Nostr Web Client

what country is it? i bet what he did is a crime. its obvious he thinks he owns the road and can put his hands on people. dont touch people or use a vehicle to move them. simple. im not saying the people laying in the road is not a crime but he is a dummy getting involved in foolishness.

BITwise 🐳 >>= RIGHTish 1y ago

A road was built for cars to drive on. It is known that cars are for driving on roads.

A road was not built for people to sit on. It is known that roads will have cars driving on.

One is using objects for their intended purpose. The other is not and attempting to play victim. You don't get to use a chainsaw as a bottle opener and claim murder when you almost get hurt (keyword almost seeing as no one got hurt).

The protestors were attempting to vandalize the guys car. Notice the thing they were trying to attach to his bumper. The guy should have a eight to protect his property and not sit idly by watching it happen. The guy should have a right to extracate himself from a potentially dangerous situation that he did not willingly put himself into. The protestors were the aggressors here. The guy in the car did everything he could and successfully ended the situation with no harm done. I don't care what country this is in, you're arguing morals and morality =/= lawfullness.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

MKD Podcast 1y ago

bro you just got done ssying you hope some xentotled dumbfucks' sit in front of your car so you can run them over. you are clearly an extremist no different than the dumbfucks you'd run over. 🤷🏾‍♂️🤷🏾‍♂️🤷🏾‍♂️

BITwise 🐳 >>= RIGHTish 1y ago

You completely misread what i wrote and then took it out of context.

I said that I'm sure he DID NOT drive to work THINKING to himself those things.

My intent in writing that was to illustrate the point that he did not set off with an intent to murder. Juxtaposed to that, the protestors did set off that morning to attempt to disrupt things and vandalize others property.

Nowhere in that statement did I project my own intentions.

MKD Podcast 1y ago

ok so i will post again what i mean concerning attempt murder.

3 kinds of murder in america.

1st degree - you plan it and execute.

2nd degree - you accidental kill someone

3rd degree - crimes of passion, deaths resulting from drug usage and/or sales, recklessness, or extreme negligence.

you dont have to try to kill someone to be charged with attempt murder. he is clearly in category 3.

516add19... 1y ago

I can see that maybe if he didnt attempt to move them and double check no one was in the way when he left. Honestly, no one died or even got hurt here. This isnt an example of any degree of murder. Protesting like these idiots is going to 💯 get someone hurt. Fools they are.

BITwise 🐳 >>= RIGHTish 1y ago

Legality =/= morality

Which one are you trying to argue here? If legality, then don't bring morality into it. If legality, don't bring morality into it.

Since you're stating laws, let's go with legality for now. Let's assume this is America. You say 3rd degree. I'm assuming you are calling it recklessness as no other category you stated really fits.

I'll say it again and go over the evidence in no vague terms:

1) the man in the car attempted to move the guy who was laying in front of his car in thebmoddle of the road (a road which is commonly known for cars to be driving on and in fact not a bed for people to sleep on), out of the way of his vehicle (not a reckless act but the exact opposite).

2) When the guy snuck in front again without the driver noticing, the driver immedietally stopped the car as soon as he realized the man was there again after he attempted a peaceful solution (again, not reckless and shows the opposite intent)

3) The driver then gets out to check where the people are and their distance from his car (again, the opposite of a reckless act as he is planning how to solve the situation without harm)

4) And finally he turns the wheel to go AROUND the guy so as NOT to run him over (again, not reckless and in fact a willful attempt to be careful in extracting himself from a dangerous situation)

All of this done while a group of people have hands on his car, banging on his property, and attempting to vandalize it.

Legally this leans more towards self defense.

516add19... 1y ago

Damn man. At the end of that whole exchange, no one got hurt (amazing) and his car 💯 got scratched and now this guy is getting ripped on the internet for just driving his car. Who is gong to pay for that scratch?! Seriously? Stupid way to protest. You know what it is? Because we dont even know what they are protesting! See how that works? 😅 We care about the guy in the car and the event that transpired, not their protest reason. 🤡🌎

BITwise 🐳 >>= RIGHTish 1y ago

It's completely misguided. This is why I called them entitled. A protest is meant to convey an idea in such a way that cannot be ignored. They achieve only half of that. Their entitled ego got them the "cannot be ignored" part right but not the "convey an idea" part.

I feel bad for the guy who got shoved into a tough situation with no easy solution. As far as I can tell, it ended with the best possible result for everyone. Could have all gone down much worse.

As the driver, his only recourse (in america) is to sue the protestors for damages to the car, loss of wages, and mental anguish. Probably won't get him anywhere though amd it'd be a stretch. In the end it just propagates a shitty, gameable, corruptable and often misguided legal system to begin with.

516add19... 1y ago

"Probably won't get him anywhere though amd it'd be a stretch. In the end it just propagates a shitty, gameable, corruptable and often misguided legal system to begin with."

Exactly this. He cant do anything about it. In that situation I would rather just physically move the protestor and leave asap before they become more unhinged.