(February 12, 2017 at 10:06 am)paulpablo Wrote:(February 12, 2017 at 9:58 am)Aoi Magi Wrote: No, what you are describing is assault, and yes in case of assault one should defend themselves. But running over someone for simply protesting by blocking traffic is not justifiable.
In murica, that granny across the street can easily pull a gun on me, so should I just randomly drive over her so that I "don't have to wait for that to happen"?
If that granny pulls a gun out on you while in front of your vehicle then I think it would be classed as reasonable force to run her over.
I don't understand why you are saying no to begin your sentence.
I fully understand that I am indeed describing an assault. Yes I am describing an assault. That's the point I'm making. Describing an assault that might happen in some instances where a vehicle is surrounded and the driver of the vehicle doesn't know the intentions of the people blocking the path.
I'd extend that to describing robbery, theft of a vehicle and so on. A vehicle could be stopped for any number of crimes.
I'm not saying the best thing to do is plow through everybody incase someone in front of you is a criminal.
But I can understand that if someone is run over as a result of blocking someone's path in certain circumstances I think it would be justifiable action. Which I can't see how anyone could disagree with but on this forum....who knows.
You are having such a hard time understanding because you are trying to push a different topic than what is being discussed. The bills in the OP are about protests, not assaults. Murder as a means of self-defense is a separate issue, and one that is very subjective.
Quote:To know yet to think that one does not know is best; Not to know yet to think that one knows will lead to difficulty.
- Lau Tzu
Join me on atheistforums Slack (pester tibs via pm if you need invite)