• 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.
So your argument is:

1) They should not have been there
2) He had a right to drive into them because they were there and they shouldn't have been

I disagree. But then again, I would have done like the 4 other cars and just gone to the left where there was an open lane.

And your argument is that people illegally gathered in the street bear no responsibility in anything. Is there anything thing that Ferguson protestors did anywhere that you'd actually join conservatives in criticizing or condemning?

Didn't think so.
 
I have to do it every time I go to the store during the holidays. Literally have to crawl the car through the crowed. In the morning I'm going to do it again and it's going to look exactly like the beginning of this video. It always does.

Anyone who's lived in a populated area knows what this is like as both the driver and pedestrian.

(Beth is crying on Talking Dead...awwww)

I bet you do... my experience was more about after Lakers, Angels and Kings games...
 
A thousand thanks would not be enough... and a fact that he keeps ignoring. He kept bringing up political motives upon others when he is the one with the agenda.

Damn conservatives think running people down is OK because they think Wilson is right... blah blah...

Ok, I'll start a poll and we'll see how it's divided.
 
And your argument is that people illegally gathered in the street bear no responsibility in anything. Is there anything thing that Ferguson protestors did anywhere that you'd actually join conservatives in criticizing or condemning?

Didn't think so.

I never said that. But driving into them is reckless. That's what I said.

Do I care if they get ticketed for loitering or protesting without a permit? No. I don't ****ing care. But you can't drive your car into them.
 
Let me rephrase:

Oh God, don't get into it, or you'll end up with Bodhisattva telling you about his previous court winnings and how Merriam-Webster thinks that people in cars repeatedly run over dogs.

Was this your court case?



No. My cases were real and involved my children and my bitch ex-wife... just let it go or keep it on the grounds that I don't know the law, or something. Thanks...
 
No one has claimed she was "grinded into the pavement". Stop using emotive language and use realistic language instead as in "she was ran over"

So he didn't bear down on her with murderous intent? That's going to disappoint some people.
 
I don't think anyone in this thread thinks that's ok.

Prove striking the girl to the ground was on purpose.

You can prove trying to crawl through the crowd was on purpose, but that only shows that the driver wanted to get by the crowed, not that he wanted to hurt anyone. And he was blaring his horn as a warning. You can also prove that he likely panicked when people climbed on his car.

Proving intent is hard, good luck.

No, proving intent can be very easy. It only appears difficult to those who know nothing about the law and think itmeans that someone has to prove what the perp was thinking.

Under the law, one doesn't have to prove that the driver wanted to hurt anyone. All that is needed to show intent is that the driver's actions (driving the car into a crowd of people) were deliberate and knowing and that the harm those actions caused were foreseeable by a reasonable person.

No reasonable person would say that it's unforseeable that driving a car into a crowd would end up hurting someone.
 
Well, yeah, Jerry. I thought it happened in Ferguson but it happened in Minneapolis... they are in different states. Great point, detective.
It shows you didn't read the thread title, you didn't read OP's article, you didn't read OP, and you didn't pay attention to any of the headers or narrative in OP's video.

It means facts are irrelevant to you.
 
Are you viewing this thread from, say, Tapatalk, where you can't see the person's political lean?

What I don't get is this... it is 4 conservatives on 1 and he is running circles around them... he is listed as a liberal. What the hell am I missing?
 
No, proving intent can be very easy. It only appears difficult to those who know nothing about the law and think itmeans that someone has to prove what the perp was thinking.

Under the law, one doesn't have to prove that the driver wanted to hurt anyone. All that is needed to show intent is that the driver's actions (driving the car into a crowd of people) were deliberate and knowing and that the harm those actions caused were foreseeable by a reasonable person.

No reasonable person would say that it's unforseeable that driving a car into a crowd would end up hurting someone.

Jerry and I just explained how we have done this numerous times... so sorry, but you are wrong.
 
IKR? :)

Well let's see. We've had everything from:

-The driver couldn't see the escape route to the left (it was as clear as crystal);
-He was pissed, so he had a right or at least justification for plowing through the crowd (what civilized nation even considers tolerating such a thing?);
-He was surrounded by protesters and had no choice (haha, yeah right);

Etc. It's quite entertaining in a bad way.

You left out the best one of all

She wasn't run over. She just fell under the car after the car hit her and knocked her down.
 
No, proving intent can be very easy. It only appears difficult to those who know nothing about the law and think itmeans that someone has to prove what the perp was thinking.

Under the law, one doesn't have to prove that the driver wanted to hurt anyone. All that is needed to show intent is that the driver's actions (driving the car into a crowd of people) were deliberate and knowing and that the harm those actions caused were foreseeable by a reasonable person.

No reasonable person would say that it's unforseeable that driving a car into a crowd would end up hurting someone.

Ah but if you think the actions of the crowd is irrelevant to a jury, well it's not and in this case, it's very relevant. I think a lot of people (not completely hellbent on defending the protestors at all cost) could put themselves in a situation like that and think "I wouldn't stick around either given everything that had gone on prior to that point". In fact, a jury would be instructed to view the situation from the shoes of the defendant (in this case the driver).

I will say that I would have no trouble if this went to a jury trial, no matter the outcome. This is exactly what trials are for.
 
By colliding with her... right? I had a horse collide with me but I was not run over.
A couple years ago I was at a ranch of Arabians and they were knocking us around in their efforts to compete for our attention.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom