Man Alleges Attempted Lynching at Lake Monroe

[BugI02]

Nope, they just change the facts to fit the narrative. Ignore what you see, ignore the man behind the curtain.
Fox 59 has parroted the protestors' new version that justifies their actions. Woman jumped on the hood to stop the car from running innocents over.
Man clings to side of car (he was actually interviewed) to try to keep others from being hit. WHAT? Do you think you can steer wrestle the car to the ground?
Fox 59 has to be a real disappointment to Tucker Carlson.

If they're not lying (doubtful) they're stupid. If the driver is willing to run down innocents that are further down the road, what makes you so confident he/she won't run you over as a good start

 

[Dulla]

First time seeing the video from that POV. Sad how every video I've seen on the news has cut that part out and just shows the car once it's speeding off.

 

[Cameramonkey]

View attachment 88614

Yep. Obviously didnt see THAT video.

^^^ This, I am REALLY dissapointed in Fox59. They were the only station which I thought even tried a little. Even that modicum of effort to be a Journalist seems to have went out the window post Minneapolis / George Floyd.

Why is the narrative not "protestors block public road and impede traffic with a Byrd scooter, and attack motorist when they try to remove barricade and travel the public road?" I mean seriously, GTFO of the way! Why are the police not arresting the first POS which blocked the car for criminal confinement, and the second one for attempted assault?

Because the station doesnt want to be protested against and possibly burned to the ground by a hostile SJW mob or the staff is SJW friendly. (lack of purple intentional)

First time seeing the video from that POV. Sad how every video I've seen on the news has cut that part out and just shows the car once it's speeding off.

Probably the same video I saw. (except the short cut of the passenger moving the scooter, protester hopping on, and vidiot stepping forward to be hit)

 

[KellyinAvon]

WTTV 4 on now:

Looked like 36 (Jackson County, Seymour/Brownstown) on the tag to me. That's the county south-east of Monroe so that's a lot more likely than 35.

The idiot hanging on the drivers-side of the car was interviewed. He's an idiot who could've got more people hurt or killed.

Oh, it appears the idiot on the hood "jumped on the hood". No **** newsies. INGO has been pointing that out for days! In other news, that BA in Journalism is a big waste of money.

They had pics of the middle-aged people (this is INGO, they looked middle-aged to me) from the infamous red car. I have no doubt they were in fear for their lives.

 

[mrproc1]

That is priceless. I was wondering why it was taking so long for the police to find that vicious driver who “hit” 2 protestors with his car. Then you see this video and realize it was a scared elderly woman driver. Id guess the news sites will just drop it rather than reveal the true ridiculousness of the story. Wouldnt feed the proper narrative.

Also the main picture of the red cars license plate circulating has a “protester” with his fist up in the air, looks like he’s preparing to hit the car.
If that was my mom or grandma, I would of told her to gas up once I clear that scooter!!!

 

[chipbennett]

I will support your right of peacable assembly and peacable protest, whether or not I agree with the premise of your protest or the grievances for which you claim to need redress. But you lose my support when your assembly and protest are no longer peaceable. Blocking streets, impeding traffic, surrounding cars, and threatening drivers and bystanders are all actions that are, by definition, not peaceable. When those actions reasonably put others in fear of great bodily harm or death, then you have earned whatever their response is, because they are lawfully and righteously acting in self-defense.

 

[Alpo]

It seems we have a generation of elected officials and, possibly, protesters, that don't know how a protest works. There used to be permits (that cannot unreasonably be witheld).

This current generation can't hit thieir ass with both hands.

 

[HoughMade]

It seems we have a generation of elected officials and, possibly, protesters, that don't know how a protest works. There used to be permits (that cannot unreasonably be witheld).

This current generation can't hit thieir ass with both hands.

Yep. As the cases show, reasonable time, place and manner restrictions which are content neutral are allowed under the 1st Amendment and most municipalities have such ordinances in place...which, if they were not weak and scared, they would enforce.

 

[Cameramonkey]

It seems we have a generation of elected officials and, possibly, protesters, that don't know how a protest works. There used to be permits (that cannot unreasonably be witheld).

This current generation can't hit thieir ass with both hands.

Devil's advocate. Show me where a permit is required: (if anything, you could argue a permit goes against what is highlighted in red)

Article (Amendment 1 - Freedom of expression and religion)
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

 

[HoughMade]

Devil's advocate. Show me where a permit is required: (if anything, you could argue a permit goes against what is highlighted in red)

Article (Amendment 1 - Freedom of expression and religion)
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

What you highlighted in red only applies to religion.

...and plenty of cases defined what "abridges" free speech and what does not.

i get it. People don't like court cases defining things. The Constitution also says:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

So, who gets to decide what laws are "made in Pursuance thereof"? Every man for himself? I guarantee that's not what the founders had in mind.

Seems like the founders may have had a system for working out controversies that arise as to constitutionality and about laws passed, so on to Article III.

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;--between a State and Citizens of another State;--between Citizens of different States;--between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

 

[Alpo]

Devil's advocate. Show me where a permit is required: (if anything, you could argue a permit goes against what is highlighted in red)

Article (Amendment 1 - Freedom of expression and religion)
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

I'll let my attorney handle it from here.

Oh, he already did.

 

[Route 45]

Devil's advocate. Show me where a permit is required: (if anything, you could argue a permit goes against what is highlighted in red)

Article (Amendment 1 - Freedom of expression and religion)
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Nobody needs a permit for free speech. An organized protest that uses public common areas, public streets and public infrastructure and has the potential to affect the free travel of citizens is rightly subject to regulation by local governments. The part of the first amendment that is applicable is the right of the people to peaceably assemble, not the right of free speech. I'm fairly certain that no government issued permit regulates the content of the speech at any given protest. It is the assembly that is regulated, not the speech. Similar to fire codes for buildings.

 

[Alpo]

Well, Fox 59 reports that the woman driver, a 66 year old lady from Scottsburg, has been arrested.

I think it clearly is a bad call by the DA.

https://fox59.com/news/crimetracker/woman-arrested-in-hit-and-run-at-bloomington-protest/

Protesters threw an electric scooter in the roadway and jumped on the woman's car.

I wonder if they had permission to protest in the first place and if that allowed them to block roadways with personal property belonging to someone else.

Pisses me off.

 

[hoosierdoc]

Well, Fox 59 reports that the woman driver, a 66 year old lady from Scottsburg, has been arrested.

I think it clearly is a bad call by the DA.

https://fox59.com/news/crimetracker/woman-arrested-in-hit-and-run-at-bloomington-protest/

Protesters threw an electric scooter in the roadway and jumped on the woman's car.

I wonder if they had permission to protest in the first place and if that allowed them to block roadways with personal property belonging to someone else.

Pisses me off.

candy ass DA. i'm ignorant. does this mean a grand jury agreed or is it independent of a jury at this point?

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Devil's advocate. Show me where a permit is required: (if anything, you could argue a permit goes against what is highlighted in red)

Article (Amendment 1 - Freedom of expression and religion)
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

I'll just add my 2 cents worth to what was already answered: It is my understanding that when it comes to taking to public property, the government has the need to balance the competing interests in using parks, court house lawns, streets, etc that the various people might have. The need for permits is to ensure that those competing interests are balanced in as fair a way as possible. Nothing prevents you from assembling--only when your doing so interferes with my rights. And that's one of the primary purposes of government--to walk that line.

 

[HoughMade]

candy ass DA. i'm ignorant. does this mean a grand jury agreed or is it independent of a jury at this point?

Not that you can really trust the media to report legal matters with any accuracy, but...

Generally speaking when you read: "Filing charges" or "Filing a criminal complaint", that's done by the prosecutor. A grand jury "hands sdown" or "issues" an indictment.

In Indiana, a criminal case can start either way. However, the (state level) grand jury is most frequently used for questionable circumstances with a political component that the prosecutor wants to separate himself from...which, because the arrestee was "messing with the protesters" this case DOES NOT have. No political risk in filing against an assumed (and alleged) racist enemy of liberty.

 

[KellyinAvon]

I guess it’s easier to arrest the woman who was in fear for her life than deal with rioters. Being woke is the most important thing after all.

 

[Leadeye]

After watching that, my wife and I decided to not go back to bloomington. Jasper about the same distance, and clearly a safer place for us to spend our money. I don't want to see her as a part of the New Negative Narrative directed against white women and that could have just as easily been her buying groceries.

 

[Brad69]

Go to the Schnitzelbank restaurant[FONT=arial, sans-serif] and RK is out of ammo![/FONT]

 

[jagee]

Go to the Schnitzelbank restaurant[FONT=arial, sans-serif] and RK is out of ammo![/FONT]

I plan to go there to eat at some point this weekend! Going to Holiday World with the fam.