Foot runneth over

National MP Chester Borrows has run over the foot of a protester who with a few other protesters tried to block his way as he left somewhere in Whanganui. Police are investigating

National MP to be investigated after allegedly driving into TPP protester

I don’t know how his actions stand as far as the law goes. He may have been a bit too pushy and that could have serious repercussions. Or not.

But standing in front of a moving car is quite silly and putting oneself at obvious risk.

The incident is on video and there were two police officers right beside the foot – they seem to have managed to keep theirs out of the way – so the investigation shouldn’t be difficult.

But whatever is decided is likely to be contentious.

Leave a comment

25 Comments

  1. Oliver

     /  24th March 2016

    He did the crime he must do the time. Dangerous use of a motor vehicle and injuring with intent. I’ll say this will most likely be settled out of court.

    Reply
    • I don’t see any intent in it – apart from intent to impede a motor vehicle.

      Reply
    • Alan Wilkinson

       /  24th March 2016

      Another splendid effort achieving getting every single point wrong. Well done, Oliver.

      I have to admit Mefro’s Oliver theory is looking better and better.

      Reply
      • Gezza

         /  24th March 2016

        Hmmmm…tricky. Watched the video here and on One News. Appears he actually drove into them to force them aside when he could have stopped & asked the police to move them out of the way. Chester might end up regretting the lack of patience.

        Reply
        • Alan Wilkinson

           /  24th March 2016

          From watching the video and the comment on the original story I linked it seemed what happened was the second cop came very fast around behind the first protester probably to get at the second but in doing so blocked the first one’s retreat that she was probably counting on – still trying to stop the car instead of getting out of the way.

          Both Burrows and she were likely caught by that cop’s unexpected blockage.

          Reply
      • Kitty Catkin

         /  24th March 2016

        Alan-he did understand that it was a motor vehicle, so he was right on ONE thing-he didn’t claim that it was a fighter jet or a bicycle 😀

        Reply
    • Oliver

       /  24th March 2016

      The video clearly shows he drove into the protesters with intent. How else would you explain? The protesters were acting within the law.

      Reply
      • Gezza

         /  24th March 2016

        I’m with Oliver on this one. He should really be getting done for this I think. As long as the woman can prove injury. She needs to hop along to the doctor and get a photos of claimed injury taken etc though.

        Reply
        • Klik Bate

           /  24th March 2016

          Chester better hope he gets the same judge that sentenced the lowlife scumbag who had over two thousand kiddy-porn pics on his computer, to a bit of Home D

          On that basis, Ches should be in for a reward!

          Reply
          • Kitty Catkin

             /  24th March 2016

            There’s no connection between the two.

            I must say that if I’d been Mr Kiddyporn, I wouldn’t have been drawing attention to myself as he did. If I’d been Mrs K, I wouldn’t have been standing there, holding his hand. That’s the one thing that I would have thought would have made her leave him. It would make me do so. There can be no excuse for that form of behaviour, none. Adult porn with consenting adults is nobody’s business (revolting as one might think it) but kiddieporn-how could anyone make or watch that ? Especially any parent ?

            Reply
        • Kitty Catkin

           /  24th March 2016

          I think that the protestors were trying to stop him. He was driving as slowly as anyone could, they saw him coming…no matter who’s right, only a fool deliberately stands in front of a moving car. This is one of those times when one doesn’t push one’s luck. How does Oliver know what his intent was ? I suppose that he was also in the car, or was one of the protestors. Or both. If Chester Borrows had roared up at 150kph, grinning like the Joker in Batman and ploughed into a crowd, laughing fiendishly as he squashed people left, right and centre, then I think that it would be a case of intent.As it is, I think not-apart from anything else, an MP would have too much at stake.

          Reply
          • jamie

             /  24th March 2016

            “He was driving as slowly as anyone could…”

            Nope, he didn’t have to keep driving at all.

            That was a choice he made.

            Reply
            • Kitty Catkin

               /  25th March 2016

              The protestors made the choice to play chicken and not to move away.

    • Oliver, did you see the video? e vehicle Where the fat lay was screaming “Did any one get that on video?” In a reasonable Court of Law, if I was on the jury, I would commend the driver for restraint in front of clear provocation. He eased the vehicle through a group who were illegally obstructing the road. The policemen who were in the video did not act to prevent the movement of the vehicle and one has to conclude they saw no breach of the law, as they did not act. People like you need to understand that any right also includes an obligation.

      Reply
      • Oliver

         /  24th March 2016

        No you’re wrong. The protesters were blocking the road which they’re entitled to do hence the reason police didn’t take action to arrest them. If someone is blocking the road that does not give you permission to harm them. He clearly saw them in front of him but he continued to drive into them, so that is intent.

        Reply
        • Kitty Catkin

           /  24th March 2016

          Whether it’s illegal or just a damned nuisance to block a road, anyone who won’t move out of the path of a vehicle is a bloody fool. You’re the one who’s going to be squashed, not the driver.

          Reply
          • jamie

             /  24th March 2016

            Only if the driver decides to drive into you.

            Reply
            • Kitty Catkin

               /  25th March 2016

              Which is unlikely in this case-why didn’t the police stop him ? They were there and saw what happened. If you think that someone’s going to drive into you, you’re a bloody fool to stand there and let them. He was driving at walking pace, there was plenty of time to move; if he’d meant to run them over, he’d have sped up, not slowed down.

      • jamie

         /  24th March 2016

        It’s not a video game, bjmarsh1.

        There’s no such thing as easing a vehicle through people.

        Reply
  2. Kitty Catkin

     /  24th March 2016

    If he’d gone barreling straight at the protestors, Oliver might have a point. It was a bit hard to see what exactly happened, but the car was crawling….and if they only drove over her foot, it might not have been obvious that anything had happened, The police pulled the woman clear when it was obvious that she wasn’t going to move, but I didn’t see her being hit. If she’d been hit, she would have been knocked down, or at least been in danger of being, but it looked as if she was still walking, so no broken bones there.

    I suppose that Oliver was there, driving the ambulance.with its siren going full blast.

    What’s Mefro’s theory ?

    Reply
    • Dougal

       /  24th March 2016

      Would the outrage be the same if it was Little Andrew driving the car? Its a fake injury to try and score an easy hit on Burrows and National.

      Reply
      • Gezza

         /  24th March 2016

        Would the outrage be the same if it was Little Andrew driving the car?

        If they were anti-Labour protestors, absolutely it would. And there’d be talk about him being Angry Andy and not being able to keep his temper and stuff.

        No protestors let an opportunity like this go to waste.

        Reply
      • Klik Bate

         /  24th March 2016

        Bloody lucky she wasn’t standing here 😀

        Reply
  3. Patzcuaro

     /  24th March 2016

    I have a small white dog who runs along side the vehicles on the farm. I have always maintained that if I maintain a steady course at a slow speed it is his fault if he runs under the tire.

    Reply
    • Kitty Catkin

       /  25th March 2016

      I was told by a sheep farmer that people make a mistake when they slam the brakes on when they come upon a flock of sheep-the sheep then all crowd around the car and stand there like, er, sheep. Drivers should slow right down (of course !) and then keep moving at that really slow speed-the sheep aren’t such fools that they’ll walk in front of a moving car, they’ll part and let the car go through. He was right, of course.

      It’s the same principle as your small dog. He obviously has more sense than to run under a moving tyre and be squashed-why should he when it’s such fun to run beside them ?. I see sheep dogs across the road who run alongside the farm quad bikes (I occasionally see one hitching a ride when there aren’t any animals around to herd.)

      Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s