Rioting in the U.S.

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?

__________________
"My Dionne Warwick understanding of your dream indicates that you are ambivalent on how you want life to eventually screw you." - Joel

"Ever try to forcibly pin down a house cat? It's not easy." - Captain Steel

"I just can't get pass sticking a finger up a dog's butt." - John Dumbear

"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:

@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.