• 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.
"Imagine that! We agree. It is best for the driver to resolve his dangerous situation as best he can before he is assaulted."
He put himself into that situation.
Right. The hundreds of foolish people in the streets protesting justice had absolutely nothing to do with it.

Is that really your argument?
 
It's a lane change, not a pass, because it happened on the same side of the yellow line.

Umm, no. Passing on the right can happen on the same side of the yellow line.
A pass is on two-lane road with traffic moving in both directions, where you cross a yellow line onto the other side of the road into the lane for oncoming traffic.

No, when you cross the yellow line, the violation is crossing the yellow line; not passing on the right. Also, you have to go left in order to go over the yellow line.

The law is clear that passing on the right in the conditions we see on the video is not allowed
http://dor.mo.gov/pdf/Chapter4.pdf

Passing on the Right
The driver of a motor vehicle may overtake and pass to the right of another
vehicle only under the following conditions:
•  When the vehicle overtaken is making or about to make a left turn;
•  Upon a city street with unobstructed pavement of sufficient width for two
or more lines of vehicles in each direction;
•  Upon a one-way street;
•  Upon any highway outside of a city with unobstructed pavement of
sufficient width and clearly marked for four or more lanes of traffic.
In no event shall such movement be made by driving off the paved or
main traveled portion of the roadway (shoulder).

Through the entire video, the car he passed is several feet before the crosswalk, does not move nor does he signal. There is absolutely no indication that he was ever going to make a left turn. In addition, you can see other cars pass the non-moving car on the left in order to make a left turn.
 
It's a misdemeanor, actually:


It's an additional crime to deliberately obstruct public right-of way, roads, or public access with a protest: http://www.aclu-mn.org/files/9313/2872/2629/ProtestRights.pdf

No one was cited for jaywalking or obstructing traffic

If you stay in lanes for the same direction of traffic then it's not a pass, it's a lane change, and that's why the driver wasn't cited with a moving violation for going around the car before entering the crowd.

And the people who were struck by his car appear to be in the crosswalk
 
That is why Mom's all over tell their kids not to play in the streets. Probably shouldn't protest in the streets, screwing up other people's day, that have jobs and responsibilities, when you are wrong. Wait until a real cause comes along, then people won't be running you over and such.
 
Or expressing their first amendment rights--which many Moms were doing.
Since fright-wingers have no use for this amendment when they don't agree with the cause or issue .
 
One girl was nearly ran over.
Right. Nearly ran over, but the driver stopped so as not to run her over, and she wasn't ran over.

No, he's not allowed to run them over.
The driver agrees with you, which is why he stopped before running anyone over. He thought they would have some common sense about them and move out of the way of a moving vehicle. However, if he had applied common sense himself he would have seen that people who brake laws to protest the wrong side of an issue which doesn't even affect them anyway clearly have no common sense and wouldn't respond like a rational person. And the crowed didn't respond rationally as we see.

The driver is in the wrong, the protesters are in the wrong, and the cops are in the wrong. There is no correct or winning side here, only bad guys fighting bad guys.
 
"Imagine that! We agree. It is best for the driver to resolve his dangerous situation as best he can before he is assaulted."

Right. The hundreds of foolish people in the streets protesting justice had absolutely nothing to do with it.

Is that really your argument?

People have the right away even if it illegal for them to be on the street. That is what protects people. Cars can't just decide to hit people because they are in the way.
 
Last edited:
Umm, no. Passing on the right can happen on the same side of the yellow line.
I was describing a normal pass, not a pass-on-the-right. I describe a pass-on-the-right later in that post.

No, when you cross the yellow line, the violation is crossing the yellow line; not passing on the right.
Not in a passing zone with a broken yellow line it isn't. Please see this quote from your link for details:
Passing on the Left
No vehicle shall at any time be driven to the left side of the roadway under

the following conditions:
•  When approaching the crest of a grade or upon a curve of the highway where
the driver’s view is obstructed within such distance as to create a hazard in
the event another vehicle might approach from the opposite direction;
•  When the view is obstructed upon approaching within one hundred feet
of any bridge, viaduct, or tunnel;
•  When approaching within one hundred feet of or at any intersection or
railroad grade crossing; or
•  When there is a solid yellow line.


Also, you have to go left in order to go over the yellow line.
Correct. A normal pass occurs on the left, and the yellow line is on the left.

The law is clear that passing on the right in the conditions we see on the video is not allowed
http://dor.mo.gov/pdf/Chapter4.pdf
According to your link a pass on the right in this scenario is allowed because:
Passing on the Right
The driver of a motor vehicle may overtake and pass to the right of another

vehicle only under the following conditions:
•  When the vehicle overtaken is making or about to make a left turn;
•  Upon a city street with unobstructed pavement of sufficient width for two
or more lines of vehicles in each direction;
•  Upon a one-way street;
•  Upon any highway outside of a city with unobstructed pavement of
sufficient width and clearly marked for four or more lanes of traffic.
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.

Through the entire video, the car he passed is several feet before the crosswalk, does not move nor does he signal. There is absolutely no indication that he was ever going to make a left turn. In addition, you can see other cars pass the non-moving car on the left in order to make a left turn.
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.

No one was cited for jaywalking or obstructing traffic
Has the driver been cited for anything?

And the people who were struck by his car appear to be in the crosswalk
At first, yes. Not the second time, though.
 
Last edited:
Right. Nearly ran over, but the driver stopped so as not to run her over, and she wasn't ran over.


The driver agrees with you, which is why he stopped before running anyone over. He thought they would have some common sense about them and move out of the way of a moving vehicle. However, if he had applied common sense himself he would have seen that people who brake laws to protest the wrong side of an issue which doesn't even affect them anyway clearly have no common sense and wouldn't respond like a rational person. And the crowed didn't respond rationally as we see.

The driver is in the wrong, the protesters are in the wrong, and the cops are in the wrong. There is no correct or winning side here, only bad guys fighting bad guys.

The driver was acting irrational. People protest all the time. What other people were ran into that day?
 
The driver was acting irrational.
I agree. Road rage is a problem. I hope the driver faces multiple counts of assault with a deadly weapon, just as the protesters should be charged with jaywalking and obstructing public access, and the police Watch Commander should be reprimanded for failing to clear the intersection and maintain order.

What other people were ran into that day?
I'm not sure this thread is about other road-rage incidents.
 
"Imagine that! We agree. It is best for the driver to resolve his dangerous situation as best he can before he is assaulted."

Right. The hundreds of foolish people in the streets protesting justice had absolutely nothing to do with it.

Is that really your argument?

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 ?
 
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
 
I agree. Road rage is a problem. I hope the driver faces multiple counts of assault with a deadly weapon, just as the protesters should be charged with jaywalking and obstructing public access, and the police Watch Commander should be reprimanded for failing to clear the intersection and maintain order.


I'm not sure this thread is about other road-rage incidents.
If driving into people isn't road rage, what is it ?
 
People have the right away even if it illegal for them to be on the street. That is what protects people. Cars can't just decide to hit people because they are in the way.
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.
 
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 ?

did those turkeys destroy property? cost anyone their businesses?
 
How did you feel about Bundy snipers aiming at Federal agents....
I said at the time, several times, that she should have been shot in the act, or arrested and charged with a felony count for each person in his field of view.
 
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.

A motorist does not have the right to intentionally drive through a crowd of people because they were in his way.
 
did those turkeys destroy property? cost anyone their businesses?

Can't tell from the OP.
I do see this thread breaking down along the usual fault lines though.
Disappointing for me, since I'm having a hard time escaping that also, both on messaging and issues .
 
They weren't doing that until AFTER he hit someone. After...it's an important fact.

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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom