What Are You Gonna Do When the Cops Don’t Do Their Job?
The knee jerk reaction will be DRIVER BAD! Answer me this: Where does it say that protesters have a right to jump on car hoods? Is jumping on a car hood and beating on the windshield a peaceful act? Is the driver assaulting the protester or just trying to get away? Who is the victim?
The cops stood by and let the terrorists close a street. Civil disobedience and peaceful protest means protesting within the confines of the law. It does not mean using motherfucker in sequence with every other spoken word. The first time the mob breaks the law the protest is no longer peaceful or legal.
The events in the video demonstrate that fact. The cops had a choice to prevent this confrontation. They could enforce the law by arresting demonstrators blocking the roadway. Or they could have closed the roadway to prevent innocents and idiots from intruding into the designated lawless area. They did neither. Now they are scrambling to find a fall guy. The Cops keep making bad choices.
Let me restate events, based on the video. Folks in the red car are driving down the street, a legal activity. To give the devil its due, this is probably not the brightest activity, given the overall circumstances. However, the roadway is not closed and the red car folks have a legal right to use the roadway.
They find their way blocked by a scooter, directly in front and pedestrians to the side of the car. Unstated, but implied is the fact that the scooter and pedestrians were placed there to impede the flow of traffic. This is a violation of the traffic code and in Texas, state law. Both are arrestable offenses. The passenger exits the car and removes the scooter.
At this point the Fat Ugly Chick (FUC) jumps on the hood of the car. She is followed by a bitter clinger (take that Obama) who climbs on the side. This could be construed as criminal mischief (vandalism). This was their choice. The driver of the car cannot be blamed because the FUC doesn’t understand basic physics. No matter how much bulk FUC carries, it cannot overcome the momentum of a 2000 pound vehicle.
At this point the crowd converges of the vehicle, shouting threats and obscenities. The actions of FUC, bitter clinger and the mob all indicate a common cause and purpose. Physical efforts to damage the vehicle and detain the occupants lead to other criminal acts, false imprisonment and assault. Shouted threats could lead the vehicle occupants to a reasonable fear of imminent bodily injury or death.
I would argue that beating on an occupied vehicle may be an act of vandalism. However, when the vehicle is occupied the facts change. Kick in the door of an unoccupied residence and steal stuff and it is burglary. Kick in the same door with intent to commit theft, and have a confrontation with the residents, the crime is now Robbery.
There are now four choices open to the vehicle occupants. Come out shooting, escape on foot, escape by driving away or submitting to a mob. The stated intent of the mob is to injure or kill them. Submission to the mob and escape on foot are not reasonable alternatives. In fact, had the occupants been armed, abandoning the vehicle to attempt to escape on foot would probably guarantee a shooting. The vehicle offers limited sanctuary and the most mobility. The reasonable choice is to drive away.
Watch the video. The vehicle appears to be a Toyota. Had it been a Porsche with a 0-60 mph acceleration rate of under 3 seconds things might have been different. The FUC and Bitter Clinger had notice that the driver was going to drive away, yet they remained on the vehicle. They put themselves in that position and are amazed when their bad choice pays off.
The driver doesn’t have to make a perfect choice. The law requires that the driver’s actions be consistent with what a “reasonable person” would do if placed in similar circumstances. I don’t see a problem demonstrating the “reasonableness” of the driver’s actions.
I know about jumping on vehicles. The cover photo isn’t a shameless plug for my book. Aw hell why lie? Buy the book, on Kindle. Actually, the pistol serves as more than a prop. It is my Smith & Wesson, Model 19 with the optional high blue finish and rosewood grips. I carried it as a cop. Barely noticeable on the top of the frame is a scar in the finish. More scars are obvious on the left side of the barrel and frame. The scar from the six stitches in the base of my little finger are barely noticeable.
I broke the passenger window out of a car that was trying (successfully) to power its way out of a muddy ditch. I screwed the barrel into the ear of the driver and urged him to cease and desist his activities. He ignored me. At this point three things happened. The car came out of the ditch. I recognized him and I decided I didn’t need to kill him. The car hit the street, with me still clutching the passenger door. I let go.
And that is how I invented break dancing!
I was still writing reports the next morning. There was Evading Arrest, Attempted Capital Murder of a Peace Officer, or alternately Aggravated Assault on a Peace Officer and Resisting Arrest, when the Chief strolled in. He inquired as to the paperwork frenzy and I clued him in.
He laughed and said, “You dumb shit!”
We were tight, he called me things like dumb shit and I called him Chief.
The Chief continued, ” Was he trying to run you over or just get away? Just who grabbed the car?”
Chief accomplished two things, that morning, he cut down my paperwork load and gave me a lesson. Walk around a situation, given it a kick, does the first glance stand the scrutiny of a second look?
But for the illegal actions of FUC and Bitter clinger they would not have been injured. FUC and Bitter clinger do not have a right to accost people going about their lawful occasions. The driver and passenger have a right to defend themselves against illegal acts perpetrated upon them. Those defensive actions must be found reasonable in a legal forum. Mob rule doesn’t make it.