• 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.
Jerry said:
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.
Click to expand...

The definition does not require major injuries, even if your daffynition does.
 
whysoserious said:
Oh my God the semantics in this thread.
Click to expand...
We're talking about law. Semantics are the difference between assault and attempted murder. The definition of a word makes the difference between days in jail and years in prison.

whysoserious said:
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.
Click to expand...
That's not even an issue in this thread since no one was ran over.
 
Bodhisattva said:
Partisan to what?
Click to expand...

As ridiculous as it is, this, as with every other issue has become partisan. The entire Michael Brown, protests, etc issue seems to be mostly divided upon party lines and both sides are being complete douches. However, this one shouldn't be, because it's cut and dry that:

1) You can't just drive into people because you think they are in your way.
2) You don't have to physically go under the tires to be considered to have been run over (according to the dictionary).
 
whysoserious said:
I already did! Look above. It says to collide with, knock down, and often drive over. From Merriam Webster.

It's clearly defined above. How did she get under the car? Did she crawl under it?
Click to expand...
Watch the video. Her leg slipped under as she fell from being struck and then the car stopped before running her over.
 
whysoserious said:
I already did! Look above. It says to collide with, knock down, and often drive over. From Merriam Webster.



It's clearly defined above. How did she get under the car? Did she crawl under it?
Click to expand...

Merriam Webster, which you did not provide, is not a legal source...

That's the definition of the word. It's getting embarrassing for you at this point.
Click to expand...

It is a phrase open to interpretation...
 
Jerry said:
We're talking about law. Semantics are the difference between assault and attempted murder. The definition of a word makes the difference between days in jail and years in prison.


That's not even an issue in this thread since no one was ran over.
Click to expand...

No, we aren't. We're talking about the use of the phrase "run over". The phrase has been defined. It fits. You and your best friend are wrong. Sorry.

In legal terms it was vehicular assault.
 
whysoserious said:
As ridiculous as it is, this, as with every other issue has become partisan. The entire Michael Brown, protests, etc issue seems to be mostly divided upon party lines and both sides are being complete douches. However, this one shouldn't be, because it's cut and dry that:

1) You can't just drive into people because you think they are in your way.
2) You don't have to physically go under the tires to be considered to have been run over (according to the dictionary).
Click to expand...

The definition of partisan is: "2. Devoted to or biased in support of a party, group, or cause:"

Oh ****, I read a definition! :roll:

1. you can't just block traffic because you want to
2. the tires, or at least the entire car, need to travel over you to be run over.
 
Bodhisattva said:
Merriam Webster, which you did not provide, is not a legal source...



It is a phrase open to interpretation...
Click to expand...

I did, but here's the link again:
Run over - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

And it's only open to interpretation in that you are arguing with a dictionary. The same way you could argue over what the word "obtuse" means. Look it up. There is no legal term for running someone over that I am aware of: it's vehicular assault.
 
whysoserious said:
No, we aren't. We're talking about the use of the phrase "run over". The phrase has been defined. It fits. You and your best friend are wrong. Sorry.

In legal terms it was vehicular assault.
Click to expand...

Do you miss having a best friend? Jerry is more a lover than a friend at this point anyway...
 
sangha said:
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
Click to expand...
The video shows 2 people struck by the car, no one was ran over because the car stopped before that occurred.
 
Bodhisattva said:
The definition of partisan is: "2. Devoted to or biased in support of a party, group, or cause:"

Oh ****, I read a definition! :roll:

1. you can't just block traffic because you want to
2. the tires, or at least the entire car, need to travel over you to be run over.
Click to expand...

And as I said, this entire issue is split down party lines. That's partisan. If you side with an issue because that's what people of your party are doing, that's partisan.

1) You know what's worse that blocking traffic because you want to (a misdemeanor at worst)? Intentionally running over a group of people (or hitting them with your car if you prefer to argue with the dictionary).
2) Call up the dictionary and take it up with them. LOL. I'm embarrassed for you.
 
whysoserious said:
That's the definition of the word. It's getting embarrassing for you at this point.
Click to expand...
The car stopped before driving over her. That she went under the car does not mean the car drove over her, and the wheels never made contact with her. Clearly she was not ran over. Please stop using this emotive language.
 
sangha said:
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.
Click to expand...
Please explain how a stopped car is running over someone.
 
Bodhisattva said:
Now we are getting somewhere... vehicular assault. Was he charged with that?
Click to expand...

Charges have not been filed yet. Doesn't really mean much - she could sue in civil court even if none are filed (which they certainly still could be). She was a minor - fyi. And he probably shouldn't have a license anymore considering he:

1) Ran over (or hit if you prefer) a group of people with his car on purpose.
2) Has three drunk driving convictions.

Four strikes and your out.
Car plows through protesters during Ferguson rally in south Minneapolis | Star Tribune
 
whysoserious said:
And as I said, this entire issue is split down party lines. That's partisan. If you side with an issue because that's what people of your party are doing, that's partisan.

1) You know what's worse that blocking traffic because you want to (a misdemeanor at worst)? Intentionally running over a group of people (or hitting them with your car if you prefer to argue with the dictionary).
2) Call up the dictionary and take it up with them. LOL. I'm embarrassed for you.
Click to expand...

Can't you read? Haven't you ever read a definition? It clearly says biased in support of a party, group or cause. That pertains to practically EVERYTHING ON THE PLANET.\

1. Prove he went in to intentionally run people over...
2. You didn't clarify "often". Is it some times running them over or running the over repeatedly:?
 
Jerry said:
The car stopped before driving over her. That she went under the car does not mean the car drove over her, and the wheels never made contact with her. Clearly she was not ran over. Please stop using this emotive language.
Click to expand...

You're just making stuff up at this point. Take it up with Merriam. Call them. I'm sure there's a number. It's not my fault the English language disagrees with that thing you call your brain.
 
Phys251 said:
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?
Click to expand...
You said the driver should have seen the detour. No, only a reasonable person should have seen the detour. The driver was not a reasonable person as his driving history and actions that day attest; so he would not have seen that detour.

Likewise the pedestrians should have seen the alternate ways for them to go other than the street, but again these aren't reasonable people we're talking about.
 
whysoserious said:
Charges have not been filed yet. Doesn't really mean much - she could sue in civil court even if none are filed (which they certainly still could be). She was a minor - fyi. And he probably shouldn't have a license anymore considering he:

1) Ran over (or hit if you prefer) a group of people with his car on purpose.
2) Has three drunk driving convictions.

Four strikes and your out.
Car plows through protesters during Ferguson rally in south Minneapolis | Star Tribune
Click to expand...

The saying is three strikes and you are out and I guess you think you have been striking me out? :lol:

1. Prove it was on purpose
2. Past driving actions are irrelevant to this specific incident and case.
 
whysoserious said:
No, it's not. I posted the god damn definition of the phrase.
Click to expand...
You didn't read your own definition. I didn't link to one because I can read and used yours. All 3 of those criteria have to occur for it to be 'ran over'. Only the first 2 occurred, which means she was struck, not ran over.

This is what happens when you use emotive language.
 
Bodhisattva said:
Can't you read? Haven't you ever read a definition? It clearly says biased in support of a party, group or cause. That pertains to practically EVERYTHING ON THE PLANET.\

1. Prove he went in to intentionally run people over...
2. You didn't clarify "often". Is it some times running them over or running the over repeatedly:?
Click to expand...

Agreed - a lot of things in life happen to be partisan. However, I am not being biased in support of my party on this issue. I don't think it's okay to hit anyone with your car on purpose - ever. And I don't think Darren Wilson should be charged based on the evidence.

1) Because he drove into a group of people standing directly in front of him? Look at the gif on this page (you won't).
Car plows through crowd protesting Ferguson decision | New York Post

2) No, it isn't. It even says as in a dog right afterward. Unless you are suggesting they think people run over dogs repeatedly?
 
Jerry said:
You didn't read your own definition. I didn't link to one because I can read and used yours. All 3 of those criteria have to occur for it to be 'ran over'. Only the first 2 occurred, which means she was struck, not ran over.

This is what happens when you use emotive language.
Click to expand...

It's a list of things. It uses the word often - meaning not all of the time. Am I arguing with real people here?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom