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

[Elmo]

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

No, I'm not. You are pushing the bull**** narrative that protesters are actively chasing and initiating violent contact with drivers because its the only way you can deny the protesters' right to self-defense. In all of the videos in the OP it is clear that the drivers willfully chose to drive through a crowd of people. They were not hunted down. They were not chased. They were not forced to make that decision in any way by the protesters. In one of the videos there's even a car that makes the obviously correct decision to turn right to drive around the protest. People were close enough to surround them and block them, but they didn't because that driver was not using his vehicle to actively threaten people's safety.

Unless you can find me an example where the driver makes the responsible decisions and gets harassed anyway, I think we're done talking.

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.

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.

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.

1. Look at the first video. There's a woman in red flannel holding a sign in the lower left. Can you tell me what terrorist acts she has been convicted of? Because apparently you think your driver's license gives you the right to be judge, jury, and executioner for an entire crowd of people you know nothing about. There have also been numerous documented cases of maniacs in cars driving into crowds with the intent to maim and kill. I'd say that bolsters the protester's claim to self-defense.

2. Just curious, what do you think the safest speed is to drive through a crowd of people? 30mph? 40? What, precisely, can a group of pedestrians threaten you with? I notice that you didn't actually address my link on the legality of the issue, which directly contradicts your argument. I don't like your chances of convincing a jury that you drove through a crowd in self defense. It didn't work for James Fields, the Charlottesville murderer.

 

[OpportunityCost]

No, I'm not. You are pushing the bull**** narrative that protesters are actively chasing and initiating violent contact with drivers because its the only way you can deny the protesters' right to self-defense. In all of the videos in the OP it is clear that the drivers willfully chose to drive through a crowd of people. They were not hunted down. They were not chased. They were not forced to make that decision in any way by the protesters. In one of the videos there's even a car that makes the obviously correct decision to turn right to drive around the protest. People were close enough to surround them and block them, but they didn't because that driver was not using his vehicle to actively threaten people's safety.

Unless you can find me an example where the driver makes the responsible decisions and gets harassed anyway, I think we're done talking.


1. Look at the first video. There's a woman in red flannel holding a sign in the lower left. Can you tell me what terrorist acts she has been convicted of? Because apparently you think your driver's license gives you the right to be judge, jury, and executioner for an entire crowd of people you know nothing about. There have also been numerous documented cases of maniacs in cars driving into crowds with the intent to maim and kill. I'd say that bolsters the protester's claim to self-defense.

2. Just curious, what do you think the safest speed is to drive through a crowd of people? 30mph? 40? What, precisely, can a group of pedestrians threaten you with? I notice that you didn't actually address my link on the legality of the issue, which directly contradicts your argument. I don't like your chances of convincing a jury that you drove through a crowd in self defense. It didn't work for James Fields, the Charlottesville murderer.

Vehicle was crawling at walking pace and someone pulled out a gun and shot him. Your argument is laughably invalid.

 

[Michael Johnson]

No, I'm not. You are pushing the bull**** narrative that protesters are actively chasing and initiating violent contact with drivers because its the only way you can deny the protesters' right to self-defense. In all of the videos in the OP it is clear that the drivers willfully chose to drive through a crowd of people. They were not hunted down. They were not chased. They were not forced to make that decision in any way by the protesters. In one of the videos there's even a car that makes the obviously correct decision to turn right to drive around the protest. People were close enough to surround them and block them, but they didn't because that driver was not using his vehicle to actively threaten people's safety.

Unless you can find me an example where the driver makes the responsible decisions and gets harassed anyway, I think we're done talking.


1. Look at the first video. There's a woman in red flannel holding a sign in the lower left. Can you tell me what terrorist acts she has been convicted of? Because apparently you think your driver's license gives you the right to be judge, jury, and executioner for an entire crowd of people you know nothing about. There have also been numerous documented cases of maniacs in cars driving into crowds with the intent to maim and kill. I'd say that bolsters the protester's claim to self-defense.

2. Just curious, what do you think the safest speed is to drive through a crowd of people? 30mph? 40? What, precisely, can a group of pedestrians threaten you with? I notice that you didn't actually address my link on the legality of the issue, which directly contradicts your argument. I don't like your chances of convincing a jury that you drove through a crowd in self defense. It didn't work for James Fields, the Charlottesville murderer.

You love thugs. We get it. Anything else?

 

[Elmo]

Vehicle was crawling at walking pace and someone pulled out a gun and shot him. Your argument is laughably invalid.

Trying to push people out of your way with your car is reckless and dangerous no matter the speed. How did he get into that situation? There's only 2 possibilities.

1. He willfully chose to drive his car through a crowd rather than go around. To reiterate, this is ALWAYS reckless and dangerous.
2. He tried to be responsible and avoid the protest, but the crowd somehow outran his combustion engine in order to surround and attack him.

I think option 2 is unlikely, but if you have proof that's what happened I'd be happy to place all the blame on the protesters. And for the 5th time in this thread, the shooter is entirely at fault for his actions and will be punished. This does not absolve the driver or other protesters from responsibility for their own acts of violence.

 

[OpportunityCost]

Trying to push people out of your way with your car is reckless and dangerous no matter the speed. How did he get into that situation? There's only 2 possibilities.

1. He willfully chose to drive his car through a crowd rather than go around. To reiterate, this is ALWAYS reckless and dangerous.
2. He tried to be responsible and avoid the protest, but the crowd somehow outran his combustion engine in order to surround and attack him.

I think option 2 is unlikely, but if you have proof that's what happened I'd be happy to place all the blame on the protesters. And for the 5th time in this thread, the shooter is entirely at fault for his actions and will be punished. This does not absolve the driver or other protesters from responsibility for their own acts of violence.

FFS, standing in front of a vehicle, even if its moving slowly and EXPECTING it to stop for you is stupid. If you are in a metro area, you may not always have the option to turn around and avoid protesters and lets be honest, those protests move from intersection to intersection, cross medians, and even block interstates. I can tell you one thing, if a driver hears glass break, the urge to hit the gas will be pretty strong. The problem and the expectation has become that if they surround your car, you can expect to be pulled from the vehicle, beaten, or killed. So, explain to me again, how its the fault of the drivers?

 

[Elmo]

FFS, standing in front of a vehicle, even if its moving slowly and EXPECTING it to stop for you is stupid.

You'd probably be surprised, but I actually agree that blocking streets is a stupid way to protest. Still doesn't give anyone the right to hit you with their car.

If you are in a metro area, you may not always have the option to turn around and avoid protesters and lets be honest, those protests move from intersection to intersection, cross medians, and even block interstates

I live and drive in a metro area regularly. I'm having a hard time picturing a location where "drive into the crowd" is the only option. Crowds are loud, large, and slow moving. If you're an attentive driver, you should notice them long before you get within fist distance. In the worst case, you can simply stop before you get close enough to threaten or be threatened. And the nice thing about protests that block whole streets is there's no oncoming traffic. Nothing to stop you from pulling a u-turn.

Now I feel like I've repeated this many times. It's possible that some drivers have gotten trapped despite their best efforts to drive safely. The OP certainly doesn't qualify, but if you know some examples I'd love to see them.

I can tell you one thing, if a driver hears glass break, the urge to hit the gas will be pretty strong. The problem and the expectation has become that if they surround your car, you can expect to be pulled from the vehicle, beaten, or killed.

How many drivers have been dragged from their vehicles and killed by protesters? I can't remember hearing about any. How many protesters have been killed by reckless drivers? Definitely more than 0. I'm not mentioning this to discredit drivers fear of being attacked. That is a completely legitimate fear and I can understand panicing if you're being surrounded by a crowd. My point is that protesters have an equally legitimate fear of being run over by wacko drivers. When you drive into a crowd, you are making a deadly threat to everyone there. Crowds are REACTING to that threat by matching it with violence of their own. Neither side is right in that situation. They are both committing stupid violence. The best outcome for everyone involved is for the driver to never make that initial threat, so the crowd has nothing to react to. No one gets hurt.

So, explain to me again, how its the fault of the drivers?

For the umpteenth time, because drivers start off with the all the (horse)power. They initiate the confrontation, and they can very easily just AVOID it.

 

[OpportunityCost]

You'd probably be surprised, but I actually agree that blocking streets is a stupid way to protest. Still doesn't give anyone the right to hit you with their car.


I live and drive in a metro area regularly. I'm having a hard time picturing a location where "drive into the crowd" is the only option. Crowds are loud, large, and slow moving. If you're an attentive driver, you should notice them long before you get within fist distance. In the worst case, you can simply stop before you get close enough to threaten or be threatened. And the nice thing about protests that block whole streets is there's no oncoming traffic. Nothing to stop you from pulling a u-turn.

Now I feel like I've repeated this many times. It's possible that some drivers have gotten trapped despite their best efforts to drive safely. The OP certainly doesn't qualify, but if you know some examples I'd love to see them.


How many drivers have been dragged from their vehicles and killed by protesters? I can't remember hearing about any. How many protesters have been killed by reckless drivers? Definitely more than 0. I'm not mentioning this to discredit drivers fear of being attacked. That is a completely legitimate fear and I can understand panicing if you're being surrounded by a crowd. My point is that protesters have an equally legitimate fear of being run over by wacko drivers. When you drive into a crowd, you are making a deadly threat to everyone there. Crowds are REACTING to that threat by matching it with violence of their own. Neither side is right in that situation. They are both committing stupid violence. The best outcome for everyone involved is for the driver to never make that initial threat, so the crowd has nothing to react to. No one gets hurt.


For the umpteenth time, because drivers start off with the all the (horse)power. They initiate the confrontation, and they can very easily just AVOID it.

You keep missing the point. Protesting and stopping traffic in the road isn't legal. Damaging vehicles if they stop isn't legal. Pulling drivers from their cars isn't legal (and if you haven't heard about the semi driver hurt during the Rodney King riots, I have to ask why you are commenting on something you clearly don't know anything about). Drivers are acting legally. A mob of people breaking the law by their very presence is not legal. Make your retarded avoidance bull**** somewhere else, drivers do not have a duty to have their property damaged or themselves be hurt because morons think they can stop cars with righteous indignation.

For the umpteenth time, protesters can easily avoid the confrontation, by not being in the street ILLEGALLY!

 

[Emily L]

For the umpteenth time, protesters can easily avoid the confrontation, by not being in the street ILLEGALLY!

I agree with what you said in your post. The best protests are the ones that follow the laws. It's like picketing. If you follow the laws and are patient, people will listen to you. But if you break the law they will say you are nothing but a law breaker and won't listen to your complaints.

 

[Wayne Jr]

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

LMAO no, I have a better way. I'll turn on my hazards and calmly step out of my car and talk with the protesters. I'll be civil and let them feel their voice is being heard while I covertly spray them with a small bottle I've spit into after testing positive for covid-19 and record the entire exchange on my bodycam.

 

[justabubba]

LMAO no, I have a better way. I'll turn on my hazards and calmly step out of my car and talk with the protesters. I'll be civil and let them feel their voice is being heard while I covertly spray them with a small bottle I've spit into after testing positive for covid-19 and record the entire exchange on my bodycam.

proud of yourself willing to be a public menace; potentially a lethal one
read up about sociopathy

 

[Elmo]

You keep missing the point. Protesting and stopping traffic in the road isn't legal. Damaging vehicles if they stop isn't legal. Pulling drivers from their cars isn't legal (and if you haven't heard about the semi driver hurt during the Rodney King riots, I have to ask why you are commenting on something you clearly don't know anything about). Drivers are acting legally. A mob of people breaking the law by their very presence is not legal. Make your retarded avoidance bull**** somewhere else, drivers do not have a duty to have their property damaged or themselves be hurt because morons think they can stop cars with righteous indignation.

For the umpteenth time, protesters can easily avoid the confrontation, by not being in the street ILLEGALLY!

FFS, NO, THE DRIVERS ARE NOT ACTING LEGALLY. It is not legal to run over pedestrians. MY "avoidance bull****" is their LEGAL RESPONSIBILITY. This responsibility does not magically disappear if the pedestrians are in the street illegally or if you dislike their politics. I've already linked you a legal analysis, but apparently you ignored it. Here you go again. Fact check: Drivers don’t have the right to “plow through” protesters - Reuters

I've also explained why the legality of the protests DOES NOT MATTER, in detail. I don't trust you to read an old post, so I'll just copy it here.

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 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

are you the psychopath in scenario 2? If so, please go learn to drive . I cannot believe I'm having to explain this basic **** to fully functioning adults

 

[Elmo]

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

Lastly, I would love for those terrorist scum to stand in front of me, I would certainly run them over - repeatedly.

More protestors going to become roadkill in the future.

Pictured: an illegal protest blocking traffic


If you're having trouble coming up with a legal or ethical justification for your position, talk to the totalitarian chinese government. They might be able to give you some tips since they've had plenty of time to think about it.

ok i'm convinced, send in the army. **** it, lets be china.

At least Hypothetical gets it.

 

[Wayne Jr]

proud of yourself willing to be a public menace; potentially a lethal one
read up about sociopathy

If the protesters were worried about their lives, they wouldn't step onto the freeway to start with.

 

[OpportunityCost]

FFS, NO, THE DRIVERS ARE NOT ACTING LEGALLY. It is not legal to run over pedestrians. MY "avoidance bull****" is their LEGAL RESPONSIBILITY. This responsibility does not magically disappear if the pedestrians are in the street illegally or if you dislike their politics. I've already linked you a legal analysis, but apparently you ignored it. Here you go again. Fact check: Drivers don’t have the right to “plow through” protesters - Reuters

If the crowd threatens the driver he has the right to flee. Your feigned ignorance of this never happening is laughable, we are in a thread where the OP consisted of a driver being shot. Reuters isn't a legal authority of any ****ing thing.

I've also explained why the legality of the protests DOES NOT MATTER, in detail. I don't trust you to read an old post, so I'll just copy it here.

Protesters do not have the right to impede or detain people by surrounding their vehicle and act in a threatening way up to and including violence. You always seem to exclude that portion out of your argument.

Last, there is some confusion, I am not arguing drivers have the right to plow straight through at damaging speeds, but the ****ing idiots in the road need to let them pass----there is no legal authority to detain people indefinitely because you want to.

are you the psychopath in scenario 2? If so, please go learn to drive . I cannot believe I'm having to explain this basic **** to fully functioning adults

You mean like explaining to fully functioning adults not to play in traffic?

 

[OpportunityCost]

Pictured: an illegal protest blocking traffic
View attachment 67286276

If you're having trouble coming up with a legal or ethical justification for your position, talk to the totalitarian chinese government. They might be able to give you some tips since they've had plenty of time to think about it.


At least Hypothetical gets it.

There is no threat the guy standing in front of the tank can muster that will cause harm. The element you never, ever address is the ability of the protesters to harm those in the vehicles if they stop, which has occurred multiple times, common knowledge.

 

[Elmo]

If the crowd threatens the driver he has the right to flee.

I agree, but that's not what I'm arguing. I'll try to clear it up the confusion. If a driver is in the situation where they're surrounded by an aggressive crowd, they have a right to flee like we see in the videos. Their mistake (dangerous and illegal) was to choose to enter that situation in the first place. I'll give yet another analogy. There have been incidents over the years where some complete ****ing idiot jumps into an animal's pen at a zoo. I do not begrudge those idiots the right to do whatever they need to do to escape. If they kill the animal, so be it. This does not mean they have no liability for their unbelievably stupid decisions leading up to the incident. These drivers are the same. They made a stupid decision to enter a situation, and had to take dangerous action to get out of it. There should be consequences for their stupid decision.

Your feigned ignorance of this never happening is laughable, we are in a thread where the OP consisted of a driver being shot. Reuters isn't a legal authority of any ****ing thing.

Protesters do not have the right to impede or detain people by surrounding their vehicle and act in a threatening way up to and including violence. You always seem to exclude that portion out of your argument.

I don't think I have been excluding that point. If you want to reread my posts, I have said repeatedly that the protesters are wrong to use their violence. If cops want to track down the most aggressive ones from those videos I have no objection. The reason I keep coming back to this thread is that it pisses me off when conservatives place ALL blame on the protesters, casting the drivers as completely innocent victims. Both sides behaved badly. The blame is SHARED and the consequences should be too.

Last, there is some confusion, I am not arguing drivers have the right to plow straight through at damaging speeds, but the ****ing idiots in the road need to let them pass----there is no legal authority to detain people indefinitely because you want to.

Thanks for the clarification, I'm glad you're a reasonable person. Maybe you'd be interested in addressing your more extreme compatriots who clearly ARE encouraging "damaging speeds"? They might actually pay attention to critiques from their own side.

 

[OpportunityCost]

I agree, but that's not what I'm arguing. I'll try to clear it up the confusion. If a driver is in the situation where they're surrounded by an aggressive crowd, they have a right to flee like we see in the videos. Their mistake (dangerous and illegal) was to choose to enter that situation in the first place. I'll give yet another analogy. There have been incidents over the years where some complete ****ing idiot jumps into an animal's pen at a zoo. I do not begrudge those idiots the right to do whatever they need to do to escape. If they kill the animal, so be it. This does not mean they have no liability for their unbelievably stupid decisions leading up to the incident. These drivers are the same. They made a stupid decision to enter a situation, and had to take dangerous action to get out of it. There should be consequences for their stupid decision.

Point of fact, thinking you can drive on a street, in a car, and expect people to not impede you illegally doesn't incur liability. Liability comes from driving straight at them and scattering them around, moving slowly and cautiously and moving after threatening actions have been made will not incur liability. Simply, blocking the roadway, essentially preventing people from leaving remains illegal. It will vary from state to state, but imagine physically preventing someone from leaving a room, do you really believe that's going to be legal? You are arguing people engaging in legal behavior and acting cautiously until threatened will incur liability. Its entirely more likely that the retards trying to smash into the car are acting illegally, in multiple ways.

You are arguing special legal protections for engaging in illegal activity while arguing liability is incurred by those acting lawfully. What needs to occur is the strongest penalty needs to be applied to people who think they can impose restrictions on citizens when they have no authority or right to do so.

I don't think I have been excluding that point. If you want to reread my posts, I have said repeatedly that the protesters are wrong to use their violence. If cops want to track down the most aggressive ones from those videos I have no objection. The reason I keep coming back to this thread is that it pisses me off when conservatives place ALL blame on the protesters, casting the drivers as completely innocent victims. Both sides behaved badly. The blame is SHARED and the consequences should be too.

Its really simple. Quit playing in traffic. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes. Enough people have seen cars damaged and people hurt to think stopping is an alternative any more.

Thanks for the clarification, I'm glad you're a reasonable person. Maybe you'd be interested in addressing your more extreme compatriots who clearly ARE encouraging "damaging speeds"? They might actually pay attention to critiques from their own side.

I am responsible for myself. I am not responsible for others. I am also not responsible for making your arguments for you when I don't really agree with them. Make a better argument. Guilty conscience doesn't bother me when the little kids playing in traffic have shown the tendency to harm people even if they do stop.

 

[Elmo]

Point of fact, thinking you can drive on a street, in a car, and expect people to not impede you illegally doesn't incur liability. Liability comes from driving straight at them and scattering them around, moving slowly and cautiously and moving after threatening actions have been made will not incur liability.

I disagree. Having a running engine and trying to compete with a crowd for the same space incurs liability. I don't care if you're moving slowly. Your vehicle is capable of quickly accelerating a large mass, which makes it a dangerous threat.

It will vary from state to state, but imagine physically preventing someone from leaving a room, do you really believe that's going to be legal?

No, I think it's a bad analogy. A better one is a bunch of people try to block of the entrance to a room, you force them out of the way with a chainsaw, and then when you get into the crowded room you start swinging that chainsaw around to try and escape. Sure maybe they don't have any authority to block that entrance, but your misuse of a chainsaw somewhat overshadows that misbehavior.

You are arguing people engaging in legal behavior and acting cautiously until threatened will incur liability. Its entirely more likely that the retards trying to smash into the car are acting illegally, in multiple ways.

Driving your car into a crowd is not cautious no matter how slow you're going. The only "cautious" thing to do is to avoid the protest. I think it's also a legal gray area that could go either way in court depending on the specifics of the incident. You're welcome to disagree but currently I've supported my opinion with a reputable source and you've supported yours with nothing.

I've said everything I want to say on this subject. I think it's pretty clear where you and I disagree, and I'm tired of repeating myself. Feel free to have the last word.

 

[OpportunityCost]

I disagree. Having a running engine and trying to compete with a crowd for the same space incurs liability. I don't care if you're moving slowly. Your vehicle is capable of quickly accelerating a large mass, which makes it a dangerous threat.


No, I think it's a bad analogy. A better one is a bunch of people try to block of the entrance to a room, you force them out of the way with a chainsaw, and then when you get into the crowded room you start swinging that chainsaw around to try and escape. Sure maybe they don't have any authority to block that entrance, but your misuse of a chainsaw somewhat overshadows that misbehavior.


Driving your car into a crowd is not cautious no matter how slow you're going. The only "cautious" thing to do is to avoid the protest. I think it's also a legal gray area that could go either way in court depending on the specifics of the incident. You're welcome to disagree but currently I've supported my opinion with a reputable source and you've supported yours with nothing.

I've said everything I want to say on this subject. I think it's pretty clear where you and I disagree, and I'm tired of repeating myself. Feel free to have the last word.

You say you repudiate those acting violently but you keep portraying everyone on your side as innocent and their actions beyond consideration. The problem is violence has occurred from your "people blocking the room" and your chainsaw is a drastic overstatement. Your analogies are terrible and downplay the violence on your side, indicating you know about the bad actions, but that you are covering for them.