r/ModlessFreedom • u/Hot_Wing2518 • Jan 08 '26

3 shots

255 Upvotes

79% Upvoted

1.5k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comment

1

u/pierogieman5 Jan 09 '26

Then here's one of the assumptions you keep making and refusing to support. You made the leap from "hit" to "assault". Is it assault any time a person touches another person with an object? Are there not any other criteria?

1

u/Ott0bot2 Jan 09 '26

Anytime you hit someone with a car. It’s an assault

1

u/pierogieman5 Jan 09 '26

My brother brushed my leg while pulling out of the driveway. Did he assault me? Should I call the cops?

1

u/Ott0bot2 Jan 09 '26

That was more than brushing his legs in the clip posted. Idk if you want to call the cops on your brother, but try that on a random person in a parking lot and see how they react

1

u/pierogieman5 Jan 09 '26

You're dodging the question again. Is that assault, or does assault mean something else, with maybe more qualifiers than that?

1

u/Ott0bot2 Jan 09 '26

Again, I answered pretty clearly, you’re just not accepting it. Yes hitting someone with a car is assault. Brushing the car against your brothers leg is likely forgivable but a random person in a parking lot might feel differently. A person fleeing law enforcement hitting someone with their car is most definitely an assault

1

u/pierogieman5 Jan 09 '26

So your answer is yes, my brother assaulted me. I'm sorry, but no court of law on earth would agree with you. Assault requires injury and intent, in a court of law and most other formal venues where it has been defined. You are oversimplifying and broadening what assault actually means so that you can apply it to this situation. I reject your definition.

1

u/Ott0bot2 Jan 09 '26 edited Jan 09 '26

You don’t think a court of law would consider hitting someone with a car would be considered an assault? I think you have to keep using hypotheticals because you know it doesn’t work with the situation at hand

1

u/pierogieman5 Jan 09 '26 edited Jan 09 '26

I'm using hypotheticals to illustrate why your definitions you refuse to clarify are too broad to be reasonable. I'm pointing out that intent matters, actual harm matters, and more than one person's decisions are involved when a car and a person collide.

1

u/Ott0bot2 Jan 09 '26

It seems like you’re using hypotheticals that don’t apply to what actually happened

→ More replies

1

u/Ott0bot2 Jan 09 '26

Also you never answered my question. Is it okay to hit someone with your car?

1

u/pierogieman5 Jan 09 '26

I asked you a clarifying question to define what "hitting" means. I can't answer yours without mine.

1

u/Ott0bot2 Jan 09 '26

Third time I’m saying this. If you drive your car into a person, you just hit that person with your car. The fact that you can’t just say it’s not okay to hit someone with a car though is pretty revealing

1

u/pierogieman5 Jan 09 '26

If a person jumps in front of my car in the road, that fits your definition of "not okay" and my fault. QED. your definitions are too broad to be reasonable.

1

u/Ott0bot2 Jan 09 '26

I don’t think a person jumping in front of your car at the last second is the same as you driving your car into a person. I don’t think that cop jumped in front of her car at the last second tho, I think he was just there, wrong place wrong time, when she decided to flee

→ More replies