It'd be nice when adults stopped acting like toddlers

[dismal]

It is certainly debatable whether it is wrong to drive through a mob of people attacking you. When threatened, you are under very limited obligation to regard the safety of the people attacking you.

You are obligated to responded with an appropriate level of force, and I didn't see much evidence in that video this guy exceeded the reasonable level of force that should be applied while being beset by a mob. He does not accelerate irresponsibly and drives rather slowly through the crowd. He seems only intent on escaping, not mowing people down.

If you got bumped by his car, it was because you were acting in an illegal and threatening manner.

And yet you still cannot show the protesters posed a reasonable risk to his life. So what, they hit his metal car before he sped off? Oh no...God save that man!

Also pretty sure it's illegal to not stop after you hit someone.

I think it's inaccurate to say "he sped off". It looked like he took a reasonable level of care in leaving.

I'm not sure the prohibition against leaving the scene of an accident requires you to stay amidst an angry mob. I would guess you are allowed to leave the scene of an accident when staying there would present a threat to you safety.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I would think a reasonable man wouldn't actively look for conflict with a perceived mob. It's pretty obvious the driver had an axe to grind.

Except this guy was looking to get around the mob, not get into a conflict with it.

- - - Updated - - -

Assault is a crime, even if it's to shave a couple of minutes off your commute.

The video shows that if anyone is guilty of assault it's the protestors. Based on the video, they initiated the entire incident. They were the aggressors. They were engaged in illegal behavior from the beginning, and threatening behavior as the incident escalated.

There may be evidence outside the video that changes this, but the video appears to show a guy trying to get around some people illegally blocking a street and then being set upon by a mob.

Fully agree--but to me the video isn't clear enough to decide whether he's facing enough threat to justify driving off. Given the flagpole I think it's certainly possible such a level of threat existed but I do not consider it proven.

 

[laughing dog]

Except this guy was looking to get around the mob, not get into a conflict with it.

The facts strongly suggest otherwise. Anyone looking to go around the mob would have taken a different route, not gone around stopped vehicles and gone through an intersection. Nor would someone trying to avoid conflict flip anyone the bird.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

It is wrong to purposefully drive through a crowd of people.

Depends on the situation.

I have been a passenger in a vehicle that stepped on the gas when faced with people on the road.

Would the driver have gotten in trouble if something bad had happened? No--he was obeying the directions given by the authorities. We were specifically instructed that people on the road were assumed to be bandits, do not stop under any circumstances, including if you run one over.

That was southern Iran, 1975. We had the same instructions in northern Uganda, 1982, but didn't encounter anyone on the road.

- - - Updated - - -

Also pretty sure it's illegal to not stop after you hit someone.

The usual rules of behavior are overridden by safety issues.

If you consider it unsafe to stop after hitting someone you continue on but you report the matter to the police as soon as possible.

 

[whichphilosophy]

The only way to avoid injuring people in that situation is stay still.

- - - Updated - - -

I like how this guy's defenders all ignore his horn-honking, obscene-gesturing belligerence that was reported in the OP and video links. You all are trying so hard to make him sound like a passive receiver I almost feel bad for not buying it.

So if somebody flips you off you have a right to jump on that person's windshield and ride along in the car for a while?

WTF is wrong with "libertarians"? No one but the defenders of the driver asshole has claimed anyone had the right to damage a car or run over people.

How do you know. The mob was seemed to be an an excited state, so this is something for the court to decide. We must also ask (in court) how a reasonable man would conduct himself.

Reasonable Man (Person) Test


http://legal-dictionary.thefreedicti...sonable+Person

Reasonable Person Test
A phrase frequently used in tort and Criminal Law to denote a hypothetical person in society who exercises average care, skill, and judgment in conduct and who serves as a comparative standard for determining liability.

The decision whether an accused is guilty of a given offense might involve the application of an objective test in which the conduct of the accused is compared to that of a reasonable person under similar circumstances. In most cases, persons with greater than average skills, or with special duties to society, are held to a higher standard of care. For example, a physician who aids a person in distress is held to a higher standard of care than is an ordinary person.

We have also seen various mobs in a state of agitation attacking people in streets, colleges and blocking roads, in the past. Occasionally people can be stopped so the court would need to evaluate the circumstances by looking at as much data as possible.

I would think a reasonable man wouldn't actively look for conflict with a perceived mob. It's pretty obvious the driver had an axe to grind.

If a reasonable man reasonably perceived a threat and feared for his well being he may be able to present a reasonable defence. The court would need to evaluate this.

I like this example a bit better

The Man on the Clapham Omnibus
How an average man of reasonable intelligence catches an ordinary bus to work, would react to a situation but used generally in civil cases

- - - Updated - - -

And yet you still cannot show the protesters posed a reasonable risk to his life. So what, they hit his metal car before he sped off? Oh no...God save that man!

Also pretty sure it's illegal to not stop after you hit someone.

I think it's inaccurate to say "he sped off". It looked like he took a reasonable level of care in leaving.

I'm not sure the prohibition against leaving the scene of an accident requires you to stay amidst an angry mob. I would guess you are allowed to leave the scene of an accident when staying there would present a threat to you safety.

After he was past the mob he increased to a fast speed.

- - - Updated - - -

Except this guy was looking to get around the mob, not get into a conflict with it.

The facts strongly suggest otherwise. Anyone looking to go around the mob would have taken a different route, not gone around stopped vehicles and gone through an intersection. Nor would someone trying to avoid conflict flip anyone the bird.

If he reversed he could have hit one or perhaps 2 people especially the one who appeared to be taking a photo. If he turned left or right or forward it seems he would still have struck someone.

 

[Arctish]

Except this guy was looking to get around the mob, not get into a conflict with it.

The facts strongly suggest otherwise. Anyone looking to go around the mob would have taken a different route, not gone around stopped vehicles and gone through an intersection. Nor would someone trying to avoid conflict flip anyone the bird.

If he reversed he could have hit one or perhaps 2 people especially the one who appeared to be taking a photo. If he turned left or right or forward it seems he would still have struck someone.

If he wanted to go around he could have pulled a U turn when he saw the road was congested with people and other cars, driven a block or two to the left or right, and gone around that way. He didn't do that. He pulled out of line and drove right up to one of the protesters, only stopping when the man didn't move out of his way. Witnesses and the police report he was honking the horn and making an obscene gesture. He was not seeking to avoid a conflict. He was creating one.

But somehow the guy who created the conflict is being presented a blameless, despite the obvious fact that if he'd done what the other drivers did and waited for the cops to clear the road, there wouldn't have been a conflict at all.