• 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 vs Protesters - Who was right?

Should the driver be charged?


  • Total voters
    41
You must live one paranoid, sad life. No one is going to car jack you - take a deep breath buddy.

How naïve are you? I had a guy pull a gun and attempt to car jack us, I think. I hit the gas and took off.

If there had been some other thugs in front of my car I would gladly have run their ****ing asses over.
 
Which is why I stopped debating him over a year ago. My life is much better, LOL.

Yeah, you just drop little pellets like this then run like a scared rabbit. Lol.
 
How naïve are you? I had a guy pull a gun and attempt to car jack us, I think. I hit the gas and took off.

If there had been some other thugs in front of my car I would gladly have run their ****ing asses over.

Murderer!!!
 
From what I see the crowd doesn't form around the car; the car tried to force it's way through the crowd. The driver should be charged. Also using the video, if the people obstructing traffic can be identified, they can be charged or ticketed, whichever is appropriate for the laws where it happened.

Initially the car comes up really slow. The crowd does not want to let him through and he proceeds anyway. Both sides were aggressive. He doesn't hit anybody until they start attacking his car.
 
It's unbelievable. No spine. He doesn't take a stance. He just misrepresents everyone else and attacks them with things they either didn't say or that are off topic.

I'd rather debate with apdst or NavyPride - at least they stand for something.

You seriously can't figure out where I stand on this? I bet you're, like, the only one.
 
A) using a vehicle as a weapon can be justified...
B) if the people are threatening you

C) attempting to carefully navigate a civilian crowd is also fine if they are illegally impeding traffic which
D) doesn't justify vehicular assault (attempted or otherwise)...

However E) if you are attempting to go about your way, carefully, and the protesters choose to stand in front of your car and basically be dicks, they have at least some moral culpability for what follows...

Which doesn't change D.

If I were in a position of authority, I would arrest both individuals, recognizing that it was the protester who illegally created an unpassable problem, and the guy in the car illegally attempted to cut that Gordian Knot with violence.



As for me, I think the way to handle crowds like this is paintball guns, with frozen paintballs if they are being particularly dickish.






Also worth noting - It's not immediately clear if the protesters were hippies. If that is so, then (hippies not being people), none of the above would apply and the driver is in the clear.
 
You seriously can't figure out where I stand on this? I bet you're, like, the only one.

Obviously you blame Obama for this...
 
If you see a car coming at you, are you going to argue about who's right or get out of the way? :roll:

I know what I'd do.

Me too... stand there and then blame the guy for running into me.
 
I just noticed that almost every reply to X Factor begins with me pointing out that he misrepresented my stance.

That is obviously a mis-representation of what he does...
 
OMG you're okayyyyy with SUVs running down motorcycles!!!!!!!

Why are you suddenly trying to act that you think a person in a car could be threatened by those outside it? Are you trying to sound all reasonable in this thread? In that other thread not once did you acknowledge what the driver could be feeling.

Stop trying to manufacture reasons to agree with me.

That incident still pisses me off. Idiot motor cyclists... Whatever happened?
 
The police need tranquilizer darts to shoot all those idiots. Open season. Arrest them all...

Do you apply that logic to all protestors or just those in the OP Bodhi?
 
So what? Driving through a crowd carefully is not against the law.

Eh, ignore my previous question to you Bodhi, you're clearly just trolling.
 
Why is there no option for posters that don't lean either way?

Why is there no option for people who think that nobody was right and the whole thing is just a big bucket of wrong?
 
Do you apply that logic to all protestors or just those in the OP Bodhi?

All protestors who block traffic and inconvenience an entire city... yeah.

Eh, ignore my previous question to you Bodhi, you're clearly just trolling.

No I am not... there is nothing illegal about driving slowly through a crowd and I have personally done so many MANY times...
 
Do you apply that logic to all protestors or just those in the OP Bodhi?

He's mellowing some to suggest tranquilizer darts. Lol.

It's an interesting question. If the protestors were Tea partiers (of course, they wouldn't block lanes of traffic and/or surround cars) or a pro life rally, it would be interesting to see if that would change anything.

To be clear, in your case, I truly don't believe that it would make a difference (didn't want you to think I was implying anything about you).
 
He's mellowing some to suggest tranquilizer darts. Lol.

It's an interesting question. If the protestors were Tea partiers (of course, they wouldn't block lanes of traffic and/or surround cars) or a pro life rally, it would be interesting to see if that would change anything.

To be clear, in your case, I truly don't believe that it would make a difference (didn't want you to think I was implying anything about you).

When conservatives protest don't they stay on the side walk? What is it about liberals that turns them into law breaking assholes hell bent on inconveniencing EVERYBODY as they shout down anybody that disagrees with them?
 
All protestors who block traffic and inconvenience an entire city... yeah.

I can support that arrests may be warranted (depending on the situation), but i don't support shooting protestors (unless such force was reasonably necessary to protect yourself or others if they faced imminent harm.) I most certainly do not support it just because someone may be convenienced time wise and have to wait a little longer to get from from A to B).
 
Initially the car comes up really slow. The crowd does not want to let him through and he proceeds anyway. Both sides were aggressive. He doesn't hit anybody until they start attacking his car.

The car starts pushing against people immediately before any attack on the car is made. If you are operating a motor vehicle and you can avoid hitting a person without endangering another person, it should be your responsibility to do so.
 
Why is there no option for people who think that nobody was right and the whole thing is just a big bucket of wrong?

There is never an option for that because everything has to be hyper-partisan and polarized to the point of utter ridiculousness.
 
Not sure if this applies in any way, but a personal experience involving similar situations:

The entrance/exit of my workplace is directly across from a state/city convention center, and on convention days/periods, often there will be high traffic volume AND large groups of people crossing the street (because some of the parking is next to my workplace, also on the opposite side of the street).

Recently I was turning, got a green arrow, but waited in the middle of the intersection for about 30 people ranging from adults to children to cross the crosswalk. No way I'm going to run them over when I need only wait a few seconds to have a clear path.

--------------
Another situation: I was passing through a small town on my way home, and on the shortcut I normally take (narrow 2-lane road with no center markings) was a police cruiser behind a car, lights flashing, with 2 individuals that appeared to be police officers standing in the remainder of the road, looking at the civilian car in question (or the ground, unsure).

Rather than try to pass through whatever the hell they were doing, I took the slightly longer route home.

---------------

Now, I'm unsure whether this Ferguson incident is similar, since with the number of protests going on, it is entirely possible that the person in the car had already tried 5 different alternate routes to get home and was a tad upset (not an excuse, of course) when this took place.
 
I can support that arrests may be warranted (depending on the situation), but i don't support shooting protestors (unless such force was reasonably necessary to protect yourself or others if they faced imminent harm.) I most certainly do not support it just because someone may be convenienced time wise and have to wait a little longer to get from from A to B).

These protestors intentionally hurt businesses as well... they are scum. Tranq.ing them is morally justified...
 
The car starts pushing against people immediately before any attack on the car is made. If you are operating a motor vehicle and you can avoid hitting a person without endangering another person, it should be your responsibility to do so.

Most people move when a car is coming... these people jumped in front of him. He was probably shocked, thinking he could roll slowly and they would move. Instead they used that mistake to attack him. Any idiot that was hit deserved it as it was their own fault.
 
You seriously can't figure out where I stand on this? I bet you're, like, the only one.

I replied showing you at least 4-5 posts where I laid out my arguments and why I thought what I thought. You did that to me ZERO times. Zero. Not once. You did link me to a post where you told someone else and then bitched at me for not reading it earlier. That's really sad, X Factor.

It's your entire debate style - not take a major stance or argue your own points, but rather attack who you are arguing with and their points. There is never a counter argument. Please, show me one time in the other thread where you told me you thought the driver could be held responsible and should face a grand jury. We argued for a couple ****ing hours, and at no point did you even mention your own thoughts.
 
That is obviously a mis-representation of what he does...

It's absolutely what he does. Here are his points that I responded to (notice no argument of his own, just nonsense he thinks about me and his made up version of what I think):

It's totally funny how you want to be all hyperbolic about what the driver did but yet completely downplay a crowd illegally gathered in the street as just being "people near your car". :lamo:

At no point did I ever say the crowd was there legally or defend that aspect. I've only said that them being there doesn't give him the right to mow them down.

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.

Same here. Where did I say that you can just walk around in the middle of the street? I didn't. I just said you can't drive through a crowd of people because you think they shouldn't be there.

No worries, my friend. He's trying to downplay the prominent role that claim had in his argument just as much as he's trying to downplay the actions of the mob (think he'll have any problem with using the word "mob" even though it's absolutely accurate?).

My entire argument was always that the Ferguson issue has turned anything related to it partisan. And at no point did I say he couldn't use the word mob (I actually accept dictionary definitions of words unlike you and him).

It's how he argues and it's sad. He doesn't stand up for his own thoughts, he attacks others, and he misrepresents their views. It's great ploy against a child, but it doesn't bother me or affect my arguments in the least.
 
Back
Top Bottom