• 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.
sangha said:
The video shows more than two people being struck, and one person being run over.
Click to expand...
I see the damage to the car and 2 people on the ground, only one person with minor injuries and the driver was not arrested. That is not consistent with a scenario where people are being ran over.
 
whysoserious said:
It's a list of things. It uses the word often - meaning not all of the time.
Click to expand...

Why would it include something that does not have to happen in the definition? That makes no sense at all...

Am I arguing with real people here?
Click to expand...

I can't speak for Jerry but in my case... no.
 
sangha said:
The definition does not require major injuries, even if your daffynition does.
Click to expand...
2-ton vehicle grinding the body into the pavement requires major injuries. She had only minor injuries consistent with being knocked down, not ran over.
 
Bodhisattva said:
Why would it include something that does not have to happen in the definition? That makes no sense at all...
Click to expand...

Because it's an example? You could be laying on the ground and be run over the by the tires. You didn't get knocked down, but you still got run over. That's how language works, man. I'm sorry that it's difficult for you to understand, but it literally says:

"to collide with, knock down, and often drive over <ran over a dog>"

Definition of often:
Often - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
: many times : on many occasions

Many times or on many occasions. It can be either. So what makes more sense?

1) Dogs get driven over many times
2) Dogs get driven over on many occasions

I can only lead the horse to the water.
 
Last edited:
Jerry said:
Not aggravated assault, assault with a deadly weapon or attempted murder, which means no one was ran over, only struck.
Click to expand...

I'm not a lawyer - I have no idea what they could charge him with for running over multiple people on purpose. I'd assume the first two would be most applicable, since attempted murder would have to imply some intent to kill.
 
whysoserious said:
Agreed - a lot of things in life happen to be partisan. However, I am not being biased in support of my party on this issue. I don't think it's okay to hit anyone with your car on purpose - ever. And I don't think Darren Wilson should be charged based on the evidence.

1) Because he drove into a group of people standing directly in front of him? Look at the gif on this page (you won't).
Car plows through crowd protesting Ferguson decision | New York Post

2) No, it isn't. It even says as in a dog right afterward. Unless you are suggesting they think people run over dogs repeatedly?
Click to expand...

What does politics have to do with this issue? I am not following how that is relevant in the slightest...

What does Wilson have to do WITH ANYTHING regarding this issue?

Is it OK to hit a person on purpose who is pointing a gun at you that has just shot at you? What about a mime?

1) I did. Many times... he drove up to the group and slowed to an almost stop and was accosted by a mob.
2) Some people run over dogs repeatedly... but you didn't answer the question.
 
Bodhisattva said:
Do you miss having a best friend? Jerry is more a lover than a friend at this point anyway...
Click to expand...
It's been a few years since you and I talked about anything. We may have more in common now since I've recently taken up Buddhism and finally get your avatar :)
 
Jerry said:
It's been a few years since you and I talked about anything. We may have more in common now since I've recently taken up Buddhism and finally get your avatar :)
Click to expand...

Yes much in common. In that you both have trouble understanding basic English.
 
whysoserious said:
Charges have not been filed yet. Doesn't really mean much - she could sue in civil court even if none are filed (which they certainly still could be). She was a minor - fyi. And he probably shouldn't have a license anymore considering he:

1) Ran over (or hit if you prefer) a group of people with his car on purpose.
2) Has three drunk driving convictions.

Four strikes and your out.
Car plows through protesters during Ferguson rally in south Minneapolis | Star Tribune
Click to expand...
Here's what plowing looks like:



Compare and contrast that with OP. Clearly this car did not 'plow' through a crowd. More emotive language.
 
whysoserious said:
Because it's an example? You could be laying on the ground and be run over the by the tires. You didn't get knocked down, but you still got run over. That's how language works, man. I'm sorry that it's difficult for you to understand, but it literally says:

"to collide with, knock down, and often drive over <ran over a dog>"

Definition of often:
Often - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
: many times : on many occasions

Many times or on many occasions. It can be either. So what makes more sense?

1) Dogs get run over many times
2) Dogs get run over on many occasions

I can only lead the horse to the water.
Click to expand...

I am playing Devils' Advocate to make you prove your point... not because, as I assume you think, I am ignorant. I have self-represented in Court 3 times and won all. Your arguments are easy to tear apart and no Judge would rule that you have won your argument at this point. To win you slam dunk that ****... you don't makes points that the other has to attempt to figure out.

So, if it is an example and you are laying down and not collided with or knocked down and the car drives over you for a foot or two so you are under it but you are not struck by the tire are you being run over?
 
whysoserious said:
You're just making stuff up at this point. Take it up with Merriam. Call them. I'm sure there's a number. It's not my fault the English language disagrees with that thing you call your brain.
Click to expand...
That's a cute straw-man but it doesn't work.
 
Bodhisattva said:
I am playing Devils' Advocate to make you prove your point... not because, as I assume you think, I am ignorant. I have self-represented in Court 3 times and won all. Your arguments are easy to tear apart and no Judge would rule that you have won your argument at this point. To win you slam dunk that ****... you don't makes points that the other has to attempt to figure out.

So, if it is an example and you are laying down and not collided with or knocked down and the car drives over you for a foot or two so you are under it but you are not struck by the tire are you being run over?
Click to expand...

Your defense to the dictionary definition is that you have supposedly won a few court cases and think that judges would side with you? Good one. You didn't answer the question. Which one makes more sense:

1) Dogs get driven over many times
2) Dogs get driven over on many occasions
 
whysoserious said:
I'm not a lawyer -.
Click to expand...

No ****? :lol:

I have no idea what they could charge him with for running over multiple people on purpose. I'd assume the first two would be most applicable, since attempted murder would have to imply some intent to kill
Click to expand...

Prove it was on purpose? PLEASE!
 
whysoserious said:
Your defense to the dictionary definition is that you have supposedly won a few court cases and think that judges would side with you? Good one.
Click to expand...

You have yet to prove ****... good for you.
 
whysoserious said:
Agreed - a lot of things in life happen to be partisan. However, I am not being biased in support of my party on this issue. I don't think it's okay to hit anyone with your car on purpose - ever. And I don't think Darren Wilson should be charged based on the evidence.

1) Because he drove into a group of people standing directly in front of him? Look at the gif on this page (you won't).
Car plows through crowd protesting Ferguson decision | New York Post

2) No, it isn't. It even says as in a dog right afterward. Unless you are suggesting they think people run over dogs repeatedly?
Click to expand...
I don't think anyone in this thread thinks that's ok.

Prove striking the girl to the ground was on purpose.

You can prove trying to crawl through the crowd was on purpose, but that only shows that the driver wanted to get by the crowed, not that he wanted to hurt anyone. And he was blaring his horn as a warning. You can also prove that he likely panicked when people climbed on his car.

Proving intent is hard, good luck.
 
Bodhisattva said:
No ****? :lol:



Prove it was on purpose? PLEASE!
Click to expand...

The video evidence shows a car slowly accelerating through a group of people. What proof am I supposed to provide? He either:

1) Did it on purpose
2) Suffers from narcolepsy and fell asleep at the wheel
 
Bodhisattva said:
You have yet to prove ****... good for you.
Click to expand...

I cited a dictionary definition. You tried to semantically pick it apart and use the wrong definition of the word often. It was embarrassing and it didn't work. Now you are saying you have judges on your side.

Buddy, it's not working. Walk away.
 
whysoserious said:
I'm not a lawyer - I have no idea what they could charge him with for running over multiple people on purpose. I'd assume the first two would be most applicable, since attempted murder would have to imply some intent to kill.
Click to expand...

Nobody was "run over". ONe person was knocked down- treated for minor injuries in the ER, then released. Two people (that I saw) were on the hood of the driver's car when he ran into the one who was knocked down. I seriously doubt he could even see her.
 
whysoserious said:
I cited a dictionary definition. You tried to semantically pick it apart and use the wrong definition of the word often. It was embarrassing and it didn't work. Now you are saying you have judges on your side.

Buddy, it's not working. Walk away.
Click to expand...

I am saying that posting a definition to a situation like this and declaring victory would get you laughed out of Court. :lol:
 
lizzie said:
Nobody was "run over". ONe person was knocked down- treated for minor injuries in the ER, then released. Two people (that I saw) were on the hood of the driver's car when he ran into the one who was knocked down. I seriously doubt he could even see her.
Click to expand...

Wow, late to the party. Go figure, another republican is siding with the maniac that plowed through a crowd of people.

Anyway, yeah, according to the definition of the phrase, "run over", this fits the specs. You can go back and find the post if you want.
 
lizzie said:
Nobody was "run over". ONe person was knocked down- treated for minor injuries in the ER, then released. Two people (that I saw) were on the hood of the driver's car when he ran into the one who was knocked down. I seriously doubt he could even see her.
Click to expand...

But, but, but... he cited a dictionary!
 
whysoserious said:
Wow, late to the party. Go figure, another republican is siding with the maniac that plowed through a crowd of people.

Anyway, yeah, according to the definition of the phrase, "run over", this fits the specs. You can go back and find the post if you want.
Click to expand...

Ahhh... so to you this is a political game? No wonder you are so out of your depth.
 
Bodhisattva said:
I am saying that posting a definition to a situation like this and declaring victory would get you laughed out of Court. :lol:
Click to expand...

What does this have to do with court? You guys are trying to argue non-legal terms. They are entirely separate. There appear to be two separate issues:

1) You, lizzy, and the other guy think that the dictionary definition of run over is incorrect.
2) You guys also think that this man shouldn't be charged (I guess, I'm not really sure what you guys are arguing there).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom