National Protest and 'disband the cops' discussion (and now ICE)

Check the video in the link I shared; there's the footage of a car that turns straight into the crowd while blaring on its horn. My understanding is that was the car involved in the incident.

I could be completely wrong and that isn't the vehicle in question, but I haven't seen anything to the contrary.
Saw the video and agree it's the car. That's not the issue. As I stated previously, to suggest it "sped" into the crowd is a gross mischaracterization of what that video shows.
 
It looks like the car sped through an opening in the the foot traffic before honking and slowing down to a stop when the crowds blocked its passage.
 
It looks like the car sped through an opening in the the foot traffic before honking and slowing down to a stop when the crowds blocked its passage.
What do you defining as speeding through the crowd? Any movement at all?! Because it wasn't much more than that. I'm no expert on vehicle speed but judging by the pace of those walking nearby, he was maybe doing 5+ or so mph; not notably different from the car with the dashcam. Is that speeding into a crowd?! He stopped, then made a right hand turn and came to a stop almost immediately when rounding the corner before being swarmed by the crowd that was unlawfully marching in the street.
 
What do you defining as speeding through the crowd?
Either he was stopped as you said and accelerated in order to move through the opening, or he wasn't stopped and coasted through the opening before slowing down to stop after the crowd blocked.

Since this doesn't seem clear, I'd say he'cut' through the opening.
 
Either he was stopped as you said and accelerated in order to move through the opening, or he wasn't stopped and coasted through the opening before slowing down to stop after the crowd blocked.

Since this doesn't seem clear, I'd say he'cut' through the opening.
Either way, do you define that as "speeding into an crowd"?

I don't. To suggest that, as it has been here and in other places numerous times, based on the video we've seen is a gross mischaracterization. Period.
 
Still shots from another video show a rifle being pointed at the car.
Gunman 1 s/b good.
Gunman2, may have some explaining to do.

Gunman 2 as in the person who fired back at the car?

That is an interesting scenario.

If person A was justifiably shot by person B, but person C did not witness/is otherwise unaware of that justification, is person C in the wrong (legally) for firing back at person B?
 
Gunman 2 as in the person who fired back at the car?
Yes
That is an interesting scenario.

If person A was justifiably shot by person B, but person C did not witness/is otherwise unaware of that justification, is person C in the wrong (legally) for firing back at person B?
They have to explain why they fired, and who they were shooting at. I don't know where the last 3 shots went, that may play in too.
Replied in quote.
 
Can’t remember if it was from the Statesman or a local station, but I initially read that the first loud “bang” that you hear was the vehicle hitting an orange construction barrel. I think it was the local Fox affiliate, but I can’t find it. Instead, here’s a separate article from The Insider that corroborates the driver of the car hitting an orange barrel.

Those things were everywhere in Austin 20yrs ago; I see not much has changed about the state capital.
 

According to the Governor, the violence Portland had for the 6 weeks before the Government hardened the court house and reinforced the locally assigned detachment was brought by the Federal Task Force. Again, all the POTUS fault and not hers.


Normally, in my line of work when you reach a deal, you're supposed to be amicable once it is concluded.


The Antifa based violence is not the fault of the Federal Government, it is the fault of her and the Mayor of Portland not doing their damn jobs.

 
Just holy shit! From the article:
This legislation was also sponsored by Councilor Quinton Zondervan. Zondervan said that in the event that an unlicensed driver has additional reasons for arrest, such as outstanding warrants, the individual should still be arrested. It is unclear how an unarmed city employee would go about arrested an individual who has an invalid license and a stack of warrants.

ETA: I think the city council should be the first to try out this new gig. :rolleyes:
 
Back
Top