• 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.
Ah, true (see how I am willing to admit when I am wrong?).

Not like you had any choice. Lol.

But the protests were in relation to the events of Ferguson, which is the only reason I can garner that people would think it's okay that these people were hit by a car.

So now your argument about how this is just so intrinsically connected to Fersguson is that it was protest "in relation to to the events in Ferguson"?

I have a feeling your whole PoV would change if that had been a group of Tea partiers. You're as transparent as you accuse others of being.
 
I'm not a lawyer - I have no idea what they could charge him with for running over multiple people on purpose. I'd assume the first two would be most applicable, since attempted murder would have to imply some intent to kill.
I'm not a lawyer either, but I am a licensed driver and that necessarily means I have a basic understanding of driving laws.

No one was ran over. What the driver can be charged with is some level of negligence or lesser assault, but there's also a real possibility he won't be charged with anything at all since the pedestrians meant to create that situation and the driver took precautions.
 
Not like you had any choice. Lol.



So now your argument about how this is just so intrinsically connected to Fersguson is that it was protest "in relation to to the events in Ferguson"?

I have a feeling your whole PoV would change if that had been a group of Tea partiers. You're as transparent as you accuse others of being.

That's my point, it wouldn't. The guy is wrong no matter who the protests were for, and he should be charged. I would think most would agree, but that apparently isn't the case.

And it's not "now". That's been my point. I've stated it from the beginning that this is a partisan issue and that's the only reason people on here arguing that this guy wasn't wrong for intentionally running over a group of people.

*Edit:

Not that I had a choice? Agreed. But then again, if these guys can argue with a dictionary, then I guess everything is up for grabs.
 
Why else would you all try to soften the language? If you all are not arguing that he shouldn't be charged - then fine. We agree on that. But I am pretty sure Jerry disagrees.

I am sticking to facts, not softening the language.

These are cars "plowing through crowds" and running over, and dragging people... from the onset, not after the crowd surrounded the car and we don't know what happened there.

cars plowing through croweds - Bing Videos

cars plowing through croweds - Bing Videos
 
I don't have a problem with lizzy as an individual. Just pointing out how partisan the whole Ferguson issue has become.

Do you disagree with that?

It isn't a partisan issue for me. It's an issue of people being stupid, and blocking traffic, just because they have their panties in a wad. They weren't pedestrians who were crossing the street, thus had some sort of right-of-way that was violated by the driver. They were blocking the entire intersection, except for a small lane area that drivers could turn left from. What in the **** they think they were proving, besides how childish and obstinate they could be, is beyond me. Wanna go protest? Do it at the city hall, the courthouse, or in some place where your point can be salient, and stay out of the way of people just living their lives. The protesters in question just made themselves look like the assess that they were acting like, then managed to have something else to be outraged about, besides what the real issue was. As far as parties, I couldn't care less what party you, or anyone else is a member of. It means nothing, unless it's a major identity factor for you, but for me, it isn't. The girl who was hit wasn't injured in any significant manner. Nobody else was hit that I am aware of, and it doesn't appear to be the case in the vid.
 
Ah, true (see how I am willing to admit when I am wrong?). But the protests were in relation to the events of Ferguson, which is the only reason I can garner that people would think it's okay that these people were hit by a car.

Oh my God... these are protestors and could have been protesting that Michael Jackson was really an extra-terrestrial for all I care... the issue is the car and the crowd, not what the crowd was protesting... The driver could be al-quada for all I care too... if he was not out to kill people, but to drive peaceably through the crowd... the issue is the incident, not some attached political thing.

...and yes, I see that you are admitting error. Good. Now admit to the rest and we can move on. ;)
 
That's my point, it wouldn't. The guy is wrong no matter who the protests were for, and he should be charged. I would think most would agree, but that apparently isn't the case.

Your panties wouldn't be nearly so tightly knotted about it and we both know it.

And it's not "now". That's been my point. I've stated it from the beginning that this is a partisan issue and that's the only reason people on here arguing that this guy wasn't wrong for intentionally running over a group of people.

It's also whay you're trying to repeatedly overstate what happened here. "OMG he intentionally ran over people with a ****ing tank." :scared:
 
"Running over" and "plowing" are both perfectly acceptable uses by their definitions.

But again, what's your point? Take a stance already.

If you don't know my stance by now then what hope is there?
 
It isn't a partisan issue for me. It's an issue of people being stupid, and blocking traffic, just because they have their panties in a wad. They weren't pedestrians who were crossing the street, thus had some sort of right-of-way that was violated by the driver. They were blocking the entire intersection, except for a small lane area that drivers could turn left from. What in the **** they think they were proving, besides how childish and obstinate they could be, is beyond me. Wanna go protest? Do it at the city hall, the courthouse, or in some place where your point can be salient, and stay out of the way of people just living their lives. The protesters in question just made themselves look like the assess that they were acting like, then managed to have something else to be outraged about, besides what the real issue was. As far as parties, I couldn't care less what party you, or anyone else is a member of. It means nothing, unless it's a major identity factor for you, but for me, it isn't. The girl who was hit wasn't injured in any significant manner. Nobody else was hit that I am aware of, and it doesn't appear to be the case in the vid.

That doesn't change the fact that it "run over" is literally defined as what happened. It doesn't change the fact that you can't hit people because they are in your way. It doesn't change the fact that just because she wasn't hurt, doesn't mean a legal wrong wasn't committed.

The girl was underage and at a peaceful rally for Christ's sake. That could have turned out a lot worse and thankfully it didn't.
 
I don't have a problem with lizzy as an individual. Just pointing out how partisan the whole Ferguson issue has become.

Do you disagree with that?

Ummm. no. You called me a "republican, siding with a maniac", and said it was no surprise. Try again.
 
Your panties wouldn't be nearly so tightly knotted about it and we both know it.

How would you know anything about my panties? Weirdo.

It's also whay you're trying to repeatedly overstate what happened here. "OMG he intentionally ran over people with a ****ing tank." :scared:

The guy ran over a group of people with his car because they wouldn't move. I'm stating what happened. I guess we know where you stand on this.
 
This occurred in the city of Ferguson during protests related to a shooting in Ferguson (and nationwide shootings as well). What does this not have to do with Ferguson?
Umm...no it didn't.

Ferguson is in Missouri, this incident occurred in Minneapolis. You'll learn more about the different states as the school years go by, don't worry.
 
Let's all forget the part where he and Jerry through a temper tantrum because they can't define the English language.

"Threw" a temper tantrum Mr English... "threw".

Instead of being passive aggressive, why don't you just come out and say what you want to say?

That you are ignorant of facts and relying on one dictionary term to make your case...

You would. Yeah, he really got me by me being wrong about the city.

Actually, this goes to show that you were playing politics instead of focusing on this specific incident. You were thinking that we thought that crowds being plowed was OK since it related to our bias of M Brown. So yeah, SNAP. It was more than just the city...
 
If you don't know my stance by now then what hope is there?

That Merriam-Webster dictionary is too advanced for you? I seriously don't know. Is your stance too convoluted for you to express?

Ummm. no. You called me a "republican, siding with a maniac", and said it was no surprise. Try again.

Which part was wrong?
 
Umm...no it didn't.

Ferguson is in Missouri, this incident occurred in Minneapolis. You'll learn more about the different states as the school years go by, don't worry.

I already owned him on this one... got a "Snap" from X too! I feel elated...
 
Ah, true (see how I am willing to admit when I am wrong?). But the protests were in relation to the events of Ferguson, which is the only reason I can garner that people would think it's okay that these people were hit by a car.
Who on this thread said it's ok to hit people with your car?
 
That Merriam-Webster dictionary is too advanced for you? I seriously don't know. Is your stance too convoluted for you to express?

This is just getting pathetic... I have repeatedly pointed out flaws in your argument and you come back to this definition? :roll:

Which part was wrong?

All of it...
 
I'll concede that I shouldn't have responded so aggressively. I guess I was just hoping that some of the people who I usually disagree with would prove me wrong and not think that it's okay to use your car to move people out of your way.

Gotta tell you, if an angry crowd surrounded my car, leaving me no other way out, they'd better move themselves or you bet I'd move them.
 
How would you know anything about my panties? Weirdo.



The guy ran over a group of people with his car because they wouldn't move. I'm stating what happened. I guess we know where you stand on this.

There you go with the emotive hysterics again... if anything, he ran over ONE PERSON... not a group. Like I said, details matter. Facts matter. I would love to face you in Court.
 
"Threw" a temper tantrum Mr English... "threw".

I'm posting a dictionary reference. You're trying to pick it apart semantically (and failing). That makes you Mr. English. Sorry for the typo.

That you are ignorant of facts and relying on one dictionary term to make your case...

Yes, am I using a dictionary reference to show that it was used correctly in the context. That's what a normal person would do.

Actually, this goes to show that you were playing politics instead of focusing on this specific incident. You were thinking that we thought that crowds being plowed was OK since it related to our bias of M Brown. So yeah, SNAP. It was more than just the city...

Yes, that's what I am thinking. I am thinking it is no coincidence that there are at least 3 conservative people on this thread siding with the guy for no apparent reason. You want to start a poll and see which political party chooses which side more often?
 
There you go with the emotive hysterics again... if anything, he ran over ONE PERSON... not a group. Like I said, details matter. Facts matter. I would love to face you in Court.

By the definition of the phrase run over, by hitting whatever number of people he hit, it is applicable to all of them. Plow would be acceptable as well. Again, I'm just looking at the definition of the word.
 
Gotta tell you, if an angry crowd surrounded my car, leaving me no other way out, they'd better move themselves or you bet I'd move them.

I stated the exact same thing 20 pages back... and if it was an emergency and I had to get to my kid quickly and they blocked you would be seeing some people get hit...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom