Lewdog
Gold Member
Sorry but the crowd was not innocent, they were very angry and hostile towards anyone who seemed out of place.
The crowd was innocent of anything that would justify someone running into them with their car.
How 'bout violent intimidation for starters?
The crowd "violently intimidated" the driver of the car, and that provided justification to run them down? Really? How does that work, exactly? The driver saw someone looking at him with a dangerous glint in their eye, so he's now justified in driving his car into that person?
The one person who actually did anything to the car before it crashed into the crowd wasn't one of the people the car ran into. That's the only person you might reasonably claim intimidated the driver in such a way as to merit being driven into. Even with that person, it is only barely reasonable to make such a claim; the rest of the crowd did nothing at all to the driver to justify his running into them.
I think the main point that needed to be made, you already said. If he was scared for his safety, he would have just slammed his car into reverse like he did after running into the crowd... he wouldn't have driven into more danger.
Why can't you people just admit you're wrong and I am right? Your hypocrisy is overwhelming.
... because you are wrong. Have you ever been shot at? Do you run towards or away from the gunfire? So why would the driver run towards a crowd he thinks is hostile if he wants to get away from it? He sure didn't have a problem running away from it in reverse after he ran over people and bystanders started smashing his car...