[W:132]Black Lives Matter protester shot driver in Provo, Utah

[apdst]

Pretend I'm a jury. Convince me. Repeating your opinion over and over is not convincing

Driving down a public street is legal. Blocking a public street isn't. If the BLMatards weren't blocking the street, no violence would have occured.

 

[Elmo]

Driving down a public street is legal. Blocking a public street isn't. If the BLMatards weren't blocking the street, no violence would have occured.

And what does that have to do with initiating contact? Nothing. If the driver had turned right a block early to go around, or stopped 100ft early and reversed, or done any of countless other options which cost him nothing, no violence would have occurred.

 

[apdst]

And what does that have to do with initiating contact? Nothing. If the driver had turned right a block early to go around, or stopped 100ft early and reversed, or done any of countless other options which cost him nothing, no violence would have occurred.

The tards were blocking the street. The driver wasn't driving on the sidewalk.

The driver wasn't breaking the law. He had no obligation to go a different direction.

If the tards hadn't been illegally blocking the street, nothing would have happened.

 

[Elmo]

The tards were blocking the street. The driver wasn't driving on the sidewalk.

The driver wasn't breaking the law. He had no obligation to go a different direction.

If the tards hadn't been illegally blocking the street, nothing would have happened.

Let me try to explain this with two very similar scenarios.

1. A driver is minding his business. A jaywalker (illegally, obviously) runs into the street directly in front of the driver and is hit. There are witnesses on the sidewalks. If it goes to court, the driver will argue that he was surprised and couldn't do anything to avoid the situation. The driver would certainly win the case.

2. A driver is minding his business. A jaywalker (illegally, in exactly the same way) walks into the street far up the road from the driver and pauses to tie his shoe. The driver has ample time to see the jaywalker. He can easily slow down, stop, or switch lanes to go around the jaywalker. Instead, he WILLFULLY continues forward and runs the jaywalker over. Once again, there are witnesses to the whole thing. I'm pretty sure that driver would catch a homicide charge.

The fact that jaywalking is illegal has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO with the outcome. It is a matter of which party (jaywalker or driver) took reasonable precautions to avoid the tragedy. The protest situation is more complicated, but drivers who plow into protests have a lot more in common with the driver in scenario 2 than 1. Protests are large, loud, and slow. They don't come out of nowhere and surprise drivers. And once again, the legality of protesting/jaywalking has NOTHING to do with it

 

[apdst]

Let me try to explain this with two very similar scenarios.

1. A driver is minding his business. A jaywalker (illegally, obviously) runs into the street directly in front of the driver and is hit. There are witnesses on the sidewalks. If it goes to court, the driver will argue that he was surprised and couldn't do anything to avoid the situation. The driver would certainly win the case.

2. A driver is minding his business. A jaywalker (illegally, in exactly the same way) walks into the street far up the road from the driver and pauses to tie his shoe. The driver has ample time to see the jaywalker. He can easily slow down, stop, or switch lanes to go around the jaywalker. Instead, he WILLFULLY continues forward and runs the jaywalker over. Once again, there are witnesses to the whole thing. I'm pretty sure that driver would catch a homicide charge.

The fact that jaywalking is illegal has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO with the outcome. It is a matter of which party (jaywalker or driver) took reasonable precautions to avoid the tragedy. The protest situation is more complicated, but drivers who plow into protests have a lot more in common with the driver in scenario 2 than 1. Protests are large, loud, and slow. They don't come out of nowhere and surprise drivers. And once again, the legality of protesting/jaywalking has NOTHING to do with it

1. The Jaywalker isn't intentionally blocking the street.

2. The jaywalker isn't attacking the vehicle.

 

[Elmo]

1. The Jaywalker isn't intentionally blocking the street.

2. The jaywalker isn't attacking the vehicle.

1. The protest isn't blocking the next street over, or the next one. Switching lanes and driving an extra couple blocks are functionally identical.

2. I imagine the jaywalker might be angry enough to attack the vehicle if he was still alive after being run over. He'd probably be worried about the maniac trying to kill him. Just like the protesters

 

[apdst]

1. The protest isn't blocking the next street over, or the next one. Switching lanes and driving an extra couple blocks are functionally identical.

2. I imagine the jaywalker might be angry enough to attack the vehicle if he was still alive after being run over. He'd probably be worried about the maniac trying to kill him. Just like the protesters

The driver is under obligation to avoid the BKMatards.

Then, the jaywalker becomes a threat and the driver has the right to protect himself.

 

[Paradoxical]

1. The protest isn't blocking the next street over, or the next one. Switching lanes and driving an extra couple blocks are functionally identical.

2. I imagine the jaywalker might be angry enough to attack the vehicle if he was still alive after being run over. He'd probably be worried about the maniac trying to kill him. Just like the protesters

You seem to be a very typical liberal where a person shoots someone and it is the persons fault because he should have anticipated being shot by a peaceful protester because they are entitled to block streets.

 

[Elmo]

The driver is under obligation to avoid the BKMatards.

Then, the jaywalker becomes a threat and the driver has the right to protect himself.

1. The driver (as always) has an obligation to drive responsibly for the safety of the public. I think the cop that pulls you over might use the phrase "Reckless driving" when you fail that responsibility. Avoiding protests meets that responsibility, plowing into them does not.

2. Lol I would then wish the driver good luck arguing self defense in court.

 

[apdst]

1. The driver (as always) has an obligation to drive responsibly for the safety of the public. I think the cop that pulls you over might use the phrase "Reckless driving" when you fail that responsibility. Avoiding protests meets that responsibility, plowing into them does not.

2. Lol I would then wish the driver good luck arguing self defense in court.

The BLMatards are obligated to obey the law and not block streets in order to stop vehicles and attack them.

 

[Elmo]

You seem to be a very typical liberal where a person shoots someone and it is the persons fault because he should have anticipated being shot by a peaceful protester because they are entitled to block streets.

Read the thread. In multiple posts I have said the shooting was an unjustified escalation of violence. I'll reiterate that I'm glad the shooter is in custody and will most likely be convicted. This conversation is about drivers plowing into protesters without firearms coming into play

 

[Elmo]

The BLMatards are obligated to obey the law and not block streets in order to stop vehicles and attack them.

Stopping and attacking vehicles is not the goal of the protests. I'm sure they wish more than anyone that drivers would act responsibly to avoid them. That's safer for everyone involved

 

[Elmo]

And I'll add, obligations towards public safety are far more strict towards operators of large dangerous vehicles than they are towards pedestrians/protesters. For obvious reasons.

 

[apdst]

Stopping and attacking vehicles is not the goal of the protests. I'm sure they wish more than anyone that drivers would act responsibly to avoid them. That's safer for everyone involved

Why do they do it, then?

 

[apdst]

And I'll add, obligations towards public safety are far more strict towards operators of large dangerous vehicles than they are towards pedestrians/protesters. For obvious reasons.

The tards should stop blocking the street. Problem solved.

 

[Elmo]

Why do they do it, then?

Probably best to ask them, but I would assume it's to raise awareness of police brutality issues related to race and instigate change through political pressure.

 

[Paradoxical]

Stopping and attacking vehicles is not the goal of the protests. I'm sure they wish more than anyone that drivers would act responsibly to avoid them. That's safer for everyone involved

Seriously? You think they are flower children or something? They are VIOLENT criminals.

 

[apdst]

Probably best to ask them, but I would assume it's to raise awareness of police brutality issues related to race and instigate change through political pressure.

By issueing out their own brutality? That isn't going to make very man friends...lol

 

[Elmo]

Seriously? You think they are flower children or something? They are VIOLENT criminals.

I've looked for statistics on how many protests started violent vs turned violent vs remained peaceful, but I haven't been able to find a compilation of data. If you have I'd love to read it. I think a tiny minority were violent looters from the start. And most of the protesters that turned violent were provoked by outrageous police measures, dangerous drivers, etc. The violence was still wrong even when provoked, but that doesn't discredit the goals of the movement. Most of the protests (especially recently) remain peaceful. They just don't as much media attention

By issueing out their own brutality? That isn't going to make very man friends...lol

Scared and angry people aren't always rational.

 

[apdst]

I've looked for statistics on how many protests started violent vs turned violent vs remained peaceful, but I haven't been able to find a compilation of data. If you have I'd love to read it. I think a tiny minority were violent looters from the start. And most of the protesters that turned violent were provoked by outrageous police measures, dangerous drivers, etc. The violence was still wrong even when provoked, but that doesn't discredit the goals of the movement. Most of the protests (especially recently) remain peaceful. They just don't as much media attention



Scared and angry people aren't always rational.

That's no excuse and no matter how you spin it, it'll necer be excusable.

 

[Integrityrespec]

If you roll up on a BLMatard protest blocking the road, put the pedal to the metal.

Black Lives Matter protester shot driver in Provo, Utah

I've failed to see this story covered on any of the left wing media news shows. I also didn't see a report on the shootings and resulting deaths in Chicago last week on those channels. Hmmmm?

 

[Paradoxical]

I've looked for statistics on how many protests started violent vs turned violent vs remained peaceful, but I haven't been able to find a compilation of data. If you have I'd love to read it. I think a tiny minority were violent looters from the start. And most of the protesters that turned violent were provoked by outrageous police measures, dangerous drivers, etc. The violence was still wrong even when provoked, but that doesn't discredit the goals of the movement. Most of the protests (especially recently) remain peaceful. They just don't as much media attention



Scared and angry people aren't always rational.

The GOAL of the movement is that America become a Marxist nation.

 

[Elmo]

The GOAL of the movement is that America become a Marxist nation.

You're wrong, but I can see it would be a waste of time to try to convince you

 

[OpportunityCost]

You don't have a right to murder criminals with your car, no matter how heinous their crime.


''accomplices''? Talk like that implies these protests are some elaborate trap to lure cars in and ambush them from all sides. Absurd, unless you've got some examples of this happening.



It's a gray area legally, which will ultimately be decided by a jury. This link discusses the legality in the case that the protest has no permit and is blocking public streets.
Fact check: Drivers don’t have the right to “plow through” protesters - Reuters

My point is that proving the bolded is difficult in incidents like this because it is patently obvious that drivers have a whole world of alternatives to plowing into a protest. The protesters are clearly at fault if they ambushed, chased (somehow) or otherwise trapped drivers in a way that prevents them from using alternative routes. In the situation in the OP the driver clearly had alternatives, and consciously chose to disregard them to put everyone around them in danger.

I'm happy to be proven wrong with an example, but I'm not going to hold my breath.

You're in a thread with one. I mean, you clearly don't want to pay attention to anything but your bull**** narrative.

 

[Glitch]

You don't have a right to murder criminals with your car, no matter how heinous their crime.

It is not murder, it is self-defense. There is plenty of footage of BLM terrorists violently attacking people in their vehicles. Anyone in a vehicle who even slows down, much less stops, will be violently attacked by BLM terrorists and should seriously fear for their lives. Which is why I intend to speed up should any BLM terrorists try to attack me by illegally blocking the road, and I'm always well armed now that the masked leftist crazies are rioting.

''accomplices''? Talk like that implies these protests are some elaborate trap to lure cars in and ambush them from all sides. Absurd, unless you've got some examples of this happening.

They are not protests. Protests are always lawful and always peaceful. These are neither. They are rioting terrorists and need to be put down with force.

It's a gray area legally, which will ultimately be decided by a jury. This link discusses the legality in the case that the protest has no permit and is blocking public streets.

You are wrong again. If they do not have a police escort or a permit from the city to block a public road then it is an illegal act, making them all criminal scum and not protesters by even the wildest stretch of a leftist's imagination. When those criminal scum have been documented committing numerous acts of violence against motorists, then it significantly blosters their claim that they drove through the crowd of violent BLM terrorists at high speed in self-defense.

Under 18 U.S. Code § 2331 BLM is defined as a federal domestic terrorist organization and needs to be treated accordingly.