The political left has a basic problem in their narrative.

I don't know anything about the Proud Boys, but if they are threatening me and my family with violence, and banking on the notion that I'll be too ethical or fearful to use my car on them, then I'm going to prove them wrong.

Oh, and he's not guilty.

Yes, a car can be a weapon of self defense.

Not in my opinion.

Not to me.

The established "facts" in this hypothetical situation would likely support the driver and, if charged, a "not guilty" verdict, the car being (as was pointed out by roger) a "weapon of defense".

Complications might arise though, if a few carloads of MAGAtards decide to bust up a BLM rally, run over a pedestrian, and some confrontation ensues. By singling out a particular circumstance in which "vehicular defense" is sanctioned it becomes easier to defend anyone who runs over a demonstrator; the driver merely has to say that he feared for his life and for that of his family.

The laws to protect the hypothetical 'poor family at the "Unite the Right" rally' already exist. No jury would convict the father. The real danger is the encouragement the proposed laws may give to parties who deliberately wish to confront, provoke, and fight their perceived enemies. Codifying exceptions to common-sense practice opens the door to public distrust and court challenges. It weakens the rule of law and encourages automotive vigilantism.

Things are okay as they are.

I agree. I suppose we are talking about that new Oklahoma law. I read someone's link (maybe yours) and it seemed okay, but not really necessary.

Max's hypothetical scenario is specific. What would be the alternative for that father in max's hypothetical scenario? We know he's not going to be considering whether or not he would be setting a dangerous precedent by driving his family to safety, and neither would anyone else.

It would be more accurate to say that the other protesters/rioters are guilty since the injury occurred during the course of their commission of a crime.

Hightor,

Do you agree that Unite the Right protesters protesting the election have the same rights as Black Lives Matter protesters?

The law can't protect one political movement over another.

The real problem is that there are no real life examples to support Max’s nonsense so he makes **** up.

And he has threads where he fantasises about shooting a black man and then running over black protesters. All of which are justified in Max’s World.

None of which is true, or justified in the real World, the one where Joe Biden is president, not H R Pufnstuff.

Where did I indicate that one deserved more right to protest than the other?

If there is a mob of angry people attacking my car, banging on the windows and trying to force the door open.... I am getting the **** out of there. Whether they are Black Lives Matter protesters or MAGAtards doesn't really matter to me.

That's the point.

I wonder what Izzy would do if a bunch of "Unite The Right" protesters blocked his car and then surrounded him. I suppose he would just patiently and calmly wait as the right wing goons banged on his window and chanted right wing slogans at him and his kids. I imagine Izzy is the kind of guy who loses his temper when a traffic light takes too long.

Hightor, I have never seen you defend the rights of MAGAtard protesters.

I have never seen you express disapproval when the cops shot the MAGA protester who was shot in the capitol. I am pretty sure you have expressed disapproval of right wing protesters attacking police.

Maybe I am reading to much into it. If you tell me that MAGAtard protesters have the same rights to protest that Black Lives Matter protesters have, I will take your word for it.

This would include the right to intimidate diners at a restaurant, to throw things at police officers, to damage property and to beat up motorists. If you disapprove of any of these things when Black Lives Matter does them... then it doesn't count. But I have never heard you disapprove of anything done by BLM protesters.

The out-of-control protester would be coming to court with dirty hands.

You seem to be confusing my criticism of their support of Trump with a denial of their right to support Trump.

If you're talking about the woman who got shot inside the Capitol, no I have never expressed disapproval. She was was part of a dangerous, violent mob.

Yes, I specifically criticized the attacks by Trump supporters on the Capitol police.

Those actions aren't being done because the protestors have a "right" to do those things. As far as I know there is no general right for individuals or groups to engage in that sort of behavior, no matter their political beliefs.

You're right. Nor have you heard me voice support for the violence associated with those protests. If you want to come up with specific events I can tell you whether I approve or disapprove but I'm not jumping on the anti-BLM bandwagon because of a few instances where people (who might not have anything to do with BLM) have exploited the chaos of the moment to commit assault, theft, and arson. If you can show me that the leadership of BLM endorses violence against people and property I'll be happy to express opposition to the organization's tactics if not its goals. But I'm not going to condemn the group because of criminal activities committed by opportunistic people who may not even have any association with BLM.

The goals of the Proud Boys, Oath Keepers, Boogaloos etc are not ones I support. But I am concerned about the level of police violence against non-white suspects so I'm more careful about making blanket condemnations of those who share these concerns. But again, if you find an example where a victim is dragged out of his car and stomped by people doing it in the name of BLM I would have no trouble expressing my disapproval of those individuals.

Good idea! Visual aids can help people with hearing and reading problems to understand what they've been told. Maybe I'll try that in another thread I'm working. After all, Somebody has to do it if no one else will.

MAGAtard protesters and Black Lives Matter protesters are equal when it comes to legal rights and responsibilities. The political stance doesn't matter when it comes to the right to protest peacefully or the consequences for violence.

If we agree on this point then we are OK.