Whodathunkit - Little Old Provo

[Calm]

51 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

But the way you phrased it, speaking generally instead of specifically, sounded a little too much like the "outside agitators" claim.

I don't mind about outsiders coming into areas.

 I did get royally ticked off when one of the outside organizers for the Wednesday protest said they were coming down to support the protestors in the face of the violent locals (paraphrase) when it was an outsider who shot someone and was lucky he didn't kill him or others given the driver might have panicked and hit someone trying to get away.  

I support the protestors.  I am not against illegally walking in streets blocking traffic safely for a short time to get attention or a long time if police are around to supervise traffic. If legal protests worked to get needed change, we would be long past this stage.  I am not supporting violence or looting or damage to property.  I am annoyed that their leaders have not condemned the shooter that I saw while coming out and complaining strongly about drivers hitting protestors.

Edited July 6, 2020 by Calm

[Storm Rider]

1 hour ago, MiserereNobis said:

There's been a lot of talk here about how terrible it is when protestors block roads (multiple posters, multiple posts). My reply here is not about mob violence, the shooting, or the Provo incident in particular. It is about the idea that protestors blocking a road is terrible and out to be stopped. It is about general principles when it comes to protests.

The police department in my city rerouted traffic when the BLM protestors stepped off the sidewalk and blocked an intersection for 9 minutes (in honor of George Floyd). That seemed a reasonable thing to do. Yes, they could have arrested all the protesters, but what would that have really accomplished? Can't we accept a slight inconvenience as drivers? (again, I'm not talking about the Provo incident -- I'm talking about the general idea that protestors shouldn't block roads)

There have also been posts about how protestors have to have a permit, have to follow the permit, etc. For those who have argued such, is there ever room for civil disobedience (non-violent, of course)? Do all protests have to be 100% legal? What about the civil rights movement? What about Gandhi? 

Robert, your last statement got to me a little. I know the outsiders that came to Provo were violent, and I absolutely agree that violence doesn't have a place at a protest. But the way you phrased it, speaking generally instead of specifically, sounded a little too much like the "outside agitators" claim. Put together with the blocking roadways idea, and the "have to have a permit" claims, it made me think of the Selma to Montgomery marches. MLK came from out-of-town and the marches definitely blocked the roadways. Governor George Wallace specifically cited traffic concerns as one of the reasons why he wouldn't let the march happen. Courts issued injunctions barring the march. The march happened anyway. Should it have? Should those seeking the right to vote not invited MLK? Not blocked the highway? Not marched because the law said they couldn't? Or were they justified?

Again, I'm talking about general principles here, and I'm questioning those whose general principles seem to be no blocking roads, no civil disobedience, no protest without permit, and no outsiders at a protest.

Hello Friend, good to hear from you. 

As far as walking on roads goes - if it is a city street, then I have no problem IF the police are involved to reroute traffic in advance. If it is an interstate highway, then absolutely not. An interstate highway is for citizens to speedily move from one area to another.  If a protest moves to block such a highway, then I think they take their own life into their hands. If they are hit by a car, truck, or semi then it is their own fault. I would actually like to see a law Federal law that clarifies a vehicle/driver is never at fault should they hit individuals who choose to protest on interstate highways.  

Though I have never participated in any type of protest, I believe in the right to peacefully protest. I wish we lived in a civil society, but those days are now behind us. I see a future that will be violent and divisive that will either result separate countries or a nation that chooses to repent and follow Jesus Christ. 

[USU78]

University Avenue is a divided highway. That's a different beast than Second East and Seventh South in Payson. And the law reflects that difference. No pedestrians allowed on divided highways.

I struggle to believe the mob didn't know this.

[Rajah Manchou]

11 minutes ago, USU78 said:

University Avenue is a divided highway. That's a different beast than Second East and Seventh South in Payson. And the law reflects that difference. No pedestrians allowed on divided highways.

I struggle to believe the mob didn't know this.

Isn't there a crosswalk right there?

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, MiserereNobis said:

There's been a lot of talk here about how terrible it is when protestors block roads (multiple posters, multiple posts). My reply here is not about mob violence, the shooting, or the Provo incident in particular. It is about the idea that protestors blocking a road is terrible and out to be stopped. It is about general principles when it comes to protests.

You may recall the freeway blocked by two vehicles, no warning lights, and the ANTIFA mob clad in black, when a confused Somali driver rounded the curve in the freeway, swerved to avoid the two vehicles, hit two women, one of whom has now died, the other in critical condition.  Where were the police?  Has ANTIFA apologized?  Of course not.  They love to produce victims.

1 hour ago, MiserereNobis said:

The police department in my city rerouted traffic when the BLM protestors stepped off the sidewalk and blocked an intersection for 9 minutes (in honor of George Floyd). That seemed a reasonable thing to do. Yes, they could have arrested all the protesters, but what would that have really accomplished? Can't we accept a slight inconvenience as drivers? (again, I'm not talking about the Provo incident -- I'm talking about the general idea that protestors shouldn't block roads)

I have been in huge protest marches in various places, such as Oklahoma City and Los Angeles, smaller ones in Kansas City and San Francisco, but all were well organized and successful.  No violence whatsoever.  The BLM and ANTIFA groups are not interested in non-violent protest.  Their neo-Marxist objective is violence, destruction, and anarchy.

1 hour ago, MiserereNobis said:

There have also been posts about how protestors have to have a permit, have to follow the permit, etc. For those who have argued such, is there ever room for civil disobedience (non-violent, of course)? Do all protests have to be 100% legal? What about the civil rights movement? What about Gandhi? 

King and his mentor Ghandi were strictly non-violent.  I marched with Dr King's SCLC in 1964, and I was required to sign an agreement not to use violence of any kind, not even in self-defense.  We let the police handle violence against us.  In civil disobedience, again no violence is permitted, and the protestors allow themselves to be arrested peacefully.  Whether a protest is legal or requires a permit is not the issue.  In fact, I was part of a group of seven plaintiffs who successfully sued a major city for interfering with our right to assemble without a permit.  They not only paid out our demand for damages in full, but even signed a consent decree not to do it again (our true objective).

1 hour ago, MiserereNobis said:

Robert, your last statement got to me a little. I know the outsiders that came to Provo were violent, and I absolutely agree that violence doesn't have a place at a protest. But the way you phrased it, speaking generally instead of specifically, sounded a little too much like the "outside agitators" claim. Put together with the blocking roadways idea, and the "have to have a permit" claims, it made me think of the Selma to Montgomery marches. MLK came from out-of-town and the marches definitely blocked the roadways. Governor George Wallace specifically cited traffic concerns as one of the reasons why he wouldn't let the march happen. Courts issued injunctions barring the march. The march happened anyway. Should it have? Should those seeking the right to vote not invited MLK? Not blocked the highway? Not marched because the law said they couldn't? Or were they justified?

Again, I'm talking about general principles here, and I'm questioning those whose general principles seem to be no blocking roads, no civil disobedience, no protest without permit, and no outsiders at a protest.

That SLC and other outsiders came to Provo was an anti-Mormon act, deliberately designed to provoke violence, and there was violence (gun violence by a man from SLC and a woman from Ogden), same as violent demonstrators coming to Vatican City for whatever angry reason they might have.  There must always be violence.  On one of those occasions, you may recall, the Pope was shot in a specifically anti-Catholic act by a Muslim.

I am not discussing parade permits and did not mention the word.

[Rajah Manchou]

9 hours ago, USU78 said:

Manful effort, but gunshots are distinctive and not easily confused with other percussive sounds. It also strains credulity that the only two (hopefully) assailants who just happened to be armed and ready to brandish and, at least in the one instance, shoot, should be unaware of one another and what each was up to in so small a mob 

I saw one interview with a witness saying he thought it was the SUV backfiring. Read a few others where people on the scene had no idea a gun had been fired at all.

But let's say the second man did hear gunshots, wouldn't that be a great reason to pull out his gun and defend himself?

Why carry a gun around for defense if you aren't going to pull it out when you hear gunshots?

[Rajah Manchou]

8 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Here's a clue.  You don't have a Second Amendment right to shoot at someone as he flees.

Exactly. And the protests in the streets are to make this point. People don't have the right to shoot innocent people.

Unarmed Trayvon Martin who was fleeing from an armed Zimmerman. Zimmerman shoots Trayvon and is found not-guilty of anything. 

I could go on and on, with a list of people (majority being black) who were shot and killed when they should not have been.

I'm not going to respond to the rest of your comments because it feels like this is getting too emotional and I'm talking mostly about gun ownership right now, which I agree is a distraction.

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

There's been a lot of talk here about how terrible it is when protestors block roads (multiple posters, multiple posts). My reply here is not about mob violence, the shooting, or the Provo incident in particular. It is about the idea that protestors blocking a road is terrible and out to be stopped. It is about general principles when it comes to protests.

The police department in my city rerouted traffic when the BLM protestors stepped off the sidewalk and blocked an intersection for 9 minutes (in honor of George Floyd). That seemed a reasonable thing to do. Yes, they could have arrested all the protesters, but what would that have really accomplished? Can't we accept a slight inconvenience as drivers? (again, I'm not talking about the Provo incident -- I'm talking about the general idea that protestors shouldn't block roads)

There have also been posts about how protestors have to have a permit, have to follow the permit, etc. For those who have argued such, is there ever room for civil disobedience (non-violent, of course)? Do all protests have to be 100% legal? What about the civil rights movement? What about Gandhi? 

Robert, your last statement got to me a little. I know the outsiders that came to Provo were violent, and I absolutely agree that violence doesn't have a place at a protest. But the way you phrased it, speaking generally instead of specifically, sounded a little too much like the "outside agitators" claim. Put together with the blocking roadways idea, and the "have to have a permit" claims, it made me think of the Selma to Montgomery marches. MLK came from out-of-town and the marches definitely blocked the roadways. Governor George Wallace specifically cited traffic concerns as one of the reasons why he wouldn't let the march happen. Courts issued injunctions barring the march. The march happened anyway. Should it have? Should those seeking the right to vote not invited MLK? Not blocked the highway? Not marched because the law said they couldn't? Or were they justified?

Again, I'm talking about general principles here, and I'm questioning those whose general principles seem to be no blocking roads, no civil disobedience, no protest without permit, and no outsiders at a protest.

As a general principle, should protesters be allowed to hem in a motorist and forbid him from leaving, to bang on his car, hurl objects at it, vandalize it, menace the occupants, etc.?

[smac97]

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:

Quote

Updates for Provo Citizens

Protests Protests in Provo had been peaceful until this week. On Monday a man was shot and people committed other acts of violence and vandalism. The investigations are ongoing. I made this statement on Tuesday on my Facebook page. On Wednesday, a protest occurred and a self-appointed pseudo-militia gathered. It ended peacefully. The Council with the Mayor made this statement. Many of the people participating in protests, including those since arrested for crimes, were not from Provo. The Council has not been debriefed and has little additional information outside of what is reported in the news. You can read my thoughts on Wednesday below.

My Thoughts   On Wednesday evening I went to Center Street to see what was happening, I hoped things would be calm and peaceful. The pseudo-militia members, which outnumbered protesters, arrived during the late afternoon, thinking they would help the Provo Police in protecting our city. Most of the people I observed were open carrying at least one firearm. They were not partners with the Police, in fact these armed citizens were a dangerous distraction that compounded tension, their assumed position of aid to the city was without endorsement. When the Provo Police need help or reinforcements, they do not call upon untrained citizens from around Utah Valley, as this group was. Instead, our police department organizes and coordinates with other trained, professional, and accountable police departments to add to their numbers. On Wednesday there were about 150 officers from Herriman to Payson supporting our police officers downtown. I am grateful for their service in our city. We don’t need citizens to defend Provo against protests, we need citizens to defend Provo against intolerance, bigotry, and discrimination. Black lives do matter and I’m committed to making sure that all citizens in Provo are heard and have equal opportunity to grow and thrive here.

Policing   I don't support defunding the police in Provo. If Provo has too few police officers, then officers can't take time off for training or personal wellness and mental health. Law enforcement officers work for Provo because they feel supported by the Administration, the Council, and the citizens. They help children, women, and men on their worst days. Our officers work with victim's advocates and local non-profits to create safe places for people in danger. If you have concerns about policing in Provo you can contact the Mayor, Chief Ferguson, or file a formal complaint. While the Council does not have any legal authority over policing in Provo, I'm happy to answer questions.

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

I resent the false equivalency.  She all but ignores the lawless and violent protesters, and instead focuses on complaining about private citizens choosing to defend themselves.  I happen to agree with the sentiment that there is some risk involved when private citizens publicly take up arms.  They are not trained.  There is no chain of command.  There are no rules of engagement.  However, Provo City utterly failed its citizens on Monday night.  The powers-that-be apparently let a violent mob take over the streets of Provo, let them accost and menace passing motorists, etc.  It is understandable, then, that local citizens were concerned of a repeat of the violence on July 1.

I also resent the offensive implication that people who disagree with violent mobs taking over the streets of Provo are, somehow, indifferent to or complicit in "intolerance, bigotry, and discrimination."  She should try telling that to the citizens who were attacked in their vehicles Monday night, particularly to the motorist who is currently recuperating from an attempted murder attempt on him by a rioter at Monday's protests.  

This city council member is creating a false dichotomy.  Nobody is opposed to lawful, peaceful protests.  We are opposed to violent thugs taking over the streets of Provo, and the Provo City Police Department standing idly by while citizens and motorists are accosted and menaced.  None of this has anything to do with "intolerance, bigotry, and discrimination."  Citizens can be both opposed to these things *and also* opposed to unlawful, violent protests taking place with the apparent blessing of the powers-that-be of Provo City.  

Provo City let rioters run rampant in downtown Provo on June 29, and a man was nearly murdered in the process.  Other passing motorists were also accosted and threatened.  None of that has anything to do with "intolerance, bigotry, and discrimination."  It may have a lot to do with the political leadership of Provo City giving lawless thugs carte blanche to take over the public streets and attack passersby.  I am appalled that I actually have to explain these things to a public servant.

Her closing remarks ("black lives to matter...") are also pretty obnoxious.  As far as I know, nobody who showed up on Wednesday evening gave any indication that they think black lives don't matter.  

I am increasingly disappointed with the leadership of Provo City.  

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited July 6, 2020 by smac97

[Kenngo1969]

2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

... And I don’t think even police these days are permitted to shoot at an individual who is fleeing and is not posing any conceivable threat to anyone. So I can’t conceive that a well-trained and conscientious cop would have his firearm drawn in that circumstance. There would be no point to it. ...

They're not.  See Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985).

[USU78]

41 minutes ago, Rajah Manchou said:

Isn't there a crosswalk right there?

Four of em and a traffic light, complete with left turn signals. Right turns legal on red in Utah.

[Kenngo1969]

4 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

... Put together with the blocking roadways idea, and the "have to have a permit" claims, it made me think of the Selma to Montgomery marches. MLK came from out-of-town and the marches definitely blocked the roadways. Governor George Wallace specifically cited traffic concerns as one of the reasons why he wouldn't let the march happen. Courts issued injunctions barring the march. The march happened anyway. Should it have? Should those seeking the right to vote not invited MLK? Not blocked the highway? Not marched because the law said they couldn't? Or were they justified?

Again, I'm talking about general principles here, and I'm questioning those whose general principles seem to be no blocking roads, no civil disobedience, no protest without permit, and no outsiders at a protest.

For purposes of this discussion, let's define civil disobedience, and call it, "Acting in a way that has a high probability of spurring a response by authorities in order to (a) draw attention to one's cause and (b) spur a specific change to a law or policy one sees as unjust, and being prepared, meekly but unflinchingly, to accept the consequences that ensue when the authorities do respond."

Too often, people want to be "half-civilly-disobedient": they want to engage in the act purportedly designed to draw attention to their cause or to spur change, but they are unwilling to accept the consequences that ensue from their choice.  Further, invariably, if one were to ask someone at a protest, a march, or a rally organized by the Rev. Dr. King or one of his like-minded fellows, the protester would be ready with a response to the question, "Why are you here?"  The answer would be, "People of all races should be able to eat at this lunch counter," or "People of all races should be able to ride this bus and to sit wherever they like," or "People of all races should be able to exercise their right to vote without undue interference or restrictions," and so on. 

I don't know if Dr. King ever heard the "SMART Formula," that goals should be Specific, Measurable,  Appropriate, Realistic, and Timely, but he and his contemporaries seem to have understood it intuitively.  Current protesters?  Not so much.  At least on the part of some, is the lack of specificity purposeful?  Part of "the method to their madness"?  A reasonable person might wonder.

The current protesters, if asked a similar question, might respond, "We want to end police brutality."    OK.  Except that's not going to happen.  One reason for that is because it seems that such a demand treats every single use of force, whatever it is, and regardless of the circumstances under which it is employed exactly the same.  For example, there is no correspondence between the killing by Minneapolis Police of George Floyd and the killing by Salt Lake City Police (and allied agencies) of Bernardo Palacios-Carbajal, the police killing that seems to have spurred the most outrage in Utah.

 As long as people are arrested, force is going to be used improperly in at least some circumstances.  If they want specific localities to look at ending certain procedures, that might be doable.  (Banning so-called "choke-holds," for example.  OK.  Except that many protesters are likely to see that as a milquetoast half-measure, and as not nearly enough.)  While everyone else's mileage might vary, looking at some of the demands I've seen, they don't seem to be realistic (abolish the police, defund the police, free everyone of color from incarceration or imprisonment, and on and on, ad infinitum and seemingly ad nauseam.)  Ask any two protesters what they want and you're likely to get three (or thirty?) different answers.

Edited July 6, 2020 by Kenngo1969

[strappinglad]

So there were 150 LEOs there on Weds. How many were there on the Monday? Why were the streets not blocked from traffic and protesters given designated places to walk? My guess, too few officers to do the job. No permit, hence no coordination or plan. Wishful thinking all around. 

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, Rajah Manchou said:

I saw one interview with a witness saying he thought it was the SUV backfiring. Read a few others where people on the scene had no idea a gun had been fired at all.

But let's say the second man did hear gunshots, wouldn't that be a great reason to pull out his gun and defend himself?

Why carry a gun around for defense if you aren't going to pull it out when you hear gunshots?

If it’s the same interview I saw, he said he thought it was a backfire at first but then saw the smoking gun. So his misapprehension didn’t last long. 
 

And again, your theory that he pulled it out for defense breaks down with the fact that the driver was fleeing from the scene. 

[Kenngo1969]

1 hour ago, Rajah Manchou said:

Exactly. And the protests in the streets are to make this point. People don't have the right to shoot innocent people.

If that were what these protests are about, the number of black people killed by other black private citizens every year dwarfs the number of black people who are killed by police.

1 hour ago, Rajah Manchou said:

Unarmed Trayvon Martin who was fleeing from an armed Zimmerman. Zimmerman shoots Trayvon and is found not-guilty of anything. 

I think you've taken a shortcut through those facts.  There was a physical confrontation taking place between the two of them, and Mr. Martin had the upper hand on Mr. Zimmerman.

1 hour ago, Rajah Manchou said:

I could go on and on, with a list of people (majority being black) who were shot and killed when they should not have been.

I agree.  Again, the number of blacks who are killed by other black civilians each year dwarfs the number of blacks who are killed by police.  If "Black Lives Really Matter[ed]" to the people who say Black Lives Matter, perhaps they could pay more attention to that.

1 hour ago, Rajah Manchou said:

I'm not going to respond to the rest of your comments because it feels like this is getting too emotional and I'm talking mostly about gun ownership right now, which I agree is a distraction.

Okay.  Have a nice evening.

 

 

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, Kenngo1969 said:

They're not.  See Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985).

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

[Rajah Manchou]

32 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

For purposes of this discussion, let's define civil disobedience, and call it, "Acting in a way that has a high probability of spurring a response by authorities in order to (a) draw attention to one's cause and (b) spur a specific change to a law or policy one sees as unjust, and being prepared, meekly but unflinchingly, to accept the consequences that ensue when the authorities do respond."

Too often, people want to be "half-civilly-disobedient": they want to engage in the act purportedly designed to draw attention to their cause or to spur change, but they are unwilling to accept the consequences that ensue from their choice. Further, invariably, if one were to ask someone at a protest, a march, or a rally organized by the Rev. Dr. King or one of his like-minded fellows, the protester would be ready with a response to the question, "Why are you here?"  The answer would be, "People of all races should be able to eat at this lunch counter," or "People of all races should be able to ride this bus and to sit wherever they like," or "People of all races should be able to exercise their right to vote without undue interference or restrictions," and so on. 

100%. I did my master's research on civil-disobedience and nonviolent movements. I'm not sure if they are, but if BLM is claiming to be practicing civil disobedience they aren't doing a very good job of it. Although these protests seem to be a mish-mash of every grievance rolled-up into a disorganized mess.

I expect you'll see some genuine nonviolent movements come out of it all, and from what I've seen with other nonviolent movements, we best pay attention to those groups and their legitimate proposals, else we end up with more  "eye-for-an-eye" organizations like this NFAC getting fed up with the inefficacy of nonviolent protests and organizing militias, a right they are granted by the second amendment. Scary stuff.

Unpopular opinion, but let's not ignore these nonviolent protestors. We all agree reform needs to happen. So like the Mayor says, let's all protest peacefully, let's discuss, let's fix our problems peacefully before things get worse. Blocking streets and hopping on car hoods is ugly, but there are groups on both sides organizing and preparing to do far more damage. 

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, 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 resent the false equivalency.  She all but ignores the lawless and violent protesters, and instead focuses on complaining about private citizens choosing to defend themselves.  I happen to agree with the sentiment that there is some risk involved when private citizens publicly take up arms.  They are not trained.  There is no chain of command.  There are no rules of engagement.  However, Provo City utterly failed its citizens on Monday night.  The powers-that-be apparently let a violent mob take over the streets of Provo, let them accost and menace passing motorists, etc.  It is understandable, then, that local citizens were concerned of a repeat of the violence on July 1.

I also resent the offensive implication that people who disagree with violent mobs taking over the streets of Provo are, somehow, indifferent to or complicit in "intolerance, bigotry, and discrimination."  She should try telling that to the citizens who were attacked in their vehicles Monday night, particularly to the motorist who is currently recuperating from an attempted murder attempt on him by a rioter at Monday's protests.  

This city council member is creating a false dichotomy.  Nobody is opposed to lawful, peaceful protests.  We are opposed to violent thugs taking over the streets of Provo, and the Provo City Police Department standing idly by while citizens and motorists are accosted and menaced.  None of this has anything to do with "intolerance, bigotry, and discrimination."  Citizens can be both opposed to these things *and also* opposed to unlawful, violent protests taking place with the apparent blessing of the powers-that-be of Provo City.  

Provo City let rioters run rampant in downtown Provo on June 29, and a man was nearly murdered in the process.  Other passing motorists were also accosted and threatened.  None of that has anything to do with "intolerance, bigotry, and discrimination."  It may have a lot to do with the political leadership of Provo City giving lawless thugs carte blanche to take over the public streets and attack passersby.  I am appalled that I actually have to explain these things to a public servant.

Her closing remarks ("black lives to matter...") are also pretty obnoxious.  As far as I know, nobody who showed up on Wednesday evening gave any indication that they think black lives don't matter.  

I am increasingly disappointed with the leadership of Provo City.  

Thanks,

-Smac

Very eloquently stated. 
 

One glaring omission I see: no expression of concern for the victim of the attempted murder, no word on his condition, progress toward recovery, etc. 

Also, why is this one member of the city council writing the letter? Is she speaking for the city? The letter doesn’t indicate so. She doesn’t even have direct supervision over the police department. Why didn’t the mayor write? And it doesn’t appear your questions were adequately addressed. 
 

I agree with you about tone. The letter seems defensive, belligerent, accusatory of armed citizens who came to help. Scarcely any attention given, on the other hand, to the mob-related offenses. 

Edited July 6, 2020 by Scott Lloyd

[smac97]

13 minutes ago, Rajah Manchou said:

100%. I did my master's research on civil-disobedience and nonviolent movements. I'm not sure if they are, but if BLM is claiming to be practicing civil disobedience they aren't doing a very good job of it. Although these protests seem to be a mish-mash of every grievance rolled-up into a disorganized mess.

I expect you'll see some genuine nonviolent movements come out of it all, and from what I've seen with other nonviolent movements, we best pay attention to those groups and their legitimate proposals, else we end up with more  "eye-for-an-eye" organizations like this NFAC getting fed up with the inefficacy of nonviolent protests and organizing militias, a right they are granted by the second amendment. Scary stuff.

Unpopular opinion, but let's not ignore these nonviolent protestors. We all agree reform needs to happen. So like the Mayor says, let's all protest peacefully, let's discuss, let's fix our problems peacefully before things get worse. Blocking streets and hopping on car hoods is ugly, but there are groups on both sides organizing and preparing to do far more damage. 

"Groups on both sides?"  Could you elaborate on that?

Thanks,

-Smac

[strappinglad]

In case no one noticed , a little 8 year old girl was shot in Atlanta. She was in a car with family when the car was shot at by armed people . She died in hospital . She was not  white...    I wonder if there will be protests on her behalf. 

Edited July 6, 2020 by strappinglad

[strappinglad]

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.

[Rajah Manchou]

14 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

If it’s the same interview I saw, he said he thought it was a backfire at first but then saw the smoking gun. So his misapprehension didn’t last long. 

And again, your theory that he pulled it out for defense breaks down with the fact that the driver was fleeing from the scene. 

Indeed, the witness was close enough to see the smoking gun and yet he still misunderstood the pops that he heard. So USU78's claim that "gunshots are distinctive and not easily confused with other percussive sounds" is not correct in this case. That witness was right in the middle of things and yet he was confused in the moment by what was happening. It would surely be far more difficult for someone on the opposite side of the University and Center street intersection to interpret what was going on. 

14 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

your theory that he pulled it out for defense breaks down with the fact that the driver was fleeing from the scene. 

If shooting people as they flee is a violation of the law then you surely can understand why the BLM protestors are so upset that they are breaking laws to bring attention to their calls for justice for all those who have been shot in the back while fleeing.

If you believe it is wrong to take aim at innocent civilians fleeing dangerous situations, or applying deadly chokeholds to bootleg cigarette salesmen, then surely you can understand the frustration spilling into the streets.

You may feel this question is a deflection, but since it was the spark that started the BLM movement that spilled into the streets in Provo last Monday, it absolutely is not: do you feel George Zimmerman should have been found guilty of murder for shooting Trayvon Martin?

[Rajah Manchou]

31 minutes ago, 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 didn't know that and would guess most people don't.

36 minutes ago, strappinglad said:

She was white...    I wonder if there will be protests on her behalf. 

She wasn't white, and since the race of the shooter isn't known, there probably will be all sorts of speculation and assumptions made leading to angry protests on her behalf and armed counter-protests to keep the peace, and round and round we go.

 

Edited July 6, 2020 by Rajah Manchou

[Calm]

Your notice says she was shot by a group of black males.

[strappinglad]

13 minutes ago, Rajah Manchou said:

She wasn't white

True, my error, fixed it.