• 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.
X Factor said:
As a bystander, maybe you could work on getting those people out of the street. That right there would way cut down on the chances of getting hit by a car.
Click to expand...

Nope. That would ruin the narrative and I don't like that... propaganda man, that is how we work this.
 
X Factor said:
As a bystander, maybe you could work on getting those people out of the street. That right there would way cut down on the chances of getting hit by a car.
Click to expand...

Right, because that's how large crowds generally operate. Good luck in defending a guy for intentionally driving into a crowd of people.
 
whysoserious said:
Oh great, he didn't run from the scene. Let's give him a high five. I'm not sure if he'll get charged - but it's entirely possible.

It certainly works in his favor that no one was seriously hurt.
Click to expand...

:lol: So he does the right thing after a bad incident and you STILL have problems with him...
 
whysoserious said:
Right, because that's how large crowds generally operate. Good luck in defending a guy for intentionally driving into a crowd of people.
Click to expand...

For ****s ****ing sake... PROVE THE ****ING INTENT. :roll:


:lol:
 
Bodhisattva said:
It just hit me... you keep bringing up people's political motives to this incident and it was like, BOOM. You are projecting your bias. You are calling people angry Republicans, and such. It is OK because these people support M Brown. Etc. YOU are the one that is a partisan hack... YOU! :lol:
Click to expand...

Oh snap. You're on a roll. Get it? A roll?
 
Bodhisattva said:
Maybe not intimidated... but careful to construct coherent and well constructed arguments? Yes, ntelligent people certainly are...
Click to expand...

Carefully constructed arguments? 3 pages ago you couldn't even figure out a dictionary definition. It was over your head. In fact, not just one, but two. You also misinterpreted "often". It was laughable at best. Sad at worst.
 
lizzie said:
Based on what I've been reading, he won't be charged with anything. He's the one who called 911 for chrissakes.
Click to expand...

He just knows how to play the media game... run people over on purpose? Call 9/11 and make yourself the hero. Win/win.

Get to run people over and who doesn't want to do that... AND be the hero! WooHoo...!!1
 
Bodhisattva said:
For ****s ****ing sake... PROVE THE ****ING INTENT. :roll:


:lol:
Click to expand...

Video evidence is the intent. He drove into a crowd. That's like seeing a video of a guy stabbing someone and asking me to prove that he intended it. There was a car in front of him. In front of that car was a crowd of people. He went around the car, honked his horn, and into the crowd - this caused multiple people to end up on his hood, a few hanging on the sides trying to get him to stop, and one girl under his car.

I don't need to prove ****ing intent, because I have eyeballs.

Bodhisattva said:
He just knows how to play the media game... run people over on purpose? Call 9/11 and make yourself the hero. Win/win.

Get to run people over and who doesn't want to do that... AND be the hero! WooHoo...!!1
Click to expand...

How does him calling 911 exonerate him from anything? Do you think if he called 911 on himself during his 3 previous DUIs they would have let him off?
 
whysoserious said:
Carefully constructed arguments? 3 pages ago you couldn't even figure out a dictionary definition. It was over your head. In fact, not just one, but two. You also misinterpreted "often". It was laughable at best. Sad at worst.
Click to expand...

I asked you to clarify the context of the word "often" as used in that definition... but it is OK. I am no longer holding my breath for you to grasp the details...
 
whysoserious said:
Video evidence is the intent. He drove into a crowd. That's like seeing a video of a guy stabbing someone and asking me to prove that he intended it. There was a car in front of him. In front of that car was a crowd of people. He went around the car, honked his horn, and into the crowd - this caused multiple people to end up on his hood, a few hanging on the sides trying to get him to stop, and one girl under his car.

I don't need to prove ****ing intent, because I have eyeballs.
Click to expand...

Intent to drive through a crowd is not intent to run people over... you not understanding the difference is no longer surprising... but please, attack me instead of my arguments please... :lol:
 
Bodhisattva said:
I asked you to clarify the context of the word "often" as used in that definition... but it is OK. I am no longer holding my breath for you to grasp the details...
Click to expand...

And I did. You were wrong, and you admitted so by bypassing the discussion. If you would like to revisit the dog scenario (provided by the dictionary), I'd be glad to bring it back up.
 
Bodhisattva said:
Intent to drive through a crowd is not intent to run people over... you not understanding the difference is no longer surprising... but please, attack me instead of my arguments please... :lol:
Click to expand...

Recklessness is recklessness, regardless of intent anyway.
 
whysoserious said:
Right, because that's how large crowds generally operate. Good luck in defending a guy for intentionally driving into a crowd of people.
Click to expand...

Exactly, crowds are unpredictable. You can say it was a non threatening situtiation but we already know your sainted Ferguson protesters had been violent and destructive. I see a group of people in the street, impeding progress I'm trying to legally make, I'm not going to be very inclined just to wait to see if they're going to offer me tea.
 
whysoserious said:
And I did. You were wrong, and you admitted so by bypassing the discussion. If you would like to revisit the dog scenario (provided by the dictionary), I'd be glad to bring it back up.
Click to expand...

I have since asked you to clarify, in order to make that "often" context make sense... is simply colliding with a person "running them over" as you say that any of the three can work and not all need be used together... and "often" doesn't even have to be used at all... but you ignored that one. Figures.
 
whysoserious said:
Recklessness is recklessness, regardless of intent anyway.
Click to expand...

Yeah, standing in the middle of traffic is, indeed, reckless. No responsibility on the part of the protestors for their actions, huh? No surprise.
 
X Factor said:
Exactly, crowds are unpredictable. You can say it was a non threatening situtiation but we already know your sainted Ferguson protesters had been violent and destructive. I see a group of people in the street, impeding progress I'm trying to legally make, I'm not going to be very inclined just to wait to see if they're going to offer me tea.
Click to expand...

Great story. Unfortunately for you, there is video evidence, and he clearly drove into a group of people who were not threatening him. That's reckless.

FYI, X Factor, the video also shows about 3 other cars in 20 seconds making their way through without taking out hordes of people. Maybe they should be in NASCAR since they are clearly incredible drivers.
 
whysoserious said:
Recklessness is recklessness, regardless of intent anyway.
Click to expand...

There is nothing reckless about driving slowly through a crowd. I have done it numerous times... you are just inexperienced and have a political agenda, that's all.
 
Bodhisattva said:
There is nothing reckless about driving slowly through a crowd. I have done it numerous times... you are just inexperienced and have a political agenda, that's all.
Click to expand...

Did you end up with people on your hood and under your car?

If not, then maybe you're smarter than this guy. Congrats.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom