• 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.
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"
Please link to the legal definition you're getting that from.
 
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.

All three happened. The video clearly shows that the woman was under the car.
 
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.

Oh my God the semantics in this thread. Okay, unlike your buddy who won't admit that you don't have to be physically run over by tires to say you've been run over, I'll concede this point. Though I will stand by my guns that it's not okay to intentionally run over pedestrians.
 
Please link to the legal definition you're getting that from.

I already did! Look above. It says to collide with, knock down, and often drive over. From Merriam Webster.

Please explain how a stopped car is running someone over.

It's clearly defined above. How did she get under the car? Did she crawl under it?
 
Please explain how a stopped car is running someone over.

I didn't say the stopped car was running over someone

I said the stopped car had run over someone.

Note the difference between past tense and present tense
 
She got knocked down and her leg went under as she fell, the car did not run her over.

Umm, when a car runs over someone, it's usually because the car knocked them down and they fell under the car.

That's what "run over" usually means.
 
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?
You're defending the use of emotive language, of course it's going to turn into semantics.

Don't use emotive language and we won't go down the semantics road.

It's fair to say 2 people were hit by the car. No one, however, was ran over.
 
So it's your thesis that a "reasonable person" is the kind of person who would drive into a crowd, and therefore would have seen the exit? Have you seen his driving record? He doesn't exactly have a history of using sound judgment.

I'm pretty sure that I said that no reasonable person would ever do such a thing. How did you extract that from my post?

He seems to be a person with anger issues, and people with anger issues get tunnel-vision, and tunnel-vision cuts off the view of the escape rout. He probably couldn't even see his steering wheel, literally. Ask me how I know about anger issues ;) The same thing happens to regular people under stress.

It makes perfect sense that a person with anger issues would not have ever seen that alternate rout....it also makes perfect sense that a person with anger issues would drive into a crowd.

Keep in mind that simply being angry is almost never a defense in a court of law. About all that can do is show that the act was not necessarily premeditated.
 
You're defending the use of emotive language, of course it's going to turn into semantics.

Don't use emotive language and we won't go down the semantics road.

It's fair to say 2 people were hit by the car. No one, however, was ran over.

No, it's not. I posted the god damn definition of the phrase. You have not done that. In fact, you haven't done anything because you're wrong - as usual. Here's a pro tip, Jerry:

When you think you know the definition of something, and you look it up and it's not the same, it's because you were wrong. The dictionary wasn't wrong. You were. We're all adults here, right?

walter sobchak - am i the only one.jpg
 
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.
Who was ran over? The video clearly shows 2 people being struck. Are you accusing the media of editing out someone being ran over? What is your evidence of the media's deception?
 
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:

This seems like an easy thing to concede, but you're going to keep arguing this point for what?

You attempting superiority and your rudeness aside, both of which are retarded... the definition is idiotic and contradictory. What context is "often" being used? As in some times or many times?

Do you know how to read?

No, I am incapable of reading. Why do you ask?

Have you ever read a definition?

Like the one that you just posted? Ummm... yes.
 
"Drove over" is not a legal term; It's a figure of speech




because her legs belong to someone else. :screwy

Right... a figure of speech and as such open to interpretation.
 
Who was ran over? The video clearly shows 2 people being struck. Are you accusing the media of editing out someone being ran over? What is your evidence of the media's deception?

Again, that's the definition of the phrase.
 
You attempting superiority and your rudeness aside, both of which are retarded... the definition is idiotic and contradictory. What context is "often" being used? As in some times or many times?

I'm not the guy arguing with a dictionary. Good luck with that, buddy.

Oh, and it was used as in: "much of the time" (as in the dog). It doesn't say anything about tires.
 
Only one person was run over AFAIK, and as far as them not taking him into custody, they're still investigating the crime.
No one was ran over. If someone was ran over then someone would have had major internal injuries and broken bones. Only one person had minor injuries consistant with being knocked down. No one was ran over.
 
No one was ran over. If someone was ran over then someone would have had major internal injuries and broken bones. Only one person had minor injuries consistant with being knocked down. No one was ran over.

The definition of the phrase. Again.

So far in every post you have used the exact definition.
 
Who was ran over? The video clearly shows 2 people being struck. Are you accusing the media of editing out someone being ran over? What is your evidence of the media's deception?

The video shows more than two people being struck, and one person being run over.
 
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.

Partisan to what?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom