Whodathunkit - Little Old Provo

[Rajah Manchou]

51 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

I actually think this does work.

OK, I'll check in in the next millenium when American-on-American crime is finally lower than police-on-American crime. Until then, let us all stay hyper-focused on this single metric contrasting how many (1) Americans kill Americans vs how many (2) police kill Americans. We haven't succeeded until (1) is less than (2) 

[Rajah Manchou]

1 hour ago, bsjkki said:

Did you watch the whole trial? Just curious. I did.

Much of it. I followed it closely and know most of the twist and turns.

[bsjkki]

9 minutes ago, Rajah Manchou said:

Much of it. I followed it closely and know most of the twist and turns.

Much of it came down to who was screaming in the background of the 911 call from a neighbor. Hard to convict if you believe that was George Zimmerman screaming for help. The prosecution overcharged. They also may have overcharged in the Floyd case. Will the jury be able to consider lesser charges in the Minnesota case? I hope so.

[Rajah Manchou]

58 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

So, most everyone agreed what happened to George Floyd was wrong. Investigations were occurring. The DOJ and FBI were investigating as well as city and state authorities. Did the protests help this cause or hurt it? What will all the unintended consequences be?

Investigations without transparency. Remember that the police report following Eric Garner's death put his death down 100% as a consequence of his medical conditions and left out the parts about the excessive force and the banned hold. It wasn't until the video came out, that there was anger. Much of it due to the fact that the police wrote a report that did not match what we all see in the video. To make it worse, an eyewitness who said she saw the hold was misquoted in the report as saying "two officers each took Mr. Garner by the arms and put him on the ground.” 

"Without video of his final struggle, Mr. Garner’s death may have attracted little notice or uproar. Without seeing it, the world would not have known exactly how he died. The video images were cited in the final autopsy report as one of the factors that led the city medical examiner to conclude that the chokehold and chest compression by the police caused Mr. Garner’s death. Absent the video, many in the Police Department would have gone on believing his death to have been solely caused by his health problems: obesity, asthma and hypertensive cardiovascular disease. The autopsy report, which is confidential, was provided by a person close to Mr. Garner’s family. "We didn’t know anything about a chokehold or hands to the neck until the video came out,” said a former senior police official with direct knowledge of the investigation, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to protect his access to confidential department information. “We found out when everyone else did.” (source)

The unintended consequences of the protests about the mishandling of both the Trayvon Martin case and the Eric Garner case are no doubt waking people up to the fact that these investigations are far too often mishandled.

[bsjkki]

7 hours ago, Rajah Manchou said:

OK, I'll check in in the next millenium when American-on-American crime is finally lower than police-on-American crime. Until then, let us all stay hyper-focused on this single metric contrasting how many (1) Americans kill Americans vs how many (2) police kill Americans. We haven't succeeded until (1) is less than (2) 

Wouldn't that be a great day! What can we do to drop the murder rate by a few thousand? The suicide rate? I think we are hyper focused  right now  on a problem...but because of this focus, we are going to end up with more dead Americans not less. That's not a great way to solve the problem. As of June 22, 26 were killed directly tied to protests and the increased murder rate in larger cities across the country should be concerning to everyone.

(By the way, it is really hard to find deaths attributed to the protests past June 22. Why did Wikipedia quit documenting this?)

Edited July 7, 2020 by bsjkki

[alter idem]

15 hours ago, Calm said:

So you don't believe that people should be allowed to conceal carry?  Or just for something they know will have heightened emotions and potential conflict like a protest, party, parade?

What about open carry such as the camo wearing counter protestors? (Just want to be sure I understand)

My comment was specifically in reference to people attending the protest. These protests are supposed to be non violent, with a police contingent to keep watch and so why bring weapons, the majority did not.  I have no problems with conceal carry, or for open carry if it's legal, and not done to intimdate others. Some places it's not uncommon for people to be armed. But if an armed person pulls a gun at a crowded event, they'd better have a good reason and imo, those two protestors did not have valid reasons for doing so, and as I recall they've been arrested

The shootings have been escalating as mayors have let them get out of control, monuments are being destroyed,  the protests are being used to terrorize communities. Instead of Defund Police, they're proving how much they need them. If the organizers of these protests are really non violent then this shouldn't be happening, 

[alter idem]

6 hours ago, bsjkki said:

Wouldn't that be a great day! What can we do to drop the murder rate by a few thousand? The suicide rate? I think we are hyper focused  right now  on a problem...but because of this focus, we are going to end up with more dead American not less. That's not a great way to solve the problem. As of June 22, 26 were killed directly tied to protests and the increased murder rate in larger cities across the country should be concerning to everyone.

(By the way, it is really hard to find deaths attributed to the protests past June 22. Why did Wikipedia quit documenting this?)

The news is still reporting shootings, and they're up catastrophically in these out of control cities. But, it does seem they are trying to hide the unintended (hopefully they were not intended) consequences of keeping people cooped up for 3 months then letting them protest with no restraints, ignoring the covid guidelines against mass gatherings, holding police back.  The local officials blew it, so no wonder they're trying to cover up. Imo

[smac97]

An update on last week's violent protest in Provo:

Quote

PROVO — One of the two men police say pointed guns at a motorist during a protest in Provo last week has been charged with attempted murder for allegedly firing into the moving vehicle.

Jesse Keller Taggart, 33, of Salt Lake City, was charged Monday in 4th District Court with attempted aggravated murder, a first-degree felony; aggravated assault, and discharge of a firearm causing injuring, both second-degree felonies; and rioting, a third-degree felony.

The other man accused of brandishing a gun, Bradley Glenn Walters, 29, of Ogden, was charged with rioting and aggravated assault, both third-degree felonies.

On June 29, a 60-year-old Provo man driving an SUV was attempting to make a turn at the intersection of Center Street and University Avenue when his path was blocked by people protesting police in front of the Provo Police Department, according to officers. The victim later told police that he was attempting to turn to avoid the protesters, according to charging documents, but they “crowded” his vehicle.

“He attempted to pull forward slowly and move through the protesters when an individual approached his passenger-side front door, leveled a handgun and fired through the window. Victim then accelerated to get to safety and then drove himself to Utah Valley Hospital,” the charges state.

The man was admitted to the hospital to be treated for a gunshot wound to his right elbow, according to the charges,

Police went through the man's vehicle looking for evidence while it was parked at the hospital.

“Officers noticed that the passenger-side front window was shattered, and the passenger-side rear window was cracked and had a bullet hole in it. Officers located a bullet on the floor of the vehicle and another embedded in the steering column,” the charges state.

As police were gathering information about the possible shooter, they spotted Taggart, who matched the description given to detectives by witnesses.

“Officers decided not to detain him, but recorded the license plate of the vehicle that he was leaving in,” the charges state.

Police collected cellphone video from witnesses that showed Taggart “pull out a small handgun and fire a round through the passenger-front window of the victim’s vehicle. The footage also shows the same suspect chase after the vehicle a short distance and then fire a second round,” according to charging documents.

Taggart was also recorded going up to the driver’s side of a second vehicle and breaking the window, the charges state.

Other video recorded Walters pointing “a revolver-style handgun at the (the first) victim’s vehicle and chase it a short distance,” the charges state.

Investigators traced the license plate on the vehicle Taggart left in to Samantha Darling, 27, of Ogden.

“Officers also learned from another police agency that Samantha and Jesse were known associates and had been tied to protests in Salt Lake City. Officers learned that Jesse was living in a trailer attached to his truck in Salt Lake City,” according to charging documents.

As of Monday, no charges had been filed against Darling, who was originally arrested for investigation of obstruction of justice and rioting.

I imagine Darling will be charged, probably as an accessory.

I've learned a bit more about Taggart.  I pieced it together from public information, but I don't see much value in publishing it.

Learned a bit more about Samantha Darling.  A lot of harsh rhetoric from her.

I don't know anything about Walters.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited July 7, 2020 by smac97

[Scott Lloyd]

13 minutes ago, smac97 said:

An update on last week's violent protest in Provo:

I imagine Darling will be charged, probably as an accessory.

I've learned a bit more about Taggart.  I pieced it together from public information, but I don't see much value in publishing it.

Learned a bit more about Samantha Darling.  A lot of harsh rhetoric from her.

I don't know anything about Walters.

Thanks,

-Smac

It appears for the moment that the DA doesn’t plan on coddling Taggart or Walters. But I wonder if they’ll do a deal and plead it down. 
 

I’ve wondered what Darling did to draw a charge of obstruction. It would have to be something worse, it seems to me, than merely giving Taggart a ride. I wonder if she was harboring him. 

Edited July 7, 2020 by Scott Lloyd

[smac97]

On 7/5/2020 at 8:42 PM, smac97 said:

I just received an email from Shannon Ellsworth, a member of the Provo City Council.  It is apparently a group email, not one sent to me in particular.  It includes links to the upcoming City Council meeting on July 7, and also includes these remarks about the protests:

I am pretty frustrated by the tone and content of the above message.  I sent an email in response to it...

I have received a further email from Ms. Ellsworth.  Whereas the above email was apparently a "blast" communication, her second one was to me personally and in response to my email to her.

Ms. Ellsworth makes some fair points, though my concerns about what happened on June 29 are far from resolved.  I appreciate her willingness to have a frank discussion with a constituent about these things.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited July 7, 2020 by smac97

[Amulek]

12 hours ago, Rajah Manchou said:

But that is not all that Zimmerman did, he told dispatch, that he was suspicious of Trayvon, that Trayvon was probably "up to no good" or "on drugs or something" that "something's wrong with him" and that "these ******** always get away" and then referred to Trayvon as a "****ing punk". 

Yes, he described the suspicious behavior to the non-emergency operator and, later in their conversation - under his breath - used some vulgarities to express his frustration that suspected criminals frequently get away.

You are aware, no doubt, that in the last year there had been a string of robberies and break-ins, and many of them had, in fact, gotten away. 

But if we're focusing on language, I find it odd that you fail to mention the kind of language used by Trayvon Martin, which included not only vulgarities but racial epithets as well. 

Zimmerman's use of language can be attributed to his frustration; Martin's, however, goes beyond that - evidencing potential racial animus. 

 

Quote

ZImmerman then admits to following Trayvon who had committed no crime and was running AWAY from Zimmerman. 

All of which is perfectly lawful behavior. 

 

Quote

A few minutes later there is a scuffle and Trayvon is shot. 

Yes, because even though he had ample time to run home, he chose not to - either because he was hiding and scared or because he decided that he was going to teach this "creepy a** cracker" a lesson for following him.

 

Quote

So you agree that after Zimmerman calls Trayvon a "****ing punk" and says "these ******** always get away" he runs after Trayvon, armed with a gun. You agree that's what happened, right?

I agree that Zimmerman said those words. And I agree that he was lawfully carrying a firearm. 

Here's the part that's not going to gain me any popularity points: I actually kind of think that Trayvon Martin was a punk. He had a history of getting in fights (including, apparently, taking a swing at a school employee), he was a drug user, and he had been suspended from school three times in the last four months. He had recently been found in possession of stolen goods, and there was evidence that he may have been looking to buy/sell firearms illegally as well. Heck, one of the reasons his mom sent him to go live with his dad was because she was afraid he was going to get into more fights. 

Now look, lots of kids are punks at that age. And, regrettably, Trayvon Martin lost the chance to grow out of this particular phase of his life. 

But the whole case comes down to who threw the first punch, and the version of events which seems to be most consistent with all of the available evidence points to Martin being the physical aggressor. 

 

Quote

Let me just say this, if at any point Zimmerman pulled that gun out and Trayvon saw it, Zimmerman's argument is compromised.

For someone who claims to be acquainted with the "twists and turns" of the case, that seems like a really gargantuan "if." 

Because, as you know, minutes prior to (and then up to) the actual confrontation, Martin was on the phone with one of his friends, and he never mentions anything about a gun.

And Martin couldn't have seen it previously because Zimmerman was sill in his truck when Martin took off originally. 

Plus, it was super dark and had been raining. Honestly, the whole idea is pretty far fetched. 

 

Quote

Can you be 100% certain that (1) Trayvon did not first feel threatened by Zimmerman, and (2) that Zimmerman did not pull his gun out until after he felt his life was somehow in danger? From Zimmerman's account it seems Trayvon knew there was a gun and there was continued scuffling after that.

Feeling threatened doesn't give one carte blanche to beat the tar out of someone.

You are allowed to meet force with force, but your response has to be proportional to the actual threat.

Where is the evidence that Zimmerman was threatening anyone with deadly force? Where is the evidence that he was walking around, brandishing his weapon? There isn't any, and we know that because the alleged victim in your fantasy version of events was on the phone with his friend the whole time. He wasn't scarred for his life - that's why he just kept calling his friend back rather than the police.

And Zimmerman's account was that he felt Trayvon's hand moving down his side toward where his gun was - presumably having felt it while he was sitting on top of Zimmerman, beating the living tar out of him. That's when Zimmerman finally retrieved his gun and fired on his attacker. 

Tell me, in your version of the story, when exactly do you think Zimmerman drew his gun? And what, in your mind, happened after that? 

Remember, there was no DNA from Martin on the gun, so do you think Zimmerman pulled it out and then Martin just completely ignored it / never even touched it during their fight? Do you think Zimmerman had his gun drawn but then re-holstered it as Martin approached (and then assaulted) him? Honestly, I'm genuinely interested in how you think the encounter played out, because for the life of me I can't think of any scenario which comes close to being plausible that involves a drawn weapon prior to the actual shooting. 

 

Edited July 7, 2020 by Amulek

[Rain]

On 7/5/2020 at 9:45 PM, strappinglad said:

BTW, cars rarely backfire anymore since fuel injection replaced carbs. You might have see such a thing in a movie , but probably not in real life. Mind you there are a lot of tuner cars around with crazy exhausts , but they don't sound like gun shots.

I think it is really going to matter about one's experience with guns.  

The last time I shot one I was 11 or 12 and my memory on that kind of thing is bad.  My husband shot or was around family while hunting in his teens.  When I hear something that seems like a gun to me I always have to ask him and rarely does he say it is a gun.

Then my experience on local community boards tell me a lot of people can't determine if something is a gun sound or not.  It is not uncommon for me to read, "was that a gunshot?" Then a bunch of people come in saying, "no" or "yes" depending on what it was. If it wasn't then you get a lot of people mocking the questioner for being stupid because they don't know.

So I can't tell you anything about this specific case, but just because some people can clearly tell doesn't mean that everyone, or maybe even most, can.

[Amulek]

6 minutes ago, Rain said:

Then my experience on local community boards tell me a lot of people can't determine if something is a gun sound or not.  It is not uncommon for me to read, "was that a gunshot?" Then a bunch of people come in saying, "no" or "yes" depending on what it was. If it wasn't then you get a lot of people mocking the questioner for being stupid because they don't know.

So I can't tell you anything about this specific case, but just because some people can clearly tell doesn't mean that everyone, or maybe even most, can.

Plus, given the time of year, don't forget about fireworks. Many of them can sound similar to gun shots. 

 

[bsjkki]

1 hour ago, Amulek said:

Yes, he described the suspicious behavior to the non-emergency operator and, later in their conversation - under his breath - used some vulgarities to express his frustration that suspected criminals frequently get away.

You are aware, no doubt, that in the last year there had been a string of robberies and break-ins, and many of them had, in fact, gotten away. 

But if we're focusing on language, I find it odd that you fail to mention the kind of language used by Trayvon Martin, which included not only vulgarities but racial epithets as well. 

Zimmerman's use of language can be attributed to his frustration; Martin's, however, goes beyond that - evidencing potential racial animus. 

 

All of which is perfectly lawful behavior. 

 

Yes, because even though he had ample time to run home, he chose not to - either because he was hiding and scared or because he decided that he was going to teach this "creepy a** cracker" a lesson for following him.

 

I agree that Zimmerman said those words. And I agree that he was lawfully carrying a firearm. 

Here's the part that's not going to gain me any popularity points: I actually kind of think that Trayvon Martin was a punk. He had a history of getting in fights (including, apparently, taking a swing at a school employee), he was a drug user, and he had been suspended from school three times in the last four months. He had recently been found in possession of stolen goods, and there was evidence that he may have been looking to buy/sell firearms illegally as well. Heck, one of the reasons his mom sent him to go live with his dad was because she was afraid he was going to get into more fights. 

Now look, lots of kids are punks at that age. And, regrettably, Trayvon Martin lost the chance to grow out of this particular phase of his life. 

But the whole case comes down to who threw the first punch, and the version of events which seems to be most consistent with all of the available evidence points to Martin being the physical aggressor. 

 

For someone who claims to be acquainted with the "twists and turns" of the case, that seems like a really gargantuan "if." 

Because, as you know, minutes prior to (and then up to) the actual confrontation, Martin was on the phone with one of his friends, and he never mentions anything about a gun.

And Martin couldn't have seen it previously because Zimmerman was sill in his truck when Martin took off originally. 

Plus, it was super dark and had been raining. Honestly, the whole idea is pretty far fetched. 

 

Feeling threatened doesn't give one carte blanche to beat the tar out of someone.

You are allowed to meet force with force, but your response has to be proportional to the actual threat.

Where is the evidence that Zimmerman was threatening anyone with deadly force? Where is the evidence that he was walking around, brandishing his weapon? There isn't any, and we know that because the alleged victim in your fantasy version of events was on the phone with his friend the whole time. He wasn't scarred for his life - that's why he just kept calling his friend back rather than the police.

And Zimmerman's account was that he felt Trayvon's hand moving down his side toward where his gun was - presumably having felt it while he was sitting on top of Zimmerman, beating the living tar out of him. That's when Zimmerman finally retrieved his gun and fired on his attacker. 

Tell me, in your version of the story, when exactly do you think Zimmerman drew his gun? And what, in your mind, happened after that? 

Remember, there was no DNA from Martin on the gun, so do you think Zimmerman pulled it out and then Martin just completely ignored it / never even touched it during their fight? Do you think Zimmerman had his gun drawn but then re-holstered it as Martin approached (and then assaulted) him? Honestly, I'm genuinely interested in how you think the encounter played out, because for the life of me I can't think of any scenario which comes close to being plausible that involves a drawn weapon prior to the actual shooting. 

 

I ask people about watching the trial because if they were only reading news accounts, they missed many important facts and did not see the witness testimony and cross examinations. The media certainly wasn't going to report the trial in an accurate, full way. Watching this case made me realize how morally bankrupt cable news and newspapers are and they are not to be trusted...at all. Even their 'trial experts' were completely wrong at times and misled viewers. Switched to original sources, CSPAN, and have read a lot of transcripts since then. Thanks for providing such an accurate account of the case on this forum. It is not often I see someone so knowledgeable about the details. IYO, was Rachel Jenteal the real girlfriend on the phone? The facts seem to support the prosecutors allowed her knowingly to commit perjury.

[bsjkki]

Another weird story out of Utah.  https://www.ksl.com/article/46773861/utah-man-threatens-people-with-gun-for-having-trump-flags-police-say

“While speaking with 11 separate victims, it was identified that Omar had threatened five individuals including one juvenile by pulling a gun out of his waistband and pointing it at them, making statement about them having Trump flags on their four-wheeler and threatening the juvenile that he was going to come break into his house and kill his family,” the affidavit states.

As police were arriving, Levi drove off to find his wife, who had already fled from the area “due to him pointing the gun at her head threatening to kill her and firing it, with five more victims. While confronting them, Omar pointed the gun at all of them, and began firing it out the window of his vehicle getting closer and closer to the victims before ceasing fire, getting out and pulling out what was described as an AR-type rifle and pointing it at them, before fleeing down the mountain,” police wrote in their affidavit."

[pogi]

4 hours ago, Amulek said:

But the whole case comes down to who threw the first punch, and the version of events which seems to be most consistent with all of the available evidence points to Martin being the physical aggressor. 

Who threw the first punch?  Is that what this boils down to?

Unfortunately, there is only one person here to tell their side of the story.  What do you think Zimmerman is going to say?

4 hours ago, Amulek said:

He wasn't scarred for his life - that's why he just kept calling his friend back rather than the police.

How do you know he wasn't scared for his life?  The fact that he called his friend is not evidence that he wasn't scared.  It seems like proof that he was to me.  There could be plenty of reasons why he didn't call police. 

From the friend on the other end of the phone call:

"hounded by a strange man on a cellphone who ran after him, cornered him and confronted him."

'He said this man was watching him, so he put his hoodie on. He said he lost the man,' Martin’s friend said. ‘I asked Trayvon to run, and he said he was going to walk fast. I told him to run but he said he was not going to run.' Eventually he would run, said the girl, thinking that he'd managed to escape. But suddenly the strange man was back, cornering Martin. 'Trayvon said, 'What are you following me for,' and the man said, 'What are you doing here.'"

Who wouldn't be terrified of some guy chasing you down, cornering you, and confronting you for no known reason?  Why was Zimmerman even within striking distance if he wasn't there to start something?

If I was a young black kid and some angry, racist dude was chasing me and cornering me for no good reason, dang straight I am going to fight my way out of being hunted down, feeling cornered and threatened.  Who honestly wouldn't feel threatened in that scenario? 

Edited July 7, 2020 by pogi

[smac97]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Quote

I just received an email from Shannon Ellsworth, a member of the Provo City Council.  It is apparently a group email, not one sent to me in particular.  It includes links to the upcoming City Council meeting on July 7, and also includes these remarks about the protests:

I am pretty frustrated by the tone and content of the above message.  I sent an email in response to it...

I have received a further email from Ms. Ellsworth.  Whereas the above email was apparently a "blast" communication, her second one was to me personally and in response to my email to her.

Ms. Ellsworth makes some fair points, though my concerns about what happened on June 29 are far from resolved.  I appreciate her willingness to have a frank discussion with a constituent about these things.

Thanks,

-Smac

Earlier today I sent another email to Ms. Ellsworth, and just now a response from her.  Again, this one was directed to me and responsive to my email.

I must say, I am impressed with her.  Her responses are increasingly measured, fair, reasoned, and persuasive.  She is listening to me, and asking that I reciprocate.  Her most recent email presents two things I did not know previously:

First, the Provo Police Chief had specifically asked that armed citizens not come to Provo on July 1.  I hope that

• A) the chief's "request" really was a "request" (rather than a command that could have constituted a Second Amendment violation);
• B) the request came with an assurance that the police would be out in force on July 1;
• C) the request came with an assurance that that the Provo PD would be supplemented by officers from other jurisdictions; and
• D) the request came with an assurance that the Provo PD would not allow a repeat of the violence and lawlessness we had experienced on June 29. 

If such a request-coupled-with-an-explanation-and-assurances had been presented by the chief, then I would have complied with it, and also encouraged others to comply with it.  The armed citizens, though acting lawfully, had no command structure, no rules of engagement, no training.  Things could have gone sideways (though if they had, I would prefer to have an armed citizenry).  What we saw on June 29 was the least preferred situation: violent thugs terrorize motorists and passersby with the apparent indifference or blessing of the powers-that-be of Provo City, and with the police nowhere in sight.  A repeat of that situation on July 1 would have been unacceptable, such that an armed response by everyday citizens would have been appropriate, thought risky and unfortunate.  The police chief's request was a good one.

Second, the Mayor's Office has, until very recently, apparently been nonresponsive/uncooperative in improving the "permitting" process for protests.  This will be discussed at the City Council meeting tonight.

The violent protest on June 29 has really bothered me, all the more so because I think it occurred because Provo had set an unhealthy precedent, and because I think the protesters are likely to continue to act lawlessly as long as feckless local politicians let them do so without consequence.  I think Provo needs to have some serious discussions about changes to its handling of such things.  And again, if there was any sort of "stand down" order or preferential treatment given to the protesters, there should be some serious political repercussions for such nonfeasance.  I'm looking at the Mayor's Office on that point.

I concluded my most recent email to Ms. Ellsworth with the following:

Quote

I invite you to consider this recent article written by Ed Meese, entitled "Mob Violence Must Not Be Tolerated. Hold Accountable and Punish the Wrongdoers."  The three "take aways" from this article are:

1. Orderly protest is part of our American tradition. It is an exercise of our constitutional rights of free speech and peaceable assembly.
2. Violence is not only unacceptable, it's useless as a tool for bring positive social change.
3. We must listen and respond to the voices of pain, offered up in legitimate, peaceful protest.

I wholeheartedly agree with Mr. Meese's remarks here.  I hope we do better in Provo moving forward.

Giving credit where it's due, I am pleased with and appreciative of the responsiveness and thoughtfullness of Ms. Ellsworth.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

28 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

Another weird story out of Utah.  https://www.ksl.com/article/46773861/utah-man-threatens-people-with-gun-for-having-trump-flags-police-say

“While speaking with 11 separate victims, it was identified that Omar had threatened five individuals including one juvenile by pulling a gun out of his waistband and pointing it at them, making statement about them having Trump flags on their four-wheeler and threatening the juvenile that he was going to come break into his house and kill his family,” the affidavit states.

As police were arriving, Levi drove off to find his wife, who had already fled from the area “due to him pointing the gun at her head threatening to kill her and firing it, with five more victims. While confronting them, Omar pointed the gun at all of them, and began firing it out the window of his vehicle getting closer and closer to the victims before ceasing fire, getting out and pulling out what was described as an AR-type rifle and pointing it at them, before fleeing down the mountain,” police wrote in their affidavit."

He had a very high BAC.  Drunk people do stupid things.

Mr. Levi "now faces 28 charges, including 23 felonies," including "illegally carrying a concealed firearm, a second-degree felony; witness tampering, 11 counts of aggravated assault, six counts of illegal discharge of a firearm, and three counts of possession of a firearm by a restricted person, all third-degree felonies; threatening to use a weapon in a fight, and two counts of evidence tampering, both class A misdemeanors; making a threat of violence, a class B misdemeanor; intoxication, a class C misdemeanor; and and not having a valid license, an infraction."

Mr. Levi will likely lose his individual right to carry a weapon, as is often a penalty for committing a felony.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

4 hours ago, alter idem said:

. If the organizers of these protests are really non violent then this shouldn't be happening, 

There are multiple groups involved, I don’t believe it is appropriate to condemn all organizers with the same brush. Groups may not even be involved. For example, iirc BLM itself stated it was not part of the Wednesday protests, but from how it is talked about any issues at any time are attributed to BLM in most cases I have seen. 
 

Historically speaking we have seen nonviolent organizers whose work ends up attracting a violent crowd. The organizers have nothing by which to control these violent elements except for peer pressure or appealing to police.  Given the point of the current protests, seems highly unlikely they will appeal to police for minor infractions out of concern the police may overreact.  Which means violence can get out of control. Peer pressure only works if the outsiders want to be appreciated by the organizers....so sometimes works, sometimes doesn’t. If the violent groups are also actual criminals using protests as a cover to loot or extend their range or whatever, why would we expect nonviolent organizers have any ability to control them?

There are nonviolent parents with violent kids. If parents can’t ensure their own kids won’t do violent things, why would we assume that organizers, who have minimal abilities to influence individuals who disagree with them, should be somehow fully responsible for anyone who shows up on their side, wanted or not?

Edited July 7, 2020 by Calm

[Scott Lloyd]

19 hours ago, Rajah Manchou said:

Because the video I'm watching is shot from roughly the same position as Walters, and I certainly cannot see a gun, or a gunman, or an injured driver, or a broken window for that matter. Can you?

I wonder how you can determine that Walters did know the motorist was badly injured and fleeing the scene of a shooting. Are you suggesting they had some sort of walkie-talkie setup and coordinated a double-attack?

What are you seeing in the video that indicates the driver was badly injured by a gunman? Are you seeing a gun, a barrel flash, a broken window? What are you seeing? 

I told you. I’m going off of news reports quoting official police statements based on an investigation that included views of multiple videos, not just one, and statements given by witnesses at the scene. 
 

But I do wonder how you can conclude the video you’re seeing was “shot from roughly the same position as Walters” if Walters is visible in the video. 

Edited July 7, 2020 by Scott Lloyd

[Kenngo1969]

On 7/5/2020 at 10:08 PM, Scott Lloyd said:

See how you are? You ought to have your law license. 

To be fair, every police officer has read Tennessee v. Garner.  If any officer hasn't, he should.

[Scott Lloyd]

5 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

To be fair, every police officer has read Tennessee v. Garner.  If any officer hasn't, he should.

I learned about some case law in my communications law class in college, but today I couldn’t rattle off any of the citations from memory as you did. 

[Kenngo1969]

9 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

It appears for the moment that the DA doesn’t plan on coddling Taggart or Walters. But I wonder if they’ll do a deal and plead it down. 
 

I’ve wondered what Darling did to draw a charge of obstruction. It would have to be something worse, it seems to me, than merely giving Taggart a ride. I wonder if she was harboring him. 

What she did wouldn't necessarily have to be worse than giving Taggart a ride to deserve being charged with obstruction of justice ... at least, not if she knew he'd just shot somebody.  (Her defense could be, "Hey, all I knew is that he asked me for a ride.  I didn't know he'd just shot somebody."  Whether it would fly with a jury is a different question, but, definitely, she could argue that.  (Any port in a storm.))  See Title 76, Chapter 8, § 306, Utah Code Annotated:

Quote

 

76-8-306.  Obstruction of justice in criminal investigations or proceedings -- Elements -- Penalties -- Exceptions.

(1)  An actor commits obstruction of justice if the actor, with intent to hinder, delay, or prevent the investigation, apprehension, prosecution, conviction, or punishment of any person regarding conduct that constitutes a criminal offense: . . .

(f)	provides a person with transportation, disguise, or other means of avoiding discovery or apprehension; . . . [Emphasis added in body of statute by Kenngo1969].

 

 

Edited July 7, 2020 by Kenngo1969

[Kenngo1969]

2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I learned about some case law in my communications law class in college, but today I couldn’t rattle off any of the citations from memory as you did. 

Heh!  Occupational hazard, or, maybe in my case, would-be occupational hazard?

P.S.: Law's my very expensive hobby!

I'm not a lawyer ... I just play one here on MD&DB!

Edited July 8, 2020 by Kenngo1969

[Kenngo1969]

On 7/6/2020 at 12:40 PM, Rajah Manchou said:

No, your statement is not true. The BLM protests are not about how many black people are killed by police. The protests are about intervening when violence is inflicted on blacks and black communities. ...

Well, if I'm confused about the precipitating event(s), the genesis, the aims, and so on, of Black Lives Matter protests, it would seem that I'm not the only one:

 

Quote

 

Don Lemon and Terry Crews have heated discussion over Black Lives Matter movement. Here’s what happened

CNN host Don Lemon explains to actor Terry Crews that the Black Lives Matter movement is about police brutality and not Black-on-Black violence.

Source: https://www.deseret.com/entertainment/2020/7/7/21316253/cnn-don-lemon-terry-crews-black-lives-matter-video