VIDEO: man says F#$K it and drives through protesters

[Call Sign Chaos]

he was legally driving on a roadway. The people were illegally on a road, and were not technically pedestrians.

He did it nice and slow, and no one got hurt.

True. That is an assault. If someone was injured by the truck, it would be a battery. As it stands, he could be charged with a 245 PC (CA Penal Code), assault with a deadly weapon, or 242 PC (simple battery) A conviction would be up to the trier of facts, i.e. a jury or a judge.

See: California Penal Code 245a1 - Assault with a Deadly Weapon (ADW)

how so? The people had no right to be in the roadway. He had a legal right of way.

Pedestrians have to follow the rules as well, and the were not following the rules.

Any jury would acquit him in 5 seconds.

Thanks so much for your opinion, it is so valuable ---SARCASM ALERT---

And you can quote laws all you want, their application however in this case is only YOUR opinion, which is worth about the same as a dust bunny.

Your opinion. Mine is fortified with a link, and if you were not a lazy bum, you would research the elements of said crimes.

Lying faggot, your link has nothing to do with the circumstances of this case, kill yourself.

 

[Wry Catcher]

I think most here know your comments are worthless, Luddy. You should try thinking before you post.
Just saying.

The funny part is that asshat keeps referring to me as Right Wing, and i'm not right winged. LMFAO

What do you think you are?

My opinion, based on what you've posted, is you appear to be uncivilized, seem to lack empathy and seem to really hate people who don't agree with you.

You seem to think it's ok to stop people from going about their everyday business because of some idiots who don't like something.

Actually I don't, that type of protest is counter productive and simply pisses people off. It's the neo-fascists' who want to harm people for committing a misdemeanor, that is most disturbing; BTW, the truck driver could lose his license for his actions, it's better to wait, call the authorities, rather than be a vigilante, i.e. a criminal.

I didn't see a vigilante, I saw a guy wanting to use the streets he's paid taxes to provide.
I also saw a bunch of criminals who were obstructing commerce because their feelings were hurt. The authorities have already been bought and paid for in many of these venues and they prefer to stand by and let nature take its course. In this case, nature decided that the morons standing in front of a moving truck be moved by their instinct for self preservation.

How do you know he paid taxes to the city/town in question? You don't. In fact none of your post is based on facts or evidence, it is simply a rant by an ignoramus.

 

[Wry Catcher]

True. That is an assault. If someone was injured by the truck, it would be a battery. As it stands, he could be charged with a 245 PC (CA Penal Code), assault with a deadly weapon, or 242 PC (simple battery) A conviction would be up to the trier of facts, i.e. a jury or a judge.

See: California Penal Code 245a1 - Assault with a Deadly Weapon (ADW)

how so? The people had no right to be in the roadway. He had a legal right of way.

Pedestrians have to follow the rules as well, and the were not following the rules.

Any jury would acquit him in 5 seconds.

Thanks so much for your opinion, it is so valuable ---SARCASM ALERT---

And you can quote laws all you want, their application however in this case is only YOUR opinion, which is worth about the same as a dust bunny.

Your opinion. Mine is fortified with a link, and if you were not a lazy bum, you would research the elements of said crimes.

Lying faggot, your link has nothing to do with the circumstances of this case, kill yourself.

Hey punk, didn't I hear that from you when I put you in the cage? I'm sure it was you, or a petty criminal like you.

 

[martybegan]

he was legally driving on a roadway. The people were illegally on a road, and were not technically pedestrians.

He did it nice and slow, and no one got hurt.

True. That is an assault. If someone was injured by the truck, it would be a battery. As it stands, he could be charged with a 245 PC (CA Penal Code), assault with a deadly weapon, or 242 PC (simple battery) A conviction would be up to the trier of facts, i.e. a jury or a judge.

See: California Penal Code 245a1 - Assault with a Deadly Weapon (ADW)

how so? The people had no right to be in the roadway. He had a legal right of way.

Pedestrians have to follow the rules as well, and the were not following the rules.

Any jury would acquit him in 5 seconds.

Thanks so much for your opinion, it is so valuable ---SARCASM ALERT---

And you can quote laws all you want, their application however in this case is only YOUR opinion, which is worth about the same as a dust bunny.

Your opinion. Mine is fortified with a link, and if you were not a lazy bum, you would research the elements of said crimes.

OOOOH A LINK!!!!

There is a difference with what CAN be charged and what SHOULD be charged. Technically you can charge a person with assault if they brush by a person and bump them in the elbow.

its part of the whole "everything is illegal somehow" issue when it comes to laws.

But what should we expect from a desk-jockey such as yourself?

 

[Wry Catcher]

You RWNJs should be careful what you wish for.

The fat cheeto says he wants to gut the US Constitution and already has a good start on it.

Are you really really sure that's what you want?

Well you're a lying faggot so fucking kill yourself.

Wow, how old are you? 9?

My age is irrelevant to the fact that you are a lying faggot, kill yourself.

Your chronological age is irrelevant, your mental age is obvious to everyone who reads your rants. I predict a tween, an immature, very ignorant child.

 

[Wry Catcher]

True. That is an assault. If someone was injured by the truck, it would be a battery. As it stands, he could be charged with a 245 PC (CA Penal Code), assault with a deadly weapon, or 242 PC (simple battery) A conviction would be up to the trier of facts, i.e. a jury or a judge.

See: California Penal Code 245a1 - Assault with a Deadly Weapon (ADW)

how so? The people had no right to be in the roadway. He had a legal right of way.

Pedestrians have to follow the rules as well, and the were not following the rules.

Any jury would acquit him in 5 seconds.

Thanks so much for your opinion, it is so valuable ---SARCASM ALERT---

And you can quote laws all you want, their application however in this case is only YOUR opinion, which is worth about the same as a dust bunny.

Your opinion. Mine is fortified with a link, and if you were not a lazy bum, you would research the elements of said crimes.

OOOOH A LINK!!!!

There is a difference with what CAN be charged and what SHOULD be charged. Technically you can charge a person with assault if they brush by a person and bump them in the elbow.

its part of the whole "everything is illegal somehow" issue when it comes to laws.

But what should we expect from a desk-jockey such as yourself?

Once again, your opinion is an opinion based on your biases, which include hate for LE and those who write the law and enforce the laws. We are a nation of laws, you seem to believe you're a victim of them. I wonder why?

 

[Wry Catcher]

Actually I don't, that type of protest is counter productive and simply pisses people off. It's the neo-fascists' who want to harm people for committing a misdemeanor, that is most disturbing; BTW, the truck driver could lose his license for his actions, it's better to wait, call the authorities, rather than be a vigilante, i.e. a criminal.

he was legally driving on a roadway. The people were illegally on a road, and were not technically pedestrians.

He did it nice and slow, and no one got hurt.

True. That is an assault. If someone was injured by the truck, it would be a battery. As it stands, he could be charged with a 245 PC (CA Penal Code), assault with a deadly weapon, or 242 PC (simple battery) A conviction would be up to the trier of facts, i.e. a jury or a judge.

See: California Penal Code 245a1 - Assault with a Deadly Weapon (ADW)

how so? The people had no right to be in the roadway. He had a legal right of way.

Pedestrians have to follow the rules as well, and the were not following the rules.

Any jury would acquit him in 5 seconds.

Thanks so much for your opinion, it is so valuable ---SARCASM ALERT---

And you can quote laws all you want, their application however in this case is only YOUR opinion, which is worth about the same as a dust bunny.

A "dust bunny" was not compensated as well as I was, and continue to be in retirement. That too must really piss you off. I suggest Anger Management might be good for you, especially, if and when, you can find $100 to pay for a gun and actually have money left to buy one.

Have you ever considered an Internet Check of your comments may some day be a routine part of background investigations on exercising your 2nd A. privilege?

 

[martybegan]

how so? The people had no right to be in the roadway. He had a legal right of way.

Pedestrians have to follow the rules as well, and the were not following the rules.

Any jury would acquit him in 5 seconds.

Thanks so much for your opinion, it is so valuable ---SARCASM ALERT---

And you can quote laws all you want, their application however in this case is only YOUR opinion, which is worth about the same as a dust bunny.

Your opinion. Mine is fortified with a link, and if you were not a lazy bum, you would research the elements of said crimes.

OOOOH A LINK!!!!

There is a difference with what CAN be charged and what SHOULD be charged. Technically you can charge a person with assault if they brush by a person and bump them in the elbow.

its part of the whole "everything is illegal somehow" issue when it comes to laws.

But what should we expect from a desk-jockey such as yourself?

Once again, your opinion is an opinion based on your biases, which include hate for LE and those who write the law and enforce the laws. We are a nation of laws, you seem to believe you're a victim of them. I wonder why?

The only "LE" i hate is you, and those who want rights for themselves and not for others. Why should I respect a class of people who want to elevate themselves similar to the knights of old?

When laws become more important than the purpose for the laws, or when they become so excessive and chicken-shitty that almost everything can be seen as a crime, then there is a huge problem.

 

[martybegan]

he was legally driving on a roadway. The people were illegally on a road, and were not technically pedestrians.

He did it nice and slow, and no one got hurt.

True. That is an assault. If someone was injured by the truck, it would be a battery. As it stands, he could be charged with a 245 PC (CA Penal Code), assault with a deadly weapon, or 242 PC (simple battery) A conviction would be up to the trier of facts, i.e. a jury or a judge.

See: California Penal Code 245a1 - Assault with a Deadly Weapon (ADW)

how so? The people had no right to be in the roadway. He had a legal right of way.

Pedestrians have to follow the rules as well, and the were not following the rules.

Any jury would acquit him in 5 seconds.

Thanks so much for your opinion, it is so valuable ---SARCASM ALERT---

And you can quote laws all you want, their application however in this case is only YOUR opinion, which is worth about the same as a dust bunny.

A "dust bunny" was not compensated as well as I was, and continue to be in retirement. That too must really piss you off. I suggest Anger Management might be good for you, especially, if and when, you can find $100 to pay for a gun and actually have money left to buy one.

Have you ever considered an Internet Check of your comments may some day be a routine part of background investigations on exercising your 2nd A. privilege?

You are entitled to your pension, of course if it is not properly funded sooner or later taxpayers will be given a choice between services and you pension, and guess which way they will vote/

I can pay plenty more than $100 for a handgun, I'm and Engineer and also well compensated. My retirement however is self funded (with match) and all my money, so I don't have to worry about a public pension fund squandering my future.

And is your last line a threat? Do I have to report your ass?

 

[Marianne]

I think the driver should sue for damage done to his truck. They hit it with hands and signs and flying beverage cans and it was all caught on tape as evidence.

He might have a case, and could win a judgment in small claims court if he showed the trier of fact the tape. However, if he did he would be at risk of arrest, for assault with a deadly weapon, the truck.

They would have to prove that they were injured, then again the protestors would also be fined for obstructing traffic,inciting a riot,property damage,breach of peace,unlawful restraint, assault or attempted assault whereas the driver could easily claim self defense as he was clearly in danger by an aggressive mob. The truck driver would only have to cite Reginald Denny and the LA riots as an example of what could have happened.

Wow jail house lawyer, slow down: assault is not battery, battery is what causes the tort, not assault.

Assault is the threat, clearly what the driver of the truck committed, had he harmed another with the truck, the battery would become a felony (battery's are wobblers) and could have cost him his liberty, and he could have lost his driving privilege for life (in CA).

I never said battery anywhere. I said assault or attempted assault which by flying cans,signs,and hands hitting the vehicle could have happened.

Sure, have you ever watched Judge Judy?

Have you ever seen someone get hit in the head with a full soda can?

 

[Call Sign Chaos]

how so? The people had no right to be in the roadway. He had a legal right of way.

Pedestrians have to follow the rules as well, and the were not following the rules.

Any jury would acquit him in 5 seconds.

Thanks so much for your opinion, it is so valuable ---SARCASM ALERT---

And you can quote laws all you want, their application however in this case is only YOUR opinion, which is worth about the same as a dust bunny.

Your opinion. Mine is fortified with a link, and if you were not a lazy bum, you would research the elements of said crimes.

Lying faggot, your link has nothing to do with the circumstances of this case, kill yourself.

Hey punk, didn't I hear that from you when I put you in the cage? I'm sure it was you, or a petty criminal like you.

Kill yourself fake ass mother fucking faggot. These protesters are all guilty of violating the drivers civil right to freedom of movement and he was engaged in his inalienable right to self defense, wannabe prosecutor dipshit.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

The man is as much of a terrorist as the islamic thug that drove through the crowd in france.

Yeah...and I bet you'd eat a shit sandwich because it's just like a ham on rye.

 

[Call Sign Chaos]

You RWNJs should be careful what you wish for.

The fat cheeto says he wants to gut the US Constitution and already has a good start on it.

Are you really really sure that's what you want?

Well you're a lying faggot so fucking kill yourself.

Wow, how old are you? 9?

My age is irrelevant to the fact that you are a lying faggot, kill yourself.

Your chronological age is irrelevant, your mental age is obvious to everyone who reads your rants. I predict a tween, an immature, very ignorant child.

You're the one claiming that someone defending themself from a violation of their civil right to freedom of movement is in the wrong. Kill yourself faggot.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Actually I don't, that type of protest is counter productive and simply pisses people off. It's the neo-fascists' who want to harm people for committing a misdemeanor, that is most disturbing; BTW, the truck driver could lose his license for his actions, it's better to wait, call the authorities, rather than be a vigilante, i.e. a criminal.

I dont think that unlawful detainment or false imprisonment is a misdemeanor, numbskull, these are felonies and I wish some people would start pressing charges for them.

 

[JimBowie1958]

The man is as much of a terrorist as the islamic thug that drove through the crowd in france.

No, clearly those who unlawfully blocked the road were the terrorists.

False imprisonment - Wikipedia

False imprisonment occurs when a person is restricted in their personal movement within any area without justification or consent. Actual physical restraint is not necessary to a false imprisonment case. False imprisonment is a common-law felony and a tort. It applies to private as well as governmental detention. ...​

 

[miketx]

he was legally driving on a roadway. The people were illegally on a road, and were not technically pedestrians.

He did it nice and slow, and no one got hurt.

True. That is an assault. If someone was injured by the truck, it would be a battery. As it stands, he could be charged with a 245 PC (CA Penal Code), assault with a deadly weapon, or 242 PC (simple battery) A conviction would be up to the trier of facts, i.e. a jury or a judge.

See: California Penal Code 245a1 - Assault with a Deadly Weapon (ADW)

how so? The people had no right to be in the roadway. He had a legal right of way.

Pedestrians have to follow the rules as well, and the were not following the rules.

Any jury would acquit him in 5 seconds.

Thanks so much for your opinion, it is so valuable ---SARCASM ALERT---

And you can quote laws all you want, their application however in this case is only YOUR opinion, which is worth about the same as a dust bunny.

Your opinion. Mine is fortified with a link, and if you were not a lazy bum, you would research the elements of said crimes.

A link proves nothing. Stop insulting everyone who disagrees with your nonsense.

 

[MindWars]

True. That is an assault. If someone was injured by the truck, it would be a battery. As it stands, he could be charged with a 245 PC (CA Penal Code), assault with a deadly weapon, or 242 PC (simple battery) A conviction would be up to the trier of facts, i.e. a jury or a judge.

See: California Penal Code 245a1 - Assault with a Deadly Weapon (ADW)

how so? The people had no right to be in the roadway. He had a legal right of way.

Pedestrians have to follow the rules as well, and the were not following the rules.

Any jury would acquit him in 5 seconds.

Thanks so much for your opinion, it is so valuable ---SARCASM ALERT---

And you can quote laws all you want, their application however in this case is only YOUR opinion, which is worth about the same as a dust bunny.

Your opinion. Mine is fortified with a link, and if you were not a lazy bum, you would research the elements of said crimes.

OOOOH A LINK!!!!

There is a difference with what CAN be charged and what SHOULD be charged. Technically you can charge a person with assault if they brush by a person and bump them in the elbow.

its part of the whole "everything is illegal somehow" issue when it comes to laws.

But what should we expect from a desk-jockey such as yourself?

When American freedom strippers provide links, they only provide links that say the same thing they already think LOL..............and they totally don't get it.

I posted links stating some states are going to make it LEGAL to run over these morons lmao...

 

[MindWars]

You seem to think it's ok to stop people from going about their everyday business because of some idiots who don't like something.

Actually I don't, that type of protest is counter productive and simply pisses people off. It's the neo-fascists' who want to harm people for committing a misdemeanor, that is most disturbing; BTW, the truck driver could lose his license for his actions, it's better to wait, call the authorities, rather than be a vigilante, i.e. a criminal.

he was legally driving on a roadway. The people were illegally on a road, and were not technically pedestrians.

He did it nice and slow, and no one got hurt.

True. That is an assault. If someone was injured by the truck, it would be a battery. As it stands, he could be charged with a 245 PC (CA Penal Code), assault with a deadly weapon, or 242 PC (simple battery) A conviction would be up to the trier of facts, i.e. a jury or a judge.

See: California Penal Code 245a1 - Assault with a Deadly Weapon (ADW)

how so? The people had no right to be in the roadway. He had a legal right of way.

Pedestrians have to follow the rules as well, and the were not following the rules.

Any jury would acquit him in 5 seconds.

Thanks so much for your opinion, it is so valuable ---SARCASM ALERT---

THIS IS FROM 2014, AND THERE ARE PLENTY MORE BECAUSE OF THESE IDIOT PROTERSTER THAT ARE ONLY A FEW WEEKS AGO...

A man who collapsed while waiting for Berkeley paramedics to arrive later died at the hospital, city employees have told Berkeleyside, after large protests that wracked the city earlier this month delayed first responders.



Exclusive: Man died after Berkeley protests delayed help — Berkeleyside

 

[EvilCat Breath]

It's a wonder no protesters laid down right under his tires.

 

[MindWars]

he was legally driving on a roadway. The people were illegally on a road, and were not technically pedestrians.

He did it nice and slow, and no one got hurt.

True. That is an assault. If someone was injured by the truck, it would be a battery. As it stands, he could be charged with a 245 PC (CA Penal Code), assault with a deadly weapon, or 242 PC (simple battery) A conviction would be up to the trier of facts, i.e. a jury or a judge.

See: California Penal Code 245a1 - Assault with a Deadly Weapon (ADW)

how so? The people had no right to be in the roadway. He had a legal right of way.

Pedestrians have to follow the rules as well, and the were not following the rules.

Any jury would acquit him in 5 seconds.

Thanks so much for your opinion, it is so valuable ---SARCASM ALERT---

And you can quote laws all you want, their application however in this case is only YOUR opinion, which is worth about the same as a dust bunny.

Your opinion. Mine is fortified with a link, and if you were not a lazy bum, you would research the elements of said crimes.

Parents headed to the hospital with a sick baby were stuck on the I-40 bridge after Black Lives Matter protestors blocked the bridge in Memphis. The parents had to call an ambulance to pick up their sick child and drive to Le Bonheur Children’s Hospital.

Protestors marched downtown, ultimately heading to the bridge and shutting it down. Drivers were blocked "for several hours."

"We were escorted by the Crittenden County Sheriff's Office up the wrong way on the interstate to pick up the child out of the traffic," paramedic Bobby Harrell told FOX13. The ambulance picked up the boy "and detoured through West Memphis onto I-55. They eventually made it to the hospital for treatment."

Parents, Sick Baby Blocked from Hospital by BLM Protestors