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: 9
7
<< 6  7  8    10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 24 2017 @ 04:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: Greven

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.


From video evidence it appears the car tried to get around the mob, who then swarmed the car in the lane he was trying to use to get around. If a crowd of people swarm my car and act violent to me, screaming "look at the plate, look at the plate". I'm getting away from them. Just common sense.




posted on Aug, 24 2017 @ 04:36 PM
link   
a reply to: Greven

The COPS story is the one they are going to go with for the defense. This driver will get off with a slap on th ewrist at worst.



posted on Aug, 24 2017 @ 04:37 PM
link   
a reply to: Greven

Get out of the road. I don't care if I see it miles away. Get out of the road. When the lights change and they are not in the correct crosswalk they are breaking the law. Why should I change my route to school or work or the grocery store because some people want to protest illegally.

Because when I approach the intersection and they touch my car I am not waiting for it to be damage. Out of the way or I will run you ass over. Simple as that.

Now, like in Charlottesville, if I know there is a planned protest I would avoid it. If not, I would only be looking for trouble.

See the difference?



posted on Aug, 24 2017 @ 05:22 PM
link   
a reply to: Teikiatsu

These were not pedestrians.


They were pedestrians. "Pedestrian''. Going about by foot especially in or around a roadway''
This applies to anyone. A child playing in the street. A goofball skateboarder zooming in and out of the road. A stranded motorist on the side of the road. All are pedestrians regardless of their right to be in the road.

The privilege of driving insists on the driver avoiding possible dangerous driving hazards. A siren behind you or coming at you requires you to pull over to the right for safety until that emergency vehicle has passed. A flashing or blinking light on the side of the road requires you to change lanes giving wide berth to the officer or stranded driver. Avoiding hazardous conditions is part of accepting that privilege. If you see children in or near the roadway, you slow down and give added caution. If you see a goofball skate boarder jumping the curb, you slow down and pass by when safe.

These safety precautions DO NOT include driving up to a mob and pushing your way through the crowd with your horn honking.

The attempt to call this driver a ''victim'' do to the belligerence of the crowd is not on point. Obstinance plus obstinance does not make a right. This driver was not a victim. He placed himself in that position by pushing his own agenda, even if it was only simply passage, when he had no right to. He was driving with privilege and not a right.

So find all the fault with the crowd that you want, and I will most likely agree. But he was a driver and do to his privilege needs to be held to account on the basis of that privilege.



posted on Aug, 24 2017 @ 05:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: yuppa

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?


Yuppa. I am not arguing the point of the rightness or wrongness of the crowd. What I am pointing out is that the driver, by assuming the privilege of being a driver needed to avoid the situation in the first place. He could see ahead of time that the driving situation ahead of him was a hazardous situation. Yet, he proceeded ahead into and through the crowd with his horn honking. Regardless of the crowd, be it a funeral procession, a gang of children playing stick ball or a belligerent mob of protesters, he had not right to take the action he did.

I feel for the possible terror he experienced. Yet, he brought it on himself by not abiding by the rules of operation that he agreed to follow.

And all of that does not even take into account another possibility, one that none of us really knows to be true or not true. For all we know, this driver was adamantly opposed to all left wing maniacs protesting in the street and decided to take the law into his own hands and show them commies what a real American can do when he has a two ton vehicle to do it with. Now I am not saying this was or was not the case, cuz I don't know. What I do know is that he overextended his range of lawful actions by driving up to and into that crowd.



posted on Aug, 24 2017 @ 05:33 PM
link   
Two thoughts.

A. Don't stand in the street.
B. Don't run over people in the street no matter why they are there.

All problems solved.



posted on Aug, 24 2017 @ 05:36 PM
link   
a reply to: TerryMcGuire

Those were no pedestrians. They were not in the approved pedestrian walkways. You know, the biog white striped things no one is using.

The guy honks. They surround his vehicle. What is the person supposed to do? Lets these people kick and hit his car?



posted on Aug, 24 2017 @ 05:36 PM
link   
a reply to: amazing

If it were only that simple nowadays...



posted on Aug, 24 2017 @ 05:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: matafuchs
a reply to: amazing

If it were only that simple nowadays...


I hear you, but I'm going to follow both of those rules, myself.



posted on Aug, 24 2017 @ 07:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: matafuchs
a reply to: TerryMcGuire

Those were no pedestrians. They were not in the approved pedestrian walkways. You know, the biog white striped things no one is using.

The guy honks. They surround his vehicle. What is the person supposed to do? Lets these people kick and hit his car?



Mata. Regardless of what we think of the actions of those people, according to the drivers codes that I am aware of, the were pedestrians.

"Pedestrian'' ''going about on foot especially in or around a roadway.
If you want my thoughts on this issue they are scattered up and down this thread already.



posted on Aug, 24 2017 @ 07:30 PM
link   
a reply to: TerryMcGuire

If they were pedestrians they would have moved off the street en route to their final destination.

They did not move off the street. They were standing and protesting on a public road without a permit. They ran *toward* the car.

Stop trying to justify their belligerence. Stop trying to validate their mob mentality.



posted on Aug, 24 2017 @ 07:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: amazing

originally posted by: matafuchs
a reply to: amazing

If it were only that simple nowadays...


I hear you, but I'm going to follow both of those rules, myself.


What will you do if they surround your car and start hitting it?



posted on Aug, 24 2017 @ 07:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: kaylaluv

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: kaylaluv

originally posted by: Kalixi
Doesn't Activist 101 teach to swamp cars and block traffic to cause maximum disruption? How does one get out of that situation without knocking over people


Take an alternate route?


BwaaaHaHaHa

Like somebody is supposed to automatically know about a spontaneous protest in progress.





Those people were already on the street when the driver approached. You don't think he saw them until he was right among them? Bullcrap. He knew they were there in plenty of time to turn down another street and go around. He had an attitude, and he felt powerful because he had a car. And he used that power. On purpose.


Wow, you got all that from the article? You are like a super hero when it comes to reading people based on a tiny few words.

Bravo. Don't let your cape get caught in the door.


Honestly, not gonna lie, id like to see her cape get caught in a jet engine.... SLURP PFFFFFF

edit on 24-8-2017 by Bwomp83 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 24 2017 @ 08:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: Teikiatsu

originally posted by: amazing

originally posted by: matafuchs
a reply to: amazing

If it were only that simple nowadays...


I hear you, but I'm going to follow both of those rules, myself.


What will you do if they surround your car and start hitting it?


Jump out and fight! LOL

But I train in combat 6 days a week. That's just me though. I realize that's bad odds but I like my chances even against a group. The truth is that you can never really be attacked by more than 4 people at a time. There's no room for more to pile in and furthermore, most people attack like wild Jackals or Hyenas-meaning one guy hits you then when you turn to him another one from the back and so on. I'm ready.
edit on 24-8-2017 by amazing because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 24 2017 @ 08:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: Teikiatsu
a reply to: TerryMcGuire

If they were pedestrians they would have moved off the street en route to their final destination.

They did not move off the street. They were standing and protesting on a public road without a permit. They ran *toward* the car.

Stop trying to justify their belligerence. Stop trying to validate their mob mentality.


Your myopic response here is stultifying. No where have I validated the protesters anything.
What I have done is attempt to clarify why I do not fall for the victimization of this driver as so many seem to be doing. I have stated over and over again that I do not justify any of their actions yet you still insist that I do. I can find no reason to continue with you as you seem to be mired in your own hatred.



posted on Aug, 25 2017 @ 02:04 AM
link   
Two simple questions for people who seem to be extremely stuck on roads = cars thus pedestrians should get out of the way:

1) Do you need a license to drive a car on a road?
2) Do you need a license to walk down a road?

As a hint: there were roads prior to 1886 when cars became a thing.

The protestors were stupid, and so was the driver, from what I can see in a rather unclear video.
edit on 2Fri, 25 Aug 2017 02:06:31 -0500America/ChicagovAmerica/Chicago8 by Greven because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 25 2017 @ 04:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: yuppa
a reply to: Greven

The COPS story is the one they are going to go with for the defense. This driver will get off with a slap on th ewrist at worst.



Speaking of cops, where were they?

If the protesters were in the streets, where was traffic control?

Seems to me that the protesters were just not where they should have been.




posted on Aug, 25 2017 @ 07:12 AM
link   
People attacking the car, jumping on top of it, people hitting the car, these are not pedestrians, these are people attacking your car, you should have a right to defend yourself. However in this Topsy turvy screwed up world who knows what the courts will say.



posted on Aug, 25 2017 @ 09:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: canuckster
People attacking the car, jumping on top of it, people hitting the car, these are not pedestrians, these are people attacking your car, you should have a right to defend yourself. However in this Topsy turvy screwed up world who knows what the courts will say.

Similarly, if someone hits or is about to hit pedestrians with a car, do the pedestrians not have a right to defend themselves?

See, the video doesn't really show that part very clearly, and people keep acting like it shows the crowd attacking the car first. What it shows is a car blaring its horn from blocks away approaching people in the street, then being obscured by people.



posted on Aug, 25 2017 @ 09:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: canuckster
People attacking the car, jumping on top of it, people hitting the car, these are not pedestrians, these are people attacking your car, you should have a right to defend yourself. However in this Topsy turvy screwed up world who knows what the courts will say.

Similarly, if someone hits or is about to hit pedestrians with a car, do the pedestrians not have a right to defend themselves?

See, the video doesn't really show that part very clearly, and people keep acting like it shows the crowd attacking the car first. What it shows is a car blaring its horn from blocks away approaching people in the street, then being obscured by people.

If I am presented with a car trying to run over me,
I will put as mush distance between myself and that car as quickly as possible.

I would hope that common sense would dictate that move vs trying to stop a car with your body. Some people are pretty thick though.



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 6  7  8    10  11 >>

log in

join