LogFAQs > #889254989

Lopen posted...

Emeraldegg posted...

I agree. However, the article lines out that such actions did not take place until the driver accelerated the first time. He was the aggressor, not the protestors, despite what those who are defending the driver would have you believe.

Sure. Dude definitely started it, but I feel like his action was still in the realms of "peaceful protest" as I think his potential for harm was within the same neighborhood as the protesters were. They in turn escalated it, which caused him to escalate it in turn out of panic.

Main point is I don't double dip on faulting him by condemning him for speeding up.

And if you don't see how blocking an intersection has potential for serious harm, consider if someone being blocked had some sort of medical emergency and needed to get through. Is it likely? Not that likely, but neither is hurting someone driving at 3mph.

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding what you're saying, but I don't see how a driver having a medical emergency would make the crowd more likely to attack him unprovoked. It would make the driver more likely to get desperate and drive through, which would make the crowd more likely to attack him, sure. I mean if you want to make it a point that once he reached the point where they were attacking him, that it was "okay" for speeding up out of fear for his life, I think at that point, like someone else said, intent goes out the window for that.
---

I'm a greener egg than the eggs from dr. seuss