• 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 vs Protesters - Who was right?

Should the driver be charged?

  • I tend to lean conservative and no the driver should not be charged

    Votes: 7 17.1%

  • I tend to lean conservative and yes the driver should be charged

    Votes: 5 12.2%

  • I tend to lean liberal and no the driver should not be charged

    Votes: 3 7.3%

  • I tend to lean liberal and yes the driver should be charged

    Votes: 26 63.4%
  • Total voters
    41
whysoserious said:
It is my argument that the entire Ferguson issue has become almost entirely divided down party lines. In fact, so divided, that even the simple driving of a car into a group of people is divisive. Some people think it was within the drivers right and some don't. I'm posting this poll to get an idea of what your lean is (liberal vs conservative) and where you stand on whether the driver should be charged or not.

If you have not seen or looked into this yet, here are videos shot of the incident:



*Edit:

The last option should say liberal - could a mod edit that for me?
Click to expand...

No option for me, I'm neither conservative nor liberal.
 
whysoserious said:
So is that it? You're living in Imaginationland while I'm watching a video of what really happened? I don't get it.
Click to expand...

The difference is that I don't see the driver's actions in a vacuum as you're demanding everyone does then claim all hysterically that we're ok with people getting run over.

Why argue for pages and then come here and essentially say we agree but chastise me because I'm not hard enough on the protesters?
Click to expand...

Oh shove it. You're no victim. I wouldn't expect you to recognize any responsiblity for the way you behaved in that thread having anything to do with the replies you got so I won't waste my time. Had you not gotten so immediately self righteous and incensed you could have seen what people were saying.
 
pbrauer said:
The driver of the car is wrong, pedestrians have the right of way.
Click to expand...

Oh yeah? We had a sad traffic fatality here where an elderly couple got run over by a car. They were in the road where they weren't supposed to be. The driver was not speeding nor intoxicated, they just didn't have the time to avoid the collision. Guess what? No charges (nor should there be).
 
X Factor said:
Sure thing oh he of selective vision:
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, between the 30,000 posts directed at me between you and your buddies I didn't get a chance to read something you said to someone else.

X Factor said:
That's the first time you suggested that the crowd might actually have done something, anything, wrong. Could you make up your mind about whether you think it was reckless or intentional?
Click to expand...

I gave up on intentional because, legally, it doesn't matter. You can have no intent if you are reckless, which he was.


X Factor said:
I meant what I said, I'm in that situation and, yes, I could see myself wanting to get out of it, especially if I have family in the car. Illegally put yourself in front of my vehicle to keep me some place I don't want to be at your own risk.
Click to expand...

Good luck with that. There are cases where I can see what you mean:



This guy was clearly being obstructed and was under threat from a large group of people. The video in the OP shows nothing like that.
 
X Factor said:
The difference is that I don't see the driver's actions in a vacuum as you're demanding everyone does then claim all hysterically that we're ok with people getting run over.



Oh shove it. You're no victim. I wouldn't expect you to recognize any responsiblity for the way you behaved in that thread having anything to do with the replies you got so I won't waste my time. Had you not gotten so immediately self righteous and incensed you could have seen what people were saying.
Click to expand...

I was and have been clear with my position. You have not.
 
whysoserious said:
Perhaps I should have used left/right instead of conservative/liberal?

Can you look at it that way?
Click to expand...
You can make up to 10 options for a poll, that's Left yes/no for 2, Center/Moderate yes/no for 4, Right yes/no for 6, Independent/Unaffiliated yes/no for 8, "both are guilty" for 9, and "Other" for 10. Then you need to anticipate Libertarians whining that they weren't included in the poll options so in the OP ask Libertarian-Left to vote Left, just Libertarian to vote Center, and Libertarian-Right to vote Right.

Then you need a better question.
 
Last edited:
Jerry said:
You can make up to 10 options for a poll, that's Left yes/no for 2, Center/Moderate yes/no for 4, Right yes/no for 6, Independent/Unaffiliated yes/no for 8, other-opinion for 9, and "this whole topic is stupid" for 10. Then you need to anticipate Libertarians whining that they weren't included in the poll options so in the OP ask Libertarian-Left to vote Left, Libertarian-Center to vote Center, and Libertarian-Right to vote Right.
Click to expand...

No, pbauer was right. I should have not put a lean on it, because people like you would come in and say they are independent. If you are independent, I'm Father Christmas.
 
whysoserious said:
I'm sorry, between the 30,000 posts directed at me between you and your buddies I didn't get a chance to read something you said to someone else.



I gave up on intentional because, legally, it doesn't matter. You can have no intent if you are reckless, which he was.
Click to expand...

Good grief, legally it means everything. You're talking about the difference between reckless driving, which is one step above a speeding ticket, and ****ing attempted capital murder (capital for trying to kill multiple people as you believe he did).


Good luck with that. There are cases where I can see what you mean:



This guy was clearly being obstructed and was under threat from a large group of people. The video in the OP shows nothing like that.
Click to expand...


To respond to you the way you did others in that other thread;

OMG you're okayyyyy with SUVs running down motorcycles!!!!!!!

Why are you suddenly trying to act that you think a person in a car could be threatened by those outside it? Are you trying to sound all reasonable in this thread? In that other thread not once did you acknowledge what the driver could be feeling.

Stop trying to manufacture reasons to agree with me.
 
whysoserious said:
No, pbauer was right. I should have not put a lean on it, because people like you would come in and say they are independent. If you are independent, I'm Father Christmas.
Click to expand...
Then you're Father Christmas.
 
If you see a car coming at you, are you going to argue about who's right or get out of the way? :roll:

I know what I'd do.
 
X Factor said:
Good grief, legally it means everything. You're talking about the difference between reckless driving, which is one step above a speeding ticket, and ****ing attempted capital murder (capital for trying to kill multiple people as you believe he did).
Click to expand...

Like I said, one giant straw man. First of all, intent is not everything. If you kill someone with no intent while being reckless, it's still vehicular manslaughter. Just because you didn't mean to kill someone while you were drunk, doesn't mean you weren't at fault. Speaking of that, he has 3 previous DUIs, so it's bound to happen to him eventually anyway.

To respond to you the way you did others in that other thread;

OMG you're okayyyyy with SUVs running down motorcycles!!!!!!!

Why are you suddenly trying to act that you think a person in a car could be threatened by those outside it? Are you trying to sound all reasonable in this thread? In that other thread not once did you acknowledge what the driver could be feeling.

Stop trying to manufacture reasons to agree with me.
Click to expand...

Great argument. Two videos, X Factor. One shows a group of people surrounding a car and attempting to slow it down to a stop. The other shows a group of people standing there, a guy driving into the middle of them, and then accelerating out of it. Real ****ing comparable. Genius.

As I said before, I've been clear on my opinions. You haven't. Here are replies I've said directly to you:

whysoserious said:
You're right, I don't considering illegally gathering in the street and running your car into a group of people on the same level.
Click to expand...

whysoserious said:
I never said that. But driving into them is reckless. That's what I said.

Do I care if they get ticketed for loitering or protesting without a permit? No. I don't ****ing care. But you can't drive your car into them.
Click to expand...

whysoserious said:
I get it. I made a mistake so you're going to use it to prop up your weak argument. All apologies on that X Factor.

It still doesn't change the fact that I would have gone into the left lane where it was clear and not driven into a group of people (which apparently everyone else in the video was figuring out too).
Click to expand...

whysoserious said:
You haven't gotten my argument right yet. You keep changing it around to fit whatever world view you have. I'll clear it up for you. I have two main ideas:

1) That driving a car into a group of people because they are in your way is not okay.
2) That this is a simple issue/case, and that partisan politics have divided it.

That's all I've ever said. Oh wait, I forgot one:

3) That the term "run over" can be used in this context as defined by the dictionary.

So please, if you want to refer to my argument, get it right.
Click to expand...

You haven't done that. It's basically just been you attacking me, while taking little to no stance yourself. So great job on that. You're a real pro.
 
X Factor said:
Good grief, legally it means everything. You're talking about the difference between reckless driving, which is one step above a speeding ticket, and ****ing attempted capital murder (capital for trying to kill multiple people as you believe he did).




To respond to you the way you did others in that other thread;

OMG you're okayyyyy with SUVs running down motorcycles!!!!!!!

Why are you suddenly trying to act that you think a person in a car could be threatened by those outside it? Are you trying to sound all reasonable in this thread? In that other thread not once did you acknowledge what the driver could be feeling.

Stop trying to manufacture reasons to agree with me.
Click to expand...
He's just throwing a temper-tantrum because he didn't know what state this happened in and got caught.
 
X Factor said:
Oh yeah? We had a sad traffic fatality here where an elderly couple got run over by a car. They were in the road where they weren't supposed to be. The driver was not speeding nor intoxicated, they just didn't have the time to avoid the collision. Guess what? No charges (nor should there be).
Click to expand...
Guess what X, that doesn't disprove what I wrote. If the driver had enough time to stop but didn't you can bet he would have been charged.
 
I just noticed that almost every reply to X Factor begins with me pointing out that he misrepresented my stance.
 
whysoserious said:
With anything. The general consensus on the below thread is that he did absolutely nothing wrong and that the protesters should have moved.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...th-minneapolis-w-349-a-20.html#post1064040208

And generally speaking, if you think the guy should be charged, you would think he was was wrong. If you think he shouldn't, then the protesters were wrong. It's not a difficult concept.
Click to expand...

I have not participated in any of the Ferguson threads.

Looking at the video, there was someone who appears to be in authority who was directing traffic around the intersection to the right of the protestors (you can see that on the right of the screen). The driver of the car chose to ignore that and chose to drive through the intersection irrespective of the pedestrians.

Protestors blocking access can be annoying, that is undeniable but for goodness sake you do not just deliberately choose to run over pedestrians rather than take an extra minute to navigate around them. That is extreme and the driver is a nutjob who has severe road rage issues.
 
Jerry said:
He's just throwing a temper-tantrum because he didn't know what state this happened in and got caught.
Click to expand...

I know. He's all, "I'm running rings around everyone" and he didn't even know it didn't happen in Ferguson. Too funny.
 
whysoserious said:
Says the guy who thinks memory recall is geography.
Click to expand...
Memory recall, maybe...or just reading the thread title...or the OP...or the OP's link...or any independent search one normally does while on a debate site to verify facts...
 
Jerry said:
Memory recall, maybe...or just reading the thread title...or the OP...or the OP's link...or any independent search one normally does while on a debate site to verify facts...
Click to expand...

It was on the posted video itself.
 
X Factor said:
I know. He's all, "I'm running rings around everyone" and he didn't even know it didn't happen in Ferguson. Too funny.
Click to expand...
A dog chasing his tail thinks he's running rings around everyone, too.
 
Serenity said:
I have not participated in any of the Ferguson threads.

Looking at the video, there was someone who appears to be in authority who was directing traffic around the intersection to the right of the protestors (you can see that on the right of the screen). The driver of the car chose to ignore that and chose to drive through the intersection irrespective of the pedestrians.

Protestors blocking access can be annoying, that is undeniable but for goodness sake you do not just deliberately choose to run over pedestrians rather than take an extra minute to navigate around them. That is extreme and the driver is a nutjob who has severe road rage issues.
Click to expand...

I know. It's not like the protestors had any choice but to spill out into the road, surround cars and block lanes of traffic. If only there was a way to avoid standing in front of moving cars.

Protestors surrounding your car in a highly charged atmosphere can be downright threatening.
 
pbrauer said:
Guess what X, that doesn't disprove what I wrote. If the driver had enough time to stop but didn't you can bet he would have been charged.
Click to expand...

Pete, if you make it a practice of walking down the middle of the street because you think the pedestrian always has the right of way, you should stop doing that. I mean that sincerely. For your safety, I'm telling you that the pedestrian does not legally always have the right of way.
 
whysoserious said:
It is my argument that the entire Ferguson issue has become almost entirely divided down party lines. In fact, so divided, that even the simple driving of a car into a group of people is divisive. Some people think it was within the drivers right and some don't. I'm posting this poll to get an idea of what your lean is (liberal vs conservative) and where you stand on whether the driver should be charged or not.

If you have not seen or looked into this yet, here are videos shot of the incident:



*Edit:

The last option should say liberal - could a mod edit that for me?
Click to expand...


I wish I could've answered your poll but you decided there are only two types of opinions you care about and apparently libertarian opinions don't matter.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom