KissMy
Free Breast Exam
There was no deadly force applied.
If a group is encircling a person threatening violence, and that person, in fleeing, knock a man that is part of the group out of the way, and he hits his head on the ground and dies...THAT was a foreseeable consequence if blocking his escape.
The result...the man getting run over because of the overt act of first attempting to illegally block the road, and second, blocking the escape of vehicle being threatened and attacked by the bikers accomplices in illegally blocking the road...getting run over is a foreseeable consequence of those actions.
The conspiracy was to shut down the highway.1) Criminal Conspiracy: if a person enters into conspiracy to commit a crime, that person will be directly liable for a separate crime of conspiracy. He will also be vicariously liable for the conspired. A party to conspiracy may also be found vicariously liable for crimes committed by other defendants during the course of conspiracy. Such vicarious liability may be found for crimes that are foreseeable consequences and in furtherance of the conspiracy. The following elements are required to establish conspiracy:
Vicarious Liability in Criminal Law | LegalMatch Law Library
- Two or more persons must agree to accomplish some crime or felony.
- Parties to the conspiracy must have had an intent to enter agreement.
- Parties must also intend to accomplish the conspired for crime.
- Modernly, there must be an "overt act" in furtherance of the conspiracy.
The furtherance of the conspiracy was the accident with the brake checking cycle by a co-conspirator.
A second furtherance was the attack on the SUV by other co-conspirators.
The man who was run down was a member of the conspiracy to commit a criminal act...then he committed another OVERT act by blocking the escape of the SUV while it was being attack by his co-conspirators.
This was all a foreseeable consequence of the original conspiracy.
Once the man agreed to the original crime, he was an accomplice, and was liable for the crimes of the co-conspirators.
Therefore, using force to escape was not a crime...nor was it "mowing down an innocent bystander".
Yes - If the co-conspirators were actually attempting to harm the occupants of the SUV & these bikers were unlawful imprisoning them as it happened. Show evidence of that & running over the bikers is completely justified under NYC law.
But I see none of them trying to harm the occupants prior to the SUV assaulting bikers with deadly force. The SUV driver did not honk his horn alerting the bikers in front that he wanted through (unlawful imprison) or slowly advance giving them a chance to get out of the way. He just took off with no warning & did not allow the bikers to escape.
Why hasn't the SUV driver been charged with anything then ?
It's media hyped political feeding frenzy right now. The tide will turn in time.
NYPD brass were hot on arresting Cruz despite zero evidence heÂ’d committed an actual assault, sources told The Post.
"“We arrested [Cruz] because of pressure from [police brass] to make an arrest in this case,” a second source said.
“It was completely against [the prosecutor's] judgment. The case is weak. We needed much more investigation.”
The DAÂ’s office relented because of pressure from the NYPD and widespread publicity about the case, a second source told The Post.
A statement from the DA’s top trial prosecutor, Karen Friedman-Agnifilo, confirmed that the office was proceeding with caution in building “the strongest cases possible” against the renegade bikers.
“Prematurely charging individuals with low-level crimes does not further the goals of the investigation, and could weaken the cases we expect to bring against the perpetrators of serious crimes,” Friedman-Agnifilo said in a written statement."

Hit reply and address me cordially so we can discuss the controversial issues. But be forewarned, I deal in facts, not superstition, and emotion.