I think he knows he can't admit that a crowd could be illegally in a road and he doesn't have an absolute right to drive through them.
It's now legal to run over protesters in some states
- Thread starter terrehawk
- Start date
I think he knows he can't admit that a crowd could be illegally in a road and he doesn't have an absolute right to drive through them.
Can a crowd legally be in a road if their purpose is solely protesting some cause or event?
Also, what are roads primarily meant for?
Here's where this debate sits in a nutshell - you want to allow people to inconvenience others. That's it.
He wrote illegally.
That is NOT where the debate "sits in a nutshell". This should be glaringly obvious.
Theft is illegal, it is never legal. You can't simply kill thieves, even in the act (absent self-defense/others, as has been discussed ad naseum).
Lots of crimes are illegal, are never legal, and yet can't result in killing them.
I'm glad you used the proper word - inconvenience, and that you admit that is enough for a whole lot of people to cause a person's death.
I get it that you Lefties think that the only way to murder someone is when a white cop shoots a black man instead of sucking a baby out of the womb or beating someone at a protest and then denying them medical attention. Wonder how you would feel if you were trying to get your partner to the hospital to save their life and they died due to protestors blocking the way - I bet (and you will never admit it) that you would have a different view of those blocking the roadway. I guess you would tell your partner - sorry I am joining the crowd so I guess you get to die.
You're a ****ing nut job. How often would you say you fantasize about killing people?
I assume a crowd cannot be in the road legally for a protest, except potentially with a permit.
A road is generally used for transportation.
Summary: There are scenarios, particularly when the driver does not feel in danger and alternatives to driving through a crowd exist, that it may be inappropriate to drive through the crowd and the driver could potentially be in the wrong legally. This pov recognizes the right of a driver to take action when he has a reasonable belief that he is in danger. Those actions include driving through the crowd. The other side of the argument is don't want to be killed get out of the road.
If there is a permit issued for a crowd to be in the road, then cars cannot be in the road at the same time and would be re-directed accordingly. So, we can agree that there are no circumstances where a crowd can legally be in the road blocking traffic (for the SOLE purpose of blocking traffic, I'm not talking about a building being on fire and a crowd gathers in the road or some other crazy circumstance. Besides, I shouldn't have to even write that as we both know what situation we're discussing).
So the only thing you have left to cling to is this: Cars have a duty to explore every alternative route including ILLEGALLY driving the wrong way on a road or reversing (potentially ILLEGALLY) on the same road instead of pulling slowly forward and being allowed to pass or having to force their way through.
Keep in mind you've already admitted the people that are blocking traffic are already breaking the law.
This is too easy. I think it is time for Kenny to come along and accuse me of having a hard on for killing people (probably put a color adjective on people somewhere too!)
JFC, why do you think I am clinging to anything? Terre doesn't even admit that a car has a duty to take legally viable alternative routes. You seem to think a driver is better off driving through a crowd rather than making an illegal u-turn. By all means, hold that opinion.
Well, your position inherently argues that I should do something ILLEGAL instead of something that is (apparently) legal. That's quite rich to me. Practically, I wouldn't want my nice car to be scratched, dented, or keyed which is what would happen if I slowly drove through, so I personally just might make that choice myself.
I am not sure whether it is legal to proceed. This idea that you have a legal right to the road because they are their illegally, I am not sure if that is accurate.
Holy shit. You are just an absolute idiot. Do you even read or comprehend anything?
It does not matter what my reason is for wanting to leave with my car. If you try to detain me then you are threatening me. At that point all bets are off.
Again, it does not matter what my reason for wanting to leave is. If you try and restrict me from leaving and you get hurt that is your fault not mine. Get out of the ****ing road and keep your hands off of my car and don't try and stop me from leaving.
They have no right to prevent me from leaving. It is a public Highway and they have absolutely zero right to try and detain me in any way regardless of why I want to leave. And once they put their hands on my car that is a threat.
What's hilarious is if a cop tried to stop somebody from leaving like let's say the I can't breathe guy. You guys freak the **** out.
And there you go changing your own stance, for about the bazillionth time, just in this thread alone.
11 pages of flip-flopping. I've quoted your posts back at you redundantly, and you still can't figure it out.
Yes, you busted me. You ask a stupid ****ing question you're going to get a stupid ****ing answer.
The absolute opposite is true. You want to grant law enforcement powers they don't have.
We are trying to hold people to the same legal standards. You want a lesser standard for officers than everyone else, and now you want a special standard because you are late for Game of Thrones - YOUR example.
What's hilariously sad is these are the same people that would sue you for backing up and accidentally killing somebody because you were trying to take an alternate route like they want you to.
I'm curious if you read my posts and ignored them, or skipped right over them without reading.
I hate to think it needs to be reposted, because it already has at least five times.
This, quite literally, makes absolutely no sense, whatsoever, except when you are trying to make excuses for yourself.
i.e., "I have to run these people over, because if I back up, I might run over someone else!"
11 Pages, and if it was posted I missed it:
Where and what is the actual legislation that Terre is pointing to in this?
Where and what is the actual legislation that Terre is pointing to in this?
Most of these situations are taking place on interstates and highways that are packed with traffic and you can't take an alternative route. So no, I'm not just going to sit there until you guys decide you've had enough and are tired and want to go home.
That isn't happening. I am not sitting there and waiting. Even if I tried to go around on the shoulder you know damn well the protesters wood try and run out in front of the car and stop it. And again once that happens, once you touch my car you are a threat and if you get run over and killed that's your problem.
I'll bet you guys all bitched for hours about to Chris Christie's Bridge.
Once again: "No other scenario could possibly happen, therefor I'm right, naanananananananana! I run you over!"
I have not flip-flopped on anything. I've said repeatedly it does not matter what my reason for leaving is.
It does not matter whether I am already in fear for my safety or if I just want to leave because I am not going to sit there as your hostage.
That is not a flip flop at all. If I want to leave I'm leaving and if you try and stop me by approaching my car by touching my car by trying to hold me up from leaving then it is your responsibility to protect yourself and get out of the way or you might get run-over
If the cops say you've broken the law like the hands up don't shoot guy had they have every right to detain him.
He can't just walk away.
You are trying to give leftist professors who want to Riot the same authority as the police to detain me.
And I am not asking for any special Authority. I am just trying to leave. And if you were trying to detain me by putting your hands on my vehicle you have now put all of the responsibility on yourself for whether or not you get hurt. You have instigated a threat at that point.
I honestly, truly, have no idea how, logically, you could put the bolded statement in the same post with a claim you aren't flip-flopping.
On one hand you claim that they are surrounding your car, touching it, and causing your fear - therefore it is justified.
Then you immediately admit that it does not matter - at all - whether you fear for your safety.
Those are two opposite positions. I have quoted your own posts to prove this a dozen times, if not more.
But, let's resolve this by looking at the actual laws. My quick google didn't come up with anything immediately relevant to when you posted the thread.
So, please inform me of what jurisdictions, and what laws, if you can, you think supports your OP.
Pretty much. Get the **** out of the way or get run over because I am leaving. I am not your prisoner and you are not allowed to detain me. If I want to leave with my vehicle I should be allowed to leave and if you try and stop me it is your fault at that point because you have threatened to me.
There is no flip-flopping. Once you touch my car you have initiated the threat as you are trying to detain me. You have no right to detain me
You act like just because someone isn't initially afraid for their safety that they are not allowed to leave just because there's a mob of people standing on the highway blocking anybody from going through.
Once I decide I want to leave and you try and stop me you have threatened me and the responsibility is now upon you to protect yourself and get the **** out of the way
Do you truly believe that a crowd of people has the right to stop someone from leaving?
Does this apply to tailgating in front of Kinnick? Everyone there is gathered for the same violent reason. They even block traffic for long stretches of time right by the hospital! Sometimes they yell and scream, and bang on cars that are driving by. Are we all free to be killed by some curmudgeon that forgot his mom taught him not to hit?
No. LEOs are bound by the Constitution, and can not simply stop people for any reason.
Do they? Yes, surely, all the time. Daily. Minutely. Secondly.
You are asking for special authority - your OP was glee that it was now legal.
I have asked you to provide me with what states passed the laws you were so excited about. Can you not do so? I've admitted my rudimentary searching didn't bring it up.
Yep. More than one thing can be true.
There is no flip flop here get out of the road and do not touch my car and do not try and keep me from leaving if I want to leave.
You actually think a mob should be allowed to keep people from leaving if they want to leave?
Nobody in this thread has argued this.
11 f****** pages and you can't figure out who and what you are babbling about.
