IN PROPORTION. YOU SAID IT YOURSELF.
Jesus Christ, what a weenie.
Umbrella =/= FOUR THOUSAND POUND TRUCK
yes proportional. All the driver wanted to do is leave. he didn’t floor it and flatten the masked man. he slowly pulled out to give him the option to back off.
when I asked how you normally perceive a masked person yelling at you on a scale from one to ten your response in post 283 was:
Less than zero. Seriously, you’re in a vehicle. *Drive the fuck away.
that’s exactly what he was trying to do in the video. He was trying to drive the fuck away. He did it in a way that caused no harm.
Now that the original video is there for all to see and you’ve had ample opportunity to view it, we no longer have to pretend that you might not know what was going on in that situation, so…
You are nothing more that a lying piece of crap.. There is no reason to try to correct someone if they are deliberately incorrect, so
Buh bye.
And yet, when the pedestrian was no longer in the way, the driver chose to stop the vehicle and escalate the situation yet again.
This is a bold faced lie by omission.
This is what it reads in full, as previously quoted by you earlier:
Why did you omit the bolded part and do you now admit to intentionally lying by omission?
The driver was inconvenienced but never in imminent threat. He had the opportunity to drive away when the pedestrian walked to the side of his truck. He chose instead to stop his vehicle, get out, and assault him physically.
Do you admit now, based on the last video, that the driver’s decision to assault the pedestrian was not made from necessity or imminent threat on his person?
No. You’ve posted an anecdote of an incident that happened to you. I have no way knowing what extenuating circumstances existed at the time. It could have just as easily resulted in you earning a citation from a different police officer for escalation or confrontation. In which case, you’d be far less likely to be citing this as some sort of “legal” justification for an unrelated incident on video.
There’s a disconnect, alright.
No. What you are upset about is that people called you out for being a liar. What you want to happen is for people to give you a pass for being a liar and to allow you to get away with it. This is what you consider to be the polite behavior that is somehow owed to you. Maybe you get to get away with this kind of “who me?!” bullshit in daily life. But you didn’t get away with it here. Unlikely that you can expect that to change going forward unless you change your behavior.
Moral of the story: Don’t be a liar and people won’t call you out for being a liar.
You lying sack of shit.
200-lb.man, in your world, EQUALS FOUR THOUSAND POUND TRUCK??
Say it, flat out then, so you can’t deny it later. You want to run over and kill anybody if you label them “antifa.”
The “pedestrian” is a masked man pounding and likely damaging the vehicle. He is the one who started it, continued the escalation after the verbal confrontation, and then pounded on the car.
Bullshit.
You’re like a guy saying a girl’s tiny little skirt provoked you.
You don’t seem to be able to control your emotions in a simple conversation. You’re exhibiting the electronic equivalent of road rage.
As the 4000 lb truck was not used to injure him I’m not sure what your point is. Yes, 4000 is more than 200. That’s not the same argument as running someone over with a 4000 lb car. Since this didn’t happen your argument doesn’t work.
Not only have I not labeled the person in the video as antifa I specifically said you CAN’T tell what the political affiliation is of either party. I said it in post 489 and repeated it in post 617. I cited law based on proportional response. What the driver did was attempt to drive away and per your own post is what he should have done.
I would think it obvious from my posts that I think the masked person was the person who started the altercation and continued it until it rose to the level of a fist fight. What that masked man was doing was not rational and we have since learned he was acting as some kind of vigilante turn signal police. Had he done this to a police officer it’s likely he would have been tased and arrested.
For you to say I want to kill people is irrational hatred on your part.
No, it’s not like saying that at all. That literally makes no sense.
I’ve given an example of someone blocking me. It happened in front of a police officer. I cut right through him. The officer then went on to school the person blocking me.
Yep, the guy hitting a car ONCE after being struck and pushed by it is the one escalating.
It’s like your continued assertion that he REPEATEDLY blocked the vehicle. For all anyone can see, he did so once.
But hey, keep living in your fantasy where you can assault a person and get away with it.
the additional part left out reinforces what the law states and what I have discussed. Proportional use of force.
proportional force is exactly what it says. Proportional.
The driver reacted to what sounds like damage to his car. And in a court of law his behavior is judged on what a reasonable person would do. If you provoke a person into a fight and a fight ensues the fault is on the person provoking the fight.
In this case the masked person has continued to provoke him with no apparent cause or sign he is going to stop. The driver tries to leave the area using reasoned constraint of the speed of his vehicle. It’s clear he’s not trying to cause harm by running him over and no harm is created.
As there are people videoing it and one of them is yelling to get out of the road the reasonable assumption is that he was blocking the driver prior.
I think you’re being disingenuous considering the additional knowledge that the masked man was blocking him because he didn’t use his turn signal.
I think the average person would view a masked person blocking traffic over lack of turn signals as someone not acting rationally. If you can’t reason with an unstable person then the next step is to leave the area as best you can without causing harm. This is what the driver did in the video.
Yo, Magiver. What does the law state about intentionally hitting someone with a two-ton automobile; how is that automobile classified in such an instance?
Disingenuous - like constantly referring to everything the pedestrian did as violent acts while ignoring that the same definitions easily and more appropriately describe the actions of the driver?
Um, what you’re doing is whining that an unarmed pedestrian is the REAL offender here, because you decided he’s somebody you hate. You keep insisting that the guy who threatened to run him over and DID grab him and punch him is somehow the victim.
Yeah. Blaming the victim and insisting that THEY’RE the really evil person sounds like a rapist, all right.
No it doesn’t look like that.
Look at about 1:20 on the higher quality video here. It is unquestionably an umbrella that falls out from where it is tucked between his back and his backpack.
It’s also pretty clear from that video that, “Likely damaging the vehicle,” is pure fantasy.
You can even tell it’s a blue-and-white umbrella.
Blue and white?!!! Why has no one mentioned such a critical detail?
That changes everything!!!
Damn straight, it does! A real 'Murkan wouldn’t have anything other than a red, white, and blue umbreall, dammit!