If English is not your first language that’s fine but my wording in no way suggests what you’re saying. If you endorse blocking traffic then best of luck in your endeavors. I think it’s a stupid thing to do.
I asked for a cite for a statement made. That’s exactly how it works.
Now that it’s been explained, that’s even more true. Asking for another explanation would be sealioning.
No, you asked for a cite for a direct rebuttal of your own (bs) statement. When a statement is challenged, it’s up to the one who made the original statement to prove its validity. That’s how the burden of proof works, genius. You’ve been here years and have no doubt talked colossal bollocks for even longer, surely people must have explained it to you by now, possibly striving to use small words when they did.
The legal definition of battery is an unwanted touching. The legal definition of assault is attempted battery. So, assault can happen without any injury having been caused.
Running someone over is aggravated vehicular assault.
Now apply that to illegally blocking someone’s way. The metrics change. You have created an illegal confrontation.
Slowly moving forward allows the person who is illegally blocking traffic to safely step away. It differs greatly from running them over. It is a minimum use of force.
Yes, he went overboard and it started with the first person killed.
10 Muslims were murdered under Obama and 3 in Trump’s term. He’s just over a 1/3 of the way through his term. So there were more murders under Obama’s term on average. This is a rant on your part.
Bullitt has been the epitome of calm and kept to the subject matter and not attacked anybody. If anything your rants and insults show how close to the mark Bullitt’s op was.
And what’s non-aggravated, bog standard, garden variety vehicular assault, hmm ?
a car touching someone. In this case someone who was breaking the law blocking traffic. Someone who could avoid instigating the confrontation in the first place.
So you concede that you were lying before and are, in fact, defending vehicular assault ?
The prosecution rests.
According to whom?
I cited the law in my state.
Aren’t you one of the posters who argue that violence is justified by claiming self defense if one disagrees with someone’s exercise of free speech?
The law you cited does not say this—
Using a car against a person is ALWAYS the use of deadly force. You may use such force only when you are under threat of grievous bodily injury or death. You may not use such force merely because your path is impeded.
Go away.
C’mon it’s safe in the pit to defend your abhorrent point of view.
Deadly force involves injury. I cited the law. There was no attempt at harming the person and no harm was done. You seem to miss this point.
Not only you don’t know that, it’s patently obvious that the message is “I will run you over if you don’t move”. Which is threatening aggravated vehicular assault, on top of the factual vehicular assault.
So if I shoot in your general direction but miss, that wasn’t deadly force, nor would the law ever possibly slam me for criminal negligence, recklessness, assault by pointing, what have you.
OK then. You keep making more and more sense.
I know you probably won’t heed the advice but : quit while you’re behind, mate. That shovel is not your friend, it will not get you out of the hole.
And we established that the event in question occurred in your jurisdiction when exactly? Did I miss it?
CMC fnord!
Cite?