

[n4mwd]

Originally Posted by Motofool

This case is a snow ball because some influential powers and interests want it to be.
Someone wants to wash the brain of scared regular drivers, showing the wildness of these groups and the vulnerable that they are, especially having little hope of being protected by the police they pay for in the very moment of danger.
Hence the high demand for information about the criminal record of the bikers, the damage to the SUV and to the driver and the unethical move of the police officers that were present.
Nothing however has been published about the damage to the bikes, the ineffectiveness of 911 and police response or even the driving record of the SUV driver.
We see what we see because somebody wants us to see only that, unless until we all make a per-judgement.

I noticed that too. Lien is wealthy and has no doubt hired a PR firm to make himself look like an angel and the bikers to look like vicious criminals. It has been stated that Lien was out celebrating his anniversary and was no doubt drinking in the process - yet where is his blood alcohol test results? His conduct of reckless driving and antagonizing the bikers prior to the start of the video would certainly be indicative of someone who had been drinking.

I have looked at numerous web articles about the story and the vast majority refer to him as "the innocent family man" that was "savagely beaten to a pulp" by "animals". They also downplay the fact that he just ran somebody over and paralyzed him for life.

Here are some examples of the biased language used:
"a motorcycle gang’s terrorizing of a Manhattan family"

Calling this group a "gang" is an outright lie since most of the riders didn't even know each other - it was a badly organized group ride with participants from several states. The use of the word "terrorizing" conjures emotions of the 911 attacks which is a pinched nerve for New Yorkers. Referring to the SUV as a "Manhattan Family" promotes the feeling of Lien being a suit and tie gentleman with proper etiquette.

So yes, somebody with a lot of money has an agenda here. The way it looks right now, the bikers will probably not receive a fair trial and Lien will go free. I'm still hopeful that someone will step forward with video of the events prior. Such a video could change everything.

[allanoue]

Originally Posted by allanoue

:b eatdeadhorse::bea tdeadhorse:
:b eatdeadhorse::bea tdeadhorse::beatd eadhorse::beatdea dhorse::beatdeadh orse::beatdeadhor se:

[choneofakind]

Definition of mob

Mob

Of course there's an agenda; there's an open case here with Lawyers involved. That's what lawyers do. Look at Cruz's lawyer, he's doing the same thing but with the opposite spin. Lawyers get paid to frame their client in a manner that will evoke the outcome they're being paid to deliver. In this case, the media has done a bunch of that for him because he was attacked by a group of bikers with a mob mentality. Your point?

[Sinister]

Originally Posted by n4mwd

I noticed that too. Lien is wealthy and has no doubt hired a PR firm to make himself look like an angel and the bikers to look like vicious criminals. It has been stated that Lien was out celebrating his anniversary and was no doubt drinking in the process - yet where is his blood alcohol test results? His conduct of reckless driving and antagonizing the bikers prior to the start of the video would certainly be indicative of someone who had been drinking.

I have looked at numerous web articles about the story and the vast majority refer to him as "the innocent family man" that was "savagely beaten to a pulp" by "animals". They also downplay the fact that he just ran somebody over and paralyzed him for life.

Here are some examples of the biased language used:
"a motorcycle gang’s terrorizing of a Manhattan family"

Calling this group a "gang" is an outright lie since most of the riders didn't even know each other - it was a badly organized group ride with participants from several states. The use of the word "terrorizing" conjures emotions of the 911 attacks which is a pinched nerve for New Yorkers. Referring to the SUV as a "Manhattan Family" promotes the feeling of Lien being a suit and tie gentleman with proper etiquette.

So yes, somebody with a lot of money has an agenda here. The way it looks right now, the bikers will probably not receive a fair trial and Lien will go free. I'm still hopeful that someone will step forward with video of the events prior. Such a video could change everything.

God, you're an idiot.

[dino74]

Originally Posted by Sinister

God, you're an idiot.

[choneofakind]

To further my point.

There is no such thing as unbiased media. Period. Lien does not (like you're implying) have so much influence that he paid off the media to bias the opinion of the entire country and make this a national news story; the actions of the motorcyclists in this scenario did that on their own.

These riders acted as a mob. They intimidated another road user as a mob. They backed said road user into a corner by menacing him as a mob. Then they proceeded to chase him down and beat him. Wait for it... as a mob.

Classic case of mob mentality. Not a collective brain (or conscience) among the whole group of riders. They acted as one unit that was more damaging than any individual present. Safety in numbers.



Now how you don't understand why his reaction (albeit poor) could possibly be justified in the eyes of the legal system, I don't know. I mean, aren't there laws in some states that say if someone threatens you, you have the right to shoot to kill? is that not what he did when approached by, once again, a mob? So what if he threw a water bottle (or whatever) at them earlier. He was an a motorist who was angry at a bunch of morons who decided to close the road (illegally I might add) so they could be dumb@$$es. They got mad. Somehow there was a fenderbender. They acted as a mob and intimidated/scared/slashed tires, so he acted in self defense. Last time I checked, human nature is fight or flight. If he'd put one of them in the hospital for a gunshot wound instead of running them over, this would be a simple self defense case. Why is that so different because of his desire to flee rather than fight?

[Panda]

Luckily the people making the decisions surrounding this case are paying attention to the video evidence and the facts.

[n4mwd]

Originally Posted by choneofakind

Now how you don't understand why his reaction (albeit poor) could possibly be justified in the eyes of the legal system, I don't know. I mean, aren't there laws in some states that say if someone threatens you, you have the right to shoot to kill?

No I don't think his reaction was justified at all. He was in a tank and should have just waited for the police to arrive (he presumably had already called 911). Because he had already fled the scene of an earlier accident, someone apparently tried to immobilize the vehicle by slashing the tires to force him to wait for the police. I don't think slashing the tires was a smart move and the bikers should have just gotten his plates and reported him, but they did what they had to in the heat of the moment.

Whenever someone uses self defense as an excuse for killing someone, they need to prove that they had just cause for fearing for their life. You can't just blow someone away and say its OK because they scared you. Not unless you are a rich guy in New York and the guy you mutilated is a poor slob that works in a car wash. In this country, you only get as much justice as you can afford.

[jackliu239]

Originally Posted by n4mwd

No I don't think his reaction was justified at all. He was in a tank and should have just waited for the police to arrive (he presumably had already called 911). Because he had already fled the scene of an earlier accident, someone apparently tried to immobilize the vehicle by slashing the tires to force him to wait for the police. I don't think slashing the tires was a smart move and the bikers should have just gotten his plates and reported him, but they did what they had to in the heat of the moment.

Whenever someone uses self defense as an excuse for killing someone, they need to prove that they had just cause for fearing for their life. You can't just blow someone away and say its OK because they scared you. Not unless you are a rich guy in New York and the guy you mutilated is a poor slob that works in a car wash. In this country, you only get as much justice as you can afford.

You know I just want to point out that you constantly accusing other people of assuming the bikers are the bad guys and SUV are the good guys, therefore their judgement is being clouded, and so they are not willing to accept reality of what actually happened.

But after reading of all your post, don't you think you are guilty of doing the same?
- The rich guy is evil, therefore the rich guy can get away with bad things
- The SUV driver hate bikers, therefore that's the reason he runs them over
- The SUV wanted to make the rider quadriplegic, that why he run over that guy (instead just trying to escape).
- The SUV driver accelerated to hit the biker, because he hates bikers (as oppose to biker engine breaking)
- The SUV driver got his tire slashed, and the only reason for this is because he did something bad in the beginning (And no way in hell the biker would deliberately cause trouble on purpose).
- The rich guy will win the case, because he is rich, and in this country rich buys you justice, and in the end when he win, it is not because he was right, it is because he is rich. (therefore all rich people are evil?)

I'm just saying, you may make some valid points, but at the same time you are pretty much just as guilty as the guys arguing against you. AKA already made up your mind on which side you support, and therefore all evidence points ONLY points toward your own believes, and even when there is lack of any evidence, you are already making assumption with no actual correlation to support your own side.

[choneofakind]

Originally Posted by n4mwd

In this country, you only get as much justice as you can afford.

those guys could afford bikes. Maybe they'll sell the bikes for lawyers and solve two problems at once; they'll have a lawyer and we'll get them off the streets.

[Trubin]

Was there any evidence of bikers slashing his tires? maybe his tires got flat as he ran over the bikes.

[n4mwd]

Originally Posted by Trubin

Was there any evidence of bikers slashing his tires? maybe his tires got flat as he ran over the bikes.

Yes, I was thinking the same thing. The same tire that blew out is the same one that ran over the biker. Those broken ribs can be sharp.

Originally Posted by jackliu239

I'm just saying, you may make some valid points, but at the same time you are pretty much just as guilty as the guys arguing against you. AKA already made up your mind on which side you support, and therefore all evidence points ONLY points toward your own believes, and even when there is lack of any evidence, you are already making assumption with no actual correlation to support your own side.

Fair enough.

It seems that a lot of people here seem to be fixated on the end where the hit and run driver is allegedly beaten while people attempt to detain him for police. That's the minutia. The real point is the biker who was mowed down.

I never saw anything in the video that shows Lien being beaten. What I saw was a mad biker smashing the window. I also saw a different video with Lien on the ground which is where he should be when detaining him for police. That video clearly shows him moving so he was not unconscious as was reported in the news. He suffered minor abrasions and cuts which would have occurred from being in close proximity to the glass when it was broken.

Everything I think I know about the actual beating (if it actually occurred) comes from the news media. If anyone knows of other videos that I missed, post the link and I would be happy to look at it. Also, I'd like to see photos of the bruises.

So yes, the bikers look guilty as hell as long as you don't look at the actual facts too close.

Regarding Cruz, I have decided to attempt a fixed point video stabilization on the impact to see what it shows. Its not high on my priority list so its going to take a while. Whether I'm right or wrong, the stabilized video should show it.

BTW, all rich people are not evil, but as the saying goes, power corrupts....
You can also ask OJ Simpson if having a good lawyer makes a difference.

[choneofakind]

...done here. The stupidity. I just can't get over this.

Unsubscribed.



Alex, can't we close this thread yet?

[Alex]

/closed