Here we go....How did you feel about Bundy snipers aiming at Federal agents in protesting justice?
About 200 counts of reckless endangerment and about 60 counts of assaulting a LEO with a deadly weapon.what would the charge be for arresting him?
You can see people fold out the blanket and jump on his hood right around the 7 second mark of the full video - before he hits anyone.
I was describing a normal pass, not a pass-on-the-right. I describe a pass-on-the-right later in that post.
Not in a passing zone with a broken yellow line it isn't. Please see this quote from your link for details:
Correct. A normal pass occurs on the left, and the yellow line is on the left.
According to your link a pass on the right in this scenario is allowed because:
If there's more than one lane for your direction of traffic, you can pass on the right all you want and this is perfectly legal and safe.
All of that is true. Even if it's a pass and not a lane change it's still a legal move since there was adequate pavement and space in the lane he moves into so as not to conflict with other vehicles, structures or persons. If he had 'passed' the other car, stopped, and waited for the road to clear before proceeding, he would not have don anything illegal.
His illegal acts begin as he crosses the stop line and into the crowed and has nothing to do with any other car on the road.
Has the driver been cited for anything?
At first, yes. Not the second time, though.
People do not have the right-of-way and that's why it's illegal for them to be on the street.
Drivers are not allowed to take the right-of-way, but that doesn't mean the person in the street has it.
The law says who must yield the right-of-way; it does not give any driver
the right-of-way. You must do everything you can to prevent striking a
pedestrian or another vehicle, regardless of the circumstances.
The lane was not obstructed. The intersection was obstructed. Had the car stopped at the stop line nothing illegal would have occurred at all, which includes the lane change.It requires two unobstructed lanes. The lanes were obstructed.....by people.
The lane was not obstructed. The intersection was obstructed. Had the car stopped at the stop line nothing illegal would have occurred at all, which includes the lane change.
That's why I'm saying everyone is in the wrong. The protesters for not yielding right of way to traffic and this one driver for not yielding right of way to the protesters.It's who is required to yeild the right of way to the other
The video evidence says otherwise. His move around the other car was not obstructed by people as the people were ahead of the first car as well. Only after completing the lane change did he make contact with pedestrians.Speculative.
Video footage of the incident in the link. Cant say I blame the driver for fleeing the mob.
Lets face it, even if it was intentional this driver would have the full-throated support of at least one righttard.
How did you feel about Bundy snipers aiming at Federal agents in protesting justice?
Why do we break down on the first amendment based on issues and causes, versus the right to be peacefully protest, as these folks were doing ?
Seemed pretty clear that they hit the first protester. However, when a mob swarms your car and begins breaking your windshield and attacking your vehicle I think it may be self defense to just drive out.
It's all kinds of stupid. They shouldn't be protesting in the street and at the same time every driver needs to check for pedestrians, especially in a crowd like that.
The video evidence says otherwise. His move around the other car was not obstructed by people as the people were ahead of the first car as well. Only after completing the lane change did he make contact with pedestrians.
It didn't take long before we got a post that went full retard.
Can the gas chambers and ovens be far behind? I suppose anti Semitism is back in vogue. Anti Semitic president. Anti Semitic followers. It fits. Thanks for bringing it to our attention.
Operative words
he made contact with pedestrians
The peds did not run out in front of the moving car, the driver drove into the crowd hitting people.
We were debating his moving around a car as a separate move. Sangha claiming it was an illegal pass and my claiming it was a legal lane change. We were both wrong, it was a legal pass.Operative words
he made contact with pedestrians
The peds did not run out in front of the moving car, the driver drove into the crowd hitting people. It was not self defense by the driver, the peds could have acted in self defense and shot the driver before he killed anyone through his running people over
Would it not be self defense to hit a driver who is currently running people over right around you?
|f someone had a gun and shot a person who was intentionally running people down would it not be self defense?
They showed up to impose martial law before the verdict came out. While to some extent, I agree with you, I think the "protecting public safety" aspect could easily be abused by a government intent on keeping protest of any kind from happening.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?