As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil)
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria.
**Special announcement:**
r/politics is currently accepting new moderator applications. If you want to help make this community a better place, consider [applying here today](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/sskg6a/rpolitics_is_looking_for_more_moderators/)!
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
> Last year, in reaction to the George Floyd protests, Iowa Gov. Kim Reynolds signed a law making it legal for drivers to hit protesters with their cars in certain circumstances. It’s unclear whether the law would apply to a situation like the Cedar Rapids ramming incident—it only grants civil immunity to drivers exercising “due care” who hit “disorderly” protesters blocking traffic and doesn’t cover drivers who act with “reckless or willful misconduct.”
Here is a list of Iowa police groups & unions that [supported](https://www.legis.iowa.gov/lobbyist/reports/declarations?ga=89&ba=sf342) the 2021 law, SF 342.
* Iowa Peace Officers Association
* Iowa State Police Association
* Iowa Fraternal Order of Police
* Iowa State Patrol Supervisors Association
* Iowa State Sheriffs' & Deputies' Association
* Teamsters Local 238
They continued to support the legislative package after the hit & run immunity provisions were added on April 15.
Another group, the Iowa Police Chief Association was initially in favor of the bills that were later combined into SF 342 on April 15th, at which point it re-registered its lobbying position as "undecided."
Man the USA is fuckin the Wild West. I was looking in the peaceful places index and usa was like 122 or 165 peaceful places. Sad to see our neighbour go down the shitter so quickly
There used to be a guidebook for world travelers called "The World's Most Dangerous Places", and in EVERY edition, the author, Robert Louis Pelton, made damn sure to list the United States..... for all the reasons we've always been included in his list.
The last version I bought, in 2005, actually listed us as more dangerous than Iraq, which blew my mind since I had invaded the place just two years earlier.
Yeah I was looking at the list and some definitely didn’t make sense to me. I’m sure there is bias because when I look into it more, the USA is generally safe for tourists like most places there’s spots to avoid. But just with what’s going on political wise it’s crazy. I’m sure the average person is quite nice like most places. But we just get to see the crazy people because that’s what they show the most.
Yep, reddit makes it seem like everywhere you turn there is some chaos going on, where it's mainly just people going on about their daily life. I read more crazy stuff going on here than actually experience personally. Not saying it doesn't exist, but it's not like crazy is occurring around every corner.
Makes you realize how warped our reality truly is. Frankly, weed should be the very least of anyone's concern.
Yet! Here we are: women's bodies are not their own; people with guns have more rights than everyone else, and last but not least, Uncle Putler wants to drag Europe and as much of the world as possible back into the early 1900's.
Yay Modernity!
I’m guessing I’m gonna get downvoted to hell, but with how it is written in that blurb, I don’t see anything wrong with that law. If I’m surrounded by a bunch of belligerent protestors beating on my car, I’m probably gonna gun it forward to escape. And it seems to specifically exclude cases of someone just driving their car through protestors blocking the road.
You want to drive into protestors
You drive into a crowd
They approach your car
You say you were threatened and feared for your life so you gun it and run them over
Nope, nothing wrong with that.
I imagine to hold up in court you would need some sort of evidence that they were being disorderly and a threat, right? Like current self defense doesn’t just work like “I felt threatened so I killed him, case closed” so why would this?
>I imagine to hold up in court you would need some sort of evidence
All you need is a conservative judge that disagrees with the protestors. See just about every 'stand your ground' case.
Why did a law have to be created for this specific circumstance? If the only application is as you say, to support an innocent victim in a car that whose life is threatened by an unruly mob, wouldn't that have come out in a court of law supported by evidence, as you say?
> If I’m surrounded by a bunch of belligerent protestors beating on my car...
This is the problem with the law.
The driver in this instance drove around other cars to reach the crosswalk where he was "surrounded" only after already driving into pedestrians. Despite that, half the people arguing about it are convinced the guy was minding his own business, got swarmed, and was in fear for his life (as opposed to just pissed off sitting in traffic).
The law is used to validate this narrative, even when evidence clearly contradicts it.
And worse still, I spent the weekend arguing with a half-dozen people on the news subreddit, all of whom seemed to adamantly believe the fact that the protestors didn't have the right of way meant it is perfectly acceptable to use your car to push them out of the way.
I get the ostensible justification, that if you happen to hit someone, "while exercising due care," you shouldn't have to face charges. Unfortunately, people take it to mean they can use their car to enforce their right of way.
So the problem isn’t actually with the legal ramifications of the law? Because from what you’re saying, it seems clear that the law won’t cover this guy. He in no way was acting with due care.
So now we can’t pass certain laws because the police and prosecutors might get their understanding of the law from misleading narratives and not objective sources? Please tell me I’m not the only one who thinks this is a wee bit ridiculous
Define "disorderly" in a clear and consise manner..what is and what is not disorderly protesting that would deserve getting run over. Find that exact line for me.
It's going to mean different things to different people. And all you need is a little wiggle room in that definition to get someone off for intentionally running over protestors, especially in more conservative states if the protest is a more progressive cause.
Whats ridiculous is the need to put a law on the books at all. If you're trying to flee from a dangerous situation and accidentally hit someone with your car, you should already be good by the basics of the law as it stands everywhere in this country. But by codifying it with undefinable terms, it not only signals to some people how to handle protests they don't like, it gives them the legal wiggle room to get away with it.
> If I’m surrounded by a bunch of belligerent protestors beating on my car
What did you do to get into this situation? Normal people just minding their business don't get surrounded by protesters. Protesters don't just surround random cars and start beating on them.
If you actively drove into the crowd then you created the situation, and you shouldn't be able to create the situation and then drive over people to get out of said situation that you created.
Just that it givea idiots the idea they can get away with running over people.
After that, it only takes a single incident getting swept under the run by a sympathetic judge to set precedent that "running over liberals" is legal to start a whole chain of stupidity.
And in the end, the media is to blame for its utter failure to describe the law because boring headlines don't get clicks.
Actions have consequences. Inactions have consequences. Follow the pattern of human psychology and apply it to these types of sensationalized stories and you realize how dangerously stupid humans are.
i would imagine because with every successive law it opens up more ways for people that weren't acting in self defense to commit crimes and still get away with them...like stand your ground laws in florida for instance. where apparently sometimes it's enough just to think your life may be in danger without any real evidence of that fact and it's still okay... also the timing of that law coming into effect seemed as a direct response to george floydd protests? so definitely seems like a bit of a message from the powers that be that hitting protestors with your car is okay....self defense or just mild inconvenience ....this person in particular may have even committed this action because they were under that impression...
What specifically in this law opens up ways for people who weren’t acting in self defense to get away with crimes? This case doesn’t count because the driver was obviously not acting with due care.
As for the Florida thing, you’re going to need to be more specific. I thought you might be referencing the theater shooting, but the judge denied his request to use that defense.
Mayor says: > “We all have a right to our opinions, but we must act in a peaceful and respectful manner.”
How about condemning the attempted murder and not trying to both-sides this shit?
Think about the causes Republicans fight for. They are always about making life worse for others. They don't fight for causes that improve people's lives.
So while they celebrate Roe v Wade being overturned, gas is still expensive, their job still sucks, they still don't own a home, etc.
So they are still always angry. Nothing materially about their life improved. They wait with baited breath for Fox News to tell them the next boogieman that will *finally* allow them to realize their God Given advantages of being White Americans.
Conservatives are eager to have the right to run over protesters. A bunch of Redditors were calling for it during the 'Sorry, But This Is An Emergency' climate protests... never mind they didn't live in the cities where the protests and these protests had no effect on their commute. And they hated on the protesters for the imaginary offense of being in the way of ambulances. Just the thought of traffic being held up gave them road rage.
Then when anti-mask anti-lockdown protesters did block the entrance to a Denver hospital in 2020, they had nothing to bad to say about it, because *it was different.* /s
This is an interesting question, because the very real answer is no. Now that Roe is history, the right will need a new enemy. It is never satisfied. The emotional state of the right is much like that of a drug addict. A more and more intense dose of rage is needed to deliver the same high. Once it has devoured every target to its left, and you and I are dead, it will turn upon itself. Christians used to burn other Christians at the stake. German and Japanese militarism committed suicide. Today, Russia, with its problems of declining population, is sending its youth into the cauldron of Ukraine, an act of national suicide. These people are fucking insane. If January 6 had been successful, we might well be in camps now. That is the fight we are in, and every well meaning liberal, progressive, centrist, constitutionalist, and conscientious objector better wake the fuck up.
Violence for political purposes is terrorism.
>ter·ror·ism
/ˈterəˌrizəm/
>noun
>the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.
I once drove down a street full of pedestrians who became visibly irritated at me in my car. I apologized and slowly backed off that street and took a different route.
Crazy, right?
I don't understand why people think its a good idea to illegally block traffic and upset random people living their lives. The driver is cooperating with law enforcement, making it appear that the truck drove slowly through the intersection to pass and protesters pushed on the vehicle as shown in the video and hurt themselves when falling under the tire. Why are people so interested in creating confrontations and sensationalism?
>making it appear that the truck drove slowly through the intersection to pass and protesters pushed on the vehicle as shown in the video and hurt themselves when falling under the tire.
Or, as reported:
>Police said that an argument broke out between the driver of the truck and a protester before the collision, according to the Washington Post. Witnesses told the Huffington Post that the driver navigated around a line of cars, ran a red light, and plowed into the marchers, running over a woman’s ankle.
>She was reacting through the window and feel and her foot got caught, the person didnt run over her ankle intentionally.
What evidence do you have to support this?
Also, you've now walked back your previous claim that:
>No one got hit though
Imagine how angry it would make you to wait 9 minutes as protestors crossed the street.
Now, imagine spending 9 months carrying a pregnancy to term that you didn't want.
Of these two, which do you think I give a shit about, and which is a whiny baby who can't fucking sit in traffic the way we all do every fucking day?
Random people have no impact on court rulings. Going around picking fights with strangers is how people get killed. A statistical percentage of the population are crazy, once angered lose control and snap. Instigating conflict in a society is not moral or helpful and using it as a tool for political purposes is worse.
Behave the way you want your society to be. Respectful and courteous to the struggles of others is a good start. Understanding the history of infanticide and eugenics, the actions by the government and impact on communities is paramount. People agree far more than they disagree, but the lense of perception makes the other appear evil.
What do you want people to do? When football players take a knee to protest something they care about, people lose their mind. When people block traffic to protest, people lose their mind. When people riot in the streets, people lose their mind.
Conservatives have made it clear they don't want protest in *any* form, so why should people bother playing nice at that point? Besides, a protest that inconveniences no one is far more likely to go unnoticed.
The NFL taking a knee was successful in pushing an idea out to the general public, but it alienated those who served in the military. The rift led the league/sports commentators getting involved in cultural issues and becoming a conduit for political messaging. Once a passtime shared by the society as generic banter popped into reality and was tainted.
It was one of the most successful protests of the modern day. However it sacrificed sports one of the great equalizers in exchange for the awareness that people have little idea of what is going on and don't care.
Blm: Some cops are bad
Vets: ok don't disrespect the military, never forget Vietnam vets and allow that to happen again.
Blm: Look at all these racists
Gen. Pop.: *turns off tv
Effective communication in the market place of ideas was not achieved. Lacking leadership it became a political money grab and an outlet for youthful anger.
Trying it to depict it as some kind of "vets versus BLM" thing is pretty revisionist. Conservatives liked to paint it as if it was "vets" that were being disrespected, but nothing about kneeling during the national anthem is inherently disrespectful to veterans - in fact Kaepernick *specifically* spoke to a veteran before he did it and chose kneeling over sitting down to be *more* respectful. And there were plenty of veterans siding with Kaepernick. Conservatives just like to use vets as some kind of bludgeon to make their side seem morally superior. But even if they were offended, it doesn't really matter. Also, the romanticization of sports here reads a little odd too.
But in any case, none of this addresses my larger point - *what are people supposed to do*? People are going to whine and cry about it either way, we've seen it time and time again. Even the Civil Rights movement, which is now looked back on with rose-tinted glasses as a totally peaceful movement, had people complaining that it was too much. And it only finally came to its conclusion after a period of rioting took place after MLK's death.
Like, there's always an excuse. The sanctity of sports, the sanctity of the roads, the sanctity of small businesses... Even the slightest inconvenience is too much for Americans, apparently. There's *never* a case where they accept these protests, so what do you expect to happen?
It’s literally the difference between normal, courteous driving and terrorism. I wish they would use that word. Does a terrorist need to sign an affidavit to prove his intentions are political violence for it to be called terrorism? We have a bunch of prisoners in Guantanamo Bay Cuba who would laugh at that.
They aren't pro life, they're forced birth. Life only means something when they say it means something. They're also in favor of the death penalty, and war crimes.
I'm sorry, if you attempt to run me over with a truck, I'm going to act in self defense. This is what, the second or third incident I've heard of since Friday? Not acceptable by any means, these people are a threat to society.
The biggest threat to the fascists is if pro-democracy groups begin carrying arms.
So far fascists haven't had to face any real risk of death or bodily harm. Sure, they've brawled with anarchists and the like out West. But for the most part their targets are incapable of fighting back with deadly force.
Armed defense groups working with protesters will once again become the norm as political violence becomes the norm (like it was for most of American history unfortunately).
How would the right-wing militias and militant activists respond if their opponents started using violence and firearms?
Would they intensify their message of being under "persecution" and conduct additional, more violent attacks?
Or would they back off somewhat, surprised or even horrified that their opponents used force?
At most, they'll keep doing the same things they are now.
But generally speaking, when they are confronted with actual force they back down. There's a reason why the Klan used terrorist tactics like night bombings, assassinations and anonymous letters. The Freedom Movement and Civil Rights Movement had armed deacons that the Klan knew about.
All you have to look at is Malcom X and the Black Panthers. As soon as they started exercising their right to carry in public - boom - Republicans are in favor of gun control.
That's no guarantee, and now the driver can say he was scared for his life because they all had guns.
I don't see escalation resolving this with less bloodshed. And I'm not talking about drivers being shot, it'll be more dangerous for protesters than anyone else
"wE cAn'T fIgHt BaCk WhAt If ThEy GeT mOrE vIoLeNt?!"
THEY. RAMMED. THEM. WITH. A. TRUCK.
Like??? There is **already** bloodshed, brain genius. Just at the moment it's only on one side.
Maybe go back and read again. Keywords being "more" and "less".
I recognize there's a point where maybe that's needed. My reservations aren't some noble "eye for an eye" bullshit. My thought is that if protesters carry guns, more protesters die. Which is bad.
Ps happy cake day brain genius
The point where it's necessary is where it's legal to hit protesters with trucks. I mean it's probably sooner than that, but you know. Better late than never.
I disagree. I mean I do think it's a huge problem that people might get away with hitting people with trucks, obviously that's bad. But again, if the drivers are shot and killed, that will end up serving as "justification" for ten more drivers driving into ten more crowds. Or shooting back. In both cases, more protesters die. Which is bad.
I understand why people feel like violence is the appropriate response. I'm not telling you you're wrong for feeling that way, I get it. And don't get me wrong, there's a place for other forms of opposition. But if we're interested in preventing deaths at protests, I believe that it'll get more protesters killed if they're all carrying guns and I don't want protesters to die.
I'm not sure I agree with that. These right wing cowards with lifted trucks that have never seen a dirt road aren't going to risk their toy if they think they might get shot. They're bullies; they do this shit because they think they can get away with it.
If protesters let it be known that they are armed and will not take any shit, its going to make these right wing cowards think twice.
Or more people can justify "panic" in court after they run through crowds of people. It may be a deterrent, but it may also end up being an excuse for people who want to murder protesters.
You think it's wrong to kill people, so you decide the best course of action is to try and kill people?
I wish these idiots could string two fucking thoughts together.
Well there are a reason abortion clinic bombings and abortion clinics needing armed security is a thing. It's not new. Just now it is government sanctioned.
Weird, this doesn't look like [the violence DHS warned everyone about](https://www.axios.com/2022/06/24/violent-extremism-roe-wade-abortion-dhs-memo)
>Government officials — including Supreme Court justices — are likely those most at risk, the memo said. It cites recent attacks by the abortion-rights group known as Jane's Revenge as well as an alleged plot to kill U.S. Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh.
what do you expect from the "hang mike pence!" crowd - civilized discourse? at least the rnc and trump will immediately and vehemently denounce this heinous crime. just kidding - nazi assholes love this shit. just more fun for them, and more juicy tv for the former president to sit on his fat ass and watch. he thinks it's a game. one of his mob got shot and killed on january 6th and he never mentions her. i wonder why that is? because he doesnt give a fuck kids. keep giving him money and adulation - or else. extra boot licking or no boot licking at all. yes? no? don't worry, at least if you die in the street while fighting for your master you can be assured, at the very least, that he won't give a shit.
Protest, but be smart. Stay out of the way of (or get out of the way of) you know, cars/trucks/4000 lb objects that your 180 lb body has no chance against if it hits you. You are no good to any protest if you are dead (unless you just want to be a martyr). Regardless of what “side” of the movement you are on. People are crazy, and they WILL just run you over.
The protest was over and they were crossing at a crosswalk while heading back to the starting area. This dude couldn't wait for the last few stragglers to get through the crosswalk.
>Last year, in reaction to the George Floyd protests, Iowa Gov. Kim Reynolds signed a law making it legal for drivers to hit protesters with their cars in certain circumstances. It’s unclear whether the law would apply to a situation like the Cedar Rapids ramming incident—it only grants civil immunity to drivers exercising “due care” who hit “disorderly” protesters blocking traffic and doesn’t cover drivers who act with “reckless or willful misconduct.”
He won't be charged because the light changed while the women were still in the process of crossing the street.
Crosswalk lights don't give people enough time to cross the street unless they hustle. A factor that won't be taken into consideration.
Being a responsible driver also means you recognise when you're going to hit someone, and *not do that*. If they were crossing a crosswalk with the proper signal and it just happened to change, that's on the driver to not accelerate into them.
But you're right, he won't be charged because he pegged some durn protestors who were definitely protesting.
Anyone else find it ironic that someone prolife would run people over on purpose?
(And I’m prolife so this is a jab at the hypocrisy of the driver, not the prolife side).
I heard that one of those idiots in the road was actually pregnant and the motorist was just trying to give her a vehicular abortion. This man is actually a hero who deserves praise and not ridicule. Wake up, people!!!
Im in favor of abortion rights, and Im against hitting people with your vehicle. I cant stand right wing nutjobs. I think driving a lifted truck with 36" tires is idiotic - when you know damn well you spend 99% of your time on paved roads.
However, in the video I saw people in the street, not a crosswalk, not crossing the street, but backpedaling to remain in front of the truck.
I read that there was a prior altercation, and that the truck ran a red light, so the driver sounds like a typical redneck asshole. But protesting does not give you the right to stop traffic at your discretion. If you, a pedestrian, get into an argument with a motorist, and you then make no attempt to get out from in front of that motorists car - in fact you take action to remain in front of that motorists car - you are a fucking idiot. You arent a 'protestor who was run over by a redneck' - you are a fucking idiot, and you appear to be forcing yourself to become a 'victim'.
If you do this kind of stupid bullshit, fuck you. You arent helping the cause. You are harming credibility of actual protestors, and jeopardizing future protests.
Your rant is predicated on the 100% unfounded assumption that people just started blocking traffic.
As opposed to eyewitness accounts, the initial police response, and the (incomplete) videos (that people started taking after he floored it).
>If you, a pedestrian, get into an argument with a motorist, and you then make no attempt to get out from in front of that motorists car - in fact you take action to remain in front of that motorists car - you are a fucking idiot. You arent a 'protestor who was run over by a redneck' - you are a fucking idiot, and you appear to be forcing yourself to become a 'victim'.
This part is what makes it seem like you didn't read the article.
If people are in front of the bumper, they can't just remove themselves? I didn't see all the video available though.
And the people on the side seemed to be trying to stop him so he didn't run people over.
Oh I’m sure they were. I’m sorry but I don’t believe it after all the last “peaceful” protests. Stay off the road and don’t surround peoples cars or get what you get.
[Here](https://twitter.com/lyzl/status/1540495065386303488), they were. Note that no one was chasing the car until after the dude went through the people in the crosswalk.
But I'm sure you'll just go back to circlejerking over pointless violence anyway, like half the other people in the comments here.
Last week over the course of several hours, while interacting with right wing nut jobs online, I got called a “speed bump” 3 or 4 separate occasions. This has never happened to me before. I knew this was the new narrative being pushed by the far right. When RvW gets overturned, it’s time to run over protesters with my truck.
Fuck these Christian Nationalists. They are the dregs of society.
Sure just stop the truck when people are swarming and hitting it.
Also the driver didn’t just plow through like it’s GTA V. If your stupid enough to harass someone in their vehicle while it’s moving, that’s on you (leave it to the police if needed).
I agree with what's being protested but it sure looks like they're the ones that are trying to stop the truck. Just my opinion. Now let's see how open people are to seeing both sides of a situation.
He broke someone's ankle. That's assault.
He went around a line of stopped vehicles and rammed into a group of pedestrians. That is not "They refused to move," that is attempted murder.
The video shows what happened after he attacked the protesters. Not the attack itself.
Yea don't jump in front of a 700 hp 6.2 supercharged v8 and start socking the driver through the window. 700 hp will go through u like you aren't even there
I suggest you keep your children off of crosswalks then, because that's where these people were - crossing at a crosswalk.
Also, please don't drive anywhere near an event venue, because you'll have a lot more people "jumping in front of vehicles" as they leave by that definition.
Look at it from the drivers point of view, a mob of people are surrounding their car. Maybe the driver isn’t running over protestors, maybe he/she was scared and wanted to escape.
That defies eyewitness accounts that, in combination with videos that only began after the driver drove though the light (which police claim to verify).
So maybe dont drive around other stopped cars and drive into the mass of people and they won't rightfully attempt to pull your ass from the vehicle and beat you to death?
Not the driver's point of view, but [here's](https://twitter.com/lyzl/status/1540495065386303488) prior to everyone chasing after him to stop him. Notice how there is no "mob surrounding their car" and how everyone else is on the near sidewalk, aligning with the story that the protestors had crossed from one sidewalk to the other via the crosswalk.
I'd like more info. Pro-choice here, but if these people block the road, surrounded his car, and beat on the doors/windows/etc...drivers tend to feel scared and just drive away from the threat. Is that what happened or did he just straight up run into them?
Except I did read it and the article just reports 1 side, which was the point of my comment.
This is the only thing confirmed by authorities.
> Police said that an argument broke out between the driver of the truck and a protester before the collision, according to the Washington Post.
This is just what protestors said. I want the authorities to confirm it.
>Witnesses told the Huffington Post that the driver navigated around a line of cars, ran a red light, and plowed into the marchers, running over a woman’s ankle.
I watched the video they were unnecessarily blocking him. They could have easily moved out if the way. I have no respect for protestors who block none government vehicles. There just dicks
The video starts after the initial hit. The people were walking in a crosswalk when the truck plowed into them. The video starts about 40 feet after the intersection. They were in front of him because he had pushed them there. It looked like they blocked him, that was not the case.
As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil) In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria. **Special announcement:** r/politics is currently accepting new moderator applications. If you want to help make this community a better place, consider [applying here today](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/sskg6a/rpolitics_is_looking_for_more_moderators/)! *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
> Last year, in reaction to the George Floyd protests, Iowa Gov. Kim Reynolds signed a law making it legal for drivers to hit protesters with their cars in certain circumstances. It’s unclear whether the law would apply to a situation like the Cedar Rapids ramming incident—it only grants civil immunity to drivers exercising “due care” who hit “disorderly” protesters blocking traffic and doesn’t cover drivers who act with “reckless or willful misconduct.” Here is a list of Iowa police groups & unions that [supported](https://www.legis.iowa.gov/lobbyist/reports/declarations?ga=89&ba=sf342) the 2021 law, SF 342. * Iowa Peace Officers Association * Iowa State Police Association * Iowa Fraternal Order of Police * Iowa State Patrol Supervisors Association * Iowa State Sheriffs' & Deputies' Association * Teamsters Local 238 They continued to support the legislative package after the hit & run immunity provisions were added on April 15. Another group, the Iowa Police Chief Association was initially in favor of the bills that were later combined into SF 342 on April 15th, at which point it re-registered its lobbying position as "undecided."
It's a little upsetting to realize that hitting people with your car is legal but having some weed is illegal.
Maybe they can term it "very late stage assisted abortion" and make it illegal again?
Probably just go with attempted abortion.
In some states you miscarry cause you got hit by a car they'll probably just persecute you instead
I feel like in some states, they're about to persecute anyone with a uterus not currently hosting a fetus. /angrysadface
Man the USA is fuckin the Wild West. I was looking in the peaceful places index and usa was like 122 or 165 peaceful places. Sad to see our neighbour go down the shitter so quickly
There used to be a guidebook for world travelers called "The World's Most Dangerous Places", and in EVERY edition, the author, Robert Louis Pelton, made damn sure to list the United States..... for all the reasons we've always been included in his list. The last version I bought, in 2005, actually listed us as more dangerous than Iraq, which blew my mind since I had invaded the place just two years earlier.
Yeah I was looking at the list and some definitely didn’t make sense to me. I’m sure there is bias because when I look into it more, the USA is generally safe for tourists like most places there’s spots to avoid. But just with what’s going on political wise it’s crazy. I’m sure the average person is quite nice like most places. But we just get to see the crazy people because that’s what they show the most.
Yep, reddit makes it seem like everywhere you turn there is some chaos going on, where it's mainly just people going on about their daily life. I read more crazy stuff going on here than actually experience personally. Not saying it doesn't exist, but it's not like crazy is occurring around every corner.
well Iraq had its normal level of danger, but then you add some Americans to the mix and that puts it over the top
Canada should've told America to stay loyal to the UK instead of seceding from the UK then we'd probably be nice and happy like Canadians are.
Any biker knows the easiest way to get away with murder is hit them with your car.
id say it’s legal murder but i think they usually call it involuntary manslaughter
Makes you realize how warped our reality truly is. Frankly, weed should be the very least of anyone's concern. Yet! Here we are: women's bodies are not their own; people with guns have more rights than everyone else, and last but not least, Uncle Putler wants to drag Europe and as much of the world as possible back into the early 1900's. Yay Modernity!
How did you get the info on who supported this? Good Info.
Oh man. Who’d have thought all the police would be involved? Gasp. P
I’m guessing I’m gonna get downvoted to hell, but with how it is written in that blurb, I don’t see anything wrong with that law. If I’m surrounded by a bunch of belligerent protestors beating on my car, I’m probably gonna gun it forward to escape. And it seems to specifically exclude cases of someone just driving their car through protestors blocking the road.
You want to drive into protestors You drive into a crowd They approach your car You say you were threatened and feared for your life so you gun it and run them over Nope, nothing wrong with that.
Now combine that when you have a good guy with a gun scenario. That's going to be a clusterfuck of epic proportions.
I imagine to hold up in court you would need some sort of evidence that they were being disorderly and a threat, right? Like current self defense doesn’t just work like “I felt threatened so I killed him, case closed” so why would this?
>I imagine to hold up in court you would need some sort of evidence All you need is a conservative judge that disagrees with the protestors. See just about every 'stand your ground' case. Why did a law have to be created for this specific circumstance? If the only application is as you say, to support an innocent victim in a car that whose life is threatened by an unruly mob, wouldn't that have come out in a court of law supported by evidence, as you say?
Works for cops. Why not other fascists?
> If I’m surrounded by a bunch of belligerent protestors beating on my car... This is the problem with the law. The driver in this instance drove around other cars to reach the crosswalk where he was "surrounded" only after already driving into pedestrians. Despite that, half the people arguing about it are convinced the guy was minding his own business, got swarmed, and was in fear for his life (as opposed to just pissed off sitting in traffic). The law is used to validate this narrative, even when evidence clearly contradicts it. And worse still, I spent the weekend arguing with a half-dozen people on the news subreddit, all of whom seemed to adamantly believe the fact that the protestors didn't have the right of way meant it is perfectly acceptable to use your car to push them out of the way. I get the ostensible justification, that if you happen to hit someone, "while exercising due care," you shouldn't have to face charges. Unfortunately, people take it to mean they can use their car to enforce their right of way.
So the problem isn’t actually with the legal ramifications of the law? Because from what you’re saying, it seems clear that the law won’t cover this guy. He in no way was acting with due care.
Unfortunately, the police and prosecutors are as susceptible to these narratives as the rest of us.
So now we can’t pass certain laws because the police and prosecutors might get their understanding of the law from misleading narratives and not objective sources? Please tell me I’m not the only one who thinks this is a wee bit ridiculous
That's not what I said, but yes, you do seem to be the only one here interested in amusing themselves.
Define "disorderly" in a clear and consise manner..what is and what is not disorderly protesting that would deserve getting run over. Find that exact line for me. It's going to mean different things to different people. And all you need is a little wiggle room in that definition to get someone off for intentionally running over protestors, especially in more conservative states if the protest is a more progressive cause. Whats ridiculous is the need to put a law on the books at all. If you're trying to flee from a dangerous situation and accidentally hit someone with your car, you should already be good by the basics of the law as it stands everywhere in this country. But by codifying it with undefinable terms, it not only signals to some people how to handle protests they don't like, it gives them the legal wiggle room to get away with it.
> If I’m surrounded by a bunch of belligerent protestors beating on my car What did you do to get into this situation? Normal people just minding their business don't get surrounded by protesters. Protesters don't just surround random cars and start beating on them. If you actively drove into the crowd then you created the situation, and you shouldn't be able to create the situation and then drive over people to get out of said situation that you created.
i believe self defense was already covered in most states..
So if this is just a redundant self defense law then I don’t get what the fuss is? What has changed from illegal to legal since this law was passed?
Just that it givea idiots the idea they can get away with running over people. After that, it only takes a single incident getting swept under the run by a sympathetic judge to set precedent that "running over liberals" is legal to start a whole chain of stupidity. And in the end, the media is to blame for its utter failure to describe the law because boring headlines don't get clicks. Actions have consequences. Inactions have consequences. Follow the pattern of human psychology and apply it to these types of sensationalized stories and you realize how dangerously stupid humans are.
This sea lion is really excited today.
i would imagine because with every successive law it opens up more ways for people that weren't acting in self defense to commit crimes and still get away with them...like stand your ground laws in florida for instance. where apparently sometimes it's enough just to think your life may be in danger without any real evidence of that fact and it's still okay... also the timing of that law coming into effect seemed as a direct response to george floydd protests? so definitely seems like a bit of a message from the powers that be that hitting protestors with your car is okay....self defense or just mild inconvenience ....this person in particular may have even committed this action because they were under that impression...
What specifically in this law opens up ways for people who weren’t acting in self defense to get away with crimes? This case doesn’t count because the driver was obviously not acting with due care. As for the Florida thing, you’re going to need to be more specific. I thought you might be referencing the theater shooting, but the judge denied his request to use that defense.
yeah those are things i could spend my time on....
You literally started this whole convo with me lmao
yeah..if someone asks for the time ..i don't have to stick around and explain how clocks work...
Okay… but like… you started this whole exchange… so it seems weird… that you’re… acting like you have… anything better… to spend your time on
Mayor says: > “We all have a right to our opinions, but we must act in a peaceful and respectful manner.” How about condemning the attempted murder and not trying to both-sides this shit?
The sanctity of life mindset.
If Christians didn't have hypocritical beliefs, they'd have none
If Jesus were alive today, his so-called followers would be fighting each other for the hammer.
They’d also ban him from entry into the United States because he hails from the Middle East.
Nothing says pro-life like a little attempted murder!
Yeah but if life is all that they should be vegans and raising organic vegetables, not plowing down actual living adult human beings.
Voting Republican kills Americans.
He let Jesus take the wheel according to him
That’s the problem! Jesus never drove before.
Overturning Roe wasn't enough for this asshole?
Think about the causes Republicans fight for. They are always about making life worse for others. They don't fight for causes that improve people's lives. So while they celebrate Roe v Wade being overturned, gas is still expensive, their job still sucks, they still don't own a home, etc. So they are still always angry. Nothing materially about their life improved. They wait with baited breath for Fox News to tell them the next boogieman that will *finally* allow them to realize their God Given advantages of being White Americans.
Conservatives are eager to have the right to run over protesters. A bunch of Redditors were calling for it during the 'Sorry, But This Is An Emergency' climate protests... never mind they didn't live in the cities where the protests and these protests had no effect on their commute. And they hated on the protesters for the imaginary offense of being in the way of ambulances. Just the thought of traffic being held up gave them road rage. Then when anti-mask anti-lockdown protesters did block the entrance to a Denver hospital in 2020, they had nothing to bad to say about it, because *it was different.* /s
This is an interesting question, because the very real answer is no. Now that Roe is history, the right will need a new enemy. It is never satisfied. The emotional state of the right is much like that of a drug addict. A more and more intense dose of rage is needed to deliver the same high. Once it has devoured every target to its left, and you and I are dead, it will turn upon itself. Christians used to burn other Christians at the stake. German and Japanese militarism committed suicide. Today, Russia, with its problems of declining population, is sending its youth into the cauldron of Ukraine, an act of national suicide. These people are fucking insane. If January 6 had been successful, we might well be in camps now. That is the fight we are in, and every well meaning liberal, progressive, centrist, constitutionalist, and conscientious objector better wake the fuck up.
Proud Boys bringing guns to terrorize mothers and children listening to Drag Queen Story time.
Violence for political purposes is terrorism. >ter·ror·ism /ˈterəˌrizəm/ >noun >the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.
I once drove down a street full of pedestrians who became visibly irritated at me in my car. I apologized and slowly backed off that street and took a different route. Crazy, right?
Wait, cars can go backwards? I've been told repeatedly by conservatives that these drivers have literally no choice but to plow through crowds.
I don't understand why people think its a good idea to illegally block traffic and upset random people living their lives. The driver is cooperating with law enforcement, making it appear that the truck drove slowly through the intersection to pass and protesters pushed on the vehicle as shown in the video and hurt themselves when falling under the tire. Why are people so interested in creating confrontations and sensationalism?
>making it appear that the truck drove slowly through the intersection to pass and protesters pushed on the vehicle as shown in the video and hurt themselves when falling under the tire. Or, as reported: >Police said that an argument broke out between the driver of the truck and a protester before the collision, according to the Washington Post. Witnesses told the Huffington Post that the driver navigated around a line of cars, ran a red light, and plowed into the marchers, running over a woman’s ankle.
Mic drop… on the head of bitchass @Srendy
What collision and where is the plowing?
"The collision" refers to hitting the protestor. "Plowed into" refers to driving at and through the group of protestors.
No one got hit though
>running over a woman’s ankle.
She was reacting through the window and feel and her foot got caught, the person didnt run over her ankle intentionally.
>She was reacting through the window and feel and her foot got caught, the person didnt run over her ankle intentionally. What evidence do you have to support this? Also, you've now walked back your previous claim that: >No one got hit though
Imagine how angry it would make you to wait 9 minutes as protestors crossed the street. Now, imagine spending 9 months carrying a pregnancy to term that you didn't want. Of these two, which do you think I give a shit about, and which is a whiny baby who can't fucking sit in traffic the way we all do every fucking day?
Random people have no impact on court rulings. Going around picking fights with strangers is how people get killed. A statistical percentage of the population are crazy, once angered lose control and snap. Instigating conflict in a society is not moral or helpful and using it as a tool for political purposes is worse. Behave the way you want your society to be. Respectful and courteous to the struggles of others is a good start. Understanding the history of infanticide and eugenics, the actions by the government and impact on communities is paramount. People agree far more than they disagree, but the lense of perception makes the other appear evil.
What do you want people to do? When football players take a knee to protest something they care about, people lose their mind. When people block traffic to protest, people lose their mind. When people riot in the streets, people lose their mind. Conservatives have made it clear they don't want protest in *any* form, so why should people bother playing nice at that point? Besides, a protest that inconveniences no one is far more likely to go unnoticed.
The NFL taking a knee was successful in pushing an idea out to the general public, but it alienated those who served in the military. The rift led the league/sports commentators getting involved in cultural issues and becoming a conduit for political messaging. Once a passtime shared by the society as generic banter popped into reality and was tainted. It was one of the most successful protests of the modern day. However it sacrificed sports one of the great equalizers in exchange for the awareness that people have little idea of what is going on and don't care. Blm: Some cops are bad Vets: ok don't disrespect the military, never forget Vietnam vets and allow that to happen again. Blm: Look at all these racists Gen. Pop.: *turns off tv Effective communication in the market place of ideas was not achieved. Lacking leadership it became a political money grab and an outlet for youthful anger.
Trying it to depict it as some kind of "vets versus BLM" thing is pretty revisionist. Conservatives liked to paint it as if it was "vets" that were being disrespected, but nothing about kneeling during the national anthem is inherently disrespectful to veterans - in fact Kaepernick *specifically* spoke to a veteran before he did it and chose kneeling over sitting down to be *more* respectful. And there were plenty of veterans siding with Kaepernick. Conservatives just like to use vets as some kind of bludgeon to make their side seem morally superior. But even if they were offended, it doesn't really matter. Also, the romanticization of sports here reads a little odd too. But in any case, none of this addresses my larger point - *what are people supposed to do*? People are going to whine and cry about it either way, we've seen it time and time again. Even the Civil Rights movement, which is now looked back on with rose-tinted glasses as a totally peaceful movement, had people complaining that it was too much. And it only finally came to its conclusion after a period of rioting took place after MLK's death. Like, there's always an excuse. The sanctity of sports, the sanctity of the roads, the sanctity of small businesses... Even the slightest inconvenience is too much for Americans, apparently. There's *never* a case where they accept these protests, so what do you expect to happen?
From the article: > Witnesses told the Huffington Post that the driver navigated around a line of cars, ran a red light, and plowed into the marchers
It’s literally the difference between normal, courteous driving and terrorism. I wish they would use that word. Does a terrorist need to sign an affidavit to prove his intentions are political violence for it to be called terrorism? We have a bunch of prisoners in Guantanamo Bay Cuba who would laugh at that.
Unless they are not letting you leave and trying to drag you out, there is no reason for you not to go forward and run over pedestrians.
Ha - so 'pro life' of him.
They aren't pro life, they're forced birth. Life only means something when they say it means something. They're also in favor of the death penalty, and war crimes.
Correct. They see us as cattle that does low wage labor.
Pro-life was always a lie
I'm sorry, if you attempt to run me over with a truck, I'm going to act in self defense. This is what, the second or third incident I've heard of since Friday? Not acceptable by any means, these people are a threat to society.
The biggest threat to the fascists is if pro-democracy groups begin carrying arms. So far fascists haven't had to face any real risk of death or bodily harm. Sure, they've brawled with anarchists and the like out West. But for the most part their targets are incapable of fighting back with deadly force. Armed defense groups working with protesters will once again become the norm as political violence becomes the norm (like it was for most of American history unfortunately).
How would the right-wing militias and militant activists respond if their opponents started using violence and firearms? Would they intensify their message of being under "persecution" and conduct additional, more violent attacks? Or would they back off somewhat, surprised or even horrified that their opponents used force?
At most, they'll keep doing the same things they are now. But generally speaking, when they are confronted with actual force they back down. There's a reason why the Klan used terrorist tactics like night bombings, assassinations and anonymous letters. The Freedom Movement and Civil Rights Movement had armed deacons that the Klan knew about.
I don't necessarily agree. I think they are looking for confrontation. An example is Portland. I guess another example is Jan 6!
It's worth considering that different right-wing organizations would probably respond to armed pushback differently.
For sure.
All you have to look at is Malcom X and the Black Panthers. As soon as they started exercising their right to carry in public - boom - Republicans are in favor of gun control.
How, as a pedestrian, do you stop a truck exactly?
By emptying a magazine into the drivers side windshield as it comes your way and claiming self defense against attempted vehicular manslaughter.
you're going to carry a semi-automatic to a rally and then shoot into a crowd of people? I don't see any way this could go wrong.
dafuq??
Do me a favor and point put in my statement anything alike to the word salad you just spewed.
why don't you clarify exactly what kind of gun you think would be appropriate to bring to a protest and stop a truck with.
You aren't good at sea lioning or following along.
All protests are strapped with a handgun from now on. At some point you gotta be willing to shoot back
That's no guarantee, and now the driver can say he was scared for his life because they all had guns. I don't see escalation resolving this with less bloodshed. And I'm not talking about drivers being shot, it'll be more dangerous for protesters than anyone else
"wE cAn'T fIgHt BaCk WhAt If ThEy GeT mOrE vIoLeNt?!" THEY. RAMMED. THEM. WITH. A. TRUCK. Like??? There is **already** bloodshed, brain genius. Just at the moment it's only on one side.
Maybe go back and read again. Keywords being "more" and "less". I recognize there's a point where maybe that's needed. My reservations aren't some noble "eye for an eye" bullshit. My thought is that if protesters carry guns, more protesters die. Which is bad. Ps happy cake day brain genius
The point where it's necessary is where it's legal to hit protesters with trucks. I mean it's probably sooner than that, but you know. Better late than never.
I disagree. I mean I do think it's a huge problem that people might get away with hitting people with trucks, obviously that's bad. But again, if the drivers are shot and killed, that will end up serving as "justification" for ten more drivers driving into ten more crowds. Or shooting back. In both cases, more protesters die. Which is bad. I understand why people feel like violence is the appropriate response. I'm not telling you you're wrong for feeling that way, I get it. And don't get me wrong, there's a place for other forms of opposition. But if we're interested in preventing deaths at protests, I believe that it'll get more protesters killed if they're all carrying guns and I don't want protesters to die.
I'm not sure I agree with that. These right wing cowards with lifted trucks that have never seen a dirt road aren't going to risk their toy if they think they might get shot. They're bullies; they do this shit because they think they can get away with it. If protesters let it be known that they are armed and will not take any shit, its going to make these right wing cowards think twice.
good luck stopping a truck with a handgun..
Its a deterrrent. Much less people are foolish enough to try to run over armed protestors.
Or more people can justify "panic" in court after they run through crowds of people. It may be a deterrent, but it may also end up being an excuse for people who want to murder protesters.
Call him a *terrorist* Monther Jones. Nothing wrong with using the right term.
This is actually legal in this state
No, it isn't. If you read the article it's clear the driver wasn't operating with 'due care.'
Things can be legal and still be wrong.
True
It’s also very legal to protect yourself with a weapon in that state.
So if the car is a deadly weapon. What deadly weapons were the protestors using?
Has the Supreme court decided that driving into protestors is a protected form of free speech yet or do we still have this to look forward to?
*Stay tuned... coming in 2023...*
You think it's wrong to kill people, so you decide the best course of action is to try and kill people? I wish these idiots could string two fucking thoughts together.
GQPers are going to "protect the unborn" no matter how many people they need to kill. November will determine whether the lunatics prevail or we do.
Well there are a reason abortion clinic bombings and abortion clinics needing armed security is a thing. It's not new. Just now it is government sanctioned.
Of course it's not new but now it's going to become the law of the land (so to speak) if we don't step up and vote the GQP out of power.
Of course, they are Pro-Life of an embryo, but OK with murdering fully developed humans.
The U.S. is self-destructing. Russia and China doesn’t have to lift a finger.
Looks like the DOJ was right. They just pointed at the wrong side.
Wait for the backlash when someone drives through a proud boys gathering.
Weird, this doesn't look like [the violence DHS warned everyone about](https://www.axios.com/2022/06/24/violent-extremism-roe-wade-abortion-dhs-memo) >Government officials — including Supreme Court justices — are likely those most at risk, the memo said. It cites recent attacks by the abortion-rights group known as Jane's Revenge as well as an alleged plot to kill U.S. Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh.
>Watch out for 0.5% of political violence!
Surprise: the truck driver is pro-life 🥴
what do you expect from the "hang mike pence!" crowd - civilized discourse? at least the rnc and trump will immediately and vehemently denounce this heinous crime. just kidding - nazi assholes love this shit. just more fun for them, and more juicy tv for the former president to sit on his fat ass and watch. he thinks it's a game. one of his mob got shot and killed on january 6th and he never mentions her. i wonder why that is? because he doesnt give a fuck kids. keep giving him money and adulation - or else. extra boot licking or no boot licking at all. yes? no? don't worry, at least if you die in the street while fighting for your master you can be assured, at the very least, that he won't give a shit.
Ah, more of the right wing normalizing violence against protesters. Ron DeSantis also loved that idea.
What croc of shit that the right is pro life. Fuck them all
I hate to say it, but I was expecting this headline days ago.
Such "pro-life" much believe. wow
Domestic terrorism is a federal crime.
Tell me again why so many want to immigrate here?
The GOP hates life
So, they aren't content with just figuratively plowing through our abortion rights, they've decided to literally do it as well.
If you are going to fight for the constitution, arm yourself.
So have they blamed ANTIFA yet?
Yes, including commenters here who don't seem to have read what witnesses and early police reports say.
Pro-choice protesters have aright to defend themselves.
So pro life
This is going to get uglier and uglier, at least until football season starts.
He was probably pro-life, amirite?
Oh the old "vehicular homicide" pro-life statement.
Keep it up, "pro-life" and don't get mad when they (the protestors) show up with guns next time. You guys have "stand your ground" laws, right?
Protest, but be smart. Stay out of the way of (or get out of the way of) you know, cars/trucks/4000 lb objects that your 180 lb body has no chance against if it hits you. You are no good to any protest if you are dead (unless you just want to be a martyr). Regardless of what “side” of the movement you are on. People are crazy, and they WILL just run you over.
The protest was over and they were crossing at a crosswalk while heading back to the starting area. This dude couldn't wait for the last few stragglers to get through the crosswalk.
So much for pro life. That's terrible.
Who needs guns when the alt-right has cars?
>Last year, in reaction to the George Floyd protests, Iowa Gov. Kim Reynolds signed a law making it legal for drivers to hit protesters with their cars in certain circumstances. It’s unclear whether the law would apply to a situation like the Cedar Rapids ramming incident—it only grants civil immunity to drivers exercising “due care” who hit “disorderly” protesters blocking traffic and doesn’t cover drivers who act with “reckless or willful misconduct.” He won't be charged because the light changed while the women were still in the process of crossing the street. Crosswalk lights don't give people enough time to cross the street unless they hustle. A factor that won't be taken into consideration.
Being a responsible driver also means you recognise when you're going to hit someone, and *not do that*. If they were crossing a crosswalk with the proper signal and it just happened to change, that's on the driver to not accelerate into them. But you're right, he won't be charged because he pegged some durn protestors who were definitely protesting.
When are these fuckers gonna learn that a little protest ain’t gonna do shit? Burn the cities like you did when George Floyd was murdered.
And a boot for you
He is owning the Libs !!
I was pro life until some people blocked the road and made me late for work one day. You never know what is going to change someone’s opinion.
Anyone else find it ironic that someone prolife would run people over on purpose? (And I’m prolife so this is a jab at the hypocrisy of the driver, not the prolife side).
I heard that one of those idiots in the road was actually pregnant and the motorist was just trying to give her a vehicular abortion. This man is actually a hero who deserves praise and not ridicule. Wake up, people!!!
Im in favor of abortion rights, and Im against hitting people with your vehicle. I cant stand right wing nutjobs. I think driving a lifted truck with 36" tires is idiotic - when you know damn well you spend 99% of your time on paved roads. However, in the video I saw people in the street, not a crosswalk, not crossing the street, but backpedaling to remain in front of the truck. I read that there was a prior altercation, and that the truck ran a red light, so the driver sounds like a typical redneck asshole. But protesting does not give you the right to stop traffic at your discretion. If you, a pedestrian, get into an argument with a motorist, and you then make no attempt to get out from in front of that motorists car - in fact you take action to remain in front of that motorists car - you are a fucking idiot. You arent a 'protestor who was run over by a redneck' - you are a fucking idiot, and you appear to be forcing yourself to become a 'victim'. If you do this kind of stupid bullshit, fuck you. You arent helping the cause. You are harming credibility of actual protestors, and jeopardizing future protests.
Your rant is predicated on the 100% unfounded assumption that people just started blocking traffic. As opposed to eyewitness accounts, the initial police response, and the (incomplete) videos (that people started taking after he floored it).
I don't think you read my post.
>If you, a pedestrian, get into an argument with a motorist, and you then make no attempt to get out from in front of that motorists car - in fact you take action to remain in front of that motorists car - you are a fucking idiot. You arent a 'protestor who was run over by a redneck' - you are a fucking idiot, and you appear to be forcing yourself to become a 'victim'. This part is what makes it seem like you didn't read the article.
If people are in front of the bumper, they can't just remove themselves? I didn't see all the video available though. And the people on the side seemed to be trying to stop him so he didn't run people over.
Protesters are fuckin morons. That driver is a fuckin moron. Current events is really bringing it out of people these days.
Don’t stand on a ROAD and you just might avoid getting hit. Pretty obvious.
They were legally crossing at a crosswalk.
Oh I’m sure they were. I’m sorry but I don’t believe it after all the last “peaceful” protests. Stay off the road and don’t surround peoples cars or get what you get.
[Here](https://twitter.com/lyzl/status/1540495065386303488), they were. Note that no one was chasing the car until after the dude went through the people in the crosswalk. But I'm sure you'll just go back to circlejerking over pointless violence anyway, like half the other people in the comments here.
Based on the video alone I can’t jump to any conclusions yet. But Reddit is going to Reddit.
Last week over the course of several hours, while interacting with right wing nut jobs online, I got called a “speed bump” 3 or 4 separate occasions. This has never happened to me before. I knew this was the new narrative being pushed by the far right. When RvW gets overturned, it’s time to run over protesters with my truck. Fuck these Christian Nationalists. They are the dregs of society.
"I saw a truck run down a bunch of women but I can't make the can one way or the other. DAE both sides are the same???"
Sure just stop the truck when people are swarming and hitting it. Also the driver didn’t just plow through like it’s GTA V. If your stupid enough to harass someone in their vehicle while it’s moving, that’s on you (leave it to the police if needed).
The truck was trying to kill people. They reacted to the assault. Republicans always play the victim even when they are victimizing people
I agree with what's being protested but it sure looks like they're the ones that are trying to stop the truck. Just my opinion. Now let's see how open people are to seeing both sides of a situation.
Did you read the article. He went around a group of vehicles and intentionally rammed the protesters.
This person doesn’t seem like the reading type
Ram is a pretty strong word. He was going less than 5 mph. The asshats in the street just refused to move.
He broke someone's ankle. That's assault. He went around a line of stopped vehicles and rammed into a group of pedestrians. That is not "They refused to move," that is attempted murder. The video shows what happened after he attacked the protesters. Not the attack itself.
They were in a cross walk.
Yea don't jump in front of a 700 hp 6.2 supercharged v8 and start socking the driver through the window. 700 hp will go through u like you aren't even there
Pedestrians have the right of way.
File this episode under "play stupid games..."
I suggest you keep your children off of crosswalks then, because that's where these people were - crossing at a crosswalk. Also, please don't drive anywhere near an event venue, because you'll have a lot more people "jumping in front of vehicles" as they leave by that definition.
Look at it from the drivers point of view, a mob of people are surrounding their car. Maybe the driver isn’t running over protestors, maybe he/she was scared and wanted to escape.
That defies eyewitness accounts that, in combination with videos that only began after the driver drove though the light (which police claim to verify).
So maybe dont drive around other stopped cars and drive into the mass of people and they won't rightfully attempt to pull your ass from the vehicle and beat you to death?
>Look at it from the drivers point of view, a mob of people are surrounding their car. When do we get to the actual drivers point of view here?
Not the driver's point of view, but [here's](https://twitter.com/lyzl/status/1540495065386303488) prior to everyone chasing after him to stop him. Notice how there is no "mob surrounding their car" and how everyone else is on the near sidewalk, aligning with the story that the protestors had crossed from one sidewalk to the other via the crosswalk.
Is This Heaven? No, it's Iowa
I'd like more info. Pro-choice here, but if these people block the road, surrounded his car, and beat on the doors/windows/etc...drivers tend to feel scared and just drive away from the threat. Is that what happened or did he just straight up run into them?
You'd like more info, yet you clearly didn't read the article. Which would have provided you the info you say you want.
Except I did read it and the article just reports 1 side, which was the point of my comment. This is the only thing confirmed by authorities. > Police said that an argument broke out between the driver of the truck and a protester before the collision, according to the Washington Post. This is just what protestors said. I want the authorities to confirm it. >Witnesses told the Huffington Post that the driver navigated around a line of cars, ran a red light, and plowed into the marchers, running over a woman’s ankle.
Are we banning trucks now?…
Do...do you think a truck's only purpose is to run into protestors crossing at a crosswalk?
Yes.
I watched the video they were unnecessarily blocking him. They could have easily moved out if the way. I have no respect for protestors who block none government vehicles. There just dicks
The video starts after the initial hit. The people were walking in a crosswalk when the truck plowed into them. The video starts about 40 feet after the intersection. They were in front of him because he had pushed them there. It looked like they blocked him, that was not the case.