OPEN-ACCESS: Defending Yourself & Family Against Mob Attack on Vehicle, Lawfully & Tactically

Welcome to today’s Law of Self Defense content, which in a departure from our normal practice is open-access rather than restricted to our Members. The reason for this exception is the news from New York City of a vicious attack upon a stopped vehicle containing a 74-year-old woman and her 50-ish son by a mob of violent aggressors who slammed the vehicle with bicycles and smashed the front windshield with a jumping leap from the hood of the car.

Indeed, so vicious was the attack that the NY Post reports a NYPD police officer described it as “animalistic”:  Group of NYC bicyclists attack BMW in broad daylight, wild video shows

At that point, in a desperate effort to secure their safety, and with the 74-year-old woman openly weeping and in fear for her life, the vehicle drove through the attackers.  Those attackers briefly pursued the vehicle, then fled, remain unidentified, and are unlikely to ever be held accountable.

Naturally, given our modern world, the event was captured by cell phone cameras from several angles, and those videos are embedded below.

I’ll note that this is not an isolated event, not even for New York City. Just two weeks ago a similar attack occurred upon another vehicle near Times Square, and that vehicle also drove through its attackers.  The driver of that vehicle has since been charged with reckless endangerment:  Police say six people were injured when a car plowed into Black Lives Matter demonstrators in Manhattan (The Guardian, Dec. 12, 2020).

Are the victims attacked by yesterday’s mob to be similarly charged for their effort to flee the attack upon them and secure their safety?

Especially in today’s era of highly politicized prosecutions it is more important than ever to ensure that you are equipped not only with the physical means and tactical expertise to ensure the safety of yourself and your family, but also that you are well-informed on the legal rules-of-engagement for these types of vehicular attacks, which carry with them legal issues not normally found in, say, a typical armed robbery scenario.

Accordingly, Law of Self Defense is partnering once again with our good friends at Concealed Carry to bring you a combo course of instruction that addresses both these sets of issues.  Now you can obtain the combination of BOTH Concealed Carry’s “Complete Vehicle Firearms Tactical Training Course” ONLINE and instantly accessible, AND the Law of Self Defense “Lawful Defense Against Rioters, Looters & Arsonists Course” also ONLINE and instantly accessible, at UP TO 65% OFF their usual price, saving almost $100. (You can also choose either course alone, also at a great savings.)

I’ll share more about that exceptional offer—which, by the way, will be available for ONLY 48 HOURS—after our legal analysis of this mob attack on the vehicle in New York, including the cell phone videos taken of the event.

The victim vehicle contained the driver, who himself posted on Twitter as @maxtnyc212, and a passenger whom he describes as his 74-year-old mother.  One news report (Daily News) reported that the driver was 36, but this would have made his mother 48 at his birth, which seems unlikely. Another news report (NY Post) reported that both were in their 50s, but this is contradicted by the driver’s own tweet.  Faced with these contradictions, I’m going to presume that the woman was 74 years old, as reported by the driver, and the driver was in his 50s.

These two victims, while in their car, were attacked by a mob of between 20 and 50 yutes mostly on bicycles, with a few on small (apparently unplated) motorcycles.  Of these 20-50, about a handful of the mob were the most aggressively violent, but of course one nature of a mob attack is that everyone acting in concert is effectively as responsible as the worst of their members.  Further, the victim has no way of knowing how many members of a coordinated mob will decide to also escalate to the aggressiveness of their most violent members.

I note in passing that most of the mob appear to have been unmasked.  In NYC. So much for that policy mandate.

The following videos were screen-captured by me from various Twitter posts (a practice I acquired after discovering that many videos disappear when they begin to attract attention), so I include both an image capture of the tweet, and an embed of the video pulled from that tweet.

The first video is captured in close proximity to the attack upon the vehicle and concludes with the vehicle driving out of the attack and down the road.

First the tweet:

Now the video:

The second video is also captured from close proximity to the car, but from a different angle.

First the tweet:

Now the video:

The third and final video is taken from the perspective of the vehicle’s stopping point, about a block from the point of attack.

First the tweet:

Now the video:

It is notably the vehicle is initially pursued by the mob.  This is a common occurrence in such attacks, as noted in our “Lawful Defense Against Rioters, Looters & Arsonists” course.

Such pursuit makes achieving safety by simply driving away problematic in a crowded urban environment in which it is likely the fleeing vehicle will find its progress blocked by routine traffic, allowing even a mob on foot or bicycle to catch up to the vehicle.

In the third video it becomes apparent that the mob decides to move on from the vehicle, but that can obviously not be known to the people in the vehicle as they are making their flight attempt. It would be reasonable to presume, once a mob attack has been made upon the vehicle, that the pursuing mob continues to present an imminent threat as the vehicle flees.

So how did all this start? The driver of the vehicle tweeted the following the day of the event, providing additional details of what occurred, from his own perspective:

As one might expect from a reportedly “animalistic” mob, rather than accept the naturally occurring consequences of their own poor choices, the mob responded to this self-induced injury by violently attacking the vehicle, as seen in the videos.

Even after the vehicle drove a block down the street and pulled to the curb, the driver and passenger remained terrorized by the mob:

It is noteworthy that this attack occurred at 5th Avenue and 21st Street in Manhattan, in what is known as the Flatiron District, one block from the iconic Flatiron Building (image below) and two blocks from Madison Square Garden—normally considered a relatively “safe” part of New York City.

As the victim driver noted in another tweet, in an echo of Frank Sinatra, if it can happen there, it can happen anywhere:

Note also the reference of the subsequent attack on a cab driver, who was actually pulled from his vehicle and beaten down in the street.  It is in the nature of mobs that their use of violence is indiscriminate and that anyone within their reach may be their next victim.

Indeed, even the original victims were not merely outnumbered, and not merely substantially older than their younger and, presumably, fitter attackers, they were also exceptionally vulnerable to suffering death or serious bodily injury from physical attack because of apparent physical infirmity, as evidenced by “medical license plates” on their vehicle noted by an eyewitness:

Fortunately, the victims in the attacked vehicle did not suffer serious physical injury, although the psychological trauma of such an attack, particularly upon an essentially defenseless infirm 74-year-old woman—particularly defenseless in a jurisdiction that effectively prohibits her from being armed for self-defense—cannot be underestimated.

Likely not as much can be said for the cab driver pulled from his vehicle and beaten, presumably to the point of being hospitalized, but I’ve seen no news reports on his condition.

It’s also notable that the event appears to re-affirm the old adage that “a Conservative is a Liberal who has been mugged.”  While we know nothing about the politics of the persons in the car, some remarks in the driver’s tweets suggest they are typical New York Liberals:  “I am all for taking money from corrupt cops …,” for example.

Also, an entirely unrelated tweet posted on Election Day makes clear he was happy with the purported Biden victory:

Other comments in the driver’s tweets, however, suggest that a red-pill moment may have been experienced.  “Defund the police”?  No way!

“ACAB: All Cops are Bastards!”?  I think NOT, good sir!

Turns out that there’s never a social worker or confrontation dissuader when you need one—like when your 74-year-old mother is screaming into the phone to 911 that she believes she is about to be killed by a vicious mob.

OK, enough with the politics, let’s focus back on the law.

Clearly the people in the vehicle were the innocent victims of an unlawful mob attack—so what were their legal and tactical options?  Here I’ll stay in my lane and stick to the “legal” part of that question—but don’t forget our FLASH SALE offer above that provides world-class instruction on BOTH the legal AND tactical dynamics of lawful defense against such attacks.

Legally speaking, the question is whether the people in the car were privileged to use force to defend themselves against attack, and if so what degree of force.   To answer that question we naturally step through our usual Five Elements of Self-Defense Law Analysis, using the five elements of: Innocence, Imminence, Proportionality, Avoidance, and Reasonableness.

Incidentally, if this notion of the “Five Elements” is unfamiliar to you, I strongly urge you to download our 100% FREE “Five Elements of Self-Defense Law Infographic.”  These five elements are the legal building blocks of any claim of self-defense to justify a use-of-force against another, and if you don’t understand these elements you simply can’t understand how self-defense law works in the real world.  The 100% FREE Infographic provides a brief description of each of the five elements so that you have at least that absolutely necessary foundational knowledge, and of course it costs absolutely nothing.  To download your free “Five Elements of Self-Defense Law Infographic” simply click the image or link below:

In terms of the element of Innocence, all available evidence is that it was the mob who were the initial unlawful physical aggressors in this confrontation—although it would be helpful to the victims to buttress this perception if they’d had dash cam video from within their car running continuously so as to have captured the first moments of the confrontation.  In any case, Innocence, checked for the driver and passenger in the vehicle.

In terms of the element of Imminence, the victims in the vehicle made no use of force whatever (and that assumes fleeing the scene in their vehicle constitutes a “use of force” at all, until they were actually under physical assault.  True, neither driver nor passenger was actually physically injured, but the law does not require a victim to be actually injured before they can defend—the law allows defense against the injury that is imminently about to happen, but for defense. So, Imminence, checked for the driver and passenger in the vehicle.

In terms of the element of Proportionality, what degree of threat were the people in the vehicle facing—mere non-deadly force, or deadly force—and what degree of force did they use in defense—again, mere non-deadly force or deadly force?  Deadly defensive force would generally be warranted only if one were facing a deadly force threat.  Were they facing a deadly force threat?

In some jurisdictions, an effort by an aggressor to forcibly and unlawfully breach your vehicle creates a legal presumption that the passengers inside are facing an imminent, unlawful deadly force threat, against which deadly defensive force would be legally justified.

New York has no such legal presumption, but even absent the presumption such circumstances allow for a reasonable inference of a deadly force threat.

This is particularly the case given the other disparities in force also present of this event—including being outnumbered some 50 to 2, being much older than the attackers, being infirm, and so forth.  Collectively all of these clearly qualify as an unlawful offensive force readily capable of causing the victims death or serious bodily injury.

If deadly defensive force is warranted, the law does little to distinguish between various precise forms of deadly force.  Had the victims been armed with a firearm, the use of a gun as deadly defensive force is justified if any form of deadly force is justified.  In this case, being in NYC and apparently law-abiding, the victims would not have had a firearm for purposes of self-defense—but they certainly had their vehicle, which can certainly inflict force and even deadly force.

Here there is no evidence that any of the mob were injured by the vehicle when it fled to safety, but had they been, a defense to any criminal charge based on such injury would have been that the vehicle was being used as justified deadly defensive force.

Based on the facts of this case it would appear that the victims in the vehicle would argue that they weren’t intentionally using any force at all against their attackers but were merely attempting to escape—in that case, any injury to the mob would have been a justified accident.  Had they used the vehicle knowing that injury was likely, however, the justification would be self-defense.  In that context, Proportionality on these facts would be checked for the driver and passenger.

The element of Avoidance is generally relevant only in the minority of “Duty-to-Retreat” states, but sadly New York is among those states, and does impose a legal duty to retreat before one is privileged to use deadly force in self-defense.

Even in those “Duty-to-Retreat” states, however, that duty is imposed only if one can retreat with complete safety. One is not required to increase one’s jeopardy in order to attempt retreat before one can defense oneself, presuming one would otherwise be lawfully privileged to self-defend.

Here, there was no avenue of safe retreat other than proceeding down the road, as these victims did. Certainly, it would not have been safe to exit their vehicle into the gaping maw of the attacking mob.  Remaining fixed in place also was no longer an option, once the attackers had smashed the windshield—a second such jump could easily have forced the entire windshield into the vehicle, both pinning the victims in place and breaching the vehicle to allow ingress by the aggressors.

In short, Avoidance on these facts is also checked for the driver and passenger.

What about the final element of Reasonableness?  Was the perception of the passenger and driver of a life-threatening attack a reasonable perception? That is, did they genuinely fear a deadly force attack, and would a hypothetical reasonable and prudent person in their circumstances have shared that perception?  It’s hard to imagine anyone answering those questions in the negative, particularly having seen these videos.  So, Reasonableness is also checked for the driver and passenger.

Assuming all Five Elements of Self Defense Law are checked for the driver and passenger, and in the legal context of the state having to not merely disprove their claim of self-defense justification, but to do so beyond any reasonable doubt, it certainly appears as if the victims of this mob attack would have been fully justified in using deadly defensive force as necessary to secure their safety from that attack.  (Again, don’t forget to download our 100% FREE “Five Elements of Self-Defense Law Infographic,” at:

As always, of course, use-of-force scenarios are extremely fact-sensitive, and even small changes in facts and circumstances can lead to very large changes in legal outcome—including, particularly, the legal outcomes of innocent, zero legal liability, and acquittal of any criminal charges, on the one hand, and guilty, 100% legal liability, and life in prison without possibility of early release, on the other.

I urge you to make sure you have the knowledge you need—both legal and tactical—to make the best informed, most confident, most decisive, most effective, and most lawful decisions you possibly can in defense of yourself and your family, even when faced with as chaotic a threat as a deadly force mob attack when on foot, in your vehicle, or even in your home.

That’s why Law of Self Defense is partnering once again with our good friends at Concealed Carry to bring you a combo course of instruction that addresses both these sets of issues.  Now you can obtain the combination of BOTH Concealed Carry’s “Complete Vehicle Firearms Tactical Training Course” ONLINE and instantly accessible, AND the Law of Self Defense “Lawful Defense Against Rioters, Looters & Arsonists Course” also ONLINE and instantly accessible, at UP TO 65% OFF their usual price, saving almost $100. (You can also choose either course alone, also at a great savings.)

This is, however, an unscheduled flash sale in response to this news event, so it will be available for ONLY 48 HOURS, after which we necessarily need to return to our planned promotional schedule. Accordingly, if this scenario is of concern to you—and it darn well should be—I urge you to grab this opportunity with both hands, RIGHT NOW!

To learn more, just click the image or link below:

OK, folks, that’s all I have for you today—EXCEPT FOR ONE MODEST REQUEST.

Whether you decide to take advantage of this FLASH SALE offer or not, we’ve left today’s Law of Self Defense content as OPEN-ACCESS specifically so even non-Members can access this important and timely discussion and analysis.

If you could do us the modest favor of sharing the URL of this post with others—perhaps friends or family, perhaps on your social media, perhaps in any online forums in which you participate—so that we can expand the numbers of people who get the opportunity to see this, that would be enormously appreciated.  Doing so costs you nothing, but helps Law of Self Defense, and those who access this free content, a great deal.

The URL for this post is, of course:


And who knows, maybe the folks you refer will even take advantage of our 200% Money-back Guarantee two-week trial membership offer for just 99 cents, and get instant access to many, many hours of plain-English self-defense law expertise in the form of videos, blog post analysis, and our Members-only podcast!

Until next time:


You carry a gun so you’re hard to kill.

Know the law so you’re hard to convict.

Stay safe!


Attorney Andrew F. Branca
Law of Self Defense LLC

Law of Self Defense Platinum Protection Program

Law of Self Defense © 2020
All rights reserved.

21 thoughts on “OPEN-ACCESS: Defending Yourself & Family Against Mob Attack on Vehicle, Lawfully & Tactically”

  1. guilty as charged

    Life isn’t fair – get over it. Sometimes we give the world the best we have and lose. Give the best that you got anyway! Don’t fall for the nonsense of excuse makers that you’re too stupid and feeble to make it on your own. Take advantage of your opportunities. Be the best that you can be in everything you do, and nobody can stop you!
    Be good. Obey the law, the Golden Rule and all the simple rules of decency by respecting your elders and all people of authority. Be an asset to yourself, your family, neighborhood and fellow man.
    Stay in school, discipline yourself to learn how to talk properly, read, write, and add. There are simply no opportunities for anyone who fails in these basic human skills. Everyone with these skills and a good work ethic have unlimited opportunities.
    Stay clean and sober. Drugs will turn you into a zombie. Avoid losers.
    Get an alarm clock and a job. Have good hygiene and posture, carry yourself with dignity, be positive, dress decently, forget the tattoos, speak clearly and properly. Show up early, stay late, work hard and do more than just your job.
    Don’t fall for peer pressure. Don’t play follow the leader! Stand up for what you know is right. Don’t ignore criminal and dangerous behavior by others around you. Always offer sound, friendly advice and apply as much positive pressure as you possibly can to help your family and friends out of a self-destructive lifestyle.
    Nobody owes you anything. Learn a trade. Be a carpenter, plumber, painter, welder, mechanic, electrician, musician, gunsmith, roofer, truck driver, tree trimmer, landscaper, farmer, rancher, big game guide, chimney sweep, exterminator, veterinarian, broadcaster, writer, journalist, policeman, firefighter and any number of proud, dedicated professionals will never be out of work.

  2. If New York has a duty to retreat, exactly when does that duty arise?

    New York law gives a person the right to use deadly force upon another at the point in time that they reasonably believe it is necessary to defend against a use or imminent use of unlawful deadly force. There is no duty to retreat when these circumstances exist. When these circumstances exist a person is in danger and it would be impossible for the person to know that he could retreat in complete safety because a person could not logically be in danger and in complete safety at the same time. There is no way a prosecutor could prove beyond a reasonable doubt a person who was in danger could have retreated in complete safety. Conclusion, New York is a stand your ground state just like every other state.

  3. John, Ethics, Morality, Justice and the Law

    Agree totally with the analysis and the legal justification to self-defense in this life-threatening encounter, Yet, imagine if the driver had a legal right to carry or was an armed off-duty police officer and he shot the aggressor trying to smash through his windshield. Hopefully he would be covered by CCW Safe since there will be a price to pay for defending oneself even in this type of situation.

    1. You are obviously not aware that New York has taken action to prevent concealed carry insurance companies from operating in the state.
      Although Ccw Safe is actually a prepaid legal program, they received a letter from New York demanding they stop offering their product in New York State.
      I do believe they still cover law enforcement officers in N.Y., not the general public.
      Since they are relatively small company, and don’t have the funds to fight the government, they complied.
      At the moment you cannot buy “murder insurance” in New York State.

  4. guilty as charged

    Andrew’s advice of “Avoid, avoid and avoid some more” come’s to mind. The driver found himself surrounded by youths on bikes, some trying to get a coasting ride. The driver did not agree with the mob. He feared his luxury car might get scratched and seems to have applied his brakes to protest the mob’s action, at least the bike rider in back who crashed into his back bumper thought so. The driver, instead of being cool, maybe slowing down slowly, with great care, friendly waving at the youths, reacted the wrong way. The youths reacted. The currency of thugs is respect. Lack of respect is violence, often to the extreme. Avoidance means mind your manners, be respectful, don’t stare, say thank you, wave, be kind, slow, thoughtful, say your sorry sincerely and continue to avoid until it’s not working any more.
    Once I cut off a car in traffic. The car followed me and cut me off, stopping in front of my car, blocking me and staring at me were 4 youths in a car. I was cool and immediately said, “sorry” and like magic they left. My car was not harmed. My face intact.
    If the driver of the BMW had inflicted harm to the mob of bikers, shooting them, running them over, or been in any way unreasonable, his damaged insured car was the least of his worries. A public pleasing political correct prosecutor, millions of dollars in lawsuits, his disgraced face in the media and selling his apartment or home to relocate, would have been the results. As long as you can safely avoid or retreat, you are a fool not to.

    1. John, Ethics, Morality, Justice and the Law

      Your point is well taken. And, if the video shows the car abruptly slowing down or even stopping suddenly, this would not look good for the driver. However, how would this be weighed in comparison to the “pack mentality” and physical aggression of the roving band of bi-peds on bicycles?

  5. response to Guilty As Charged:
    “Chimney Sweep?”, what is this a Charles Dickens novel? Mostly good points generally but the fact remains the mob mentality/behavior doesn’t make sense and restrained behavior doesn’t always get good outcomes. The driver showed much restraint and I’m glad “no punks were harmed in the filming of this video”…If that was MY car, next of kin would just have to deal with the fact that they didn’t raise their kids right. AND I would counter sue for the cost of the car wash and body work.

  6. guilty as charged

    Let’s make this simple. The only time you use deadly defensive force is when you reasonably believe you, or someone you love, is about to die, and you don’t mind spending the rest of your life in prison. In all the other situations, you have to avoid, retreat, deescalate or hunker down.

    1. The thing is, when there is a use or imminent use of unlawful force by a person or persons who have the ability and opportunity to cause you bodily harm or death, it is always reasonable for you to believe that you are about to die. We are not required to trust that criminals will show us mercy. The law doesn’t distinguish between the levels of unlawful force that the aggressor is using or threatening to use, the law presumes it is reasonable to believe a criminal aggressor with the ability and oipportunity to use deadly force is threatening the use of deadly force when the criminal aggressor uses or threatens to use any level of unlawful force,

      1. guilty as charged

        “Avoid, retreat, deescalate or hunker down” is not trusting in the mercy of a criminal. They are strategies to avoid entering the criminal justice system by not using force.
        What would you have done? Driven over some of these youths? Rolled down the window and began shooting them?
        You say, “The law doesn’t distinguish between levels of unlawful force that the aggressor is using” (paraphrased). This is only true of deadly force. The law does distinguish between deadly and non-deadly force.
        Are you trying to say that if an aggressor uses any level of force, the law presumes it is deadly force? Please excuse me. I have trouble making out what you’re saying.
        Is beating on a car deadly force? Is jumping on a car deadly force? Is throwing a bicycle on a windshield deadly force? Is stomping on a windshield ready force? Is disparity of numbers outside a locked luxury car deadly force? There was no unlawful entry of a highly defensible property (the BMW). Where do you presume to find deadly force so that you can justify the use of deadly defensive force and also convince the district attorney not to file charges or a jury not to convict you for injuring, maiming and killing minors.

        1. ” the district attorney not to file charges or a jury not to convict you for injuring, maiming and killing minors.”
          A friend was in this situation about 15 years ago. He was a nurse who had gotten off work at midnight and was driving to check in his mother who had been ill. He took a short cut through the “community” and when he stopped at an intersection, four large “youths” blocked his vehicle and one began to try to open the passenger door. He later told me that his initial thought was to drive ahead but then thought if a “youth” was injured, he and his family would be screwed , at a minimum, by political/media prosecution. His impression was that the youths were intent on beating the shit out of a 5’10”, balding, middle-age white guy. His solution was to use non-deadly force. His son’s baseball bat was on the back seat; he opened his door walked up the the largest youth and took a swing with the bat and knocked his teeth out. They all ran.

          1. “That would be a use of deadly force.”
            Not as deadly as the 1911 that he usually carried or running over them with a motor vehicle. I guess his thinking was to neutralize the threat with the least deadly force available and the best possible narrative if he was charged. The youths made the error of attacking an unassuming person who had been in the Marine Corps. for ten years, in combat in the Gulf and then as an MP.

      2. guilty as charged

        All I see here is the vandalismo of a occupied property for the purpose of intimidating (emotionally harming) the occupants – this is what thug life is all about. There was no intent to cause physical harm to the occupants that I could see. The occupants had a subjective reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm, but was that fear objectively reasonable? Would a prudent, reasonable person in the same situation have a fear of death or great bodily harm? Even if that were true, I think the risks of using deadly or any defensive force in this situation far outweighs the benefit.

        1. According to Sir William Blackstone they would. B;ackstone said you never know to what lengths a crimal will go once be begins using or threatening the use of unlawful force. He said that was why you were justified in killing rioters to protect yourself from a riot or to disperess the rioters.

  7. guilty as charged

    I think a big can of oc spray, fogger type, might have been helpful. Depends on how windy it was that day. That might be a great idea – equip luxury cars with an anti-mob oc spray system.

  8. OK folks we have gotten way off course here. Each individual has to make a choice FOR THEMSELVES and deal with the real life consequences…Knowledge/training is helpful in making decisions under stress but, real life lived experiences trumps what any arm chair commando can type about (myself included)-that said, if it were my car, well I’d be in jail writing about this…I don’t know ANY lawyer who could sell the “compensation for the car wash and bodywork argument”and I don’t think this kind of “incident” is covered in a standard lease agreement. Like I said “no punks were harmed in the filming of this video”…lucky for them, because earning a “Darwin Award” is a once in a lifetime thing.

  9. guilty as charged

    We are beating this dead horse to learn the law of self defense. What happened here was completely normal, to be expected and will happen again when a mob meets an unprepared person living in la la land (no experience in thugs/mob mentality). Hitting the brakes was the wrong use of force in this situation. The reaction from the swarm of thugs on bikes was to be expected. They vandalized the car and terrorized the occupants. The question the student of law of self defense should ask him or herself is what force can I take under these circumstances that will protect myself and keep me out of prison. The mix of factors change. The law of self defense doesn’t. It’s a chess game. What’s my next best move to protect myself in this situation. Play it out in your mind. Did it work. Will the district attorney see me as an easy case to win? They love to win; they hate to lose. Will he have some political motivation to file charges, even thought he knows he can’t win the case? Am I white, the injured or dead victim black and the political climate looking for a white person to punish for cultural reasons? Can you look at yourself in the mirror and feel good about what you did? This is what this discussion is all about. I think the driver of the car made a mistake, but then remained calm, didn’t do anything to further the escalate the mob violence and came out ok. He won. Can you win?

Leave a Comment