Comments by "Scott Charney" (@scottcharney1091) on "Truck hits abortion rights protesters in Iowa" video.

  1. He was driving into the crowd.
    10
  2.  @codyking3825  Embryos aren't babies.
    8
  3.  @artificialintelligence143  How so? There are no babies involved.
    8
  4. The driver began to drive through the crowd (rather than wait a moment for them to pass), and the marchers were trying to get him to stop doing that. They weren't out attacking motorists willy-nilly.
    6
  5. The marchers were trying to stop the driver from moving through the crowd and hitting more people. Those in front were trying to say on their feet and couldn't jump aside.
    6
  6.  @nicholasbrown5511  They were trying to get him to stop after he started to drive through the crowd. There was absolutely no reason/motive/etc. to just attack a driver. That's ridiculous.
    4
  7. He drove into the crowd, rather than waiting for a moment so that they could pass. He was pushing people with his car; they can't just jump aside, as it's all that they can do to stay on their feet. The others in the crowd were trying to get him to stop.
    4
  8.  @spenyspen18  Rules were made to be broken. The state wants us to all just be good and obey. Passing through traffic is a small price to pay. Traffic can wait a moment.
    3
  9.  @deadartist8827  There's no harm in not being born. If you think that embryos are tantamount to babies, then rape exceptions make no sense.
    3
  10. They were crossing at a light. It changed while they were in progress. I've been in plenty of marches (and apolitical activities like Bike Party) in which "corking" an intersection for one cycle is a necessity. It's not the end of the world. This hothead tried to drive through the crowd, and they were trying to get him to stop as he was pushing people ahead of him. It's all that they could do to stay on their feet; it's no small thing to jump to one side!
    3
  11. He started driving into the crowd.
    3
  12. Because he was already driving into the crowd.
    3
  13.  @nou7833  They were crossing, and there's no reason to drive into anyone. They would have passed by in a few moments.
    3
  14.  @nou7833  They were crossing at a light, which changed as the group (which is one entity) was moving through. The car tried to drive through the group. People were getting shoved along by the car, and it's all that they could do to stay on their feet, let alone jump to one side or the other. The others were trying to get the driver to stop before the car ran over someone.
    3
  15. He wasn't in danger. He started driving through the crowd, pushing people along (making it extremely difficult to jump to one side). They were just marchers, and they were on the move.
    2
  16. They were crossing at a light. It changed while they were in progress. I've been in plenty of marches (and apolitical activities like Bike Party) in which "corking" an intersection for one cycle is a necessity. It's not the end of the world. This hothead tried to drive through the crowd, and they were trying to get him to stop as he was pushing people ahead of him. It's all that they could do to stay on their feet; it's no small thing to jump to one side!
    2
  17. No, the tactic is vehicular assault.
    2
  18. He was driving into the crowd.
    2
  19.  @your_belief_vs_everything  Why would they chase him, jump on the truck, etc.? He was driving through the crowd, pushing people (which makes it extremely difficult to jump to one side). They were trying to stop him from running over anyone. There was no reason to just attack a vehicle.
    2
  20.  @Callentay  They were crossing at a light. It changed while they were in progress. I've been in plenty of marches (and apolitical activities like Bike Party) in which "corking" an intersection for one cycle is a necessity. It's not the end of the world. This hothead tried to drive through the crowd, and they were trying to get him to stop as he was pushing people ahead of him. It's all that they could do to stay on their feet; it's no small thing to jump to one side!
    2
  21.  @artificialintelligence143  Hence my comment. What's your point?
    2
  22. Consider having a little patience and less entitlement.
    2
  23. Ok, but he was driving into the crowd, and pushing people in front. They can't get out of the way, because it's all they can do to stay on their feet. The others are trying to stop the driver, for that reason.
    2
  24.  @rhettsalsbury9394  They were crossing, and on the move. They would have been out of the way in moments. They are furiously moving backwards, because there isn't a moment to jump to the side. Nobody was just marching past vehicles and deciding to assault them. There's no reason for the driver to put anyone's life at risk.
    2
  25. They didn't. The driver voluntarily drove into a crowd.
    2
  26. Yeah, I wonder if they would be okay if someone drove through the March for Life.
    2
  27. He attacked them. Marches take the street, that's how it works. Instead of waiting for a moment for the march to pass, he decided to try and drive through the crowd and possibly injure or even kill someone (and put himself at risk for retaliation). They weren't attacking people in cars; there's no reason whatsoever to do that.
    2
  28.  @restro3058  If someone's being shoved along by a car, it's all they can do to say on their feet. Jumping to one side is very difficult. Marches take the street. They always have. That's how things get done. Drivers can wait a few moments, or perhaps join in. There's no reason to risk someone's life and limb.
    2
  29. It wasn't a random car. It was driven by somebody who was on the attack.
    2
  30.  @budcunningham6732  Marches take the streets. That's how it works. They would expect that drivers not drive into non-violent crowds, and just wait a moment for the march to pass by.
    2
  31.  @ajwalker1912  True, but marches take the streets. That's how it happens. When one can wait a few moments for a crowd to pass, there's no need to try and drive through it. It's not worth anyone's life & limb.
    2
  32.  @kkandola9072  Do you not get it? They're on the move. I don't know if lanes were accessible or not, or what else happened before this, but it's not worth vehicular assault.
    2
  33.  @kkandola9072  It was a march. Marches are moving.
    2
  34.  @kevinouellette5316  The cheap insults are unbecoming.
    2
  35. Also: Must *have
    2
  36. And? That justifies vehicular assault?
    2
  37. It's far from petty, and considering the window was down, he could have said that he had an emergency. I was in a protest last night, and we got out of the way for an ambulance.
    1
  38. He was driving into a crowd, and they were trying to get him to stop. He's the violent one.
    1
  39. No, he was attacking them. Also, it's "might have," not "might of."
    1
  40. Another commenter wrote that they were in a situation like that, and when you're being pushed by a vehicle, it's really hard to just jump to the side.
    1
  41. He drove into the crowd first.
    1
  42. He was driving into the crowd. Sidewalk? Median? Have you never been in a march before?
    1
  43. The intimidator was the person driving into a crowd.
    1
  44. The driver is the one who threw a fit.
    1
  45. Marches take the streets.
    1
  46. That's not how it happened, and you know it.
    1
  47. That's not how a march works.
    1
  48. Marches take the streets. Would you support someone driving into the March for Life?
    1
  49. *you're (x3) Also, you don't know what you're talking about. What's your stance regarding James Fields?
    1
  50. He was driving into a crowd. If you're being pushed by a truck, it's not easy to just jump to the side. It's all you can do to stay on your feet.
    1
  51. He assaulted them.
    1
  52. He was driving through a crowd, and they wanted him to stop so they could pass through.
    1
  53. He was the attacker, driving through a crowd.
    1
  54. First of all, it's "I'd have," not "I'd of." Second, they didn't burn anything.
    1
  55. I think that, thanks to the license plate, the driver has been identified, but it will of course take public pressure to get the cops to act.
    1
  56. *you're He was the attacker.
    1
  57. I'd *have... and no, he drove into the crowd. He was inflicting fear.
    1
  58. He had already driven into the crowd.
    1
  59. One has to take the streets. That's how things get done. Don't drive into crowds.
    1
  60. That's how a march works.
    1
  61.  @Verybor  Exactly. The Sons of Liberty wore disguises and committed property destruction/political vandalism, and they're considered heroes.
    1
  62. Need to be? We need to be in the streets against this backward step for the country. The driver was the attacker.
    1
  63.  @maryc8552  He was driving into the crowd, and they were trying to get him to stop. If one is being shunted along by a car, it's extremely difficult to jump to the side, as it's all one can do to stay standing.
    1
  64.  @maryc8552  If one is being shunted along by a vehicle, it's very hard to jump to the side, as it's all one can do to stay standing.
    1
  65.  @maryc8552  They were on the move, either in front of traffic or filtering between the vehicles.
    1
  66. He attacked them.
    1
  67. Marches take the streets. It's how things happen.
    1
  68. No, this is yet another vehicular attack.
    1
  69.  @smdog66  Yeah, I know about those laws. Those in favor apparently don't think that it will come back to bite them.
    1
  70. Torquemada, is that you?
    1
  71. He started it. This has happened repeatedly.
    1
  72. One has to take the streets. That's how things happen. Have a little patience.
    1
  73. It is a frequent occurrence. Vehicular attacks have gotten pretty common, and it's ominous.
    1
  74. No, he was driving into a crowd.
    1
  75. Marches take the streets. Have a few minutes of patience.
    1
  76. It was still a vehicular assault.
    1
  77. Ok, but that's not what happened.
    1
  78. He was driving into a crowd, and they were trying to get him to stop.
    1
  79.  @broadside9236  No, they want him to stop so he doesn't hit anyone. The marchers were passing through the area. Rather than wait for a few moments, he attacked them.
    1
  80.  @broadside9236  They were being pushed. In a case like that, it's all that one can do to stay on one's feet, let along jump to the side. Do you side with James Fields?
    1
  81.  @keepingitpinnedlongasican2513  There's a big gap between a march taking the streets and vehicular assault.
    1
  82.  @keepingitpinnedlongasican2513  That's true. The driver started it, and they were trying to stop it.
    1
  83.  @keepingitpinnedlongasican2513  To the extent that that's true, it doesn't justify vehicular assault. They were moving anyway. You're endorsing violent vigilantism against no greater threat than being inconvenienced. They were crossing the street. The light changed while the group was still moving. I've been in a great many protests, along with non-political events like Bike Party, in which "corking" an intersection for a cycle is a necessity. It doesn't warrant a potentially-lethal response from anybody.
    1
  84.  @Koreanbabysleeps  ?
    1
  85. He already drove into the crowd.
    1
  86. Indeed, and nobody is blaming the victims there, unlike in this video's comments.
    1
  87. He started driving through the crowd. It's just like a liberal to have a certain position but be unwilling to undertake any direct action.
    1
  88. On the contrary, he drove into a crowd.
    1
  89. He was driving into a crowd, and they were trying to get him to stop.
    1
  90. There has never been such a time.
    1
  91.  @maxvoss9070  They're trying to stop it because they can't get out of the way.
    1
  92.  @vinnyv949  "Media benefactors..." I wish. No, going to the state for permission to protest defeats the whole purpose. Direct action gets the goods.
    1
  93.  @Campo_  They were on the move, crossing. Don't endanger people's lives (including your own) for nothing.
    1
  94.  @talonsilverhawk5763  The crowd was crossing and would have been out of the way in a moment. The driver tried to go through.
    1
  95.  @talonsilverhawk5763  If one is being shunted along by a car, it's all one can do to just stay standing, let alone move to the side.
    1
  96.  @talonsilverhawk5763  The person on the far side is being pushed along, the closer person is trying to persuade the driver to stop, and in both cases you can see that it takes a few moments for them to move aside. No matter what, there was no reason to drive through the crowd. They were passing by.
    1
  97.  @talonsilverhawk5763  It's ridiculous to claim that a brief delay is worth risking the life and limb of others, and one's own.
    1
  98.  @talonsilverhawk5763  Neither of those were/was happening here.
    1
  99.  @talonsilverhawk5763  I've been in a great many marches, and we're always on the lookout for emergency vehicles.
    1
  100.  @talonsilverhawk5763  This wasn't, say, the 1992 L.A. Riots. This was just a crowd on the move.
    1
  101.  @talonsilverhawk5763  I don't have video of it, but I'm basing this on other incidents of the same type.
    1
  102.  @talonsilverhawk5763  Not out of the blue, or at least not in an event like this.
    1
  103.  @CakeProDuckShins  Vehicular assault is against the law.
    1
  104.  @joshuaoverlord5327  Yes, being pushed along by a car makes it very difficult to do anything else but stay on one's feet. The other protesters were trying to get the driver to stop before anyone got hurt.
    1
  105.  @joshuaoverlord5327  First, it's "they're." Second, they were in the process of crossing. A large group/march sometimes has to "cork" an intersection, it's the nature of the beast. As the truck was shoving people in front of it, others tried to stop it, to prevent further injuries.
    1
  106.  @joshuaoverlord5327  The truck isn't moving very quickly, but it's quick enough to put people in the situation I'm mentioning.
    1
  107.  @joshuaoverlord5327  They were on the move. That's what happens in marches.
    1
  108.  @joshuaoverlord5327  You've no experience with this sort of thing, have you?
    1
  109.  @joshuaoverlord5327  No, experience enough to understand that spontaneous marches and other similar events take the streets, and are on the move. Not wanting to wait a few moments isn't worth potentially killing or maiming someone, or, for that matter, putting yourself in danger.
    1
  110.  @lightsdarkness7714  ?
    1
  111. They were crossing, and would have passed by in a few moments.
    1
  112.  @Koreanbabysleeps  He was pushing people with the car. It's not a simple thing to just jump aside, as they were simply trying to stay on their feet. The others were trying to get him to stop, for that reason.
    1
  113.  @rhettsalsbury9394  You can see them being pushed.
    1
  114.  @nal101  Protest marches take the streets. That's how it goes. They were apparently crossing anyway and would have been out of the area in moments. There's no reason to be a hothead about things.
    1
  115.  @nal101  Ok, but that doesn't excuse coming very close to killing and maiming people.
    1
  116. Hardy fucking har. Sadist.
    1
  117. That's not what happened.
    1
  118. Marches take the streets.
    1
  119. They were trying to stop the truck from driving through the crowd. We've seen this before.
    1
  120. It's "you're." Marches involve taking the streets. Have a little patience, or better yet, join in.
    1
  121.  Truth Teller  Bootlicker.
    1
  122. Marches are disruptive by nature. They take the streets. Business-as-usual cannot continue. Have patience, or, better yet, join.
    1
  123. And?
    1
  124. He was driving into a crowd.
    1
  125. Embryos aren't children.
    1
  126. He was driving into the crowd, and they were trying to get him to stop.
    1
  127. He was already driving into the crowd.
    1
  128. *They're Yes, to try and get him to stop driving through the crowd.
    1
  129. Don't blame the victims. He was trying to drive through a crowd.
    1
  130. Maybe he should not have tried to drive through a crowd, and just have a little patience.
    1
  131.  @NC_SUGAR  Yeah, as he was driving through the crowd, they were trying to get him to stop.
    1
  132.  @alternate3307  They have the right to try and prevent him from hitting more people. I thought that was obvious. Also: *you're.
    1
  133.  @alternate3307  That sort of thing all happens at once. The car was moving through the crowd, and you can see here that it's pushing people.
    1
  134. He was on the attack, and what are you trying to say with your last sentence?
    1
  135. He was already driving into the crowd, and they were trying to get him to stop. I remember Charlottesville.
    1
  136. The only attacker was the driver.
    1
  137.  @NickKautz  The driver attacked them. Have you never been in a march before? The crowd was on the move. They weren't targeting vehicles for attack (that makes no sense, and you would know if they were!), they were just passing through. That's how it works. The driver can wait a few moments (or better yet, join in).
    1
  138.  @NickKautz  That's funny, I've been on countless such marches (including one a couple of nights ago), and there's absolutely no reason nor motive to harass drivers. In a case like this, rather than wait for a moment and let the crowd pass, the driver acts like a macho hothead and decides that it's worth possibly killing and/or maiming someone (and putting themselves in danger of retaliation) by driving through the crowd. Your last clause is simply mean-spirited and ignorant.
    1
  139.  @ThisisKyle  They're on the move. They'll pass by. Most drivers can wait for a few moments, rather than deciding that it's worth possibly killing/maiming someone and putting themselves in danger of retaliation by being a macho hothead.
    1
  140.  @mauritackett1977  Yes, instead of waiting a moment for the crowd to pass, he decided that it was worth it to possibly kill/maim someone, and also to put himself in danger of retaliation.
    1
  141.  @NickKautz  It's not a case of "looking for trouble." The groups are usually too big to just take sidewalks, and one has to attract attention. There was no reason for the drivers to feel threatened; they were not the targets of anything. Thus, driving through the crowd was a needlessly violent act. There's the phenomenon of "road rage;" usually wildly out of proportion to the provoking circumstances. Did you ever see "Motor Mania" in driver's ed? (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_Mania) As for your last assertion, you're asking people to place trust in a system that is stacked against them in a variety of ways, depending on what issue is at hand and who's involved. Spreading information, digitally and otherwise, is of course crucial these days, but it can never be successful on its own (and "slacktivism," like online petitions that organizations send around, are basically worthless). Contacting the offices of one's alleged representatives is not hopeless, but that too only goes so far. "Direct action gets the goods," as the old labor slogan goes. It was true then, and it's true now. Without pressure from below, nothing changes from above. Women can vote and obtain contraception because so many were willing to put their bodies on the line. This country has a very violent labor history, with hundreds of workers being killed in strikes (at the hands of private detectives/security agencies & other company goons) as late as the 1930s. Then you have the life-and-death struggles of LGBT people, and much more. Being quiescent and following the state's proscribed rules for activism is never successful. That's the reason for those stipulations to begin with.
    1
  142.  @kevinouellette5316  He was driving through a crowd, and when one is being pushed by a car, jumping to one side is extremely difficult inasmuch as it's all one can do to stay on one's feet. That's why they were trying to stop him. It's not up to drivers to enforce laws via violence.
    1
  143.  @AndisweatherCenter  Or at minimum, vehicular assault.
    1
  144.  @moonpie2637  I'm not sure who "you people" are. This sort of thing has happened many times before in different settings. They weren't taking to the streets to attack cars & drivers! Some driver starts moving through the crowd, and people try to stop said driver. This car was shoving people in front of it. It's pretty clear.
    1
  145.  @ThisisKyle  They were crossing. Do you feel the same way about the truckers who clogged the Beltway?
    1
  146.  Colt'sNation  They were crossing. The light changed. I've been in marches (and events like Bike Party) that sometimes necessitate "corking" intersections for one cycle, so that everyone can pass through. Rather than wait a moment, this hothead decided to drive through the crowd, putting people (including himself) at risk. Is it fine for those truckers to stop traffic on the Beltway?
    1
  147.  Colt'sNation  After the driver started it.
    1
  148.  @AB-ou8ve  I would never try and drive through a crowd.
    1
  149.  Colt'sNation  The driver started the violence. They were crossing the road, and they would have been out of the way shortly.
    1
  150.  @rhettsalsbury9394  For no reason? I wouldn't blame you. That's not what happened here.
    1
  151.  @realtruenorth  I understand that, except he was pushing people with his car, and the others were trying to protect them.
    1
  152.  @realtruenorth  Because the car was shoving people along in front of it. It's all that they could do to stay on their feet; it's no simple matter to just jump aside.
    1
  153.  @ewaj.6260  Embryos aren't children yet.
    1
  154.  @ewaj.6260  (Why do people always ask this question?) Obviously, human embryos are humans. I didn't state otherwise. The point is that it's a question about personhood, the characteristics that make killing wrong- sentience, the will to live, biological autonomy, and everything else that's taken away when a person is killed. In a rudimentary but very real way, babies have that. Embryos & fetuses do not and cannot. There's no harm in not being born.
    1
  155.  @CalikoTube  You're being disingenuous. Also, that's not how question marks work. Also: *its.
    1
  156.  @CalikoTube  You're not fooling anyone.
    1
  157.  @johnmarksmithmiller9895  They were crossing. Rather than wait a moment like a reasonable person would, this hothead tried to drive through.
    1
  158.  Turd Ferguson  Sure he did.
    1
  159.  @EstrangedSounds  Protests take the streets. They were on the move, and they would be out of the way soon. There is no reason to put people's very lives at risk, not to mention one's own.
    1
  160.  @EstrangedSounds  Have a little decency. You know what I mean.
    1
  161.  @EstrangedSounds  One can "do something about it" by not driving into/through a crowd that was on the move anyway. Sometimes situations require "taking it to the street." It happens. Some inconvenience is not worth anyone's life & limb.
    1
  162.  @EstrangedSounds  There it is. No, this has nothing to do with babies. Embryos aren't babies. They're trying to get him to slow down or stop. Taking the streets in a protest isn't a "facade of power," and in any case it isn't a cause to use potentially deadly force. Nobody did anything with the car until it was endangering people.
    1
  163.  @EstrangedSounds  If you assault someone and it causes a miscarriage, you might face further charges, because (perhaps among other reasons) it was done without consent. Fetal homicide laws were written with violent third parties in mind.
    1
  164.  @Komrad_Yuri  True. Marches take the streets; that's how it goes. They were on the move anyway. There was no reason to put anyone's safety at risk.
    1
  165.  @entp1019  Protests take the streets. Have a little humility.
    1
  166.  @entp1019  He's trying to drive through a crowd, rather than wait a few moments.
    1
  167. Sadistic troll.
    1
  168. Indeed, he was driving through the crowd. He's the one who wasn't peaceful.
    1
  169. No, he drove into the crowd.
    1
  170. He was already on the attack.
    1
  171. He was driving into the crowd. They were trying to stop him.
    1
  172. It wasn't a case of hostility with a vehicle chosen at random. There's no motive! He was driving through a crowd.
    1
  173. He was trying to drive into a crowd, so yes they were, and rightly so.
    1
  174. I'm no fan of CNN either (is anyone?), but this is another case of vehicular assault.
    1
  175.  @johnolpenda9803  They weren't barricading. They were crossing, and rather than wait a moment for them to be out of the way, he drove through the crowd. It was completely unnecessary.
    1
  176.  @johnolpenda9803  This video? I've read the reports about the whole incident.
    1
  177. He was already on the attack.
    1
  178. Why the scare quotes?
    1
  179. The drivers do play victims, saying they were afraid after intentionally driving into a crowd. James Fields tried that.
    1
  180. One has to take the streets! That's how marches happen. Have a little patience.
    1
  181. He drove into them.
    1
  182. Marches take the streets. It's how things get done. Do you support James Fields?
    1
  183. He was driving into them. Would you be fine with me driving into the March for Life?
    1
  184. Sod off.
    1
  185.  @woofgh3140  No.
    1
  186. He drove into a crowd, and they were trying to get him to stop.
    1
  187. And that's bootlicking sadism.
    1
  188. Marches take the streets, and he was driving into them.
    1
  189. No, he drove into the crowd.
    1
  190. No one was playing.
    1
  191. Hey, Internet Tough Guy, he was already driving into the crowd.
    1
  192. The driver was the attacker.
    1
  193. He was driving through the crowd. Don't blame the victim. What do you think about James Fields?
    1
  194. I was in a protest last night. We took the streets, that's what it's all about. We got out of the way for an ambulance.
    1
  195. They didn't.
    1
  196. The First Amendment is the permit. Take the streets! He was already driving into the crowd.
    1
  197. No, the marchers were pro-choice, and once you're being nudged by a vehicle, it's really difficult to jump to the side.
    1
  198. Ok, but he drove into the crowd first.
    1
  199. Hardy fucking har.
    1
  200. Marches take the streets. It's how things happen.
    1
  201. Nobody is playing.
    1
  202.  @daveharvey5764  Did you support James Fields?
    1
  203.  @daveharvey5764  Fine, but the driver was on the attack, not them. It was a march, and they were passing through. That's how it works. They weren't attacking vehicles. That makes no sense. Please tell me that you're not saying that your last sentence applies to Fields.
    1
  204.  @daveharvey5764  The sawhorse barricade had already been removed (by unknown persons, but not Fields), and the crowd was moving and/or milling around. They only had permits to gather in parks (which they technically didn't need). There were no permits for marches and such, but even the Charlottesville authorities seemed to understand that sort of thing just happens, and it's not the end of the world. Yes, they were inconveniencing a couple of other drivers, but they would have been out of the way in a short time. These drivers didn't try to drive (even slowly) through the crowd. There was no reason to do so. Fields hit one of these vehicles, which flew forward and hit another, hurting the passengers and striking more protesters. I know people (trained street medics) who tried to save Heather Heyer's life until the cops made them stop (I'm not sure that they could have saved her, but that's beside the point), and I know others who were mere feet away from the cars. In a lot of countries, it's understood that spontaneous, wildcat demonstrations are going to hit the streets, whether the state gives its approval or not. Playing by the state's petty rules is not going to effect change (trivia time: this is the one way that "effect" can be a verb). That's how the rulers want it. Other drivers let the march pass by. This man could have done the same, rather than being a hothead. It's not worth possibly killing and/or maiming anyone else, and, for that matter, putting him and his passenger(s) in danger as well, should anyone retaliate.
    1
  205.  @daveharvey5764  He could go where he wanted after a few moments. He didn't have to try and drive through people. When he did, they tried to stop him. This is not a case of petty opinions, this is a major loss of human rights, a huge step backwards, and a potential humanitarian catastrophe.
    1
  206. What are you trying to say?
    1
  207. Sod off. He was driving into the crowd.
    1
  208. The driver had already driven into the crowd.
    1
  209.  @nou7833  That's true, because the car is shoving people in front of it, and they're trying to get it to stop.
    1
  210.  @nou7833  Not necessarily, and in any case they start by imploring the driver to stop so that the people being pushed can get out of the way.
    1
  211. @UCWnNnC-sNXUIWAn9bsxAyTA Her hands are on the hood as she's furiously backing up. The crowd was not walking around attacking cars & those in them. They would have passed by in moments.
    1
  212.  @DoomsdayHustle  Yeah, they're being pushed by the car, and are thus pushing against it as they try to stay on their feet. I'm not sure what the rest of your comment means. Nobody's gaslighting you.
    1
  213.  @DoomsdayHustle  If you're being shunted along by a vehicle, it's all you can do to stay on your feet. Moving aside is next to impossible. You'll stick your hands out instinctively, and as a gesture for the driver to stop.
    1