You said it yourself that he was blocked. If you don't think a car stopped by pedestrians which then choses to drive over them is deliberate then you are an idiot. Your suggestion about I-10 is idiotic. Why would anyone want to be hit by a car just because they could claim right of way? And you asked if I was nuts? HAHAHAHAHAHA.
That's it? that's your proof it was deliberate? That I said protestors were in the road? Which they were. Alright then just go stand in any busy road. Don't even get hit. See if the cops respect your 'right-of-way'. I am sure they will arrest all those cars swerving and barely missing you to get out of the way. You can choose to believe that the cops witnessed aggravated assault (is that what you think the crime was?) and just let it slide. Or you could go with Occam's Razor and realize you don't know what your talking about.
Every traffic law that I know of always give pedestrians the right of way. Even if a pedestrian were jaywalking you can't just run them over. They are breaking the law but if you hit them in your car you are still potentially liable.
A driver must always take care and make an effort to avoid pedestrians but the fault will always lay with the pedestrian if they are in the street illegally (one guy is behaving illegally and one isn't. not hard to figure out where the blame goes). All the driver needs to do is convince the authorities he took care made an effort. The driver did, that's why he stopped to talk to the police and why the police then let him go. It took place in DC so here you go (note the last one): http://mpdc.dc.gov/mpdc/cwp/view,a,1240,q,567108,mpdcNav_GID,1552,mpdcNav,|.asp law states as long as the driver didn't violate the above laws then he is fine if he hit a pedestrian. The law is similar around the country
No, I wouldn't take a pay-cut because I only see the policy as a litmus test for other things about company culture that I would find objectionable. If I'm already in the company, I can make decisions based on how much I'm actually liking working there. I don't even actually use social media (except this bbs). I might look elsewhere for a job, but I wouldn't accept a lower salary from the new employer unless the current company's culture was killing me. I might pass on a higher paying job if I got the impression (from the social media policy or whatever) that the culture would be too constricting. I think that's the calculus college grads are making -- they don't want to be automatons putting the heads on pins all day. They want to be treated like adults (even when they don't deserve it). And I assume the alternative in the hypothetical is a small decrease in pay, not no salary at all. Of course, the logic of the companies is quite different and sometimes the business model demands treating workers like automatons. So, some of those college grads will have to face the reality that they can't get an employer to liberalize their social media policy and lump it. Why are we talking about this in the OWS thread again?
The key is you have to take care of avoiding a pedestrian. That is not free reign to run over a pedestrian who is in the street illegally. Actually it doesn't state that. It states that if the driver collides with a pedestrian while not properly yielding to them in the above situation the fine are double. [rquoter]Colliding with a pedestrian while committing any of the above-listed offenses. Penalty for colliding with a pedestrian leads to a double fine.[/rquoter]
of course you can't deliberately hit a pedestrian that would be attempted murder. That isn't what happened. Of course it does. Or else it would say 'If you hit a pedestrian your guilty of X'. which seems to be your and FB's stance ('pedestrian always has right-of -way'). Read the title of the page 'Penalties for Motor Vehicle Violations Near Pedestrians' the driver was ethically,morally, and legally correct in his actions. If it was incidental you are only guilty if you broke the mention traffic violations. Cops know this, that's why he wasn't arrested.
Yes me and the police are both nuts and don;t understand DC law. It must be that you can stand all you want in the middle of the road. So let me get this straight, if a drunk guy stumbles out on the highway and gets hit by a car the driver is guilty of what according to you? manslaughter? Do you not understand how incredibly incorrect and ridiculous that sounds? No state in the country has such a stupid law.
Your argument though is based on that the pedestrian has no right of way if they are in the road illegally. By your own reasoning that is not the case since cars have to take care to avoid them. If they didn't then you could just run over pedestrians. That doesn't say that you can run over pedestrians who are in the street illegally. Nothing in your link says that. Accidents happen and without knowing the exact facts of the case I can say whether the driver should be charged but that said by your own reasoning you can't just hit a pedestrian who is in the road illegally.
Yes the driver is if they don't make an effort to avoid the drunk. The drunk is guilty of public intoxication and jay walking but that doesn't mean they are fair game for drivers.
Why is this so hard?!?!? you can't run over someone deliberately. obviously. That is not the case here. That's why the driver stopped got out of his car and talked to the police. So comments like 'If they didn't then you could just run over pedestrians.' and 'That doesn't say that you can run over pedestrians who are in the street illegally.' are obviously true. If you deliberately run someone over it is aggravated assault or manslaughter and therefore would not be on that page. Not on purpose. For the third time. No ****, you can't purposely run someone over. If it's accidental then it is covered in the above link. This was deemed accidental by the police.
The driver ran over pedestrians who were in plain sight and had the car stopped. To run them over at that point is obviously on purpose. The driver never got out of the car to check on the victims. The driver was going to leave if the OWS protesters hadn't stopped him and got the police involved.
not according to police. http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5ijABXQIIQgfWUoftGJttBXw922mg?docId=b519fa0529d34ed0abcb1ea2a0ed7c06 Or of course you could believe the cops watched some kind of aggravated assault on a teenager and decided to let it go for some reason. This statement is obviously bull****: because you can see in the video they stand in front of a guys car who is trying to get home with a 2-yr old in the back seat. They don't 'step out of the way' when he asks them to move. They respond 'You have no power here' and stay still.
The fate of Western Democracy, whether the will of the people shall be subverted by and for a new corporate "personhood" never before in history defined by any government, much less the US Supreme Court, an entity unbound by truth, ethics, money, or even citizenship is at question. And some dumbass MR'er wants to reduce it to talk about a traffic incident. At a time when frozen anachronisms of 500 years, around the world are stirring, thawing, aching, dying and breaking free to achieve what we are losing to misdirection and propaganda; we argue over acts of civil disobedience. Free speech and free assembly are as American as lapel pins. When literally billions and billions of dollars are being directed away from middle class jobs, social service jobs that benefit everyone, infrastructure reinvestment and the collection of authorized taxes to, socialized private risk, international tax avoidance schemes and offshore jobs with dubious labor, environmental and intellectual property rights laws; some people here want to condemn the cost of the protests. Time to get your head out of your ass people. Something BIG is starting, in the US, in the Arab world, in India and it will spread. The people have access to the information. That's unprecedented in history of the human race. car wrecks. SHEEEEEIIIIIT!
To be fair to tallanvor, he was not the one that made it about traffic incidents. The OWS supporters here watched a video he posted for another purpose and shifted the focus to the traffic incident. He has only posted in response to that.
