• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Man runs over anti-war protesters with his car

ballz said:
So charge him with reckless driving or something, not attempted homocide. I dunno about you but if I was attempting homocide, those people wouldn't of had a chance to jump on the hood of my car.

By your reasoning, you could also charge him with assault with a weapon
 
Lumber said:
This just seems wrong on so many levels. He drove into a group of people ran over a person! Regardless of whether or not he meant to hurt anyone, he used his vehicle in a very dangerous manner.

Okay, I'll admit that paying hospital bills is leaning on the light side a bit, but what I'm trying to get across is that he shouldn't face any jail time. Sitting in the middle of the road blocking access to work whom have nothing to do with the war in the first place is asking to get hit. The injured is just lucky that they're still living.


Greymatters said:
Its the argument that never ends - when do my personal rights take precedence over someone else's personal rights? - only the courts can settle this one...

Very well stated. And I'll drop it at that, because the argument really never will end.

Midget
 
Beadwindow 7 said:
By your reasoning, you could also charge him with assault with a weapon

I fail to see how my reasoning points to that at all, but go ahead and explain, your probably right. Either way, charging him with assault with a weapon is better than charging him with attempted homocide.
 
Beadwindow 7 said:
We'll go all crazy about a soldier throwing a puppy off a cliff, but, sure give someone who runs over multiple people a medal???

Context - Now let me attempt to explain before the pile on begins.

A soldier throwing a puppy off a cliff disgraces those who serve in the profession of arms with honour, decency and the sense of right and wrong.  We are taught (hopefully) controlled focused aggression, not a mindless "kill everything that moves" mentality. 

Running over antiwar protesters is the "I'm fed up with your ilk" mentality. Most, if not all of said protesters are 20 somethings who have never understood, attempted to understand, or care to understand it takes those of the profession of arms to go into the dark corners of the world to strike down those who would bring death and destruction upon the innocent. They (protesters) by majority complain, but never attempt to change the "system" by voting (something else the profession of arms gives these people through blood),

They simply chant "No Blood for Oil"  yada yada yada and claim they know more living in their latte drinking coffee houses, in peace, wearing designer clothing and using electronic gadgets, than those in the profession of arms out there in the dark places of the world seeing it first hand, live and in technicolour. They want to have there cake and eat it too, which personally drives me nuts - no pun intended.
Thus the frustration of the general population reaches the point of simply disregarding said protesters and go on with their lives irregardless of whether or not said protesters are in their path. 

And more than likely said protesters would completely abolish the profession of arms and attempt to form a healing circle with said evil bringers and sing Kum Ba Ya (spelling?).

Again - Context - Those who know better should act better - Those who pretend to know better should shut up and go read a book.

Now let the pile on begin.

(Mods: If this sounds like nonsensical rambling too you - delete it.)

 
(warning: comments may not reflect the reality of the situation....unable to read the story/view the video at work and thus am posting based on the postings of others)

Meh, this stuff is same-old same-old.  Someone mentioned picket lines...union guys blocking lawful access and someone getting fed up pushing through.  Both parties are idiots here.  The driver should receive punishment that reflects his intent in his actions and taking into account what a reasonable person would see as the outcome of those actions (for example, a reasonable man could expect hitting someone with a car could prove detrimental to that persons health and probably shouldn't then hit that person with a car).

Protesters, war or union or anti-globalization or whatever should also face charges relating to obstruction.  Yeah, there's a democratic right and need to allow protesting, and I'm all for it, but there is not a right to block or otherwise hinder lawful access.  The thing with charges though for the anti-war/globalization crowd is police intervention is a sign that they are doing something right, that they have successfully peeved "the man".  This in turn can further encourage the protests.  Still, no matter how annoying this crowd is (especially annoying due to the tendency to be disruptive and not involved in and constructive solution to the problem by, say, voting, or otherwise not acting like grown ups), there is still no right for the citizenry to take action.  That's what we pay the police for.

So yep, I'd say, rather than say "this side is right because the other side are numpties or they had it coming" I'd say both sides are equally numpties and should suffer the consequences accordingly.

 
ballz said:
I fail to see how my reasoning points to that at all, but go ahead and explain, your probably right. Either way, charging him with assault with a weapon is better than charging him with attempted homocide.

Well, what your reasoning to me is that because they weren't killed, he obviously wasn't really trying to kill them, so charge them with a lesser criminal offense, in your case, reckless driving.

To me, reckless driving is "either a mental state in which the driver of an automobile behaves recklessly, or a condition where, a driver, even though neither behaving recklessly nor in a dangerous fashion, operates a vehicle in a manner that is de jure or statutorily unlawful"

*above quote from Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reckless_driving

In my opinion, a lesser appropriate criminal charged than attempted homicide would be assault with a weapon. The vehicle is the weapon, and unlike reckless driving, there was obviously bodily harm caused on persons.
 
Panzer Grenadier said:
Running over antiwar protesters is the "I'm fed up with your ilk" mentality. Most, if not all of said protesters are 20 somethings who have never understood, attempted to understand, or care to understand it takes those of the profession of arms to go into the dark corners of the world to strike down those who would bring death and destruction upon the innocent. They (protesters) by majority complain, but never attempt to change the "system" by voting (something else the profession of arms gives these people through blood),

I don't agree. I'm fed up with squeegee kids running up to the windshield, or a drunk outside a liquor store, standing in my way, asking me for money. But I don't run them over.

And as much as I dislike what those people are doing, I'll never applaud someone running them over.

I wouldn't even applaud someone who ran over the Yank who threw the puppy of the cliff.

But hey, maybe it's just me. Maybe I'm right out of 'er in believing that running people over is wrong.
 
I'm not sure guys. While I disagree with the statement that they should all have been killed, (as someone posted on the Youtube page), I do think that as many of them as could be caught should be charged. I'm not goin' to sit here an pretend that I am in any way familiar with the Italian justice system, but if it was Canada, buddy in the car would, more than likely, only have to serve a third of his sentence (which would probably end at being 5 years or something to that extent. 5/3 = 1.6yrs). One point that really struck me is WHAT THE **** ARE THESE PEOPLE THINKING?! What if an ambulance had to get through? Or a Cop was trying to answer a call, and then someone died because of their actions? Did a bunch of kids sitting in the middle of a downtown street really help anyone? I think not. These people disgust me. If you watch the first 10 seconds of the video, theres a girl who doesn't look like she's a day over 12. Where are her parents?
 
FutureQYR said:
I'm not sure guys. While I disagree with the statement that they should all have been killed, (as someone posted on the Youtube page), I do think that as many of them as could be caught should be charged. I'm not goin' to sit here an pretend that I am in any way familiar with the Italian justice system, but if it was Canada, buddy in the car would, more than likely, only have to serve a third of his sentence (which would probably end at being 5 years or something to that extent. 5/3 = 1.6yrs). One point that really struck me is WHAT THE **** ARE THESE PEOPLE THINKING?! What if an ambulance had to get through? Or a Cop was trying to answer a call, and then someone died because of their actions? Did a bunch of kids sitting in the middle of a downtown street really help anyone? I think not. These people disgust me. If you watch the first 10 seconds of the video, theres a girl who doesn't look like she's a day over 12. Where are her parents?

So you call the cops and get them arrested and charged. You don't bloody take matters into your own hands by running them over.
 
I'm not advocating what was done (one either side), my problem is why were these people there in the first place. There is no sane person on the face of the earth who could sit there and tell me that what they did resulted in anything but a) getting themselves hurt, b) causing grief for the cops. No Talban fighter, or insurgent heard about set incident and then put down their weapon. It's unrealistic to think so. Personally I wouldn't mind seeing the old man serve full scentence :rules:,but again it's Italy, for all I know he could be in for 10 years. 
 
Back
Top