- Joined
- Jul 1, 2011
- Messages
- 67,218
- Reaction score
- 28,530
- Location
- Lower Hudson Valley, NY
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Prove it was on purpose? PLEASE!
According to the drivers statement, he did it on purpose
Prove it was on purpose? PLEASE!
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.
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)
According to the drivers statement, he did it on purpose
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...
Are you viewing this thread from, say, Tapatalk, where you can't see the person's political lean?It's 4 conservatives on 1 and I have run circles around them.
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.
Are you viewing this thread from, say, Tapatalk, where you can't see the person's political lean?
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 one has claimed she was "grinded into the pavement". Stop using emotive language and use realistic language instead as in "she was ran over"
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.
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.Well, yeah, Jerry. I thought it happened in Ferguson but it happened in Minneapolis... they are in different states. Great point, detective.
Are you viewing this thread from, say, Tapatalk, where you can't see the person's political lean?
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, you are as independent as Barack Obama.
Correct - I used a dictionary to define a word. It's madness.
You're just mad that Beth was killed and now you're being silly.No, the car stopped after it ran her over.
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.
It stopped after hitting her and didn't run her over.It *ran* over her before it came to a stop
The irony nearly knocked me of the couch.
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.
People like what? People that know basic geography?
Correct - I used a dictionary to define a word. It's madness.
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.By colliding with her... right? I had a horse collide with me but I was not run over.