Man drives car into Seattle protest crowd and shoots demonstrator

[SummerMadness]

In your desperation to spin this to fit your agenda, you are careering all over the place.

You are clearly describing your own posts here.

 

[Hank77]

In your desperation to spin this to fit your agenda, you are careering all over the place.

First you try and spin it as a language issue centred on the word 'into'.


Then you claim you've already seen the unedited video I posted. But that seems unlikely, given your previous attempt to spin 'into' to 'toward'.


Then having seen the unedited video I posted, you completely change tactic, and try to spin it as a totally different language or word problem, centred on the word 'crowd' and some self-serving argument about passing through some imaginary 'boundary'.


If it helps, this is what 'driving into a crowd of people' really looks like, and it's not even remotely similar to that unedited video I posted earlier. Can you see the difference?

By the way, I doubt that either the driver of that black car or the drivers of either of those police cars will be found guilty of any crime. The black car driver because he not only had good reason to fear for his life and was acting in self defence, but he also immediately sought police protection from the violent mob, which is a sign of acting in good faith. The police drivers, because it was obvious there was a high risk they were about to have their vehicles trashed and possibly be dragged out and be assaulted or even killed, and because those people were obstructing an emergency services vehicle for no good reason.


The driver had almost stopped by the time he got to that black barrier thing. If he really wanted to take out the 'peaceful protesters' he would have accelerated and smashed through that insignificant little barrier, then got out and carried on shooting until his magazine was empty. Do you really think an improvised barrier light enough to be moved by one person could stop a car at 40-50mph? The reality is that the route ahead was impassable without killing a lot of people so he stopped to avoid killing and maiming them. He saw the danger of being surrounded by an angry mob bent on instant justice, shot the violent idiot attacking him through his car window (and obstructing his exit route), then immediately sought police protection without firing another shot. Rather odd that someone you claim was apparently geared up to kill, with magazines arranged for plenty of rounds, fired just one shot in self defence.



'Footage: protester attacking driver gets shot' (same as the title in the unedited video I posted).


The best thing for everyone is for all these violent hooligans to start behaving like the peaceful protesters they claim to be, or go home.

I'm done with this now. There's clearly no argument, interpretation, or tactic that is too ridiculous, illogical, or threadbare for CF Liberals. Sadly, for you at least, I don't think the majority of the American public will support your narrative in November.

He may have some trouble explaining why he had an extra magazine/s taped to his gun. And if he was afraid of the protesters why did he run right through them when he ran away.

 

[Hans Blaster]

In your desperation to spin this to fit your agenda, you are careering all over the place.

First you try and spin it as a language issue centred on the word 'into'.


Then you claim you've already seen the unedited video I posted. But that seems unlikely, given your previous attempt to spin 'into' to 'toward'.

First of all you have *NO* idea what my "agenda" is, please stop trying to paint one on me.

Second, I've been talking about the language/comprehension issue with you since my very first post in the thread. In #3, I asked you, what alternative description for what happened you would use. In #9, I started by suggesting their might be a usage issue before discussion what I saw on various videos. Finally in #12, I addressed very clearly what I saw in the video you posted. I used that video only because it was convenient.

(And I have seen several uncut, raw user posted videos of this on twitter before I even saw this thread. So please don't tell me I haven't.)

Then having seen the unedited video I posted, you completely change tactic, and try to spin it as a totally different language or word problem, centred on the word 'crowd' and some self-serving argument about passing through some imaginary 'boundary'.

I wanted you to be very clear why I thought the driver had driven into the crowd. I'm sorry you can't handle some very simple geography/topology.

Again, I think there might be a language issue. I would say that I regularly drive "into my driveway" and "into the parking lot" when describing entering those areas. The driver clearly enters a portion of the street containing people (on the street itself) and drives past them. Thus by my usage of the word he drove into the crowd. Whether you call it that or not, it was still a dangerous thing to do. And that was my point in my original message.

If it helps, this is what 'driving into a crowd of people' really looks like, and it's not even remotely similar to that unedited video I posted earlier. Can you see the difference?

OK, so by your definition you need to make contact with your cop car. Got it.

By the way, I doubt that either the driver of that black car or the drivers of either of those police cars will be found guilty of any crime. The black car driver because he not only had good reason to fear for his life and was acting in self defence, but he also immediately sought police protection from the violent mob, which is a sign of acting in good faith. The police drivers, because it was obvious there was a high risk they were about to have their vehicles trashed and possibly be dragged out and be assaulted or even killed, and because those people were obstructing an emergency services vehicle for no good reason.

Here again I would disagree about whether he will be found guilty. First of all, just the driving into the crowd (or past the crowd) causing people to rapidly move out of the way to avoid being hit is a crime, and he clearly did that. I don't know if this is a low level felony or a misdemeanor that requires jail time, but I strongly suspect he will face jail time for the driving part alone.

The shooting may be harder to convict on and justification is almost certain to be the defense.

Let's consider a similar, but less controversial scenario: Imagine a man (who had a loaded gun in his car) is driving through his neighborhood on his way to or from somewhere when he drives past a party. A girl runs into the street in front of the man's car; he slams on the brakes and just barely stops before it would strike her. Being startled by the car, she turns away from it, but trips ending up on the street just in front of the stopped car. Some men at the party hear the car and see the girl on the ground and begin running toward her and the car. Some of the men pound on the car and one tries to open the door. The driver grabs his gun and as the door opens squeezes the trigger shooting the door opening man in the shoulder. The situation is calmed and the police arrive. In this situation I would suspect that the self-protection defense would be likely to work (I am not a lawyer), but the driver might be charged with illegal discharge of a weapon or other misdemeanor with only a fine.

I don't think things will workout as well for the driver in this case.

1. He seems to have entered that street intent on some sort of mischief. Even if he just was planning to "drive hard" past some people to give them a fright, it's still menacing and intentional.

2. His gun with the taped on second magazine was obviously prepared to be used in a fashion that would entail firing many rounds. This is not how one generally defends oneself with a pistol.

He entered a region of his own choosing, expecting conflict, and when that conflict began he fired a deadly weapon at someone. If you go to a bar spoiling for a fight (and armed) you are not likely to escape a brawl related charges with a self-defense claim.

The driver had almost stopped by the time he got to that black barrier thing. If he really wanted to take out the 'peaceful protesters' he would have accelerated and smashed through that insignificant little barrier, then got out and carried on shooting until his magazine was empty. Do you really think an improvised barrier light enough to be moved by one person could stop a car at 40-50mph? The reality is that the route ahead was impassable without killing a lot of people so he stopped to avoid killing and maiming them. He saw the danger of being surrounded by an angry mob bent on instant justice, shot the violent idiot attacking him through his car window (and obstructing his exit route), then immediately sought police protection without firing another shot. Rather odd that someone you claim was apparently geared up to kill, with magazines arranged for plenty of rounds, fired just one shot in self defence.

Yes, he slowed down as he entered the thickest part of the crowd. I didn't say other wise, though I have not analyzed the speed. His plan may not have involved any vehicular assault (and none happened), or he may have backed down from his plan.

BTW, I don't think he traveled as fast as 40-50 mph as another poster stated. Just from seeing cars drive down streets like this, I suspect his top speed (in the earlier portion of the video) was 25-35 mph. The police technicians will sort that out before trial.

I don't know what he planned to do with the gun, but he seemed to be prepared to fire it many times.

I suspect that the charges with be some form of assault with a deadly weapon, wreckless driving without regard for safety (of pedestrians) and perhaps a charge related to the configuration of his gun. (I don't know the Washington laws specifically.) That'll probably give him 5-8 years in the state pen.

Unless, that is, he posted a video to facebook or whatever detailing a plan to charge a crowd of protestors with his car and then shoot as many as he could before the cops got him. In that case, he might be charged with things like attempted vehicular manslaughter, attempted murder, and even terrorism. We'll have to see about anything from his internet history indicating motive.

The man is currently in jail without bail for assault (jailed pending investigation).

The best thing for everyone is for all these violent hooligans to start behaving like the peaceful protesters they claim to be, or go home.

I'm done with this now. There's clearly no argument, interpretation, or tactic that is too ridiculous, illogical, or threadbare for CF Liberals. Sadly, for you at least, I don't think the majority of the American public will support your narrative in November.

I'm not working a narrative and I frankly don't see the facts of this current event news item as a particularly political topic.

I don't know if you'd call me a liberal or not. On CF, sure I'm more liberal than most, but this is one of the most politically conservative places I've been in real life or online. (And I'm from a politically conservative place.) In the US, I'm probably slightly left of the center of our politics. I'm not sure if I'd make it to the left side in British or European politics.

(Except that I am as far to the left as possible on the original left/right defining issue as a staunch anti-monarchist.)

 

[Hans Blaster]

Some of us know what it looks like when video is edited to tell a story. Some of us are able to look at the multiple videos from different vantage points and piece together a decent idea of what happened.

Here's one that many haven't seen. It shows the black car entering 11th Ave. from Pike Street. (It's a link to a tweet; I think this will work.)

https://twitter.com/i/status/1270199417920843777

Here's an annotated version:

https://twitter.com/i/status/1270396032476524546

The car travels about 450 feet down 11th Ave until it comes to a halt at Pine St & 11th Ave. (Yes, Seattle does have Pine and Pike streets as consecutive streets. It was a bit confusing when I was there last year.) The driver then proceeds up Pine Street through the crowd and into a line of Police located just outside their station house.

In the video, you can see that there was an improvised (not official barrier) that partially blocks the street and serves as a notice that something is happening down the street. The video show pedestrians moving quickly to get out of the way even as the car enters the block. They start chasing and shouting to protect those down the street.

 

[Hank77]

In the video, you can see that there was an improvised (not official barrier) that partially blocks the street and serves as a notice that something is happening down the street. The video show pedestrians moving quickly to get out of the way even as the car enters the block. They start chasing and shouting to protect those down the street.

I also noticed where he turned down the street there is a band set up on the street with a keyboard, full drum set, etc. He couldn't have missed that.
When he turned down that street the one guy had to jump onto the sidewalk to keep from being hit.
After he was out of his car and before he entered the crowd he reaches back, flips up his hoody, and puts the gun in his pocket.


I wonder if it's true that his brother is a cop in that precinct or if that's just a rumor.

 

[SummerMadness]

We've seen multiple cases where someone drives a vehicle into protesters and the usual suspects voice their support for the driver. It's not about law and order, it's about sticking it to the people they don't like, thus they will attempt to justify blatant criminal activity, whether from a police officer or someone against the protests.

 

[Hans Blaster]

We've seen multiple cases where someone drives a vehicle into protesters and the usual suspects voice their support for the driver. It's not about law and order, it's about sticking it to the people they don't like, thus they will attempt to justify blatant criminal activity, whether from a police officer or someone against the protests.

Wasn't there a "movement" to pass legal indemnification laws for hitting protesters that were blocking a cars path? I think it was after a few drivers "pushed" slowly some protesters, but I think this all got shut down (though I don't know if any established laws were revoked) after a car was used as a weapon at Charlottesville.

 

[disciple Clint]

What would you call someone driving a car down a street filled with people?

well you might call him a victim when people close in around his car, one enters the car through the drivers window and assaults the driver. Hard to say where this could have gone, if the crowd had pulled him out of the car. I remember the truck driver in L.A. who was almost killed.

 

[iluvatar5150]

well you might call him a victim when people close in around his car, one enters the car through the drivers window and assaults the driver. Hard to say where this could have gone, if the crowd had pulled him out of the car. I remember the truck driver in L.A. who was almost killed.

You might call him a lot of things but people started chasing after him and screaming only after he took that corner quickly.

 

[disciple Clint]

You might call him a lot of things but people started chasing after him and screaming only after he took that corner quickly.

So that is your justification for mob violence and assault???

 

[iluvatar5150]

So that is your justification for mob violence and assault???

The justification would be self-defense (or defense of others).

 

[SummerMadness]

There is never a shortage of those vigorously defending racists and their behavior. There is always an argument about defending thoughts, but there never seems to be a dividing line, they defend racists regardless of their actions.

 

[disciple Clint]

The justification would be self-defense (or defense of others).

That is exactly the defense of the driver who was attacked, very good reason to believe that he would be dead now if he did not have a gun.