It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Driver arrested after hitting protesters in St. Louis

page: 8
7
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 24 2017 @ 12:40 PM
link   
a reply to: butcherguy


Pedestrians may not suddenly leave the curb and enter a crosswalk into the path of a moving vehicle that is so close the vehicle is unable to yield.


They were already in the street, in fact I could hardly see the car for all the 'pedestrians', blocking the road.

Now show me the law that says its okay to drive thru cross walks with people already in them, ever.




posted on Aug, 24 2017 @ 12:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Wardaddy454


He give plenty of notice of his intentions

Move or get run over?


They (quite literally) run up on him.

After the 'driver' drove right up to them, blaring his horn...

They already occupied the street before driver approached aggressively and forced a confrontation., derp


try to watch the video without that red haze of anger.

Watch it again without your bias I mentioned earlier.

Wait, you drive a tank in the Generals rank, right?

nvm


Well they didn't have to move, if he was going into opposing traffic to get around, because they were blocking one set of lanes. So they had to move to him, in order to be forced to move out of his way right? Can't have it both ways.

And he was "blaring" his horn because they moved to get into his way right? Because again, he was gonna go around them.

Derp.



posted on Aug, 24 2017 @ 12:41 PM
link   
a reply to: Wardaddy454


That's fine. But these people instigated by appraching the car instead of letting it pass, irregardless of the legality of his crossing into opposing lanes.


Yah, his intentions were clear, move or get run over. Tilt



posted on Aug, 24 2017 @ 12:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Wardaddy454


That's fine. But these people instigated by appraching the car instead of letting it pass, irregardless of the legality of his crossing into opposing lanes.


Yah, his intentions were clear, move or get run over. Tilt


See above, Rumpletiltskin.




posted on Aug, 24 2017 @ 12:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: butcherguy


Pedestrians may not suddenly leave the curb and enter a crosswalk into the path of a moving vehicle that is so close the vehicle is unable to yield.


They were already in the street, in fact I could hardly see the car for all the 'pedestrians', blocking the road.

Now show me the law that says its okay to drive thru cross walks with people already in them, ever.


You couldn't see the car because of the shoddy camera work lol.



posted on Aug, 24 2017 @ 12:45 PM
link   
a reply to: Wardaddy454


And he was "blaring" his horn because they moved to get into his way right? Because again, he was gonna go around them.

No, horn blaring is apparent in the video while driver was still away from the crowded crosswalk. You can hear the horn blare, then see the headlights approach, then see the demonstrators react.

1,2,3, side retired.

This is academic, had my say... thanks for the legal dispute.



posted on Aug, 24 2017 @ 12:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Wardaddy454


And he was "blaring" his horn because they moved to get into his way right? Because again, he was gonna go around them.

No, horn blaring is apparent in the video while driver was still away from the crowded crosswalk. You can hear the horn blare, then see the headlights approach, then see the demonstrators react.

1,2,3, side retired.

This is academic, had my say... thanks for the legal dispute.


Ok sure, you can argue the semantics of horn blaring.

But how about we address my other point. Clearly, his intention was to go around because he went into opposing lanes, as you pointed out multiple times. They moved to him, as evidenced by all the walking. They had to, because he wasn't "plowing straight through them". Kind of destroys your flimsy argument.



posted on Aug, 24 2017 @ 01:50 PM
link   
a reply to: Teikiatsu

If you think that my stance on the driver is a defense for the protesters you are incorrect. It is not.
And no, I was not there. But I do deal with the privilege of driving every day and I know that what he did was not in accordance with the laws governing that privilege.



posted on Aug, 24 2017 @ 02:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: TerryMcGuire
a reply to: Teikiatsu

If you think that my stance on the driver is a defense for the protesters you are incorrect. It is not.
And no, I was not there. But I do deal with the privilege of driving every day and I know that what he did was not in accordance with the laws governing that privilege.



As those people had no respect for laws of the road that apply to them, why should they believe that other laws of the road should apply to the driver?



posted on Aug, 24 2017 @ 02:16 PM
link   
if there are people in the street and you know they are there it's not cool to mow them down. just not cool.



posted on Aug, 24 2017 @ 02:31 PM
link   
Can we talk about the protest for a sec? The crowd was protesting for someone who attacked a neighbor with knife and then attacked the Police who responded to the attack, again with a knife, injuring an officer. The Police shot after being attacked with a knife.

Give me your reasoning why you would protest this shooting by the Police.

Fire away......



posted on Aug, 24 2017 @ 03:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: RoScoLaz5
if there are people in the street and you know they are there it's not cool to mow them down. just not cool.


Watch the video, then come back to us about the definition of "mow down"



posted on Aug, 24 2017 @ 03:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: RoScoLaz5
if there are people in the street and you know they are there it's not cool to mow them down. just not cool.


Agreed.

I had fun deleting 22 'mow em down' replies in my inbox.



posted on Aug, 24 2017 @ 03:56 PM
link   
reply to: Wardaddy454 well you clearly are set on blaming the protesters here and not listening to solid reasons to do anything other than to support the driver so I see no reason to continue with this..



posted on Aug, 24 2017 @ 04:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: TerryMcGuire

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

originally posted by: TerryMcGuire

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

originally posted by: TerryMcGuire

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: intrptr

Exactly.

It wasn't like these protesters were in the middle of a freeway and the driver had no where to go. He could have turned at the light one block back. He could have busted a u-turn.

Hell, he could have driven up and asked what they were protesting an they probably would have cleared a path.

Instead he drove at an unsafe rate directly into the crowd laying on his horn. Because right-wing programming is now, that if you're in your car and you drive into a crowd of protesters, it's okay to run them over.

Did you see how excited people were getting when they thought they could shoot people dead for vandalizing a statue?


I recall one of these events talked about here several years ago. A protest in the streets, but that time the video was much better. The driver used his car like a mobile snow shovel to clear a path through the pedestrians. Like a weapon. From what I recall, that thread flowed much like this one with many conservatives giving the thumbs up to the actions of the driver because the people were evil lefties.


No, its because we know that there will be at least one person in the crowd willing to escalate things. Then herd mentality kicks in.


And true as that may be it still does not circumvent the responsibilities agreed to by receiving a drivers license. When approaching a hindrance to the flow of traffic, pull over and proceed with caution when safe. If we want to argue the point that maybe the driver did not see them ahead of time, then maybe your point would be more viable. But chances are the driver saw the congestion well in advance and did not adhere to those simple rules of driving. Or I might add, simple rules of self preservation.


And what then of the crimes committed by these "pedestrians"?

Pedestrian interference, Assault, Disorderly conduct.

Without a permit, drivers have more rights than random people blocking a street.


The ''crimes'' of the pedestrians should have been handled in the correct manner. He should have pulled over prior to the hinderence, pulled out his cell phone (did he have one? chances are good that he did) and called 911 to report the crimes that were happening. But he did not. He then broke the law himself by driving into the mob.

Even though they did not have a permit, this driver did not have more rights than the people in the street. His rights were limited to the license and the privilege he was granted to drive a motor vehicle.


I have to ask...Is it better to be RIGHT AND DEAD or Wrong and Un injured?
They could had broken the window before the cops even got there. COps arent there to protect you on the spot. they are only to catch the people doing wrong after the fact.

I fi remember correctly didnt the Supreme court just pass something about this?



posted on Aug, 24 2017 @ 04:06 PM
link   
It is amazing to see anyone defending these idiots in the street. This is not about a crosswalk or pedestrian traffic. If it was it would be a different story. I am not going to go out of my way because some idiots want to protest and stop traffic. That is the purpose. They could go do this in a park...or a private residence. Instead they do it so they can take out there hate an anger on a car.

If I was driving with my family and was suddenly surrounded and people yelling stop or get out that is battery. You hit my car it is assault. I have every right to open fire. There is no a judge in the world that would convict me. My life and the life of my family could be in danger and my lawyer would only have to reference Reginald Denny.



Another person just 'driving in traffic' and stopped when asked.




posted on Aug, 24 2017 @ 04:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: tadaman
a reply to: Infoshill

Screw that. Never be surounded by protestors. Hit the gas and dont risk your life. Jail is better than a wheel chair or death.

Get out of the road or get hit by cars.


City roads are not exclusively for the use of cars and never have been.



posted on Aug, 24 2017 @ 04:11 PM
link   
a reply to: matafuchs

How about if you see a group of people blocks ahead then drive up to them anyway and start pushing your vehicle through people standing in the road, do you think they will sit idly by when people are on your hood?

Maybe that's why his car was 'attacked' like the one in Charlottesville - after it hit people?

I certainly am not referring to decades old footage from a riot, if anyone cannot see I am referring to the OP and not the Rodney King aftermath.
edit on 16Thu, 24 Aug 2017 16:13:01 -0500America/ChicagovAmerica/Chicago8 by Greven because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 24 2017 @ 04:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: Teikiatsu

originally posted by: kaylaluv

originally posted by: butcherguy

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: shooterbrody

I have many years of experience driving down roads and seeing when streets are filled with people before I am actually among them. And yes, I have seen streets filled with people.

Maybe the person had no other means of egress and just wanted to get out of a chaotic and dangerous situation. I can imagine a situation where a protest develops while you are in a place of business, either working or shopping, and you leave the place to find that you have no clear route to get out.


And what happens if you come across a street that is totally flooded or there is a huge sinkhole, or there is a bad traffic accident covering the road? Just try to drive on through anyway? Anyone who does that is stupid.


None of those scenarios are pounding on your car/windshield or trying to open your doors.

Prove that your scenario happened here, instead of them hitting the car after the driver hit people.

Kinda hard to make either case from the video, really.



posted on Aug, 24 2017 @ 04:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: pavil

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: Teikiatsu

But if you continue to go down a street that's flooded, your car will be swept away and you may drown. If you continue to down a street that is covered by a humongous sinkhole, you will fall in and crash.

If you continue to go down a street with angry protesters, there are consequences to that as well.


Consequences for who Kayluv? Innocent bystanders some how get what they deserve? Collateral Damage? Perhaps protestors shouldn't violently protest in the streets. The consequences of that is bad things happen to them and innocent bystanders. Simply driving down a street and getting attacked by said violent protestors is not even close in equivalency.

If you hit people with a car, don't be surprised if they hit the car back.

See, the way things are going in this thread, the widespread assumption seems to be that the people in the street either:
A) Attacked the car that drove right up to them, forcing the driver to flee in self-defense.
B) Deserved to be run over for being in the street to begin with.

(A) doesn't consider another possibility, that the people in the street:
C) Retaliated by attacking the car after it struck several people.

Why?

(B) is an opinion held only by people who have no respect for other humans and should be kicked off this site.
edit on 16Thu, 24 Aug 2017 16:29:26 -0500America/ChicagovAmerica/Chicago8 by Greven because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
7
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join