• 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:
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...

This is a better video:

car plows through crowd in miniaplois - Bing Videos

You can see he pulls up slowly and is trying to move. All sorts of people crowd in front of him and jump on his hood. He panics and does the regrettable... he takes off. They are CLEARLY jumping in front of him

...and in this one the intent is to attack the car, not to get him to back up off the girl... just ATTACK.

Car Plows Through Protesters At Ferguson Rally In Minneapolis! - Video Dailymotion
 
Jerry said:
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.
Click to expand...

Has anyone been charged with jaywalking or is there any investigation into jaywalking?

I know there's an investigation into the vehicular asssault, and this driver is named y police as the suspect
 
sangha said:
The young lady who was run over
Click to expand...
I've been keeping up with the story and no one was ran over. 2 people were knocked down but the car stopped before rolling over them. One person had minor injuries from being knocked down, but even she wasn't ran over.

Who are you saying was ran over? Call the news because they missed it.
 
Bodhisattva said:
This is a better video:

car plows through crowd in miniaplois - Bing Videos

You can see he pulls up slowly and is trying to move. All sorts of people crowd in front of him and jump on his hood. He panics and does the regrettable... he takes off. They are CLEARLY jumping in front of him
Click to expand...

No, he is not "trying to move". Once he pulls out from behind the white car, he never ceases to stop moving. And no one jumps in front of him. Some people approach the side of the car as he is hitting the people in front of him but no one jumps in front of him

The people who jump on his hood do so in order to avoid being run over.
 
sangha said:
Has anyone been charged with jaywalking or is there any investigation into jaywalking?

I know there's an investigation into the vehicular asssault, and this driver is named y police as the suspect
Click to expand...
People get named as suspects all the time. Has the driver been charged?

Funny how the cops are consistently not doing their job. They let people obstruct intersections and freeways and never charge anyone with anything. WTF do we even have police for, then?
 
Jerry said:
I've been keeping up with the story and no one was ran over. 2 people were knocked down but the car stopped before rolling over them. One person had minor injuries from being knocked down, but even she wasn't ran over.

Who are you saying was ran over? Call the news because they missed it.
Click to expand...

The video clearly shows a young lady wearing a red top or jacket underneath the car when it first comes to a stop. By "underneath" I mean the car is on top of her. That is running *over* someone.
 
sangha said:
No, he is not "trying to move". Once he pulls out from behind the white car, he never ceases to stop moving. And no one jumps in front of him. Some people approach the side of the car as he is hitting the people in front of him but no one jumps in front of him

The people who jump on his hood do so in order to avoid being run over.
Click to expand...
The crowed actually did move out of his way, for the most part, until one lady was knocked down. He stopped so as not to run her over, and then the crowed swarmed.
 
sangha said:
No, he is not "trying to move". Once he pulls out from behind the white car, he never ceases to stop moving. And no one jumps in front of him. Some people approach the side of the car as he is hitting the people in front of him but no one jumps in front of him

The people who jump on his hood do so in order to avoid being run over.
Click to expand...

That link is not working. The link I tried to use showed the incident from behind by a hand held camera. It shows what I described much better than the over head one we are all using.
 
sangha said:
The video clearly shows a young lady wearing a red top or jacket underneath the car when it first comes to a stop. By "underneath" I mean the car is on top of her. That is running *over* someone.
Click to expand...

Being run over denotes going under the cars tires...
 
sangha said:
The video clearly shows a young lady wearing a red top or jacket underneath the car when it first comes to a stop. By "underneath" I mean the car is on top of her. That is running *over* someone.
Click to expand...
My my you're grasping there. Tell me more about how a stopped car is running someone over. This is hilarious :lol:
 
Jerry said:
People get named as suspects all the time. Has the driver been charged?
Click to expand...

If you're going to argue that not being charged proves the lack of a crime, then none of the protesters are guilty of jaywalking because none of them have been charged

However, the fact that the police are investigating the vehicular assault strongly suggests that there was a crime committed. After all, how often do the police investigate non-crimes?

And since when are the perpetrators of non-crimes described as "suspects"?


Funny how the cops are consistently not doing their job.
Click to expand...

Funny? I consider it unremarkable.

They let people obstruct intersections and freeways and never charge anyone with anything. WTF do we even have police for, then?
Click to expand...

Isn't it obvious? The police are there to harrass the white man.
 
Jerry said:
Pedestrians do not always have the right of way, check your local laws.
Click to expand...

That's a tacit agreement because if one doesn't yield to the other, results are disastrous. But I don't think you'll find any court who would support intentionally running over pedestrians because they were standing in a road way.
 
sangha said:
No it doesn't. If a car hits someone, and they go under the car but not under the tires, they are considered to have been "run over"
Click to expand...

Show the legal definition of that and you got something...

She went under *before* the car stopped.
Click to expand...

Only her legs did... "she" did not.
 
sangha said:
If you're going to argue that not being charged proves the lack of a crime, then none of the protesters are guilty of jaywalking because none of them have been charged
Click to expand...
You aren't paying attention to my actual words. No one has been charged with anything, to the best of my knowledge. A lot of people are committing all sorts of crimes yet no one is being charged with anything. Why the **** aren't the cops doing their job?

sangha said:
However, the fact that the police are investigating the vehicular assault strongly suggests that there was a crime committed. After all, how often do the police investigate non-crimes?
Click to expand...
Notice the cops didn't arrest the driver? If he clearly just ran over 2 people as you assert, why wasn't he taken into custody immediately?

sangha said:
And since when are the perpetrators of non-crimes described as "suspects"?
Click to expand...
Since always. They call you a 'suspect' so as to avoid a slander suit. Even after you're arrested you're still called 'the accused' and everyone has to say 'allegedly' whenever talking about the act you're charged with, so as to avoid slander. Only after you've been convicted in court can people then say you did do the crime and not be sued for slander.
 
Bodhisattva said:
Those all have to work together... they are not independent. One has to collide with, be knocked down by and the driven over by a car. The first two happen but not the third.
Click to expand...

No, they don't. It even says the ****ing word "often". If you want to debate semantics on whether it's okay to run someone down with your car, at least be right about it.

*Edit:

Do you know how to read? Have you ever read a definition? This seems like an easy thing to concede, but you're going to keep arguing this point for what?
 
whysoserious said:
That's ridiculous:

Run over - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
: to collide with, knock down, and often drive over <ran over a dog>

If you want to say she was hit by the car, sure, go ahead. But saying she was run over is just as acceptable.
Click to expand...

Yes, she was hit by the car, but she was also driven over. Your own def says " to collide with, knock down, and often drive over"

The car collided with her, knocked her down, and drove over her. I don't see anything about the wheels having to go over her.

And the def doesn't even require that the car "drive over" the person. It says "and often drive over" Don't you realize that "often" means "not always"?
 
Last edited:
whysoserious said:
That's a tacit agreement because if one doesn't yield to the other, results are disastrous. But I don't think you'll find any court who would support intentionally running over pedestrians because they were standing in a road way.
Click to expand...
Yielding is a separate issue.

Cars have to yield to pedestrians even when pedestrians do not have the right of way. That doesn't mean pedestrians have the right of way. That means cars have to yield to them. That the pedestrian does not have the right of way is exactly the thing which makes their action a crime. If they had the right of way then what they're doing wouldn't be a crime.

When you say pedestrians always have the right of way, you're saying pedestrians can go wherever they want and it's never a crime. That's not true. In the state this occurred in those pedestrians were jaywalking and obstructing traffic. Those pedestrians did not have the right of way.
 
sangha said:
Yes, she was hit by the car, but she was also driven over. Your own def says " to collide with, knock down, and often drive over"

The car collided with her, knocked her down, and drove over her. I don't see anything about the wheels having to go over her.
Click to expand...

It doesn't. They are being ridiculous.

I gotta be honest, I would have never guessed people who be so partisan as to argue that it's okay to run people over because they are in the way and you want through. Moreover, that they would argue that it's not technically being run over unless the tires go over you.

Holy ****. That's some next level insanity right there.
 
Jerry said:
You aren't paying attention to my actual words. No one has been charged with anything, to the best of my knowledge. A lot of people are committing all sorts of crimes yet no one is being charged with anything. Why the **** aren't the cops doing their job?
Click to expand...

I dunno, maybe there's a sale at Dunkin Donuts


Notice the cops didn't arrest the driver? If he clearly just ran over 2 people as you assert, why wasn't he taken into custody immediately?
Click to expand...

Only one person was run over AFAIK, and as far as them not taking him into custody, they're still investigating the crime.

Since always. They call you a 'suspect' so as to avoid a slander suit. Even after you're arrested you're still called 'the accused' and everyone has to say 'allegedly' whenever talking about the act you're charged with, so as to avoid slander. Only after you've been convicted in court can people then say you did do the crime and not be sued for slander.
Click to expand...

Always? I've never been named the suspect in a non-crime. I don't know anyone who has. To my knowledge, calling someone a suspect in the investigation of a non-crime *never* happens.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom