4 ms·

The Provo event didn't "come on the heels" of the vehicle plowing into protesters in Seattle. The Provo event happened June 29. The Seattle event happened earl

The Provo event didn't "come on the heels" of the vehicle plowing into protesters in Seattle. The Provo event happened June 29. The Seattle event happened early morning July 4th. And what in the links you post show poster to which you are responding is objectively wrong? At this point it appears you are disregarding facts all together and arguing from some type of religious fervor. Something like a young earth creationist. I don't mean this in an offensive fashion but just as a reality check for you.

monocasa 6y ago
The I-5 incident wasn't the first case. On June 7th a car was run into protesters in Seattle. And the video shows that the car was the aggressor (and yes, revving your engine like that is assault even by itself. Assault can just be a legitimate threat of violence). It also shows that the car hit protesters, which is now aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. You don't get to run people over just because they're in the street when you start from a standstill.
- mythrwy 6y ago
  "The I-5 incident wasn't the first case." Ok, but that is the case referred to as clearly showed by the links. So it didn't "come on the heels". "and yes, revving your engine like that is assault" No it isn't. Particularly not the level of assault that justifies a shooting. "You don't get to run people over just because they're in the street" Agreed. Neither do you get to shoot people for revving their engine. Why would you even try to defend that?
  - monocasa 6y ago
    > Ok, but that is the case referred to as clearly showed by the links. So it didn't "come on the heels". They only brought the links out once a third person was clearly referencing the I5 incident and spreading falsehoods about it. There was about a dozen recent instances of cars running through protesters prior to this. > No it isn't. You do know the car wasn't in a lane anymore, right? That road only has two car lanes and a bus lane. That SUV is driving through a bike lane, and probably a bit on the sidewalk. I'm not saying the shooter was justified, but I am saying that the SUV committed assault by driving through protesters before being shot at.
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  > Assault can just be a legitimate threat of violence The immediate threat of violence with the capacity to carry it out is assault, yes; completed violence is battery or worse.
fzeroracer 6y ago
I was referring specifically to his comment calling me essentially looking for murder. He was claiming that people 'like me' are part of protest movements looking to kill people, and his comment was incredibly tone deaf considering we had another example of someone literally being murdered by someone driving a car into them. It's amazing his comment is getting upvoted, but I'm not surprised. Terrible comments are becoming more the norm every day. Now that said, I want you to watch the video and tell me how it was an accident. The driver drove to the highway using the wrong entrance past multiple barriers (as said by the police), turned around, drove past another set of cars blocking him and then proceeded to swerve into two individuals and then drive away. Can you tell me which part of that video indicates it was an accident?
yeetawayhn 6y ago
> At this point it appears you are disregarding facts all together and arguing from some type of religious fervor. Something like a young earth creationist. I don't mean this in an offensive fashion but just as a reality check for you. That's optimistic, as the conflict between reality and their argument is probably what has elevated the fervor.

monocasa 6y ago

The I-5 incident wasn't the first case. On June 7th a car was run into protesters in Seattle. And the video shows that the car was the aggressor (and yes, revving your engine like that is assault even by itself. Assault can just be a legitimate threat of violence). It also shows that the car hit protesters, which is now aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. You don't get to run people over just because they're in the street when you start from a standstill.

mythrwy 6y ago
"The I-5 incident wasn't the first case." Ok, but that is the case referred to as clearly showed by the links. So it didn't "come on the heels". "and yes, revving your engine like that is assault" No it isn't. Particularly not the level of assault that justifies a shooting. "You don't get to run people over just because they're in the street" Agreed. Neither do you get to shoot people for revving their engine. Why would you even try to defend that?
- monocasa 6y ago
  > Ok, but that is the case referred to as clearly showed by the links. So it didn't "come on the heels". They only brought the links out once a third person was clearly referencing the I5 incident and spreading falsehoods about it. There was about a dozen recent instances of cars running through protesters prior to this. > No it isn't. You do know the car wasn't in a lane anymore, right? That road only has two car lanes and a bus lane. That SUV is driving through a bike lane, and probably a bit on the sidewalk. I'm not saying the shooter was justified, but I am saying that the SUV committed assault by driving through protesters before being shot at.
dragonwriter 6y ago
> Assault can just be a legitimate threat of violence The immediate threat of violence with the capacity to carry it out is assault, yes; completed violence is battery or worse.

fzeroracer 6y ago

I was referring specifically to his comment calling me essentially looking for murder. He was claiming that people 'like me' are part of protest movements looking to kill people, and his comment was incredibly tone deaf considering we had another example of someone literally being murdered by someone driving a car into them. It's amazing his comment is getting upvoted, but I'm not surprised. Terrible comments are becoming more the norm every day. Now that said, I want you to watch the video and tell me how it was an accident. The driver drove to the highway using the wrong entrance past multiple barriers (as said by the police), turned around, drove past another set of cars blocking him and then proceeded to swerve into two individuals and then drive away. Can you tell me which part of that video indicates it was an accident?

yeetawayhn 6y ago

> At this point it appears you are disregarding facts all together and arguing from some type of religious fervor. Something like a young earth creationist. I don't mean this in an offensive fashion but just as a reality check for you. That's optimistic, as the conflict between reality and their argument is probably what has elevated the fervor.