The best idea that @instapundit used "Run them down" to mean "keep driving [and don't hit them]" is, in a word, RISIBLE. cc @JuliusGoathttps://twitter.com/pokergrump/status/779104070242013185 …
-
-
Replying to @Grange95
away IS the objective;if that can't be done w/o hitting people, so be it.Assuming that's correct reading, how is it objectionable?
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @PokerGrump
2/3 not some less objectionable phrasing: "keep driving, don't aim for the protestors, but it's on them to get out of the way."
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Grange95 @PokerGrump
3/3 The phrase "run them down" carries connotation of reckless/intentional action. Only fair reading is he meant exactly that.
4 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Grange95
Suppose he had said, "Run them down, if necessary to escape." Would your condemnation be the same?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
-
-
Replying to @PokerGrump
To be "responsive", your hypothetical would still be reckless, but less so than what he actually chose to say.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Grange95
I don't understand what would be "reckless" about saying that. Do you agree he's describing a genuinely threatening situation?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
No, he's not. His words were "run them down". Not "drive, and if necessary for your safety, don't worry if you hit them".
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.