I mean, how can you claim that in a car v. pedestrians scenario there is any ambiguity what "run them down" means?
-
-
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 -
Replying to @PokerGrump
"Run them down" is clear. One does not "run them down" by trying to drive around "them".
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Grange95
*sigh* OK, I give up. I have no idea why you're so determined not to grant a generous assumption, when the alternative is to
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
I give up as well. You reject his clear words, and try to graft on all sorts of qualifications he could have made, but did not.
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.