- Joined
- Dec 1, 2010
- Messages
- 61,713
- Reaction score
- 32,375
- Location
- El Paso Strong
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
That doesn't change the fact that it "run over" is literally defined as what happened. It doesn't change the fact that you can't hit people because they are in your way. It doesn't change the fact that just because she wasn't hurt, doesn't mean a legal wrong wasn't committed.
The girl was underage and at a peaceful rally for Christ's sake. That could have turned out a lot worse and thankfully it didn't.
Gotta tell you, if an angry crowd surrounded my car, leaving me no other way out, they'd better move themselves or you bet I'd move them.
Oh but think of the outrage you could really display if someone had been actually hurt.
By the definition of the phrase run over, by hitting whatever number of people he hit, it is applicable to all of them. Plow would be acceptable as well. Again, I'm just looking at the definition of the word.
Do you have video evidence that an angry crowd was surrounding his car? I haven't seen that narrative reported yet.
Do you have video evidence that an angry crowd was surrounding his car? I haven't seen that narrative reported yet.
Where, exactly, did the crowd surround his car?
Do you have video evidence that an angry crowd was surrounding his car? I haven't seen that narrative reported yet.
You said there ever isn't any excuse for "moving" people with your car. I disagree.
:lol:
Now you are just being ridiculous...
Intent is damn hard to prove.No. I am saying that many of the things you are arguing, but most specifically his intent (you say it was on purpose) is something that you can't prove.
The dictionary term is argumentative as it is open to interpretation as well...
I'm not outraged at the incident. I'm a bit flabbergasted at people like you though.
Omg, have you even watched the videos? :lol:
Intent is damn hard to prove.
What can be proven is this girl was knocked down and sustained minor injuries. However, it can also be proven that she was obstructing traffic. I really don't think this guy is going to prison over this. IMO his worst case scenario is a minor moving violation and paying her hospital bills.
Where, exactly, did the crowd surround his car?
I just posted the video. It shows him going around another car to enter the crowd.
Are you kidding? How did the windows get broken? You know, this reminds me of the Rachel Corrie incident. She parks herself in front of a moving tank and people are mystified how she ended up getting run over by it.
The video is posted above. Where did the crowd surround his car?
I just posted the video. It shows him going around another car to enter the crowd.
Intent is damn hard to prove.
What can be proven is this girl was knocked down and sustained minor injuries. However, it can also be proven that she was obstructing traffic. I really don't think this guy is going to prison over this. IMO his worst case scenario is a minor moving violation and paying her hospital bills.
So what? That is not illegal.
Sangha eventually gave up because he knew he was wrong. Rabbit too... when will you?
Probably from people hitting it when he was busy running into a group of people in front of him. As a bystander, I'm going to try to stop the guy from running everyone over.
Probably from people hitting it when he was busy running into a group of people in front of him. As a bystander, I'm going to try to stop the guy from running everyone over.
Based on what I've been reading, he won't be charged with anything. He's the one who called 911 for chrissakes.
You think anyone is intimidated by your intellectual prowess?
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?