Whodathunkit - Little Old Provo

[Calm]

We drove by today on way home from doctor's.  While it looks like enough space to drive down the sidewalk, there are barriers such as flower and bike stands...especially at the end.  There is no way the car moved up on the sidewalk to move around cars and then somehow got back into position on the road to turn.  There would have needed to be at least 3 car lengths of empty space before the crosswalk I am guessing in order to get into the position without hitting barriers.  So that defense that the driver was illegally in pedestrian space isn't going to hold up in court.  And the video shows the car moving, but not so fast people couldn't have moved out of the way.  Also honking...so I doubt he can claim there was intentional ramming into protestors in order to harm them.

[Scott Lloyd]

7 hours ago, smac97 said:

I just sent the following email to Mayor Kaufusi and all members of the Provo City Council:

Thanks,

-Smac

This is a very eloquent and needed letter, Smac. I hope you will keep us apprised of any response you receive. And barring a responsible and reasoned accounting by the city for the deplorable actions of Monday night, I hope the residents of Provo will keep this in mind at the next municipal election. 

[InCognitus]

7 hours ago, smac97 said:

Question #4: If Provo City A) knew about Monday's protest beforehand and B) did not require it to have a permit, why not?  Why would your administration allow an unsanctioned, unlawful protest to take place in downtown Provo?  Aren't you watching the news?  Haven't you seen how many of these protests have turned violent?

This reminds me of "Guy's" line from the movie Galaxy Quest.  "Did you guys ever watch the show?"    (There are a lot of parallels here to that scene in the movie.  Galaxy Quest - Cute But Deadly Aliens)

Good letter, I have family in Provo and I hope you get a response to your questions.

[Scott Lloyd]

9 hours ago, alter idem said:

Those who claimed a driver plowed into protestors so he was shot? Was he driving on the sidewalk? Roads are for cars, sidewalks are for people and protestors are no exception.  What the video showed was not a crazy driver trying to mow over protestors, so these guys are lying to defend this egregious act of violence.   And shooting the driver is not justified anyway! You take down the license  (take a picture with your phones, idiots) and report it. As a civilized society,  we don't condone vigilante justice, right?  

FYI, here’s what the alleged perp posted on Facebook prior to his arrest:

“A natzi [sic], white supremacist or angry Provo driver was allegedly shot during the Provo protests after driving through multiple people and running over one. Along with 5 other cars, Provo Utah, I'm sickened to see your response to the protests.”

[LoudmouthMormon]

I was watching the facebook posts of my uncle Randy yesterday.  He said he, and around 300 armed civilians, had come to Provo to make sure there wasn't a repeat of the violence and anarchy the day before.  He was there specifically to defend the Provo Temple.  He, too, was impressed with how orderly the protesters were, after they saw all the armed folks who weren't with them.

 

Conversation with my wife yesterday:

Me: "Can I strap on my gun and go find the people who are aiding the police in keeping order, so I can go make powerful, obviously armed, eye contact with the protesters?"
Her: "No.  You're too old to get into trouble."
Me: [whining] "But Uncle Randy is doing it, and he's in his 70's!"

*sigh*.  I stayed home last night.  Probably the right decision for a guy who lives in Colorado.

[Calm]

I really don't get the whole "man, that vigilante behaviour of the protesting shooter was horrendous!  I am going to be sure it doesn't happen again by being a vigilante".

[Scott Lloyd]

8 hours ago, smac97 said:

I just sent the following email to Mayor Kaufusi and all members of the Provo City Council:

Thanks,

-Smac

Don’t know whether this has been posted or linked to here yet, but it is Mayor Kaufusi’s YouTube comments on the riot and crimes:

The lingering question in my mind is if police were “monitoring in real time” the events of Monday night, why did they not observe and intervene when motorists were being molested, especially if, as the mayor noted, there had been no order given for them to stand down? 

[Storm Rider]

20 minutes ago, Calm said:

I really don't get the whole "man, that vigilante behaviour of the protesting shooter was horrendous!  I am going to be sure it doesn't happen again by being a vigilante".

Seems rather easy to understand. One individual in a group has a gun and it is a volatile situation. Who feels the strongest and can bully othes? The individual with the gun. Put the same individual in the same situation again, but both sides have guns. Who feels the strongest? No one; each knows that the other side can immediately shoot back. 

It is the first rule of nuclear deterrence. If both nations have nuclear missiles neither will fire because it results in mutual annihilation. 

In this particular situation, it is evident that citizens have lost confidence that the police will protect the citizenry. When police are prevented from performing their role, violence will result through mob action and citizens will conclude that no one is will protect them except themselves.

[Calm]

48 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

The lingering question in my mind is if police were “monitoring in real time” the events of Monday night, why did they not observe and intervene when motorists were being molested, especially if, as the mayor noted, there had been no order given for them to stand down? 

Outside the one car were there other complaints prior to the shooting?

Given there was talk about cars pushing through after the shot occurred, I am wondering about what happened there.  I don't remember seeing any police presence and that was likely shortly after the gun shot as I am thinking they might have hung around the intersection for sometime, but not longer than 20 minutes surely before heading down the street.  I would have assumed police were there and stayed there with protestors for the rest of the night.  Anyone else who watched the video remember seeing police?

Edited July 3, 2020 by Calm

[Rajah Manchou]

4 hours ago, alter idem said:

Vigilantism should be nipped in the bud. imo.

How do you define vigilantism?

 

[Rajah Manchou]

25 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

Seems rather easy to understand. One individual in a group has a gun and it is a volatile situation. Who feels the strongest and can bully othes? The individual with the gun. 

Excellent summary of the Black Lives Matter movement. The only difference is which side of the political spectrum you might be standing on.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_use_of_deadly_force_in_the_United_States

[bsjkki]

I told my sister today that if it was a police officer who shot into the car, he would likely get off. Now, the other charges will stick...but, it could be argued he was trying to protect himself and others and the car was a deadly weapon. A cop would win the argument but I’m not sure the protestor will.

[Calm]

I wonder how some would feel if it was the driver who pulled a gun and fired, would they feel it was justified?

[Scott Lloyd]

14 hours ago, bsjkki said:

I told my sister today that if it was a police officer who shot into the car, he would likely get off. Now, the other charges will stick...but, it could be argued he was trying to protect himself and others and the car was a deadly weapon. A cop would win the argument but I’m not sure the protestor will.

I think it works against him that as the motorist was fleeing, the gunman shot at him again and put a round through the passenger rear window. And he smashed the window of another car afterward with the muzzle of the gun. This guy was no hero. 

Edited July 3, 2020 by Scott Lloyd

[bsjkki]

7 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I think it works against him that as the motorist was fleeing, the gunman shot at him again and put a round through the passenger rear window. And he smashed the window of another car afterward with the burg if the gun. This guy was no hero. 

I absolutely agree. Like a said, the charges for the behavior after will stick but if a cop had done the shooting under the same circumstances (without all those other factors) he would get off. I see the case that can be made. The role of a cop and a protester are much different but he could still claim self defense and that he was trying to protect others. A cop could claim self defense and claim he was trying to protect others too. Last night I found all the shootings in Utah listed by Lex Scott in her Deseret News question and answer. Very interesting reading and interesting videos to watch. Things happen so fast. Often, I see the circumstances and wish there was a less lethal way to solve some of these situations. https://www.deseret.com/opinion/2020/6/29/21307639/black-lives-matter-utah-founder-racism-police-brutality-protests-lex-scott-civil-rights?fbclid=IwAR0wocn-ZkcefsbkFTv9airm2AHTMFrs5M9PzffSgzD_FzPjk6rqtQ_u4oE

I hope as police departments and advocates work together, better procedures can be found to decrease the number of fatal police shootings. I don't think anyone disagrees it should be a goal. Maybe sending kids to camp like her group is doing, can help too.

[bsjkki]

41 minutes ago, Calm said:

I wonder how some would feel if it was the driver who pulled a gun and fired, would they feel it was justified?

An argument could be made he was also shooting in self defense. If he had seen the protester pointing a gun at him, easy win for the driver. The jury would have to decide if it was reasonable to be afraid for your life in those circumstances. I wonder if the defense could show all the footage of rioters dragging people from their cars, jumping on cars, setting fire to cars etc...

I wonder if the shooter will be able to show footage of all the times drivers have mowed down pedestrians. In the Charlottesville case, a driver killed a protester with his car and was found guilty. The jury did not find his actions reasonable.

[Scott Lloyd]

Looks like our local boy has garnered significant national attention. Tucker Carlson, who currently has the most watched cable show on television, did a segment focusing on the names and faces of alleged rioters and perpetrators of violence around the country. Our Provo (alleged) perp can be seen at about 5:18 in the video:

 

 

 

[Calm]

47 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

An argument could be made he was also shooting in self defense. If he had seen the protester pointing a gun at him, easy win for the driver. The jury would have to decide if it was reasonable to be afraid for your life in those circumstances. I wonder if the defense could show all the footage of rioters dragging people from their cars, jumping on cars, setting fire to cars etc...

I wonder if the shooter will be able to show footage of all the times drivers have mowed down pedestrians. In the Charlottesville case, a driver killed a protester with his car and was found guilty. The jury did not find his actions reasonable.

I meant instead of being a shooting victim, he was the perpetrator.  I have been reading too many comments (not here) saying if protestors were blocking their way, they had a right to justdrive through them.  I was wondering about how people felt here....if they felt protestors were wrong/it was illegal to block cars, whether the response if the car was surrounded was to 1) wait patiently until they left or cops came so hopefully no one would be hurt even if car was damaged or 2) act aggressively as a right of self defense (pull gun or move car forward no matter what) or 3) something else.

Since I see vehicles as deadly weapons on wheels (perhaps theheritage of too many drives as a young teen with a semi-incompetent driver, my grandmother, including one life altering car crash), I see little difference in firing a gun and putting one's foot down hard on the gas (not saying that is what the driver did, I think he was in enough control he waited until mostly clear to 'gun it' out of there).  Both will injure or kill people.

Edited July 3, 2020 by Calm

[Storm Rider]

2 hours ago, Rajah Manchou said:

Excellent summary of the Black Lives Matter movement. The only difference is which side of the political spectrum you might be standing on.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_use_of_deadly_force_in_the_United_States

I am not convinced they have a concept of deterrence, but of entitlement. I saw a news clip this evening, a black woman approached an officer and got right in his face and was yelling at him. It is the type of aggressive action that is not often seen in society unless an individual really wants to fight. The officer eventually punched her in the face. There is not an inkling of respect for authority, but rather pure aggression and entitlement. She was entitled to treat others like dirt and no one should every think to respond to her bullying actions. 

The news printed it as if the officer was completely at fault and was fired from his position. 

This is the epitome of the BLM. They cannot be touched; they are allowed to do whatever they want; peacefully protest or violently protest whatever they feel like; tear down public art because they feel offended; you name and they will do it. Who coddles them - almost everyone. Everyone cowers in front of them. 

Black Lives Matters is a misnomer; it is really Black Lives Matter only if a white person is involved. The number of deaths by police officers is miniscule compared to the black on black violent deaths. Do you ever hear anything from BLM at it? Not a single iota. Their agenda is not to save Black lives, but something completely different. 

[strappinglad]

1 hour ago, bsjkki said:

I told my sister today that if it was a police officer who shot into the car, he would likely get off

Hopefully the officer had enough sense to not fire his weapon into a crowd. They are trained to avoid collateral damage where possible. If an officer was to do so he would at least be suspended and in today's environment , be fired. If he accidentally killed a bystander , he would likely be charged with manslaughter. Any LEOs here can respond if I am wrong. 

[Scott Lloyd]

4 hours ago, Calm said:

I really don't get the whole "man, that vigilante behaviour of the protesting shooter was horrendous!  I am going to be sure it doesn't happen again by being a vigilante".

I think vigilantism is a misnomer for what the gunman allegedly did in Provo. It was abetting others in the commission of crime (intentional obstruction of traffic, unlawful detention of motorists, riot, terrorizing of passing motorists, etc.) It would seem the guy was so intent on seeing the mob have their way that he was willing to kill to make it happen. 

Edited July 3, 2020 by Scott Lloyd

[bsjkki]

50 minutes ago, strappinglad said:

Hopefully the officer had enough sense to not fire his weapon into a crowd. They are trained to avoid collateral damage where possible. If an officer was to do so he would at least be suspended and in today's environment , be fired. If he accidentally killed a bystander , he would likely be charged with manslaughter. Any LEOs here can respond if I am wrong. 

There are many instances of cops shooting at cars that are coming towards them. They shoot to incapacitate the driver. It is usually found that their actions are justified because, as Calm said, cars are deadly weapons. As a driver, I think it all depends on how the crowd is acting. If they start breaking your window, it is not unreasonable to fear you will be pulled from the car and beaten or killed. If they are swarming you, I think it is terribly stupid. People are going to get scared. Protesters do not have the right to detain people unlawfully or terrorize people on purpose. We need  police to keep the peace and when they step aside, people are going to do rash things if they get afraid. In many videos I have seen, as cars begin honking and trying to inch forward the protesters will swarm them and jump on their car and stand in front of them so they can't move forward. They do have a responsibility to not break the law too. If they are intentionally terrorizing the public, I have a hard time feeling sorry for them when they refuse to get out of the way and jump in front of cars trying to leave a bad situation. It's not like the drivers feel they can exit or abandon their vehicles. Even police officers have fled those scenes because they are outnumbered. When faced with a dangerous mob, there is no way in knowing what they may do to you.

In these protests, it's not the drivers who were looking to cause harm. The protesters were purposely looking for these kinds of confrontations. I heard on a live video they purposely moved to a busier intersection because they were not causing enough havoc where they were.

 

Edited July 3, 2020 by bsjkki

[Rajah Manchou]

2 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

I saw a news clip this evening, a black woman approached an officer and got right in his face and was yelling at him. It is the type of aggressive action that is not often seen in society unless an individual really wants to fight. The officer eventually punched her in the face. There is not an inkling of respect for authority, but rather pure aggression and entitlement. She was entitled to treat others like dirt and no one should every think to respond to her bullying actions. 

Just watched that video and the officer should not have punched her. He's trained to handle small time drama like that, and punching people in the head is not how its done.

Excessive and indefensible use of force escalating harmless actions into dangerous situations. This is the problem.

Edited July 3, 2020 by Rajah Manchou

[Storm Rider]

7 hours ago, Rajah Manchou said:

Just watched that video and the officer should not have punched her. He's trained to handle small time drama like that, and punching people in the head is not how its done.

Excessive and indefensible use of force escalating harmless actions into dangerous situations. This is the problem.

Let's just want until a person steps up into the face of your spouse or family members....or even yourself. Let's just look at your response. Keep telling yourself, "It is just a harmless action". 

[Traela]

10 hours ago, Calm said:

I meant instead of being a shooting victim, he was the perpetrator.  I have been reading too many comments (not here) saying if protestors were blocking their way, they had a right to justdrive through them.  I was wondering about how people felt here....if they felt protestors were wrong/it was illegal to block cars, whether the response if the car was surrounded was to 1) wait patiently until they left or cops came so hopefully no one would be hurt even if car was damaged or 2) act aggressively as a right of self defense (pull gun or move car forward no matter what) or 3) something else.

Since I see vehicles as deadly weapons on wheels (perhaps theheritage of too many drives as a young teen with a semi-incompetent driver, my grandmother, including one life altering car crash), I see little difference in firing a gun and putting one's foot down hard on the gas (not saying that is what the driver did, I think he was in enough control he waited until mostly clear to 'gun it' out of there).  Both will injure or kill people.

I have read many statements from truck drivers saying that if a road is blocked by protesters, they will not stop.  They remember Reginald Denny all too well.