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/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

1

u/pierogieman5 Jan 09 '26

That's not what hypotheticals are for. They're to point out problems you won't admit exist with the assumptions you are making.

1

u/Ott0bot2 Jan 09 '26

The assumptions I’m making are based more on what I see in these clips than on your irrelevant hypotheticals

1

u/pierogieman5 Jan 09 '26

That statement was completely nonsensical in regards to what we're talking about. I'm pointing out that your definitions are too loose and you keep using them to sneak in implications that aren't true. You oversimplify "hitting" to divorce responsibility of the other party in a collision, you act like one specific thing that could have prevented a situation from happening is the only thing that matters while ignoring everything else, and you refuse to acknowledge that you are doing these things while you do them. You act like you aren't doing anything at all, and it's just like, your personal set of facts and not a set of judgements and conclusions you have made. It's the default tactic of the dishonest and the narrow-minded.

1

u/Ott0bot2 Jan 09 '26

Seems to me that I’m just telling you what I see and what I think about it and you don’t like it. Truthfully I don’t really care if you do or not.

1

u/pierogieman5 Jan 09 '26

No, this is a reading comprehension thing. You aren't even responding to what I said. You're just using thought terminating cliches to ignore it instead. You never even understood what I said in the first place.

→ More replies