I watch a good amount of YouTube videos. I will post some, but not to explain my thoughts. I should do that myself. I don't even like posting links or having to look at other peoples links. If I don't agree with something I can look it up. If somebody questions what I say, they can look it up. Of course I remember all of the bar room debates before the Internet.

Just because BLM promotes the rights of one group does not diminish the rights of the other’s. No one has made that assertion.
As for the crime rate, they often can be misleading. That shouldn’t need any explanation. They’re often used as a red herring argument.

I'm not talking about BLM I'm talking about white privilege. A supposed example of white privilege is that white people are not looked at as suspiciously by police as black people. I want to know why that is a privilege for white people and not just because of the insane crime rate in the black community.

It's like a Wicker Man argument!

"Not the bees!!!"

;)

BLM promotes "Pigs in a blanket - fry 'em like bacon!" & "Dead Cops Now!" (And some of their followers have acted on those slogans to deadly effect.)

After that, I don't really need to hear anything else they promote because I know what they stand for by their own words and the actions of those they inspire.

I can’t adequately answer that at this time without pondering it further.
That is not me ceding your point.
I just don’t want to answer without more consideration to it.

That's cool, and again I appreciate your decent way of talking about this. This is nothing personal and I have nothing but respect for you because I believe your heart is in the right place even if we disagree.

I am not the smartest person. I just go by statistics and what I view as common sense. I am not 100% sure that white privilege does not exist. I just have not been close to convinced of it.

I get that, and I’m sure your heart is also in the right place, as well.

I thought this was an interesting news story that shows some of today's hypocrisy

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/05/u...negy-race.html

The extreme reaction to the man's message pretty much demonstrates and confirms the exact point he was making. 🙂

Oh pretty please, with a cherry on top

https://youtu.be/np0Y7gItjak

Is the guy who who thought it would be a good idea to have the Hells Angels provide security for a Stones concert still around and giving advice?

Peak 2020

Tear gas rendered ineffective by leaf blowers. Now I truly have seen everything.

I laughed so hard at this. Pity the mentally unstable protesters lol

https://youtu.be/_e8LmeOdTGk

Re: Rioting in the U.S.
 

I didn't find anything funny about the last video. The driver appears to have deliberately speed up and hit the protester. He could've killed them. Then the cops don't arrest him, which only lends credence to what the protesters are saying and ends up making matters much worse. The driver was at fault, nobody has the right to use their vehicle as a weapon.

Re: Rioting in the U.S.
 

Dumb crap like "you better not move, Bro!" becomes a stereotype of attitude to project on whoever may have legitimate grievances. Parts of this clip do not play well for the cause (IMO), whatever the cause was in the case; and I think clips like this more add to the ammunition people use to mock protests in general. I mean, instead of paying attention to the fact the guy sped up to hit someone seemingly intentionally, viewers would rather mock the protesters. Or that the police appear to not charge the man, though protecting him was probably the right thing to do. Still, in the context of how the protesters are speaking I really don't think that any of them would have actually take aggressive actions against the driver. The dude stepped out of his car before the officers had come over. I seriously doubt he felt threatened.

Idunno. Is there an argument to say some protesters may act ...childish? Probably. Even if their intention is well and reasonable, I get how some find it silly, stupid, frustrating, whatever. That never gives the right to run them over. In this video it's obvious that one protester was pushing the other back and away from from the police line and to the other side of the road when the driver accelerated. Two more seconds and he could have driven on through without issue. Would have been nice to see a legal consequence of that action but that could have come after the clip ended.

Nothing even remotely funny about this.

By his reaction I'd say the driver didn't see them, probably because of the rabid wild animals on his sides. He was terrified. Either way, if there's crap in the street, I can't help but laugh when it gets driven through.

Sad to see human lives referred to as mere “crap”.

Sad to see them act like crap

This driver should get a medal

https://youtu.be/NFwjsTiVVQY

Re: Rioting in the U.S.
 

Alright, if this thread is just gonna turn into quasi-glorifying violence I'm gonna close it. Or just posting videos or articles of stuff we already agree with, for that matter, which suggests we're "out of" discussion.

I hear you, but what's scary to me and what you're well aware of is all of the violence committed by these rioters. They are not peaceful protesters if they are blocking the road. Blocking the road is illegal. There are countless videos of these lowlifes attacking innocent drivers, besides trying to force their will upon them and prevent them from freely traveling to wherever it is they're going. I didn't actually think that the video I originally posted would be controversial. How people can defend these animals and terrorists is beyond me.

Not all protesters are violent, and to say so is really an outright lie. There have been many peaceful examples in fact.
To say that merely blocking off the road as a reasonable justification for violence is absurd.
The last line is pure hypocrisy. You pointedly denounce the violence of the protesters, yet support attempted assault of the driver in the video.
Please, Yoda, just close this thread before it gets any worse.

I didn't see any violence in the video I posted. I saw a guy driving who was terrified, and by his reaction didn't mean to hit the protesters. I saw protesters crying with minor injuries. Not a lot of harm done except for some hurt feelings. I thought it was funny.

Re: Rioting in the U.S.
 

If there is a fight between two people for apparently 400+ years, you can't just blame one of them.

And do not call them peaceful if they are blocking the road or if they are making threats.

Re: Rioting in the U.S.
 

Comments regarding the last video posted:
1. Someone brought an infant to one of these "protests"? Are they nuts? After all we've seen - the arson, the violence, the hurling of Molotov cocktails, the shootings, the murders?

2. After the truck drives through the crowd the first thing said is "call the cops." Wait a minute... isn't the prevailing cry of the protesters & rioters to abolish and defund the police? Oh the irony.

P.S. The driver should have tried to back up and find a different route.

Of course all of those people are nuts. I would disagree with him backing up and finding a different route. I don't think it helps allowing criminals to have their way.

While I fully appreciate the sentiment...

There's a law that says pedestrians have the right of way. There's little exception to this law - even when pedestrians cross against a light or are walking on highways where pedestrians are not supposed to be.

Granted, the pedestrians are breaking the law, but that doesn't give anyone the right to utilize vigilante justice with a vehicle that will deliver an unequal level of force (a potentially lethal one) to those breaking the law.

(I do realize in an atmosphere of "abolish the police," what the law is, who's going to follow it, and who is going to enforce it when police are ordered not to intervene in major crimes becomes a very amorphous concept - which is a huge and dangerous problem created by this movement of crime and disorder that is going to negatively effect everyone - which is why political leaders needed to put an end to this when it first started.)

I also understand there have been cases where people were in fear for their lives or were close to being pulled from their vehicle by a violent crowd... leaving them no choice but to accelerate. But this case looked like the driver had an opportunity to back up and find a different route as the crowd did not look overtly violent.

Now it is probably that driver who will face legal proceedings and not the people illegally shutting down roadways and preventing emergency vehicles from getting to fires, medical emergencies or crimes in progress.

This driver was indeed being threatened the entire time. I wouldn't call it vigilantism when they or their vehicle are being assaulted or threats are involved. It's not like he never slowed down and plowed right through them. They should just be arresting all of these people who are blocking roads. The far left politicians seem content to not enforce the law and they should be voted out.

In this case, the driver approached the protest line and the protesters did not seem overtly violent. So he could have stopped before reaching them and backed up or turned around (most likely what other cars on that roadway did when they saw the crowd). But he advanced.

It even seemed like (although I don't know what they were saying), if he stated to the people that approached his truck that he was going to back up, there may not have been a problem.

If he was being physically assaulted and could not back up, then I'd say he acted in self defense or self preservation, but that did not appear to be the case. That would be the only justifiable excuse for intentionally plowing into a crowd with a vehicle.

I don't think he should have been forced to retreat, but that's called taking the high-road, it would have been the right thing to do for him (as his future now may be fraught with legal problems) and for those he potentially injured.

I don't know. I would hope he wouldn't be charged. It seems that he drove up and he wanted them to get out of the way, a reasonable request. When that didn't work, I think the criminal's (let's not call them protesters) actions made his action self defense. We don't have much of a free country if we just allow lawbreakers to bully us and dictate what we can or can't do.

Before he drove through the crowd, he was threatened repeatedly, they banged on his truck, and they tried getting in his truck.

The idea that protestors can be attackers against a 3000+ lb vehicle is next level lunacy.

Don't make me waste my time by posting numerous videos of people being dragged out of their cars and beaten. Wake up will you.

Reginald Denny?

And again, be honest and stop calling them protesters. If they are blocking the streets then they are criminals.

You are right! I forgot they uninvented locks and radios in the past 30 years.

You’re also referencing a completely different kinda police presence. But it’s cool.

Talk about an agenda

Again don't make me waste my time by posting videos of drivers being assaulted and their windows being smashed. How did you get to the point where you sympathize with criminals?

What's my agenda? l'll tell you what it is. I'd like for innocent and law biting citizens to be able to do what they want in life without being harassed. What's your agenda?

Eh.
I get the idea of people swarming you in a vehicle and being fearful as a driver. That doesn't even consider the possibility of some within a crowd banging on your vehicle or even beating on your window with the possible intent to harm. That said, please note that I am drawing very distinct lines between the threat of it and it actually happening with the term "possibility." or even between honest threat and just the perception of it, whether it's there or not. Yeah, there are videos of that happening. I'm not sure how you can draw similar conclusions here, at least not with what's presented. There are also videos of drivers barrelling into crowds elsewhere. Would it fair, then, to broadly claim that drivers are intentionally and maliciously driving into crowds? Would it then be reasonable, also, to label that as terrorism? Would I do that though? It might feel good, but I doubt I would.

Other rioters have done that. No argument. Are all protesters rioters? Are these protesters doing that? Honest-to-God question. Is there more to the video that shows that? It's not in this clip. If that were the case, how calm everyone was after the fact to allow the man to pull to the side of the road, step out of the vehicle and not beat him down. I mean, if that was already the present threat, being attacked and all. Jaywalking is a crime. So is vehicular assault, I mean if we're on the path of hyperbole.

I'm just suggesting take the volume down a few decibels. Else, it seems hardline posts only invite hardline replies. Neither is productive if conversation or even debate is the intent. Is conversation or debate the intent? Or are we just posting stuff to justify our feelings?

http://www.movers.com/images/guides/...20Butthead.gif

"BITING THE LAW!! BITING THE LAW!!"

Well, of course they can - or rather, they can threaten or harm the occupants in the vehicle by attacking the vehicle.

Being attacked within a vehicle by a mob puts the driver and passengers in a horrible predicament... do I step on the gas and potentially kill people (some of whom may not be trying to kill me and my passengers) to try to save myself and those in the vehicle with me... or do I let them smash my windows, drag me out and beat me and my passengers (maybe family, friends or kids) to death?

There was a recent case where a mother and her baby were accosted by a mob of "peaceful" protesters who were surrounding the car, breaking into it, and threatening to get at the car's occupants - she called the police and was told that, due to the police stand down orders, no police would be responding to her emergency. As she pleaded for help she was actually told that she could contact city hall to voice her "frustrations" (that's if she and her child survived).

The 911 call:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9sIHk8xAGoA

@cricket: I will preempt your wasted time by simply saying lock your doors and don’t drive into crowds.

I find it far more disturbing that you’ve gotten to a point where you’re ok with labeling a whole group of people as criminals when all they have done is exercise their first amendment rights in a way that upsets you.

I think anyone who intentionally runs over criminals in the street with no threat against them should be arrested, just like those people blocking the streets should be arrested.

I wouldn't necessarily call people blocking streets rioters, but they're certainly breaking the law and should be arrested. In the particular case of the first video, I thought it was clear that it was unintended. Yet obviously he needed the police there to protect him. One of the crooks said he was lucky the police were there.

The thread is about the riots, and I think a big part of the story is these criminals blocking streets.

The first amendment does not cover blocking streets. The people doing that are criminals. If that confuses you then look it up.

Looked it up. Damn, first amendment supersedes everything else. What do you know. It’s like our founding fathers almost thought that was like FUNDAMENTAL to freedom.

I’m all for bashing idiots but I don’t ride with authoritative attitudes. I like freedom.

If you're walking down the sidewalk and I just step in front of you and say you can't go any further, are you ok with that? At least I'm not breaking the law by standing on the sidewalk. The people blocking the streets are. If you like freedom you have a funny way of showing it.

And you can be in the streets but you cannot block traffic.

We get it @cricket. You don’t like these protests. And you don’t like the behaviors of the protestors. You’ve made that abundantly clear. This is America and you’re free to believe that and voice the opinion you have about it.

What I don’t understand is why you are so gunho to invite authoritative policies being implemented on the streets of America. Like you wasted no time at all going straight to “criminals” and “lock them up”. That’s the playbook of communist and fascist governments. Label an idea or an action as illegal to stifle speech and cement party rule.

It’s like one of the only true freedoms we have anymore. I’m really not in favor of throwing that out just because you don’t like some people standing in the road.

Unless you've been in a media black out, then you must be aware that we've had 2 months of non-stop violence in most major cities.

This has included arson - even burning some buildings that are occupied in attempted mass murder, looting, vandalism, rapes, assaults, murders, even several little kids & babies being shot to death.

Over 28 known killings have been attributed directly to the riots that stemmed from the protests.

Over the last couple days heavily armed protesters (many of them without lawful carry permits) have shot and wounded other protesters!

I support PEACEFUL protests as much as any American, but a clear delineation point between protesters and violent rioters has not been drawn.

There are many accounts how protesters put down their signs and picked up bricks or who showed up with a cache of Molotov cocktails, all ready to be thrown when night came. There are many accounts of how, as soon as darkness fell, apparent protesters turned into violent mobs of looters and arsonists.

There was just a film on the news where someone dumps a giant bag of frozen water bottles on the ground at "peaceful" protesters' feet and every single bottle is quickly snatched up by the the protesters and turned into a thrown projectile intended to smash someone's skull.

You are completely incorrect. People can peacefully protest anything they want and I support that. I don't know what you're talking about. I'm talking about criminals.

This right here. All the more reason to be aware of surroundings and not do stupid things with stupid people at stupid times in stupid places.

And you don’t gotta tell me about the uptick in violence. My city has been swamped with shootings in the last month and we are not even a major metro.

@cricket: Point out the criminals and I’ll point out people freely saying things with which you disagree.

Pointing to some loud obnoxious people in the streets and yelling criminals is just getting old.

Come hang out with me in my city for an evening and I will take you to see some true dyed in the wool criminals.

I can agree with both. Your posts, though, so far suggest it is only the protesters being unlawful making every effort to justify the guy's action of driving into two people that were already moving out of the roadway.

But you did call them animals and terrorists. Or are we talking about different videos? That may be part of the issue then. *Even so, are they animals and terrorists for marching? Or for responding to a guy threatening them with a vehicle? If someone threatens you, would you not respond?

Looking at the second video, the driver was already revving his engine before any protesters approached his truck. It's one thing to argue that protesters shouldn't block traffic (at least not without some permit to stage the event, assuming that's required by the local authorities). Ultimately though, that is arguably a First Amendment issue. It's another thing entirely to argue a driver is free of responsibility when antagonizing a march by pulling to them then revving his engine as a threat to intend harm as was the case in video #2. Or driving into the crowd, after. The people that approached should not have done that. The driver should also never have done what he did. That action is clearly intended to intimidate. I mean, he's threatening them with a vehicle. People responded to that threat in kind. I don't agree with that response, but clearly it was avoidable by both sides. The driver had every opportunity to deescalate the situation but instead chose to push into it. I don't walk into a biker bar and threaten to piss on their bikes outside without already knowing it's gonna hit the fan and likely be the first, avoidable, step or three to me getting my ass kicked.


*edited briefly after posting originally.

Hahaha I grew up in the south side of Chicago. You're not going to show me anything. And I really don't know what you're talking about. Crime is a problem so let's start arresting people who are guilty of it. Blocking traffic is illegal and not helping anyone. There's nothing controversial about this so I have no idea what you're debating.

@cricket: ain’t debating anything. Just trying to understand why you like fascism.

I don't believe it was intentional.

I don't see how rightfully driving down a street and then stopping before hitting someone is a threat. It sounds like a right to me. On the other hand they don't have the right to block him.

I get it but they have no right to block his right of way, it is illegal, and they should be arrested for it. This guy had guts because I'm sure he's aware of what's been going on. We also don't know where he needed to be. What did the bikers do wrong? So I'd say bad analogy. The driver never broke the law. He didn't hit anybody until he was threatened. Maybe he could have gone around but why should he?

Look in the mirror. I believe people have the right to come and go as they please. You are arguing with that point.

I'm just surprised that some of you guys are OK with this type of bullying, with having other people decide where you can or cannot go. It's not the kind of world I want to live in.

There's been plenty of protests that I agreed with in principle but couldn't support due to method.

Of course I don't agree with BLM for multiple reasons.

What people should have done with George Floyd is not make it a race issue and say all lives matter, meaning despite the fact that he was a career criminal, the police officer had no right to do what he did. If you do this then everyone can stand side by side in agreement and actually accomplish something. A protest or a movement is useless if over half the country disagrees with what you are doing. Instead we have black police officers pulling black college kids out of their cars and tazing them, black people looting black businesses, and white people chanting black lives mater while they burn down black businesses. This movement is not doing anybody any good and it's hurting the black community. None of it was hard to predict.

He threatened the crowd in revving his engine. Do you really believe that was not a threat? In what context is revving your engine's RPM at a group of people reasonable? I don't think anyone needs to be a mind reader to recognize that for what it is when we have all revved out engines in anger and annoyance at a redlight. And red lights can't retaliate!


I may not see aiming a loaded weapon at someone as wrong. Why, it's an absolute right in my mind to do so! If an altercation results of a perceived threat to the safety of others by me, it's not my fault in the slightest or in part. Gosh. I dont know why society doesn't work the way I think it should instead of how it does.


Two wrongs do not make a right, I guess, is what I'm saying here.


If blocking traffic is illegal then have them arrested. Threatening a second illegal action by intentional assault is not a correct response. It's vigilante. And I could be mistaken but I don't think that was the Batmobile. Defending a second illegal action doesn't make it right or dismiss the fact people were hit illegally, either. Like with any accident, there is a point where judgments are drawn with at fault when the accident was absolutely avoidable. That has nothing do with how "principled" the justification may be (quoted for obvious reasons). Avoidable is avoidable. Choosing to escalate is no longer an accident and crosses a very serious line of morality, legality, and responsibility.


No one threatened him till he threatened them. Circles and stuff. I feel this will repeat too.

I’ll admit it’s different for me because I’m in a rural area and the number of people you’d need to clog things up is a whole lot bigger. And you’d know things were clogged before getting there because there’s 8 different ways to get to and from places. Flow of traffic usually goes to the path of least resistance. So having one street inaccessible to me doesn’t seem like the line in the sand to make me start favoring such a binary view of things.

Where I’m from if you’re not in the crosswalk you are going to get ****ed up. (But there are a few exceptions where pedestrians own the streets. Thriving business markets type deal. And you best believe those streets are packed.) But to each their own. I know with cities it’s a totally different ball game when a street gets shut down. And that’s why I will never live in a city.

That goes back to my stupid place/people/time/things.

I believe that anytime is a stupid time to be in a city with city people doing city things. Yes, I am a stick in the mud. hahaha 🤣

We can look at him revving the engine as threatening but it's not a threat in legal terms, yet they are certainly doing something illegal. So what should he have done? Put his tail between his legs and back up? I know you don't believe that. I'll ask you the same thing I asked JM; if you were walking down the sidewalk and I stepped in front of you and said you could go no further, what would you do? Would you push me out of the way, threaten to push me out of the way, or cower and go home?

Re street blockage: I’d go back the way I came and take another route, but I also would have been aware of my surroundings a few blocks down the street. At which point there are a many number of options. Continuing onward at a faster pace oblivious to the other options is just a bad operator.

Me too. I was paying attention to where the protests were and completely avoiding them.

Re: Rioting in the U.S.
 

Alright, I'm just gonna call it here.

I'm a little disappointed how often people chose to escalate disagreements rather than actually try to be understood or reach some form of agreement. Occasionally it's obvious people wanted this to escalate so that the thread would get closed, which definitely isn't cool. But I guess it has to be done now, anyway, so like the protests, flaunting the rules does indeed get the desired attention, albeit with a cost. I guess everyone can decide for themselves if the circumstances require/justify that, or if it's crossing an important line. That seems to be the disagreement, even though we went 2-3 pages without anyone highlighting it or addressing it specifically.