PHILADELPHIA - In the wake of a violent altercation involving Cody Monroe Heron, a 26-year-old motorcyclist from Frankford, and Nikki Bullock, a 23-year-old UberEats driver, questions loom over the intricacies of law and order amidst the chaotic backdrop of Philadelphia’s streets. Heron was charged with aggravated assault, possession of an instrument of crime, and related offenses after a video of the incident garnered over 1.4 million views online.
As reported by Inquirer, the video depicted Heron, adorned in a black-and-gold helmet, leaping onto the back of Bullock’s Ford Fusion and violently stomping on the windshield while Bullock’s two young children and another adult female were inside the vehicle. The confrontation escalated when Heron headbutted Bullock after she exited the car to confront him. Police arrested Heron after tips, including information from his employer, led them to his residence.
The question of liability and legal recourse in similar confrontations is as complex as it is contentious. In the realm of tort law, parallels can be drawn to cases like Weirum v. RKO General, Inc., 15 Cal.3d 40 (1975), where a radio station was held liable for a listener's death due to the negligent actions prompted by a contest organized by the station. The foreseeability of harm played a critical role in that judgement (Prosser, W. L., & Keeton, R. E. (1984). The Law of Torts (5th ed.). St. Paul, Minn.: West Group).
In Heron’s case, one could delve into the notion of intentional torts and criminal liability. The destruction of property, assault, and endangerment are evident from the virality of the incident. However, the role of law enforcement in the prevention and intervention of such instances becomes a contentious issue, given the noted presence of a police patrol car during the altercation.
Legal scholars might also draw upon Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad Co., 248 N.Y. 339 (1928), to consider the duty of care owed by law enforcement to individuals involved in incidents like these (Cardozo, B. N. (1928). Court of Appeals of New York). The police's hesitancy to engage with ATV and motorcycle riders due to the associated dangers raises ethical and legal questions regarding the balance between law enforcement’s duty to protect and the potential risk to public safety.
The Philadelphia Police Department’s protocol of not pursuing ATV, dirt bike, and motorcycle riders on city streets is under scrutiny, raising questions akin to those following the decision in Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. 1981), where the court held that the police did not owe a specific duty to provide adequate protective services (Fleming James Jr., Geoffrey C. Hazard Jr., John Leubsdorf, Stephen McG. Bundy. Civil Procedure (5th ed. 2001)). Here, the extent of the police’s obligations to intervene in chaotic, potentially dangerous situations reenters public discourse, as officials review whether the officers present observed the altercation or could have intervened.
As legal discussions unfold, the dichotomy between the preservation of public safety and the enforcement of law and order remains at the forefront, a contentious dance between duty and danger. Public outcry and legal scrutiny intertwine as the city grapples with the growing menace of unruly motorcyclist behavior and seeks to delineate the boundaries of law enforcement's responsibilities amidst the pandemonium of Philadelphia’s streets.
In the interstice of public outrage and legal precedent, the incident echoes in the annals of the city’s tumultuous relationship with groups of unruly riders, a narrative punctuated by moments of chaos, lawlessness, and the incessant search for a resolution. Each case, each confrontation, adds a layer to the intricate tapestry of a city grappling with the specters of violence and lawlessness, held at bay by the fragile threads of law and order.
.svg)
