It seems to me he chose specific words in a specific situation. He--a law professor--chose words that advocated reckless conduct
-
-
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
I mean, how can you claim that in a car v. pedestrians scenario there is any ambiguity what "run them down" means?
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Grange95
preservation," and "You need to escape a dangerous situation, even if the only way to do so means hitting some of them."
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @PokerGrump
Had he said anything remotely like that, this is a different conversation. But, he said precisely "Run them down". Period.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Grange95
Glenn Reynolds aside, then, you agree that "Run them down, if necessary to escape" is not describing criminal behavior, right?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @PokerGrump
Yes, I agree that statement can, depending on circumstances, support a defense of self-defense/necessity.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Grange95
Excellent. We also agree that "run them down, whether or not necessary for your self-defense" is advocating criminal action, yes?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @PokerGrump
Probably (tricky issues of mens rea). But for our purposes, that statement is likely to generate a jury question on recklessness
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Grange95
tragic, unavoidable consequences for a few of those who are putting the car's occupants in danger?
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
He could have said, but did not say, "run them down if necessary" or "run them down if you fear for your safety".
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.