Truck in Iowa Runs Over Protester

White6 did say it was situational, and I agree.

Those are difficult situations. One can't really judge the intentions of the driver, maybe it's a parent who's scared to death cause they have kids in the car, or maybe it's just a dumbass looking for someone to run over (God knows there's enough if them out there these days).

You can try to look in the car, in that split second before you shoot the tires, but maybe the windows are tinted. And if you blow out the tires you might be putting a child's life in danger, so it's a tough call.
you can make everything situational. his underlying pretext as i read it was as i responded.

most times in my experience, these "situations" give their side a "valid reason" to commit these acts of violence and "protest" - but if the other side does it, it's an insurrection and wrong.

the picture i painted was clear - if he would shoot the tires out of a vehicle moving over people, would he also shoot the people who were attacking AN INNOCENT PERSON simply trying to get through?

the only difference i read was he'd maybe not shoot the tires out of one. he flat out said he has no obligation to help someone who is simply trying to get through.

so, he'd help 1 side, ignore the other.

the fact we're so biased in simple human nature and compassion these days speaks volumes to where we are. i don't care the reason, if someone is being attacked unjustly and i have the ability to reasonably stop it, im going to try. now how i try yes, that can be situational.

i'd be wanting to help peaceful protestors getting mowed over and i'd want to help someone simply trying to get by and avoid a cause not their own. yes, that is dangerous ground these days but here we are.

continuing to do the same will simply leave the world as is.
 
Yep, just as I said. The right wing brownshirt fascists are getting more and more violent.

Here, two of them go full metal Nazi and actually brag about how violent they are.
You should really shut up, you keep looking stupid.
 
White6 did say it was situational, and I agree.

Those are difficult situations. One can't really judge the intentions of the driver, maybe it's a parent who's scared to death cause they have kids in the car, or maybe it's just a dumbass looking for someone to run over (God knows there's enough if them out there these days).

You can try to look in the car, in that split second before you shoot the tires, but maybe the windows are tinted. And if you blow out the tires you might be putting a child's life in danger, so it's a tough call.

As far as I am concerned, any motorist who finds himself in that situation, of having this car surrounded by “protesters”, has every right and reason to assume that he is in immediate danger of the same fate as Reginald Denny, and to do whatever it takes to get himself out of that situation as quickly and safely as possible.

If that means running over and killing “protesters” , then so be it.
 
As far as I am concerned, any motorist who finds himself in that situation, of having this car surrounded by “protesters”, has every right and reason to assume that he is in immediate danger of the same fate as Reginald Denny, and to do whatever it takes to get himself out of that situation as quickly and safely as possible.

If that means running over and killing “protesters” , then so be it.
Absolutely. Fully agreed.

Protesters have no right to harass ANYONE, much less vehicles. It would be a very stupid dumbass leftard thing to do
 
you can make everything situational. his underlying pretext as i read it was as i responded.

most times in my experience, these "situations" give their side a "valid reason" to commit these acts of violence and "protest" - but if the other side does it, it's an insurrection and wrong.

the picture i painted was clear - if he would shoot the tires out of a vehicle moving over people, would he also shoot the people who were attacking AN INNOCENT PERSON simply trying to get through?

the only difference i read was he'd maybe not shoot the tires out of one. he flat out said he has no obligation to help someone who is simply trying to get through.

so, he'd help 1 side, ignore the other.

the fact we're so biased in simple human nature and compassion these days speaks volumes to where we are. i don't care the reason, if someone is being attacked unjustly and i have the ability to reasonably stop it, im going to try. now how i try yes, that can be situational.

i'd be wanting to help peaceful protestors getting mowed over and i'd want to help someone simply trying to get by and avoid a cause not their own. yes, that is dangerous ground these days but here we are.

continuing to do the same will simply leave the world as is.
Okay. I sense some history here, so I'll bow out. My own solution would be to "engineer an outcome" if possible. You know in advance that if you fire a loud weapon several times, you're going to scare the shit out of both the protesters and the driver. So maybe start there.
 
Okay. I sense some history here, so I'll bow out. My own solution would be to "engineer an outcome" if possible. You know in advance that if you fire a loud weapon several times, you're going to scare the shit out of both the protesters and the driver. So maybe start there.
if i had said gun, sure. that would hopefully either get them to back off, but now you need an exit strategy. would they back off or try to surround you because you made yourself a target? i can't honestly answer that unless im in that situation.

but i can't picture myself looking away while people attack someone like that.
 
Look, if the OP did not want to have access to the whole posted article used for the story, he should have picked something that did not include the reporting. I figure, he thought nobody would scroll down or maybe didn't bother to himself on the twitter feed.


It is not credible that the mob was not doing teh normal lefty mob thing, especially when we can SEE IT DOING THE NORMAL LEFTY THING.
 

Forum List

Back
Top