NYC Woman Accused of Driving Through BLM Protesters Rejects Plea Deal

#51
#51
I find it absolutely hilarious that the left want lawlessness until lawlessness meets them eye to eye. Then they’re quick to start claiming the difference between right and wrong. Can’t have your cake and eat it too lefties. If it’s lawlessness you want, accept it when someone reacts in a lawless manner to YOUR lawlessness. 1vol8s lesson of the day.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pacer92, W.TN.Orange Blood, Orangeburst and 4 others
#55
#55
The left will also argue that she was driving too big of a vehicle. She should have been driving a Yugo or something similar.

If a vehicle surrounded and people are moving toward the vehicle in an aggressive manner, then the driver has a reasonable fear of death or severe bodily injury (and a subjective fear as well). Anyone with any sense would use the vehicle to get out of the danger ASAP.

Whether the driver can get a fair trial in NYC is questionable.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1vol8
#56
#56
MR_VOL said:
After seeing this photo, two things immediately popped into my mind:

(1) I would welcome the opportunity to be a juror for this trial.

(2) I am glad I drive a Dodge 4x4 truck that has plenty of power, good ground clearance, and big tires for traction!
Click to expand...

Ehh that Dodge would break down before you got away.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tntar heel, AirVol and C1500
#57
#57
1vol8 said:
According to the law if they’re in the street and not in a crosswalk and they get hit, the driver is not responsible. I’m not sure about other states outside of Florida but you have to assume some laws Parallel each other throughout the country. And I’m not aware of any laws that that change in riot situations. If she gets charged, this will be yet another example of “bending” the law to cater to the lawless.
Click to expand...

That is incorrect and the dumbest thing I’ve ever read.
 
#58
#58
ClearwaterVol said:
That is incorrect and the dumbest thing I’ve ever read.
Click to expand...
No. That’s correct and you’re just misinformed. Crosswalks and stop/go walk signs exist for a reason. They exist because if you’re not in a cross walk and are crossing the street, you are what they call “jaywalking”. Which is cause for citation. It wouldn’t be citable if you were within your rights to cross wherever/whenever you wish. Just for clarification:4CFE3E5D-5FFB-476F-9687-3802785B4320.png
 
Last edited:
#60
#60
ClearwaterVol said:
If you hit people that weren't attacking your car. You deserve some consequences.
Click to expand...
Let me ask you something Clearwater. If you ever decided to go attend a protest, and it became a riot. Do you stay knowing what you’ve seen on TV on what it will become? If so, How about when you see someone inside a car being harassed and attacked? Do you stay in the street? Or do you anticipate the possibility that that car will become their only way out? Common sense tells you you’re in the middle of the street watching a running car with occupants get attacked. Should common sense not also tell you to gtfo of the middle of the road?

There is no such thing as an in innocent rioter. Every one of those people were there for a reason and every one of them knew that the possibility of getting hurt in a riot is high. Even higher when you take stage in the middle of a freaking street.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Wireless1 and Caculator
#61
#61
85SugarVol said:
And if you find yourself here? What then?

View attachment 417142
Click to expand...
Turn on some symphony music, patiently wait until the rear is clear, check both side view mirrors, adjust your rear view, put the car in reverse, then neutral and back to reverse again so the rioters get fair warning of your intentions, put your hands at 10/2 and back up slowly.
 
  • Like
Reactions: davethevol and Orangeburst
#62
#62
I cannot believe some deflect the right of self preservation when they know in their heart they would do the same thing in light of seeing people what one has already witnessed

Heck of a run on sentence.
 
  • Like
Reactions: davethevol and 1vol8
#63
#63
1vol8 said:
No. That’s correct and you’re just misinformed. Crosswalks and stop/go walk signs exist for a reason. They exist because if you’re not in a cross walk and are crossing the street, you are what they call “jaywalking”. Which is cause for citation. It wouldn’t be citable if you were within your rights to cross wherever/whenever you wish. Just for clarification:View attachment 417824
Click to expand...
Nope, that is you that is misinformed. One is not absolved of liability for running over a pedestrian because they are jaywalking.
 
#64
#64
1vol8 said:
Let me ask you something Clearwater. If you ever decided to go attend a protest, and it became a riot. Do you stay knowing what you’ve seen on TV on what it will become? If so, How about when you see someone inside a car being harassed and attacked? Do you stay in the street? Or do you anticipate the possibility that that car will become their only way out? Common sense tells you you’re in the middle of the street watching a running car with occupants get attacked. Should common sense not also tell you to gtfo of the middle of the road?

There is no such thing as an in innocent rioter. Every one of those people were there for a reason and every one of them knew that the possibility of getting hurt in a riot is high. Even higher when you take stage in the middle of a freaking street.
Click to expand...

And people that were not attacking her car were not rioting
 
#65
#65
ClearwaterVol said:
Nope, that is you that is misinformed. One is not absolved of liability for running over a pedestrian because they are jaywalking.
Click to expand...

Well I guess I was wrong for not arresting the drivers in the past then huh? You would think a higher up would’ve called me out on it.
 
#67
#67
ClearwaterVol said:
And people that were not attacking her car were not rioting
Click to expand...

Put yourself in her shoes....What do you do in light off seeing people getting pulled out and beaten.
Sorry, but these POS think they can go pull a Reginald Denny and anybody in this situation would have a moment of it.

Stop defending the lack of self preservation and making the perpetrators victim.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1vol8
#68
#68
Orangeburst said:
Put yourself in her shoes....What do you do in light off seeing people getting pulled out and beaten.
Sorry, but these POS think they can go pull a Reginald Denny and anybody in this situation would have a moment of it.

Stop defending the lack of self preservation and making the perpetrators victim.
Click to expand...
Leftist gonna left
 
#69
#69
ClearwaterVol said:
And people that were not attacking her car were not rioting
Click to expand...
Actually, I can take this a little father to help you understand. Do you know if you commit any unlawful act and that unlawful act results is someone’s death or bodily injury, YOU are held responsible? You may think that’s the 2nd dumbest thing you’ve ever read but it’s true. So that being said, there are two ways to beat this for her. She can use the crosswalk city ordinance or they can identify the attackers and charge them with any injuries. The latter would be the best way to go
 
#72
#72
1vol8 said:
Well I guess I was wrong for not arresting the drivers in the past then huh? You would think a higher up would’ve called me out on it.
Click to expand...

Depends on the circumstances, but you made an blanket statement asserting that drivers were permitted to hit jaywalkers. Which is completely wrong
 
#73
#73
1vol8 said:
Once it becomes a riot, everyone there is participating and those leaving are not. Don’t give me that BS.

You didn’t answer the question
Click to expand...

So, if I am protesting and others break into a building which I never enter… I’m guilty?
 
Last edited:
#74
#74
ClearwaterVol said:
Depends on the circumstances, but you made an blanket statement asserting that drivers were permitted to hit jaywalkers. Which is completely wrong
Click to expand...
The only circumstances that would change it would be if the driver was under the influence or if the street was blocked off for an event. Other than that (of the top of my head) the law applies. Of course there are small things that could flip the way of thinking such as outside city limits and a biker had reflective gear on at night. But overall you’re wrong. And my blanket statement was based on what I know of THIS case. I’m not aware if the street was closed for the protest. If so, she’s may have problems. If not, she was within her rights to use the street unimpeded and those injured should NOT be able to sue her. But those that attacked her? They can definitely be sued if identified.
 
#75
#75
1vol8 said:
The only circumstances that would change it would be if the driver was under the influence or if the street was blocked off for an event. Other than that (of the top of my head) the law applies. Of course there are small things that could flip the way of thinking such as outside city limits and a biker had reflective gear on at night. But overall you’re wrong. And my blanket statement was based on what I know of THIS case. I’m not aware if the street was closed for the protest. If so, she’s may have problems. If not, she was within her rights to use the street unimpeded and those injured should NOT be able to sue her. But those that attacked her? They can definitely be sued if identified.
Click to expand...

Distracted driving, speeding, intentionally hitting them, shall I go on
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top