Whodathunkit - Little Old Provo

[Calm]

38 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Defend himself from what? An injured elderly motorist fleeing in his vehicle after being shot at close range because he objected to being unlawfully detained by an angry and menacing mob? 
 

By the way, I don’t see any indication in the photo of the motorist “plow[ing] through the crowd” as you inaccurately characterized it. More like the hapless victim has made his escape and is heading down the street while this second gunman tries to get one more round off. 
 

Like I say, it could make a powerful visual aid if the case gets to trial. 

Is it against the law to point a gun?  Curious, don’t know. Hope so. 

[Calm]

39 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

It’s the difference between being annoying and being menacing. 

Yes, that is always what I have been talking about, getting in someone’s face and screaming that them. 
 

You were the one saying if a person yelled in another’s face, they were asking to be punched, correct?

Edited July 4, 2020 by Calm

[Rajah Manchou]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Defend himself from what? An injured elderly motorist fleeing in his vehicle after being shot at close range because he objected to being unlawfully detained by an angry and menacing mob? 

We can't assume that second man with a gun knew what was going on. I've watched the video over a dozen times and I still have a hard time making sense of what was happening and when shots were fired.

The second man was acting on what he saw, an SUV accelerating through a group of people, knocking over several and potentially injuring or killing someone. He would have had no idea the driver was elderly or that he had been shot at close range, most of the witnesses there say they thought the pops were from the car backfiring.

I would guess that if the band of armed (conservative) civilians had been in the melee they also would have hoisted up their AR-15s at someone. Don't you think?

Would they be guilty of anything for doing so? 

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

By the way, I don’t see any indication in the photo of the motorist “plow[ing] through the crowd” as you inaccurately characterized it. More like the hapless victim has made his escape and is heading down the street while this second gunman tries to get one more round off. 
 

What usually happens when we are presented with a video like this is we first identify the political affiliation of the parties involved, and then we interpret what is happening, usually basing our interpretations on our political views.

To check my bias, I showed the video to a non-American friend with zero understanding of American politics, traffic laws, BLM and the second amendment. I asked him to describe what he saw. He said, "a group of people running in the street and a car pushing through them, knocking some of them over and then a man pointing a gun at the car. With no understanding of the political context, he was pretty shocked that the truck had nearly run over several people. I did not say anything about the driver being shot at, because most of the people there on the scene had no clue anyone was shot, including the second man with the gun.

CFR I said "plow[ing] through the crowd”. 

Edited July 4, 2020 by Rajah Manchou

[Scott Lloyd]

53 minutes ago, Rajah Manchou said:

We can't assume that second man with a gun knew what was going on. I've watched the video over a dozen times and I still have a hard time making sense of what was happening and when shots were fired.

The second man was acting on what he saw, an SUV accelerating through a group of people, knocking over several and potentially injuring or killing someone. He would have had no idea the driver was elderly or that he had been shot at close range, most of the witnesses there say they thought the pops were from the car backfiring.

I would guess that if the band of armed (conservative) civilians had been in the melee they also would have hoisted up their AR-15s at someone. Don't you think?

Would they be guilty of anything for doing so? 

What usually happens when we are presented with a video like this is we first identify the political affiliation of the parties involved, and then we interpret what is happening, usually basing our interpretations on our political views.

To check my bias, I showed the video to a non-American friend with zero understanding of American politics, traffic laws, BLM and the second amendment. I asked him to describe what he saw. He said, "a group of people running in the street and a car pushing through them, knocking some of them over and then a man pointing a gun at the car. With no understanding of the political context, he was pretty shocked that the truck had nearly run over several people. I did not say anything about the driver being shot at, because most of the people there on the scene had no clue anyone was shot, including the second man with the gun.

CFR I said "plow[ing] through the crowd”. 

I’m going by police reports, which I assume are based on reviews of multiple videos taken at the scene as well as witness statements, probably including from the victim. I trust what I’m assuming was a thorough investigation more than I do your take on your viewing of a single video, especially when you’ve essentially admitted your perspective is colored by your political leaning. 
 

You said “plowed through the crowd.”  I changed the tense of the verb so it would make sense in my sentence, and I put the “ing” in brackets (“plow[ing]”) to indicate I had done so. Why are you giving me a CFR on this when you need only look at your own post? And why are you fussing about it when “plowing” and “plowed” are merely different tenses of the same verb? 

[Rajah Manchou]

2 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I’m going by police reports, which I assume are based on reviews of multiple videos taken at the scene as well as witness statements, probably including from the victim. I trust what I’m assuming was a thorough investigation more than I do your take on your viewing of a single video, especially when you’ve essentially admitted your perspective is colored by your political leaning. 

I see, so we are talking two different things, and talking past each other. Moving on.

2 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Why are you giving me a CFR on this when you need only look at your own post? And why are you fussing about it when “plowing” and “plowed” are merely different tenses of the same verb? 

Because I didn't say it. It was something alter idem said and you somehow attributed it to me. Moving on.

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

Yes, that is always what I have been talking about, getting in someone’s face and screaming that them. 
 

You were the one saying if a person yelled in another’s face, they were asking to be punched, correct?

In the same sense that my wife meant when she said my leaving the garage door up is asking for our bikes to be stolen (did you miss seeing my analogy?). Doesn’t mean she would condone such a thing or that she is seeking to “normalize’ bicycle thefts in our neighborhood. She’s commenting on the foolishness of leaving the garage door open with bicycles in plain sight, just as I’m commenting on the foolishness of getting in someone’s face and screaming. 
 

Please don’t read into my words meaning that isn’t there. 

[Rajah Manchou]

8 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Why are you giving me a CFR on this when you need only look at your own post? And why are you fussing about it when “plowing” and “plowed” are merely different tenses of the same verb? 

Correction, I see both alter idem said "plowed" and then I said "plowed". Anyway, that's what it looks like to someone with no context, as would have been the case to those standing by during the incident. Moving on.

[Scott Lloyd]

3 minutes ago, Rajah Manchou said:

Correction, I see both alter idem said "plowed" and then I said "plowed". Anyway, that's what it looks like to someone with no context, as would have been the case to those standing by during the incident. Moving on.

You actually said “plows”. This was your commentary on the photo you posted: 

“I'm assuming this second arrest is the guy seen pointing a gun at the SUV as it plows through the crowd and takes off. Makes me wonder where second amendment rights begin and end.“

But I’m more than happy to move on. 

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

Is it against the law to point a gun?  Curious, don’t know. Hope so. 

It’s not a matter of merely pointing a gun. He was apparently pursuing a motorist who was fleeing for his life after he had just been shot twice and seriously injured while being illegally detained and terrorized by an angry mob. 
 

It’s obvious from the photo that the victim is a substantial distance down the street already and, consistent with police reports, probably speeding away. Yet the suspect is taking careful aim with the apparent intent of firing a shot. Otherwise, why would he be pointing the gun when the victim is already speeding away from the mob? 

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

In the same sense that my wife meant when she said my leaving the garage door up is asking for our bikes to be stolen (did you miss seeing my analogy?). Doesn’t mean she would condone such a thing or that she is seeking to “normalize’ bicycle thefts in our neighborhood. She’s commenting on the foolishness of leaving the garage door open with bicycles in plain sight, just as I’m commenting on the foolishness of getting in someone’s face and screaming. 
 

Please don’t read into my words meaning that isn’t there. 

How is assuming you mean “asking to be punched” means “asking to be punched” reading meaning that isn’t there into it?  
 

You said it twice. “It IS asking to get punched, human nature being what it is”

Quote

 I was talking about likelihood given the provocation. 

Iow, you think it is so likely to happen the person should expect it to, correct?  
 

How is that not normalizing it?  If something is predictable to occur, it would be normal, wouldn’t it?  We don’t naturally assume atypical things will occur. 

Edited July 4, 2020 by Calm

[bluebell]

5 hours ago, Calm said:

Is it against the law to point a gun?  Curious, don’t know. Hope so. 

Most of the time, yes. You can only draw your gun or brandish it if you truly believe your or someone else’s life is in danger. You can’t do it to intimidate. 

[alter idem]

11 hours ago, Rajah Manchou said:

I'm assuming this second arrest is the guy seen pointing a gun at the SUV as it plows through the crowd and takes off. Makes me wonder where second amendment rights begin and end.
 

From what I recall, you're seeing the driver after he's been shot by a masked gunman,  probably in shock, trying to make sense of the fact that he is bleeding, scared he is going to die. He should hurry to get to a hospital! I've never been shot, but if I was, I bet my first thought would be 'Am I going to die???'  I watched the video, the driver did not 'plow through', he maneuvered slowly through a mob of people blocking the road the car was driving on.

The victim was shot as a mob of protestors were blocking the road, when it had not been closed to traffic by police,  as they aren't directing traffic away from the protest. The protestors were aggressive and in the street.  What's a driver supposed to do, back up? When an angry, aggressive mob swarms a car, the most dangerous thing is to back up, as more likely to cause injury. And just standing still, idling the car is foolhardy after the slc riots; the angry mob could overturn the car and set it on fire, hopefully not with you in it! The only recourse was to slowly drive through.  The gunmen and the accomplice were arrested; they are the perpetrators, in this incident. 

The second amendment is a right with a responsibility.  I'd say most people understand it doesn't give them the right to shoot a person who made them mad.

[alter idem]

7 hours ago, Rajah Manchou said:

To prove there was an armed citizen at the protests exercising his second amendment right to defend himself?

His puny little pistol has nothing on these guys.

I'm suspicious of this photo.  Was this photo taken on that night?  Were these barriers and police set up on the road where the man was shot?  If so, how did it happen?  If the road was blocked against cars driving through, how did the cars get through?  When I read about this incident, that driver who was shot was not the only car driving through, there were many.  As Smac pointed out, specific requests and provisions must be  made to block roads for a protest, and if that was done, then cars would not have been able to get through.

[Calm]

18 minutes ago, alter idem said:

I'm suspicious of this photo.  Was this photo taken on that night?  Were these barriers and police set up on the road where the man was shot?  If so, how did it happen?  If the road was blocked against cars driving through, how did the cars get through?  When I read about this incident, that driver who was shot was not the only car driving through, there were many.  As Smac pointed out, specific requests and provisions must be  made to block roads for a protest, and if that was done, then cars would not have been able to get through.

This is from the protest on Wednesday. 

[alter idem]

15 minutes ago, Calm said:

This is from the protest on Wednesday. 

Thank you Calm.  That makes a lot more sense.  Provo beefed up the police force and closed the roads AFTER the shootings at the Monday Protest.  So, what we know is two protestors from outside Provo, brought weapons, then used them to attack a driver who did something they didn't like.  I don't think that's what most of us feel the second amendment is for.

[LoudmouthMormon]

On 7/2/2020 at 8:18 AM, smac97 said:

That seems like a pretty . . . American thing to say.  We are appreciative of government.  We are glad it's there.  But we don't particularly trust it.  We don't rely 100% on its ability, willingness, and/or competency to do its job.  We have, or should have, a strong streak of self-reliance.  And yes, that includes protecting ourselves.  And yes, protecting ourselves can include arming ourselves.

It's also a fairly Latter-day Saint think to say:

• "Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves."  (Matt. 10:16)
   
• "And Alma, and Ammon, and their brethren, and also the two sons of Alma returned to the land of Zarahemla, after having been instruments in the hands of God of bringing many of the Zoramites to repentance; and as many as were brought to repentance were driven out of their land; but they have lands for their inheritance in the land of Jershon, and they have taken up arms to defend themselves, and their wives, and children, and their lands."  (Alma 35:14)
   
• "And again, the Lord has said that: Ye shall defend your families even unto bloodshed. Therefore for this cause were the Nephites contending with the Lamanites, to defend themselves, and their families, and their lands, their country, and their rights, and their religion."  (Alma 43:47)
   
• "And Moroni was a strong and a mighty man; he was a man of a perfect understanding; yea, a man that did not delight in bloodshed; a man whose soul did joy in the liberty and the freedom of his country, and his brethren from bondage and slavery; Yea, a man whose heart did swell with thanksgiving to his God, for the many privileges and blessings which he bestowed upon his people; a man who did labor exceedingly for the welfare and safety of his people.  Yea, and he was a man who was firm in the faith of Christ, and he had sworn with an oath to defend his people, his rights, and his country, and his religion, even to the loss of his blood.  Now the Nephites were taught to defend themselves against their enemies, even to the shedding of blood if it were necessary; yea, and they were also taught never to give an offense, yea, and never to raise the sword except it were against an enemy, except it were to preserve their lives."  (Alma 48:11-14)

We not only have the right to defend ourselves and our families and our communities, we have the affirmative ethical and moral duty and obligation to do so.  To abdicate that duty is a profound act of cowardice.

Just wanted to keep these worthy words fresh in this thread. 

[Rajah Manchou]

16 minutes ago, alter idem said:

Thank you Calm.  That makes a lot more sense.  Provo beefed up the police force and closed the roads AFTER the shootings at the Monday Protest.  So, what we know is two protestors from outside Provo, brought weapons, then used them to attack a driver who did something they didn't like.  I don't think that's what most of us feel the second amendment is for.

Police were aware of the protests and counter-protests on Monday. They were tracking the encounters between both groups and according to the Daily Universe:

"As the protestors moved through the streets, the Provo Police and Fire departments worked to close off roads for the protestors. Provo Fire Chief James Miguel drove to the protestors to ensure a woman was OK after being hit by a truck. Miguel said the fire department was there to protect the protestors." (source)

[Calm]

28 minutes ago, alter idem said:

don't think that's what most of us feel the second amendment is for.

I don’t think the 2nd Amendment is for attempting to intimidate our neighbours whether in twos or in a dozen or more. 

[Calm]

1 hour ago, alter idem said:

From what I recall, you're seeing the driver after he's been shot by a masked gunman,  probably in shock, trying to make sense of the fact that he is bleeding, scared he is going to die. He should hurry to get to a hospital! I've never been shot, but if I was, I bet my first thought would be 'Am I going to die???'  I watched the video, the driver did not 'plow through', he maneuvered slowly through a mob of people blocking the road the car was driving on.

He had been shot in the arm and had shrapnel in his eye and other place (face?), which means he was bleeding and likely had sight obscured. That he got himself to the hospital on his own is pretty remarkable. I am guessing he went down to fifth and reversed back.  
 

It is unfortunate we don’t have the video of a minute or two earlier. Given the camera was on all the time in the later video, I assume it is a similar video and I wonder what came before it. Was the view of the other side of the street or was the clip of video put on line by John Sullivan shorten so we couldn’t see who ‘made the first move’?

Edited July 4, 2020 by Calm

[alter idem]

2 hours ago, Rajah Manchou said:

Police were aware of the protests and counter-protests on Monday. They were tracking the encounters between both groups and according to the Daily Universe:

"As the protestors moved through the streets, the Provo Police and Fire departments worked to close off roads for the protestors. Provo Fire Chief James Miguel drove to the protestors to ensure a woman was OK after being hit by a truck. Miguel said the fire department was there to protect the protestors." (source)

Well, there's the problem.  The protestors weren't staying in the designated protest area, and I suspect the police were being too wimpy too tell them to stay put. It seems like you want to make excuses for them, but I see no way to justify those gunmen shooting at an unarmed bystander in a car, trying to drive on the road to get somewhere. You know,  plenty of people manage not to get hit by cars; they stay out of the road, especially when they have no business being there.

[Rajah Manchou]

6 hours ago, alter idem said:

Well, there's the problem.  The protestors weren't staying in the designated protest area, and I suspect the police were being too wimpy too tell them to stay put. It seems like you want to make excuses for them, but I see no way to justify those gunmen shooting at an unarmed bystander in a car, trying to drive on the road to get somewhere. You know,  plenty of people manage not to get hit by cars; they stay out of the road, especially when they have no business being there.

Nah, I don't want to make excuses for anybody. I 100% agree with you about the protestors being at fault here. Being an advocate for stronger gun control, I also fully fault the protestors carrying around guns where guns are not needed. I know others disagree but that's a discussion for another forum.

My only issue is that people are defending the driver when it seems to me that he was escalating an already tense situation by pushing his car into the crowd. I can understand why many feel he was in the right to do so, but I don't. The situation there was tense because the protestors, as reported to the police, felt drivers were intentionally trying to injure them and at least one had been injured and treated. We don't know who started what first and we can't make assumptions. In a situation like that, call the police and wait. For heaven's sake don't drive your car into the middle of all that.

I'm with Calm on this, we can't really say much about this until we know what happened the minute or two before the incident.

The most upsetting element to this story is that the police weren't actively mediating all this. The shooter, after firing two shots, went right back to protesting and even banged in a window of another car. Where were the police and why didn't they immediately go after the guy?

And just to be clear, (1) there was only one gunman who fired a shot, the second man with a gun was seemingly nothing more than a man with a gun reacting to a dangerous situation. (2) you say the driver was unarmed, are you assuming that?

[Scott Lloyd]

12 hours ago, Rajah Manchou said:

Police were aware of the protests and counter-protests on Monday. They were tracking the encounters between both groups and according to the Daily Universe:

"As the protestors moved through the streets, the Provo Police and Fire departments worked to close off roads for the protestors. Provo Fire Chief James Miguel drove to the protestors to ensure a woman was OK after being hit by a truck. Miguel said the fire department was there to protect the protestors." (source)

Well obviously it was the passing motorists who needed protection on Monday, and the police presence was less than effective. Everyone was pretty well behaved on Wednesday, when law enforcement showed up in force. 

Edited July 5, 2020 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, Rajah Manchou said:

Nah, I don't want to make excuses for anybody. I 100% agree with you about the protestors being at fault here. Being an advocate for stronger gun control, I also fully fault the protestors carrying around guns where guns are not needed. I know others disagree but that's a discussion for another forum.

My only issue is that people are defending the driver when it seems to me that he was escalating an already tense situation by pushing his car into the crowd. I can understand why many feel he was in the right to do so, but I don't. The situation there was tense because the protestors, as reported to the police, felt drivers were intentionally trying to injure them and at least one had been injured and treated. We don't know who started what first and we can't make assumptions. In a situation like that, call the police and wait. For heaven's sake don't drive your car into the middle of all that.

I'm with Calm on this, we can't really say much about this until we know what happened the minute or two before the incident.

The most upsetting element to this story is that the police weren't actively mediating all this. The shooter, after firing two shots, went right back to protesting and even banged in a window of another car. Where were the police and why didn't they immediately go after the guy?

And just to be clear, (1) there was only one gunman who fired a shot, the second man with a gun was seemingly nothing more than a man with a gun reacting to a dangerous situation. (2) you say the driver was unarmed, are you assuming that?

The picture you posted doesn’t reflect “a man reacting to a tense situation” so much as an aggressor taking aim at a victim already badly injured after having been shot at close range while in the clutches of an angry mob. By definition, taking aim at a fleeing motorist is not a defensive move. There was no good reason for him to be pointing a pistol, especially with the intent to shoot, when the motorist was already that far away. And if he didn’t intend to shoot, why was he aiming the gun in the first place? To scare away the victim? The victim was already fleeing. 

Edited July 5, 2020 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

21 hours ago, Calm said:

He had been shot in the arm and had shrapnel in his eye and other place (face?), which means he was bleeding and likely had sight obscured. That he got himself to the hospital on his own is pretty remarkable. I am guessing he went down to fifth and reversed back.  
 

It is unfortunate we don’t have the video of a minute or two earlier. Given the camera was on all the time in the later video, I assume it is a similar video and I wonder what came before it. Was the view of the other side of the street or was the clip of video put on line by John Sullivan shorten so we couldn’t see who ‘made the first move’?

None of the quoted police reports I’ve seen indicate any behavior beforehand on the part of the motorist to provoke violence. I presume the police would have been thorough in gathering witness statements, including that of the victim. 
 

And bear in mind that the suspect has been identified by SLPD as having a history of instigating riotous behavior during the recent protest movement. That’s how they were able to be so helpful to Provo PD in nailing the suspect. (See this link: https://www.google.com/amp/s/kutv.com/amp/news/local/police-man-arrested-for-shooting-at-provo-protest-is-known-instigator  )

The victim reportedly had shrapnel in his abdomen as well as his eye, in addition to the gunshot wound in his arm. 

Edited July 5, 2020 by Scott Lloyd

[Rajah Manchou]

2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

The picture you posted doesn’t reflect “a man reacting to a tense situation” so much as an aggressor taking aim at a victim already badly injured after having been shot at close range while in the clutches of an angry mob. By definition, taking aim at a fleeing motorist is not a defensive move. There was no good reason for him to be pointing a pistol, especially with the intent to shoot, when the motorist was already that far away. And if he didn’t intend to shoot, why was he aiming the gun in the first place? To scare away the victim? The victim was already fleeing. 

The second man with a gun would have had no idea that the motorist was badly injured and fleeing the scene of a shooting. All he saw was the SUV running into, and knocking over, a person a few meters from him.

Had the second man known the driver was shot and injured, I fully agree with you that he was in the wrong. I just don't think he had enough information to be guilty of what you are accusing him of. From his perspective, without the full story, he could only see an SUV run into and knock someone over.

In short, this is why arming citizens in tense situations is a horrible idea.