alter idem Posted July 1, 2020 Posted July 1, 2020 6 hours ago, stemelbow said: Extra odd, from the little video of it I saw, the crowd didn't really disperse when shots were fired. That's a fairly scary thought, if you ask me. Once shots were fired I'd figure the crowd would go crazy. That does seem strange, unless the crowd knew that he was part of their group, and so they weren't afraid of him. It's reasonable to expect a crowd hearing shots fired, would disperse, head for safety, you'd think. 3
Scott Lloyd Posted July 1, 2020 Author Posted July 1, 2020 3 hours ago, alter idem said: I don't understand why protesters were in the street, obstructing traffic (which is very dangerous and never appropriate for a peaceful protest) and I don't understand why some person was carrying a loaded weapon and actually discharged it! There is no acceptable excuse for either of those activities. At least, it used to be unacceptable to law abiding Americans......way back before people seemed to lose their collective minds. When people are engaged in outright violation of the law (such as willfully obstructing traffic and unlawful detention of individuals) I dispute that it ought to be characterized as a peaceful protest. 3
bluebell Posted July 1, 2020 Posted July 1, 2020 (edited) 21 hours ago, Calm said: So you are okay with the gunman shooting if he was fearful of others being hurt by the car? Because I don’t see much reasoning difference between the two. I get what you are saying and I think it could make sense if that's what he was actually doing, but I don't think that's what he was doing at all. And I also don't think that we can say that the truck driver and the protestors had the same level of responsibility for what took place. Watching the video, a lot of the protestors ran towards the car and were trying to stop it, and he was moving slowly enough (until he was shot) that anyone who wanted to move out the way had plenty of time. If you are running towards a vehicle that is being driven on a public road, purposefully trying to get in it's way, then you assume the risks associated with that in my opinion. You can't blame the driver if you get hurt. Especially when there have been instances in the past where drivers were forcibly removed from their vehicles by protesting mobs and severely hurt. It would make sense for a driver in that circumstance to not stop. And that shooter did not look like he was afraid anyone was getting hurt. In the close up video he's not looking at anyone or even the front of the vehicle (to see if they were in harm's way) he was only focused the driver. Edited July 1, 2020 by bluebell 3
bluebell Posted July 1, 2020 Posted July 1, 2020 Is this video Elder Bednar doubling down on his previous statements, or is it a recap of what he's already said? I haven't watched much of this so I'm not sure (and I apologize if it's already been shared, I'm not following this thread closely). I'm also assuming that he did not make this video and that someone else added the quotes but maybe I'm wrong on that.
MustardSeed Posted July 1, 2020 Posted July 1, 2020 15 minutes ago, bluebell said: Is this video Elder Bednar doubling down on his previous statements, or is it a recap of what he's already said? I haven't watched much of this so I'm not sure (and I apologize if it's already been shared, I'm not following this thread closely). I'm also assuming that he did not make this video and that someone else added the quotes but maybe I'm wrong on that. Same tie as original video, I’m assuming someone created this from that? 1
Calm Posted July 1, 2020 Posted July 1, 2020 (edited) 30 minutes ago, bluebell said: get what you are saying and I think it could make sense if that's what he was actually doing, but I don't think that's what he was doing at all. And I also don't think that we can say that the truck driver and the protestors had the same level of responsibility for what took place. I agree in this case it is unlikely from the video even if his FB and his friend’s are full of comments about cars ‘hit and running’ protestors plus getting closer threatening the guy to stop moving or get shot would have made more sense as shooting someone without killing them or just pointing a gun in their direction would just cause panicked behaviour meaning foot on the gas and actually running over (surprised there were not actual injuries so either people backed off or he didn’t really gun it until free of protestors). However, speaking generally it seems like if fear of life is used as justification, it works as well for protestors as drivers. To say protestors have no right to fear seems to ignore they are going to feel that way and act on it whether legal or not. Drivers who drive through protestors even if protestors do not have a legal permit and are blocking the road still may get charged. They don’t necessarily have a legal right to proceed. So saying drivers have a legal right to cause harm when in fear of their life and protestors (who may be legally carrying a gun for self defense) don’t may be invalid. https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-running-over-protesters-blo/fact-check-drivers-dont-have-the-right-to-plow-through-protesters-idUSKBN23B39U https://www.factcheck.org/2019/07/protections-for-drivers-who-hit-protesters-didnt-pass/ Edited July 1, 2020 by Calm 2
bluebell Posted July 1, 2020 Posted July 1, 2020 10 minutes ago, Calm said: I agree in this case it is unlikely from the video even if his FB and his friend’s are full of comments about cars ‘hit and running’ protestors plus getting closer threatening the guy to stop moving or get shot would have made more sense as shooting someone without killing them or just pointing a gun in their direction would just cause panicked behaviour meaning foot on the gas and actually running over (surprised there were not actual injuries so either people backed off or he didn’t really gun it until free of protestors). However, speaking generally it seems like if fear of life is used as justification, it works as well for protestors as drivers. To say protestors have no right to fear seems to ignore they are going to feel that way and act on it whether legal or not. Drivers who drive through protestors even if protestors do not have a legal permit and are blocking the road still may get charged. They don’t necessarily have a legal right to proceed. So saying drivers have a legal right to cause harm when in fear of their life and protestors (who may be legally carrying a gun for self defense) don’t may be invalid. https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-running-over-protesters-blo/fact-check-drivers-dont-have-the-right-to-plow-through-protesters-idUSKBN23B39U https://www.factcheck.org/2019/07/protections-for-drivers-who-hit-protesters-didnt-pass/ I found this quote in your second link: "The use of deadly force is justified in self-defense only when a person reasonably believes that it is necessary to use deadly force in order to protect himself against death or serious bodily injury, or other serious felonies like rape or kidnapping.” I definitely agree that someone would have to be able to show that they feared for their life if they hit someone and hurt them in a car. 3
Calm Posted July 1, 2020 Posted July 1, 2020 (edited) 1 hour ago, bluebell said: I found this quote in your second link: "The use of deadly force is justified in self-defense only when a person reasonably believes that it is necessary to use deadly force in order to protect himself against death or serious bodily injury, or other serious felonies like rape or kidnapping.” I definitely agree that someone would have to be able to show that they feared for their life if they hit someone and hurt them in a car. This seems like it would apply equally to legal protestors. I don’t know specifics about what is legal or not. Probably varies with area. Pedestrians have right of way in Canada last I heard (almost 20 years) so blocking traffic might be legal in those circumstances. Will Research it later. Edited July 1, 2020 by Calm 1
USU78 Posted July 1, 2020 Posted July 1, 2020 8 minutes ago, Calm said: This seems like it would apply equally to legal protestors. I don’t know specifics about what is legal or not. Probably varies with area. Pedestrians have right of way in Canada last I heard (almost 20 years) so blocking traffic might be legal in those circumstances. Will Research it later. Walp, they charged the shooter and a companion both with riot, a felony. Blocking public rights of way is illegal; indeed, you're not even allowed to walk in the road where there is a sidewalk available [Note -- University Ave is a highway, as defined]: 41-6a-1009. Use of roadway by pedestrians -- Prohibited activities. (1) Where there is a sidewalk provided and its use is practicable, a pedestrian may not walk along or on an adjacent roadway. (2) Where a sidewalk is not provided, a pedestrian walking along or on a highway shall walk only on the shoulder, as far as practicable from the edge of the roadway. (3) Where a sidewalk or a shoulder is not available, a pedestrian walking along or on a highway shall: (a) walk as near as practicable to the outside edge of the roadway; and (b) if on a two-way roadway, walk only on the left side of the roadway facing traffic. (4) (a) An individual may not impede or block traffic within any of the following: (i) an interstate system, as defined in Section 72-1-102; (ii) a freeway, as defined in Section 41-6a-102; (iii) a state highway, as defined in Title 72, Chapter 4, Designation of State Highways Act; (iv) a state route, or "SR," as defined in Section 72-1-102; or (v) a highway, as defined in Section 72-1-102, that: (A) is paved and has a speed limit of 35 miles per hour or higher; (B) has a median, whether elevated or flat; or (C) has a fixed guideway as defined in Section 59-12-102 or any other railway that shares the highway right-of-way. 2
Calm Posted July 1, 2020 Posted July 1, 2020 (edited) This seems to imply protesting in streets is allowed if you have a permit, but I bet that means blocked off streets. If you can’t block pedestrian traffic, likely can’t block vehicular. https://www.acluutah.org/resources/articles-position-papers/item/1358-your-right-to-protest-and-engage-in-other-free-speech-activities-in-utah Edited July 1, 2020 by Calm 1
Calm Posted July 1, 2020 Posted July 1, 2020 (edited) Quote intending to cause public inconvenience, annoyance, or alarm, or recklessly creating a risk of public inconvenience, annoyance, or alarm, the person: (i) engages in fighting or in violent, tumultuous, or threatening behavior; (ii) makes unreasonable noises in a public place or an official meeting; (iii) makes unreasonable noises in a private place which can be heard in a public place or an official meeting; or (iv) obstructs vehicular or pedestrian traffic in a public place or an official meeting. Disorderly Conduct Utah code (was sent here from a by state laws for protests page) https://le.utah.gov/xcode/Title76/Chapter9/76-9-S102.html Looks illegal at all times if there is traffic. Provo May have its own code. Looks like a useful summary (off an ad for lawyers): https://blogs.findlaw.com/blotter/2016/09/is-it-legal-for-protesters-to-block-traffic.html?DCMP=google:ppc:K-FLPortal:10313486553:103002902536&HBX_PK=&sid=9029895 Edited July 1, 2020 by Calm 1
Tacenda Posted July 5, 2020 Posted July 5, 2020 (edited) Someone posted this on their ward bulletin online, I guess they're listening to Elder Bednar. Edited July 5, 2020 by Tacenda
Scott Lloyd Posted July 7, 2020 Author Posted July 7, 2020 (edited) On 7/5/2020 at 12:04 PM, Tacenda said: Someone posted this on their ward bulletin online, I guess they're listening to Elder Bednar. Maybe it’s an oblique reference to all the rioting, arson and looting going on now and the dithering politicians allowing it to happen. Edited July 26, 2020 by Scott Lloyd 1
Tacenda Posted July 7, 2020 Posted July 7, 2020 2 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: Maybe it’s an oblique reference to all the rioting, arson and looting going in now and the dithering politicians allowing it to happen. Probably!
bsjkki Posted July 25, 2020 Posted July 25, 2020 (edited) The Supreme Court refused to give injunctive relief to a church in Nevada. Gorsuch’s one paragraph opinion says all that needs to be said. In this tweet thread Elder Bednar’s talk on this topic is posted. https://twitter.com/kerpen/status/1286831220521938944?s=20 https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/19a1070_08l1.pdf Having trouble copying the whole paragraph...maybe gambling terms trigger 404? “But churches, synagogues, and mosques are banned from ad- mitting more than 50 worshippers—no matter how large the building, how distant the individuals, how many wear face masks, no matter the precautions at all. In Nevada, it seems, it is better to be in entertainment than religion. Maybe that is nothing new. But the First Amendment pro- hibits such obvious discrimination against the exercise of religion. The world we inhabit today, with a pandemic upon us, poses unusual challenges. But there is no world in which the Constitution permits Nevada to favor Caesars Palace over Calvary Chapel.” Edited July 25, 2020 by bsjkki 2
bsjkki Posted July 25, 2020 Posted July 25, 2020 Favorite tweet on this court ruling. “We've gone from "15 days to slow the spread" to "C@sinos are cool but not churches." Its amazing the hypocrisy in these dictates and also the tacit support of protests by mayors and governors.
Recommended Posts