When most people think of biker gangs they think of Hells angels, mongols, pegans, and of course the outlaws. These biker gangs ore accused of crimes of violence like beating people up, theft, and various other crimes. These gangs first appeared in the 1940's when a brawl broke out around the american motorcycle association. The pissed off bikers were known as "outlaws" and now these outlaws continue to grow.
However an incident broke out in New York with a man in a Range Rover and a group of bikers. Many assume the bikers are a "gang" but are actual bikers who just like to block the street off to go fast and do tricks. This was not going to fly with the driver of the Range Rover when he supposedly paralyzed one of the bikers by running him over when the intersection was being blocked. The bikers followed him for awhile until he hit traffic and all hell broke loose. The bikers smashed his windows and ripped him out of the car to beat him up viciously.
The question is "Is it the drivers fault or did the bikers do wrong here?". I would say that it is both people at fault. The driver did wrong by loosing his patience and hitting a biker and the bikers did wrong from the start. However I think that punishment ended when the man got beat up which made both sides here even. Bikers like these should not have the power to run the streets when they please and there needs to be more police protection in the streets of New York. I think incidents like this will always occur. One person thinks they have power over another which ultimately leads to a fight. Prays go out to the Biker paralyzed and the man beat up.
I agree with you that both the driver of the Range Rover, as well as the bikers are to blame here. It is also very sad about the paralyzed biker, as he was just trying to help out the man who was hit first, and ended up being run over, himself.
ReplyDeleteInitially, I thought this was a real biker "gang" when I heard it mentioned on the news briefly, as well as in class. I am glad the article cleared this up because it really changes how society views this situation.
It is a good example of the situation that Smith discussed, in which at first we don't sympathize with the angry man, but we later do when we find out the cause. Here both sides are sympathetic to some extent. I would hope that I would have simply pulled off the road, but it's hard for me to say that I would with any certainty.
ReplyDeleteI wonder, though, if we can at least agree that the the man should not have hit the biker, and that the bikers should not have beaten the man. If we can say that, can we then say that both should face charges? Right now, only the bikers are being prosecuted. Is this just?