Had he said anything remotely like that, this is a different conversation. But, he said precisely "Run them down". Period.
-
-
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
conclude that he was advocating committing multiple felonies, contrary to an entire public career that speaks to the contrary.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @PokerGrump
He's a law professor. He knows the importance of precise language. He chose those precise words and no others.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Grange95
It's not the Harvard Law review, published after multiple revisions. It's Twitter. Huge difference in expected exactitude.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
"Run them down"--period, full stop. That doesn't require much thought to know that it is reckless.
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.