- Joined
- Jan 28, 2006
- Messages
- 51,123
- Reaction score
- 15,259
- Location
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Please link to the legal definition you're getting that from.
Please link to the legal definition you're getting that from.No it doesn't. If a car hits someone, and they go under the car but not under the tires, they are considered to have been "run over"
Those all have to work together... they are not independent. One has to collide with, be knocked down by and the driven over by a car. The first two happen but not the third.
Yielding is a separate issue.
Cars have to yield to pedestrians even when pedestrians do not have the right of way. That doesn't mean pedestrians have the right of way. That means cars have to yield to them. That the pedestrian does not have the right of way is exactly the thing which makes their action a crime. If they had the right of way then what they're doing wouldn't be a crime.
When you say pedestrians always have the right of way, you're saying pedestrians can go wherever they want and it's never a crime. That's not true. In the state this occurred in those pedestrians were jaywalking and obstructing traffic. Those pedestrians did not have the right of way.
Please explain how a stopped car is running someone over.She went under *before* the car stopped.
Please link to the legal definition you're getting that from.
Please explain how a stopped car is running someone over.
She got knocked down and her leg went under as she fell, the car did not run her over.That's ridiculous:
Run over - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
: to collide with, knock down, and often drive over <ran over a dog>
If you want to say she was hit by the car, sure, go ahead. But saying she was run over is just as acceptable.
Please link to the legal definition you're getting that from.
Please explain how a stopped car is running someone over.
She got knocked down and her leg went under as she fell, the car did not run her over.
She got knocked down and her leg went under as she fell, the car did not run her over.
You're defending the use of emotive language, of course it's going to turn into semantics.No, they don't. It even says the ****ing word "often". If you want to debate semantics on whether it's okay to run someone down with your car, at least be right about it.
*Edit:
Do you know how to read? Have you ever read a definition? This seems like an easy thing to concede, but you're going to keep arguing this point for what?
So it's your thesis that a "reasonable person" is the kind of person who would drive into a crowd, and therefore would have seen the exit? Have you seen his driving record? He doesn't exactly have a history of using sound judgment.
He seems to be a person with anger issues, and people with anger issues get tunnel-vision, and tunnel-vision cuts off the view of the escape rout. He probably couldn't even see his steering wheel, literally. Ask me how I know about anger issuesThe same thing happens to regular people under stress.
It makes perfect sense that a person with anger issues would not have ever seen that alternate rout....it also makes perfect sense that a person with anger issues would drive into a crowd.
That's the definition of the word. It's getting embarrassing for you at this point.
It's emotive language and you shouldn't be using it if you want to act honestly."Drove over" is not a legal term; It's a figure of speech.
You're defending the use of emotive language, of course it's going to turn into semantics.
Don't use emotive language and we won't go down the semantics road.
It's fair to say 2 people were hit by the car. No one, however, was ran over.
Who was ran over? The video clearly shows 2 people being struck. Are you accusing the media of editing out someone being ran over? What is your evidence of the media's deception?It doesn't. They are being ridiculous.
I gotta be honest, I would have never guessed people who be so partisan as to argue that it's okay to run people over because they are in the way and you want through. Moreover, that they would argue that it's not technically being run over unless the tires go over you.
Holy ****. That's some next level insanity right there.
No, they don't. It even says the ****ing word "often". If you want to debate semantics on whether it's okay to run someone down with your car, at least be right about it.
*Edit:
This seems like an easy thing to concede, but you're going to keep arguing this point for what?
Do you know how to read?
Have you ever read a definition?
"Drove over" is not a legal term; It's a figure of speech
because her legs belong to someone else. :screwy
Who was ran over? The video clearly shows 2 people being struck. Are you accusing the media of editing out someone being ran over? What is your evidence of the media's deception?
You attempting superiority and your rudeness aside, both of which are retarded... the definition is idiotic and contradictory. What context is "often" being used? As in some times or many times?
No one was ran over. If someone was ran over then someone would have had major internal injuries and broken bones. Only one person had minor injuries consistant with being knocked down. No one was ran over.Only one person was run over AFAIK, and as far as them not taking him into custody, they're still investigating the crime.
No one was ran over. If someone was ran over then someone would have had major internal injuries and broken bones. Only one person had minor injuries consistant with being knocked down. No one was ran over.
Who was ran over? The video clearly shows 2 people being struck. Are you accusing the media of editing out someone being ran over? What is your evidence of the media's deception?
Right... a figure of speech and as such open to interpretation.
It doesn't. They are being ridiculous.
I gotta be honest, I would have never guessed people who be so partisan as to argue that it's okay to run people over because they are in the way and you want through. Moreover, that they would argue that it's not technically being run over unless the tires go over you.
Holy ****. That's some next level insanity right there.
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?