Rioting in the U.S.

Tools    





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.



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.



The trick is not minding
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.



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.



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



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.



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.



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.



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 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.



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.



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.



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?



The idea that protestors can be attackers against a 3000+ lb vehicle is next level lunacy.
And again, be honest and stop calling them protesters. If they are blocking the streets then they are criminals.



You ready? You look ready.
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



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.
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?