• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Car plows through protesters during Ferguson rally in south Minneapolis [W:349]

Status
Not open for further replies.
Seemed pretty clear that they hit the first protester. However, when a mob swarms your car and begins breaking your windshield and attacking your vehicle I think it may be self defense to just drive out.

It's all kinds of stupid. They shouldn't be protesting in the street and at the same time every driver needs to check for pedestrians, especially in a crowd like that.
 
You can see people fold out the blanket and jump on his hood right around the 7 second mark of the full video - before he hits anyone.

I just went back and watched it a couple times...that's true...a blanket was unfolded on his hood and people were jumping up onto his car before he ever hit anyone.

Maybe that's why he hit someone...obstructed vision and distraction.
 
I was describing a normal pass, not a pass-on-the-right. I describe a pass-on-the-right later in that post.

Fair enough

Not in a passing zone with a broken yellow line it isn't. Please see this quote from your link for details:

Please review the video. This was not the case here.



Correct. A normal pass occurs on the left, and the yellow line is on the left.


According to your link a pass on the right in this scenario is allowed because:

If there's more than one lane for your direction of traffic, you can pass on the right all you want and this is perfectly legal and safe.

It requires two unobstructed lanes. The lanes were obstructed.....by people.

All of that is true. Even if it's a pass and not a lane change it's still a legal move since there was adequate pavement and space in the lane he moves into so as not to conflict with other vehicles, structures or persons. If he had 'passed' the other car, stopped, and waited for the road to clear before proceeding, he would not have don anything illegal.

His illegal acts begin as he crosses the stop line and into the crowed and has nothing to do with any other car on the road.

The lanes were obstructed.

Has the driver been cited for anything?

The police have identified him as a "suspect". The investigation is ongoing. Not exactly proof of his innocence.


At first, yes. Not the second time, though.

You mean just before he tried to flee the scene of his crime, and those good citizens were attempting to perform a citizen's arrest? :lol:
 
People do not have the right-of-way and that's why it's illegal for them to be on the street.

Drivers are not allowed to take the right-of-way, but that doesn't mean the person in the street has it.

Technically, you're right. It's not a question of who has right of way; It's who is required to yeild the right of way to the other

The law says who must yield the right-of-way; it does not give any driver
the right-of-way. You must do everything you can to prevent striking a
pedestrian or another vehicle, regardless of the circumstances.
 
It requires two unobstructed lanes. The lanes were obstructed.....by people.
The lane was not obstructed. The intersection was obstructed. Had the car stopped at the stop line nothing illegal would have occurred at all, which includes the lane change.
 
It's who is required to yeild the right of way to the other
That's why I'm saying everyone is in the wrong. The protesters for not yielding right of way to traffic and this one driver for not yielding right of way to the protesters.

....and the cops for not maintaining order.

Just because I say something against the protesters doesn't mean I support the driver's actions.
 
Speculative.
The video evidence says otherwise. His move around the other car was not obstructed by people as the people were ahead of the first car as well. Only after completing the lane change did he make contact with pedestrians.
 
Video footage of the incident in the link. Cant say I blame the driver for fleeing the mob.

Reminds me of the 1960's Chicago riots, my mom & dad going to work, they never stopped even as bricks, bottles and rocks were thrown and hit their car.

Stopping could mean an ass beating, or worse in some cases.
 
Anyone who criticizes the drivers action obviously does not remember what occurred in LA during the riots there. People being pulled out of cars and beaten close to death. I just don't understand how anyone could be ignorant enough to get in the way of a moving vehicle without knowing who is behind the wheel. You are really taking a chance with your life there and to just assume people are going to stop when you jump in front of their cars is just ignorant. Most of us don't get in our own cars and expect other cars to stop for us, so why in the heck would anyone jump infront of one without that metal encasement? I just keep thinking that if we are to get rid of some dumb people on the planet because of overpopulation, this may be one method.
 
Lets face it, even if it was intentional this driver would have the full-throated support of at least one righttard.

It didn't take long before we got a post that went full retard.
 
How did you feel about Bundy snipers aiming at Federal agents in protesting justice?
Why do we break down on the first amendment based on issues and causes, versus the right to be peacefully protest, as these folks were doing ?

Peaceful protest doesn't block streets without a city permit.
 
Seemed pretty clear that they hit the first protester. However, when a mob swarms your car and begins breaking your windshield and attacking your vehicle I think it may be self defense to just drive out.

It's all kinds of stupid. They shouldn't be protesting in the street and at the same time every driver needs to check for pedestrians, especially in a crowd like that.

Would it not be self defense to hit a driver who is currently running people over right around you?

|f someone had a gun and shot a person who was intentionally running people down would it not be self defense?
 
The video evidence says otherwise. His move around the other car was not obstructed by people as the people were ahead of the first car as well. Only after completing the lane change did he make contact with pedestrians.

Operative words

he made contact with pedestrians

The peds did not run out in front of the moving car, the driver drove into the crowd hitting people. It was not self defense by the driver, the peds could have acted in self defense and shot the driver before he killed anyone through his running people over
 
It didn't take long before we got a post that went full retard.

This is your first post in the thread, so I thought we did pretty well. Considering the responses about how great it was, I wasn't actually far off.
 
Can the gas chambers and ovens be far behind? I suppose anti Semitism is back in vogue. Anti Semitic president. Anti Semitic followers. It fits. Thanks for bringing it to our attention.

Was I talking to you, or are you just being a hyperpartisan ****wad again? As usual.
 
Operative words

he made contact with pedestrians

The peds did not run out in front of the moving car, the driver drove into the crowd hitting people. It was not self defense by the driver, the peds could have acted in self defense and shot the driver before he killed anyone through his running people over
We were debating his moving around a car as a separate move. Sangha claiming it was an illegal pass and my claiming it was a legal lane change. We were both wrong, it was a legal pass.

His maneuver around the other vehicle, illegal or not, was completed before protesters and his car made contact in any context. Our discussion was not about the protesters, but about going around other cars on the road.

That he was wrong for driving into the crowd does not mean he was wrong for passing another car.
 
Last edited:
Would it not be self defense to hit a driver who is currently running people over right around you?

|f someone had a gun and shot a person who was intentionally running people down would it not be self defense?

No, it wouldn't, because those people were violating the law by blocking the road.

If someone is raping your wife, you shoot at him and he shoots and kills you, he can't claim self-defense.
 
They sent in the Guard before anything happened.

No, they didn't. The NG was on call in case the idiots got out of hand. Takes time to call up the guard.
 
They showed up to impose martial law before the verdict came out. While to some extent, I agree with you, I think the "protecting public safety" aspect could easily be abused by a government intent on keeping protest of any kind from happening.

Silly comment considering the reality. Are you thinking any "protest" was prevented? Because if you are then you obviously didn't watch or read any news the last few days.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom