• 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:
It stopped after it ran her over.

According to the witness, her leg was caught on something underneath the car.

I wonder how that happens to someone who wasn't run over by the car.
Click to expand...

She crawled under it in an attempt to get the driver. That's why he had to keep going because they were a threat to his safety.
 
Bodhisattva said:
Right. Obvious. We are talking about his, and apparently your, affinity for definitions. I am just trying to make sense of how he uses them. He said that just being collided into constitutes being run over.
Click to expand...

He is using the word the same way the dictionary defines it

I know, I know. That's crazy!!
 
Last edited:
X Factor said:
Speaking of strawmen....

I'll do my own poll. Raging Mob vs Lone Driver - Would You Leave or Stay?
Click to expand...

I don't care - do it and close mine. As long as you include the partisan (left or right), should the driver be charged, and include the video. Call it whatever you want.
 
sangha said:
You left out the best one of all

She wasn't run over. She just fell under the car after the car hit her and knocked her down.
Click to expand...

omg how could I forget! Maybe the car levitated or something.
 
whysoserious said:
I don't care - do it and close mine. As long as you include the partisan (left or right), should the driver be charged, and include the video. Call it whatever you want.
Click to expand...

It is funny how you accused everyone else of posting from a political perspective then made a poll all about political lean.
 
sangha said:
You left out the best one of all

She wasn't run over. She just fell under the car after the car hit her and knocked her down.
Click to expand...

Ok, I lol'd.
 
sangha said:
Thing is, that is actually what Jerry thinks

See post 836
Click to expand...
I've said it several times on this thread: She was not ran over. She was struck.

That doesn't mean the driver was right to drive into the crowd (and my saying the driver wasn't right to drive into the crowd doesn't mean the protesters were right to block the intersection), it only means no one was ran over. No one was shot or abducted by aliens, either.
 
sangha said:
Thing is, that is actually what Jerry thinks

See post 836
Click to expand...

It's a long thread and I admit I haven't seen every post in it, but let's be real. To say that a vehicle "plows" into a crowd and "runs people over" well when I first saw the thread title I envisioned a speeding vehicle jumping over a curb at a high rate of speed and mowing people down like Grand Theft Auto and that is exactly the impression I was supposed to get. I hear "run over" I imagine someone actually ending up under the wheels as the car rolls over them. Not exactly what happened her, although, the girl does end up partially under the car so I don't think 'run over' is necessarily inaccurate. It's just meant to suggest something far worse than what actually occurred.
 
AGENT J said:
Just going off the aerial shot the driver should be charged with multiple accounts of gross negligence, reckless endangerment, reckless driving, aggravated assault and attempted vehicular homicide.

Now if something happened BEFORE the video starts maybe id change my mind but being the initiation was made by the driver I doubt it
Click to expand...

well so far nothing has changed for me on this. Ive seen aerial and ground video?
I stand by my original statements. Has there been any other video or verbal testimony?

Unless something happened BEFORE the ariel video starts (when the driver had a clear path to go left but choose to go right and plow into people) there is ZERO justification for the actions.

heres the video again
https://www.google.com/search?q=car...a=X&ei=pSV8VNn_FPaBsQSs-YK4Cw&ved=0CAgQ_AUoAQ

the driver should be charged with multiple accounts of gross negligence, reckless endangerment, reckless driving, aggravated assault with a deadly weapon and attempted vehicular homicide.

at the 12sec (and 43sec) mark that lady (looks like a lady) is run over and she wasn't even facing the vehicle she was walking by.
at the 1:01 mark is that a cop that stops the guy from hitting the windshield and the perseus the vehicle?? he seems to stop really quick thats why i wonder
also at the 1:07 mark, right screen, a child 6 maybe? thats the type of crowd this nut case plowed into . . . not condoning kids being there but they were there

and this has nothing to do with whether one agrees with the protest or not, you cant initiate force and threaten people with a vehicle . . .
 
rocket88 said:
I know the concept of a metaphor. You didn't use one.
Click to expand...

Oh, so you just didn't get it then. You are just trying to go by the literal word, with no capacity to interpret the meaning. So, if I say something like, "don't touch my fries, or I'll kill you!" you are the type of person that would be unable to process that as, "I really don't want you touching my fries." and instead read it as a death threat. Sure.
 
Jerry said:
I've said it several times on this thread: She was not ran over. She was struck.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I know, I know! She wasn't run over; she was struck by the car, knocked down, and then rolled under the car.

That's completely different than "run over" :lamo
 
sangha said:
The very beginning of the video shows the car going at a speed commonly referred to as "stopped"
Click to expand...

Actually no, it doesn't. Again, we don't see what comes before.
 
Phys251 said:
Stop dodging my questions. The evidence against Rice is clear. I am asking you, for the third time: Which FACTS that I documented in post #333 are wrong? What FACTS are in error?
Click to expand...

The assumption that Rice could see the "escape route".
 
clownboy said:
The assumption that Rice could see the "escape route".
Click to expand...

And I clearly, irrefutably showed how, beyond any REASONABLE doubt, he should have been able to see it.
 
X Factor said:
It's a long thread and I admit I haven't seen every post in it, but let's be real. To say that a vehicle "plows" into a crowd and "runs people over" well when I first saw the thread title I envisioned a speeding vehicle jumping over a curb at a high rate of speed and mowing people down like Grand Theft Auto and that is exactly the impression I was supposed to get. I hear "run over" I imagine someone actually ending up under the wheels as the car rolls over them. Not exactly what happened her, although, the girl does end up partially under the car so I don't think 'run over' is necessarily inaccurate. It's just meant to suggest something far worse than what actually occurred.
Click to expand...

Question: Are you a parent? If so, how would you feel if your child "ended up under the wheels of this car"? You would politely ask the driver to get off, right? You wouldn't wanna cause any further trouble, right?
 
whysoserious said:
So if I quote John Hancock, it makes them my words? Well ****, hold on:

"Peace cannot be kept by force; it can only be achieved by understanding."
-Albert Einstein

Feels good to be a genius.
Click to expand...

No. They are his words. You simply "used" them... as I said. You even agreed:

Originally Posted by whysoserious
Yes, I typically think the actual definition of the word makes it acceptable to use.
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom