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?
-
-
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
criminally reckless behavior and/or intentional wanton killing? To me that seems not only unfair but implausible.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @PokerGrump
It seems to me he chose specific words in a specific situation. He--a law professor--chose words that advocated reckless conduct
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Grange95
It's Twitter, for cripe sakes. At least occasional mismatch between words and meaning is the norm, even for law professors.
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @PokerGrump
If he were in the car and told the driver, "Run them down", would we think he meant "drive around them to safety"?
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Grange95
of the mob while escaping, is it your position that the only legal and/or ethical choice is the former?
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @PokerGrump
Again,
@instapundit only brought up purported safety concerns as a post hoc rationalization. Actual words: "Run them down."2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Grange95
one's car is being swarmed/surrounded by a mob with apparently hostile intent toward you.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
In those circumstances, I think it would be legally and ethically reasonable to gun the engine and try to escape.
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.