4 ms·
"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, rev
by 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.