Two seattle protesters are run over while standing in the road at night.

"Homicide."

OK. You're still making stuff up p.

 

Still haven't watched the video, huh? I don't blame you. Pretty gruesome stuff.

By the way, he's been charged . . . for homicide. Along with vehicular assault and reckless driving.

 

Where, in the video, does it show the movement of his foot? Where, in the video, does it show him driving into the two criminals intentionally? Since when have two people been defined as a crowd?

I didn't want to watch the video. By accident, I did. The video shows that it was not intentional. But go ahead, keep pushing your agenda.

 

"...he's been charged . . . for homicide. Along with vehicular assault and reckless driving."

Yes. He's been unjustly charged. That's the degenerated state of our modern society.

 

See how the car is going real fast? That means his giving the right peddle a push. That's how cars work.

Shoot, I forgot about the ghost that possessed him. That's right.

There were other people, those are just the two who were hit.

The video can't establish intent . . . but it shows that it was not intentional? Somehow . . . because, um, something something.

You're getting rather creative today.

Did you notice that the only time he turns at all is when it turns straight toward the two women?

Also, you want to pretend he was just trying to get on the road that the protestors were blocking . . . if that's true, then why was he going the wrong way on that road?

Psst, "Hey, let's not murder people" isn't an agenda. It's basic sanity.

 

Yeah! How dare we charge murderers for murdering people! For shame!

 

Who knew that there was an actual price to pay for rank stupidity? Mother nature knew.

 

Yeah! He was just minding his own business driving down the highway . . . the wrong way . . . for some reason

 

"Protesters ran for their lives early Saturday as a man drove past a police barricade....."

 

Bullcrap.

Murdering African Muslim white supremacist terrorist.

Guilty until proven guilty.

 

They were probably going to randomly toss Molotov Cocktails as a training exercise. I mean why let all that heavy duty ANTIFA training go to waste?

 

Dude, you're pushing a fraud. You have no evidence of any intent on the part of the driver. The video does establish that the two nutjobs were comitting a crime.

"See how the car is going real fast? That means his giving the right peddle a push. That's how cars work."

The speed limit, there, is 60mph. How fast was he going? Please define "real fast".

"Shoot, I forgot about the ghost that possessed him. That's right."

Pretty poor attempt at dodging the question.

Again; where, in the video, does it show that he intentionally drove into the "crowd" of two nutjobs?

"There were other people, those are just the two who were hit."

Because the other people weren't stupid. They got off the road.

"The video can't establish intent . . . but it shows that it was not intentional? Somehow . . . because, um, something something."

It's obvious that he reacted to seeing the nutjob criminals, in the road, and swerved to avoid them.

"Also, you want to pretend he was just trying to get on the road that the protestors were blocking . . . if that's true, then why was he going the wrong way on that road?"

He was already on the interstate and was travelling in the proper direction. As for traveling the wrong direction on the off-ramp goes, I dunno. I've seen people do that. Maybe it's not uncommon in Eritrea.

"Psst, "Hey, let's not murder people" isn't an agenda. It's basic sanity."

That statement has no relevance. You have no evidence that it's relevant. You're making it up. If it's not due to having an agenda, then why do it?

 

He wasn't driving the wrong way. Please, just stop it.

 

I see that you're still avoiding the driver driving through the police barricade and the driver entering the road on the wrong side of the road

 

Homicide is a crime. Reckless driving is a crime. Hell, premeditated intent isn't even required for homicide. You asked how I knew what his foot was doing. I answered.

Funny thing about the speed limit: that's only for when you are going the right way. If you are going the wrong way on a one-way highway, the police aren't going to buy "But I was following the speed limit!"

Again, this was in response to you asking me how I knew what his foot was doing. I answered. Get it now?

I gave the question the answer it was due.

You said there were only two people. There was a crowd.

This was my mistake for believing you when you said you watched the video. If you do actually watch the video, the only time he swerves is when he swerves STRAIGHT INTO THE TWO PEOPLE.

So you have no answer for why he was traveling in the wrong . . . illegal . . . direction. Got it.

I'm sorry you think that disapproving of homicide is an "agenda." I don't share that belief. I believe homicide is wrong, unless in situations like self defense.

 

Breaking the law only counts if you disagree with him politically. If you kill people he doesn't like, apparently the law no longer matters.

 

Please do some research. He was going the wrong way. The facts won't stop being facts just because they offend you.

 

OK. Let's charge him with that.

 

Yet you have no evidence that any murder took place.

This is the very definition of mob justice.

 

How does any of that prove any intent to commit murder?

 

"You asked how I knew what his foot was doing..."

You made that up.

"Funny thing about the speed limit: that's only for when you are going the right way. If you are going the wrong way on a one-way highway, the police aren't going to buy "But I was following the speed limit!""

You said that you watched the video. Why are you pushing that "wrong way" stuff?

Please stop.

"I gave the question the answer it was due."

Because you had no answer?

"You said there were only two people. There was a crowd."

...and he didn't drive into the crowd.

"This was my mistake for believing you when you said you watched the video. If you do actually watch the video, the only time he swerves is when he swerves STRAIGHT INTO THE TWO PEOPLE."

I think that I'll go ahead an trust my analysis, rather than that of someone who claims that he was driving in the wrong direction.

"I'm sorry you think that disapproving of homicide is an "agenda.""

No need to be sorry. I don't think that. What I think is that making unfounded accusations derives from having an agenda.

 

Until I learn that the video is showing a mirror image, I'll go with the video

 

Then you are willingly blinding yourself. He swerves to his left . . . in the direction of the two women he hit. But I understand. The facts offend, so to hell with the facts.

 

I did some additional research. I was able to find one source reporting that Fake News. Perhaps you get your news from the World Socialist Web Site?

https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2020/07/06/poli-j06.html

 

The only problem, with that, is that he doesn't swerve until he's already hit them. That tells me that his intent was to swerve to avoid them, but he reacted too late.