• 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.
Bodhisattva said:
So what?



False Dilemma: Logical Fallacies» False Dilemma / Bifurcation Fallacy



I never once said that they deserved it. Do not distort what I said. I said to counter your point, essentially, "What do you expect when you are in the road?"



I countered with the fact that nobody was in danger of being hit by a car until *after* they stepped into the raod
Click to expand...

Well you did certainly implied they deserve it in post #100 with this little gem
What the **** is wrong with these pieces of ****? **** them... the Army should roll through there with a couple of tanks at 60 mph. clear the ****s out quick.
Click to expand...
 
rabbitcaebannog said:
Well you did certainly implied they deserve it in post #100 with this little gem
Click to expand...

Right... :roll: Because sarcastically saying that they are morons... you know what? You are really reaching to make a point instead of owning up to your contradiction. I am not saying that people deserve to be hit by cars. Only trolls and the intellectually inept would reach that conclusion. I AM saying that whining about being hit when you are standing in the road is STUPID and people defending standing in the road and blocking traffic and people's lives have serious ****ing issues.

Nobody would have been hit if they were not standing in the road... admit this or I am done with you...
 
Bodhisattva said:
Right... :roll: Because sarcastically saying that they are morons... you know what? You are really reaching to make a point instead of owning up to your contradiction. I am not saying that people deserve to be hit by cars. Only trolls and the intellectually inept would reach that conclusion. I AM saying that whining about being hit when you are standing in the road is STUPID and people defending standing in the road and blocking traffic and people's lives have serious ****ing issues.

Nobody would have been hit if they were not standing in the road... admit this or I am done with you...
Click to expand...

Naturally, they would not have been hit if they were not in the road, but your sarcastic post read loud and clear that you felt they deserved it. You were not the only poster that let that message come through. Just own it.
 
rabbitcaebannog said:
Naturally, they would not have been hit if they were not in the road, but your sarcastic post read loud and clear that you felt they deserved it. You were not the only poster that let that message come through. Just own it.
Click to expand...

They deserve it if they do not vacate the intersection. They placed themselves in that situation. I ask my daughters... "what can happen if you cross the road away from a crosswalk or stand in the road for any reason?" They answered, "you can get hit by a car papa... duh!" They were maybe 6 or 7 years old at the time. If these protestors or you can't figure that out then that is your problem.... Those protestors need to own their behaviour and you need to stop trying to justify it... own that.
 
Bodhisattva said:
They deserve it if they do not vacate the intersection. They placed themselves in that situation. I ask my daughters... "what can happen if you cross the road away from a crosswalk or stand in the road for any reason?" They answered, "you can get hit by a car papa... duh!" They were maybe 6 or 7 years old at the time. Those protestors need to own their behaviour and you need to stop trying to justify it... own that.
Click to expand...

He plowed through them deliberately. You try to justify him hitting them with his car.
 
rabbitcaebannog said:
He plowed through them deliberately. You try to justify him hitting them with his car.
Click to expand...

He plowed through them deliberately AFTER he slowed to a stop right in front of them... what transpired that ended in him moving forward slowly and then faster we do not know. But to you it is all his fault... them standing in the road, blocking traffic, disrupting peoples' lives and perhaps doing something to him to make him speed up. You do notice that he stopped when he realized that there was somebody under his car and that brought him MORE wrath. Only after she is pulled out does he move on again... but that doesn't matter, right? Just use some logic... if he was really going to plow he would have just done so instead of stopping in front of them and he would not have stopped when the girl was under his car.

I am not justifying him hitting them I am saying that it is their fault for getting hit in the first place... but my children seem to know what you don't.
 
rabbitcaebannog said:
That has nothing to do with the post you responded to, so now you are just being dishonest.
Click to expand...
Ad-homs get you no where.

Care to explain how burning down Micheal Brown's church solves anything?
 
Phys251 said:
I clearly refuted this idea multiple times. There is no way in hell that a reasonable person could possibly conclude that there was no viable exit route; other cars were slowly moving through that route. All that Rice had to do was wait a couple minutes, assess the situation, and use that escape route. Or better yet, be an alert driver, notice the blockade ahead, and turn off of Lake Street onto Snelling Avenue, which is less than 500 feet from Minnehaha and (Don't take my word for it; go to Google maps to verify this for yourself.)

Two words: White entitlement.
Click to expand...
So it's your thesis that a "reasonable person" is the kind of person who would drive into a crowd, and therefore would have seen the exit? Have you seen his driving record? He doesn't exactly have a history of using sound judgment.

He seems to be a person with anger issues, and people with anger issues get tunnel-vision, and tunnel-vision cuts off the view of the escape rout. He probably couldn't even see his steering wheel, literally. Ask me how I know about anger issues ;) The same thing happens to regular people under stress.

It makes perfect sense that a person with anger issues would not have ever seen that alternate rout....it also makes perfect sense that a person with anger issues would drive into a crowd.
 
Last edited:
Jerry said:
And the crowed had a way to go instead of into the street.

When stupid people get together, much hilarity ensues.
Click to expand...

I'm assuming that you are just being ridiculous, but in case you aren't, I'll save a life and let you know that pedestrians always have right-of-way. Even if your partisan politics make you dislike them.
 
sangha said:
"Your Honor, it's not my fault I ran over that woman because I couldn't see her for all the people who had piled up on the hood of my car to avoid me running them over"
Click to expand...
Who was ran over?
 
Bodhisattva said:
You not agreeing with his reason does not mean that he does not have a valid reason. As I pointed out and you have ignored... driving through the crowd is not illegal.
Click to expand...
Notice that the fire department are on that same video driving through the crowed. The difference is the crowed moved out of the way like they were supposed to for regular traffic.
 
sangha said:
Umm, no they're not
Click to expand...

Right... I mean a plane can land on a road too but that is not the roads purpose... but you like to play it close.

Pans? What are you talking about? :shrug:
Click to expand...

Cars are not meant to kill and either are pans... both are irrelevant to the actual argument of the thread.
 
Bodhisattva said:
So what?



False Dilemma: Logical Fallacies» False Dilemma / Bifurcation Fallacy



I never once said that they deserved it. Do not distort what I said. I said to counter your point, essentially, "What do you expect when you are in the road?"



I countered with the fact that nobody was in danger of being hit by a car until *after* they stepped into the raod
Click to expand...

Stepping into the road is not a felony. Vehicular assault is a felony
 
whysoserious said:
I'm assuming that you are just being ridiculous, but in case you aren't, I'll save a life and let you know that pedestrians always have right-of-way. Even if your partisan politics make you dislike them.
Click to expand...
Pedestrians do not always have the right of way, check your local laws.
 
Bodhisattva said:
Right... I mean a plane can land on a road too but that is not the roads purpose... but you like to play it close.
Click to expand...

Exclusive use by car is never the purpose of a road

Cars are not meant to kill and either are pans... both are irrelevant to the actual argument of the thread.
Click to expand...

I still have no idea what you're trying to say. You have to put more effort into your trolling.
 
sangha said:
Vehicular assault is a Class C felony in MO. Leaving the scene of an accident where someone is injured is a Class D felony.

Jefferson City Vehicular Assault & Vehicular Homicide Attorneys | Columbia Vehicular Manslaughter Lawyers | Fulton Negligent Driving Law Firm

See Section 565 of Missouri Revised Statutes
Click to expand...
Yep and jaywalking and obstructing traffic are also crimes. Gather everyone and charge them all respectively. The state has a lot of money to make on fines and fees here.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom