Image 01 Image 03

Black Lives Matter Road-Block Tactic Ambushes Drivers, Leading To Dangerous Confrontations

Black Lives Matter Road-Block Tactic Ambushes Drivers, Leading To Dangerous Confrontations

Recent incidents show the tactic of blocking people from being able to drive through has become increasingly dangerous and deadly.

As Black Lives Matter agitators have become more hostile and aggressive over the last couple of months, we’ve seen more and more of them taking over city streets and highways. Not just for march-throughs but for stationary “protests” that last for hours, and in some cases days and even weeks as we saw in Seattle with the CHAZ/CHOP occupation.

It’s not a new tactic, as Legal Insurrection has previously reported, but it’s happening more frequently.

Along with the human roadblocks belligerent protesters set up comes frustration for drivers who want to pass through to get to their destination.

In situations where people are trying to get through come face to face with protesters, there are usually people videotaping what’s going on, whether it be the protesters themselves, news crews, or nearby street cameras.

More often than not, news reports and social media accountings of these encounters attempt to portray protesters blocking traffic in a sympathetic light. They show these people as “peacefully” expressing their First Amendment rights before a driver happened on the scene in an attempt to get to where they need to go. Context is often left out of these reports, especially when they come from protesters and their supporters. Both of them have a narrative and an angle to exploit.

The following two videos show very recent examples of how protesters use deceptive manipulation tactics to garner sympathy and support for “the cause,” only to be exposed once people get a chance to watch actual footage of the incidents in question:


Julia Clark attended a Georgetown protest Saturday night and angrily recounted her experience involving a woman in a car later that night on Twitter. Julia proudly admitted that she and other protesters “blocked off streets” and “demanded that people turn around.” In her words, the roadblock “was a minor inconvenience for this affluent white neighborhood”:

Next, Julia shared a video of protesters ambushing a woman in a vehicle. She noted the woman tried to get around them by driving through a gas station parking lot (and presumably to avoid interacting with protesters like Julia). Because of this, Julia and other agitators “stood in front of her car and demanded she turn around.” The woman didn’t. Julia described the woman’s next move was to “step on the gas”, insinuating her goal was to mow over as many protesters as possible.

But if you watch the video, that’s not what the woman did at all. In fact, she maneuvered her car as gently as possible, presumably to get the person(s?) on the hood of her car to jump off so she could drive away without further incident:

In the very next tweet, Julia altered her story to allege, “in the video above, she had already attempted to run us over multiple times.” Except, again, the video did not support her claim. Regardless, Julia pleaded with her Twitter followers to dox the woman in the car, asserting she committed a “hate crime.”

Aurora, CO

Also on Saturday, there were reports of multiple shots fired during a protest on I-225 in Aurora, Colorado. Here’s how a Twitter user named Joshua Rodriguez, who filmed the incident according to local news outlets, initially reported the shooting:

Roughly ten hours later, Rodriguez posted a photo of the alleged Jeep driver’s face along with a screengrab of what he claims is his license plate. Nearly ten hours after posting that, however, Rodriguez posted a photo of another person who Aurora police say was the actual shooter. As it turns out, it was one of the protesters:

Helicopter video from NBC 9News of the I-225 protest shows protesters cleared out of the way right before the driver drove through the protest, with some protesters throwing their backpacks at the Jeep. According to the reporter describing what happened, another protester claimed the man who fired the shots was trying to fire at the tires of the Jeep to stop it, but instead hit fellow protesters:

As my RedState colleague Nick Arama wrote Sunday about the Austin, TX, BLM shooting where gunfire was exchanged between a now-deceased protester and a driver, protests where marchers are allowed to surround and confront drivers in vehicles are not safe for anyone:

Whatever the facts here, the practice of stopping or surrounding cars has to stop. Some drivers have been terrified and have driven off, hitting people. We’ve seen where protesters have attacked people in the cars, even shot them. We’ve seen where a protester has shot a driver in Colorado and we’ve seen where a driver hit people who were blocking a highway in the middle of the night. If a driver knows that and/or is surrounded by an angry group, it’s not going to end well. It’s not good for the drivers or the protesters.

I agree. Recent incidents show the manipulative protester tactic of blocking people from being able to drive through has become increasingly dangerous and deadly. It’s time for law enforcement to shut down this practice once and for all. One way to go about it would be to stop allowing highways to be taken over by demonstrators, for starters. This has been allowed to go on for too long, and it has gotten way out of hand.

— Stacey Matthews has also written under the pseudonym “Sister Toldjah” and can be reached via Twitter. —


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


There already has been traffic protest deaths, putting yourself in a game of chicken with a vehicle is not a game.

    Skankywoman in reply to Skip. | July 28, 2020 at 7:11 pm

    Aren’t these actions holding people against their will? Yes it is.

      randian in reply to Skankywoman. | July 28, 2020 at 9:38 pm

      Yes, but in many (most?) states unlawful detention, without the use of a weapon, is a misdemeanor. If a bunch of people surround you and you respond with deadly force you have a big problem because responding to a misdemeanor with deadly force is a prosecutor’s dream. You know the DAs in these cities will soft-pedal any charges against the people detaining you, presuming they get charged at all. If they just surround your car and don’t attack it you’re likely stuck unless you want to take the legal risk of a vehicular assault/homicide charge. Of course that also leaves you wide open to a surprise gunshot from one of the protesters, as we’ve seen happen before this year.

        henrybowman in reply to randian. | July 28, 2020 at 11:13 pm

        If you are surrounded by many people, it doesn’t matter whether they are armed or unarmed, you have a disparity of force in your favor.

        rscalzo in reply to randian. | July 29, 2020 at 8:15 am

        Keep dreaming. Drive theough. Any idiot who gives them a change to disable their vehicle is foolish.

        If they try to block it they are even bigger idiots. They have proven themselves to be violent.

        DaveGinOly in reply to randian. | July 29, 2020 at 12:56 pm

        Even if this is true, all a driver would have to say is “I saw protesters with weapons.” Even if no video of the event shows weapons, that’s not evidence the driver didn’t see any. (Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.) Did the police detain the entire crowd and search them for weapons? No, this does not happen. Such a claim by a driver would be unimpeachable. Any unarmed protesters who were accompanying the armed protesters (whether or not any such actually exist) can be considered “accessories” to the felony, because they enable and assist in its execution. In my book, that makes them valid targets for weapons fire or being run over. If I’m sitting on a jury in a case about anyone who has such a reaction to a similar event, I’m voting “not guilty.” These “protesters” are acting as highwaymen (at least, they are extorting motorists’ compliance with the threat of violence), and should be treated accordingly.

        CaptTee in reply to randian. | July 29, 2020 at 4:43 pm

        Unlawful detention or a hostage situation?

        Either way getting yourself free trumps any “protestors” rights!

        JusticeDelivered in reply to randian. | July 29, 2020 at 5:52 pm

        Ambushers need to be ambushed, surely there are good positions for snipers with suitable escape routes?

          DaveGinOly in reply to JusticeDelivered. | July 30, 2020 at 1:34 pm

          Snipers are too aggressive and not necessarily the best response to the situation. The nature of sniping means that their presence isn’t realized until after someone has been shot (by the sniper). It’s not necessary to actually shoot someone to get their attention and to create a psychological reaction that might influence future mob activities.

          I considered explaining my own evaluation of these situations and a suggested response, but think this venue is inappropriate for same. Suffice to say it does not include shooting anyone, or at least not as an initial response.

    Mark in reply to Skip. | July 29, 2020 at 4:30 am

    Why is no one asking, “WHERE ARE THE POLICE?” One big reason why I am not sympathetic to police.

      wsnbh in reply to Mark. | July 29, 2020 at 8:25 am

      In these areas, the police have been handcuffed by local politicians and restricted from action. This is not the fault of the police, rather local politicians.

        bhwms in reply to wsnbh. | July 29, 2020 at 11:01 am

        Take a look at Detroit, where the local leaders have not told the police to stand down. Detroit was known for the damage done during the 67 riots, and now, under good police leadership, it is relatively quiet.

          JusticeDelivered in reply to bhwms. | July 29, 2020 at 6:03 pm

          It is quiet because most people have fled. I rented the 4th floor (office space) of what had originally been the Studebaker factory, and then an armory in the mid 1970s. Even then, it was a dangerous place. I always had two german shepherds with me and a semi auto pistol. Just one block away there were routinely murders.

nordic_prince | July 28, 2020 at 5:11 pm

Didn’t the mothers of these idiots ever tell them not to play in the street?

Here’s my tiny violin for these morons.

Waaayyy past time to stop the taking over of our streets

Police in Seattle closed off I-5 ahead of BLM protesters marching onto the freeway. A man driving a Jaguar hit and killed a protester after going around police barricades.

Not mentioned in the article? The driver is black.

    iconotastic in reply to MrE. | July 29, 2020 at 12:28 pm

    From watching the video it is clear that the mob members blocking access to the freeway ran in front of the car. Of course the leftist DA is charging the driver while ignoring the actions of the dead mob member. Rather like how the dirtbag charged a man defending himself from a carjacker during the riots.

    Also, accusations that the driver was targeting the mob are inaccurate. The driver was trying to get past mob members who were blocking the interstate. He drove down a freeway off ramp and then turned to go the right direction. The off ramp was blocked because of the nightly mob blockage.

    As far as I am concerned the real offenders were the city, county, and state who allowed these people to block access to a public highway.. But they will continue to allow the mob to destroy businesses, block traffic, and attack police stations while arresting anyone who gets caught by the mob. Washington state has become a cesspool.

    DaveGinOly in reply to MrE. | July 29, 2020 at 1:01 pm

    To me, this only makes the police accessories to the lawlessness. Facilitating unlawful activity is not in their job description.

      henrybowman in reply to DaveGinOly. | July 29, 2020 at 3:17 pm

      To think how innocent we conservatives were before Katrina, with our certainty that these people, with their magic oath, would never agree to obey unconstitutional orders.

    JusticeDelivered in reply to MrE. | July 29, 2020 at 6:10 pm

    Well, blacks do not care about all the other black on black murders, so they should not mind this one.

Dantzig93101 | July 28, 2020 at 5:17 pm

“But if you watch the video, that’s not what the woman did at all. In fact, she maneuvered her car as gently as possible, presumably to get the person(s?) on the hood of her car to jump off so she could drive away without further incident…”

In other cases, terrorists have pulled people out of their cars and beaten them. In this case, the driver risked her life to avoid harming the terrorists. It was better than they deserved.

I wish Mr. Branca would do a book on self defense against traffic blockers.

    fast182 in reply to amwick. | July 28, 2020 at 5:34 pm

    I was thinking the same thing. It seems to me that if you’re legally driving on a public road and you’re surrounded by a mob then you’ve satisfied three of the five elements of self defense (innocence, imminence, and avoidance). Given the documented violence of these mobs, it seems reasonable to perceive a threat of death or great bodily harm, especially if they are pounding on it, which only leaves proportionality. So, is driving slowly though a mob “proportional”?

      Ferfuggs eggs in reply to fast182. | July 28, 2020 at 6:32 pm

      Install a loudspeaker on your vehicle and if they surround you broadcast a recording of automatic gunfire. That might make them scatter.

        blm marxists have already proven they will willingly shoot first. And shoot to try to kill.
        That tactic of a loudspeaker with automatic fire might not turn out the way you think it might.
        Their latest casualty, Garret I think his name was, pointed an AK at the driver who shot and killed him. There is a still shot from the video of Garret having the rifle shouldered and aimed at the car.
        Of course the meme makers were on it right away. Someone had a picture of Garret with the words – “pronouns Was and Were.

    Jefferson Alexander in reply to amwick. | July 28, 2020 at 5:58 pm

    I’m with you on that. But the way things have been going, the problem isn’t with the law; it’s with the enforcement of the laws.

    Specifically, the cops are either nowhere to be found or, if they do arrest the rioters, local prosecutors turn right around and set them free. Althernatively, the cops will arrest you – the driver – and those same liberal prosecutors (who are becoming more emboldened the longer this drags on) will file vehicular manslaughter or aggravated assault charges against you.

    Yeah, I know. Go to court and fight it. Maybe you’ll get a judge who cares about the law. Or maybe you’ll get one who is in the same club as the prosecutors and decides you can file an appeal from prison if you think he’s wrong to let you be convicted.

    No, the problem isn’t the law. The problem is with the enforcement of the laws we already have. THEY can easily go to court and find a judge who stops the President of the United States from doing anything (immigration, pipelines, state funding, take your pick of the headlines over the last 4 years); or who lets them lock people up for going to church or cutting hair. But if WE look to the courts or the law for help, it’s turned against us (you can break into a gated community & threaten homeowners with impunity; but if you try to defend your home from the trespassing burglars, the government will take your guns & prosecute you).

    We the people – law abiding citizens who want to go about our daily lives – are being ripped to shreds by the rioting masses as well as local officials we thought were sworn to protect us (police and elected reps).

    And it’s going to get worse. Much worse.

    Colonel Travis in reply to amwick. | July 28, 2020 at 6:35 pm

    He’s got a new video course called “Lawful Defense Against Rioters, Looters and Arsonists.” A section of the video goes over this very subject. I don’t know if it’s available to buy yet. The other day I got the streaming version as part of a special deal on his site.

    Mr. Branca is the best.

2smartforlibs | July 28, 2020 at 5:29 pm

My vehicles have moon roofs and assume I’m armed

    Think again. These people are blinding federal officers, shooting fireworks, locking them in buildings and trying to set those buildings on fire, they’ve thrown molotov cocktails, recently found nails embedded in fireworks.
    Don’t think they’ll be standing around while you get your gun out. They will shoot you before you get your gun out. Murdering you or any other person who won’t join their revolution is only a stepping stone to what they want to achieve.
    Heck they’re shooting and hitting each other, you think they give a schiff about your gun?

    Two of my vehicles are convertibles, so that doesn’t work out so well for me.

The Dim “leadership” is angling for a Kent State style shooting to Get Trump. Their angry minions are expendable.

Some, Select Black Lives Matter, and Antifa before it… 50 shades of Charlottesville. They attempted the same assault on law enforcement in Miami, trapping the men in their car, but the officers were trained, their colleagues were nearby, and they responded before the protests could progress.

Now some of the rioters have taken to arming themselves, which escalates these confrontations. An obvious example is the rioter in Austin, who pointed his AK-47 at a driver who was being mobbed.

Pointing a gun at the driver will make him frantic to escape, which is likely to get people killed. Luckily, in this case the driver was also armed, and he eliminated the threat without harming other members of the mob.

But in most cases, I expect that the result of pointing a gun at a driver surrounded by a mob will result in the driver ducking and flooring the accelerator. That is likely to end badly for more than one member of the mob.

    LibraryGryffon in reply to OldProf2. | July 28, 2020 at 6:41 pm

    That’s certainly going to be my response. As they say, one would rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6. And if I have my daughter in the car with me?

    dmi60ex in reply to OldProf2. | July 28, 2020 at 7:11 pm

    I don’t know ,it didn’t help the guy in Charlottesville.
    Several members of the John Brown club were videoed at the accident scene with weapons and admitted on social media that they had scared him into speeding to get away.
    I’ m not too sure he had any competent legal counsel

      Milhouse in reply to dmi60ex. | July 28, 2020 at 8:02 pm

      That’s at odds with the reports that before coming he had researched car rammings.

        So? What was his intent? Was he planning an attack, or was he looking at ways to get the hell out of Dodge when he was attacked?

        txvet2 in reply to Milhouse. | July 28, 2020 at 9:50 pm

        You’re gonna have to source that. It sounds like after-the-fact made up CYA BS.

        SDN in reply to Milhouse. | July 28, 2020 at 9:50 pm

        But not with what Antifa was claiming at the time.

        Dixon bragged on Facebook about confronting James Fields with an AR-15 rifle, moments before Fields drove his car into a crowd of protesters at the Charlottesville, Virginia protests (and in doing so, perhaps pushing Fields’s emotions past the point of reason). During Fields’s trial, though, Dixon changed his story, claiming it was not Fields’s car he approached with his weapon, but another one.

        An AR-15 is not a concealed carry gun. How did he get it into the area without the connivance of one or more of the law enforcement agencies whose connivance in ensuring that the Antifa mob would be allowed to assault the protesters who had a permit?

        Milhouse will believe terrorists.

        n.n in reply to Milhouse. | July 28, 2020 at 10:21 pm

        In retrospect, it was a course in self-defense. The protesters targeted police officers in Miami, but with less success, and, fortunately, the officers were not alone, and managed to mitigate their progress.

        Milhouse in reply to Milhouse. | July 29, 2020 at 1:09 am

        Well, there’s this. Mind you, that’s a meme I could well have shared too. I agree with its message. But it does show that he had this on his mind.

        And there’s this: ‘”I saw the car accelerate the whole way into the protesters,” Kelly […] testified that he never saw Fields slow down and never saw any brake lights.’

        And there’s the fact that he was definitely a neo-Nazi and Hitler admirer. That makes it more likely that he would carry out an intentional murder.

          Mac45 in reply to Milhouse. | July 29, 2020 at 11:37 am

          One of the unfortunate things about the reports of Garret’s actions is that it is still being reported that he rammed the crowd. This was never true. He was proceeding down the street at a high rate of speed. Early portions of the video show people on foot running behind him some block and a half prior to the collision. And, there had been verified reports that his car was attacked nearly two blocks from the point of collision. The last was explained by claiming that the attackers were trying to stop him from ramming the crowd. However, that strains credulity quite a bit. Finally, he did not strike the crowd. His vehicle impacted the rear of a vehicle already stopped by the crowd. That vehicle was driven forward into another vehicle stopped by the crowd. And, from the nature of the damage to Garret’s car, it was evident that he WAS braking, prior to impact. The lack of skid marks can be reasonably attributed to the anti-skid braking system on the car. Garret’s claim was that he was terrified and attempting to escape what he thought was an attack upon him. Not unreasonable, given thee circumstances. And, as I said, there was no solid evidence that he had targeted the crowd, but rather, drove into the rear of a vehicle in the roadway.

          Garret entered a plea of convenience. And, not a well thought out one either.

          Mac45 in reply to Milhouse. | July 29, 2020 at 11:40 am

          I’m sorry, I misidentified Fields as Garret. I have no idea why.

    DaveGinOly in reply to OldProf2. | July 29, 2020 at 1:11 pm

    That’s OK because everyone in the mob is an accessory to the armed assault. Merely by stopping a motorist and making him a target for one of their armed comrades they are facilitating the crime. That seems to make them fair game when it comes to the “running over” part. In Austin, everyone who can be identified as someone who swarmed that car should be arrested and charged for the death (they all were participating in an unlawful activity that resulted in a homicide).

    Does anyone here have anything to say about why this isn’t true and can’t be done? I will “bend the knee” to anyone who has anything contrary and authoritative to say.

    Or anything authoritative to say in favor of these ideas?

johnny dollar | July 28, 2020 at 5:37 pm

I always wondered what 4wd “low range” was for…

This is one of those situations which is enabled by legislation. Should American law differentiate clearly between roads and sidewalks, and protect only the appropriate traffic on each, then I think American drivers would be able to sort out this silly problem without having to rely on law enforcement to do it for them.

If there’s no legal penalty or liability for running down anything inappropiate which is blocking a road, then “protesters”, carjackers, etc. have to keep clear or else, unless of course they’re someplace where law allows them to be, like on crosswalks with the appropriate lights.

Anything like this would be subject to abuse, naturally, but that’s where law enforcement can come in.

    OwenKellogg-Engineer in reply to tom_swift. | July 28, 2020 at 6:16 pm

    Especially the Limited Access Interstate Highway system governed by 23.USC:

    The Facility is for vehicular use, not pedestrion. Sounds like a job for the U.S.Marshall to enforce, if not the State Highway Patrol.

      Unknown3rdParty in reply to OwenKellogg-Engineer. | July 28, 2020 at 6:45 pm

      That’s fine for an interstate, but these are happening on city streets and local highways, which are NOT under federal control. Those who block traffic without a permit and/or use a weapons to enforce their blockade will likely start paying a high price.

        OwenKellogg-Engineer in reply to Unknown3rdParty. | July 28, 2020 at 10:20 pm

        They ARE occurring on the Interstates: I-5 in Seattle, I-225 in Aurora/Denver, I-80 in Iowa City, I-35W in Minneapolis, etc. The point being, the feds can police these roadways; there is no reason for pedestrians to be there in the first place.

          I read elsewhere that the interstates are under local and state jurisdictions, not federal jurisdiction, unless a federal crime takes place on one of them. Is “interfering with interstate commerce” a federal crime?

          Also read a comment from someone who ID’d himself as a soldier at JBLM (Tacoma, WA) who reported that if the Army blocks traffic on I-5 to get a convoy on the road, state DOT fines them $1,000 after ten minutes of blockage, and for every ten minutes after that.

A democratic or dictatorial form of government.

These “protestors” have become increasingly aggressive. “Julia” and her allies in the first example mainly intended to humiliate and intimidate drivers and thereby show their relative power over them. In Portland and similar places there is a full-fledged insurrection against federal and local government, mainly federal at this point. I don’t see how any of this ends well absent a large number of arrests and prosecutions to the fullest extent of the law and, even then, that may be insufficient in Portland and would-be Portlands where the revolutionaries are actually attempting to murder federal agents and have declared a “civil war.” In such places where urban warfare is underway there may need to be some serious casualties among the insurrectionists. I recognize that some of the anarchists are aiming for a “Kent State Moment” but the situation has already far exceeded the provocation at Kent State – and I remember that time well. The federal officers in Portland cannot continue to play defense forever as they will eventually be killed or severely wounded.

    nomadic100 in reply to nomadic100. | July 28, 2020 at 6:09 pm

    Addendum: It is highly ironic that “Julia” accuses the driver whom she has just assaulted and accosted of a “hate crime” when she has just pointed out that her group has targeted Georgetown in D.C. which she refers to as “white and affluent” and she has specified that the driver of the vehicle in the video is “white.” Who is it, exactly, who is guilty of a “hate crime”?

ThePrimordialOrderedPair | July 28, 2020 at 6:02 pm

People who use their bodies to try and intentionally block traffic deserve to be run over. Not only that, but they should be liable to the damage to the car they cause and any pain and suffering to the driver who had to run them over.

The law CANNOT allow people to illegally impede others and abuse public services just to satisfy their own little desires. There are avenues for protesting, and in an active street is not one of them. Those who put themselves in the street are clearly at fault and they should suffer every possible consequence of their illegal actions – in law.

Our laws have been drifting away from the actual responsibilities people take on in their actual choices. We have seen too much abuse of the courts and highly suggestible juries (who are happy to give away unlimited amounts of anyone else’s money) to warp the law and people’s behavior in these situations. If someone blocks a car with his body he SHOULD be run over and have to pay damages, in addition to being arrested for having tried to kidnap the driver (as restraining his progress is certainly being held against his will, especially if he can’t back up (legally)).

    We need to get a permit to hold a rally on state (i.e. public) property such as the Capital Campus (Olympia, WA), on a frikkin’ lawn. How is it that violent protesters are allowed to block streets without a permit?

I have been saying for at least 30 years that whenever someone going about his lawful business is being unlawfully obstructed — and especially when the police are either unavailable, unwilling, or unable to clear his way — it should be lawful for that person to keep going as if the obstruction were not there, and the people obstructing him should be deemed to have assumed liability for whatever happens.

I think I first expressed this view during a dock strike, when the picketers not only prevented delivery trucks from delivering goods that had arrived, but also prevented individuals from coming to the docks and picking up their goods, which they had paid for and needed, and was often perishable, and all the while the police refused to help.

Or perhaps it was on hearing of an anti-war protester who had sat on a railroad track in the path of a military train, and had lost his legs as a result. My reaction was to applaud the driver and say that even if he could have stopped he shouldn’t have.

But I feel the same way about those who lie down in front of bulldozers to prevent them going about their business (think Arthur Dent, or St Rachel the Pancake), and those who invaded the bombing range at Vieques, or those who invade shooting ranges, etc. Also environuts who climb trees in order to prevent them being cut down. In other words anyone who turns himself into a human hostage; we should not give in to such blackmail.

    DaveGinOly in reply to Milhouse. | July 29, 2020 at 1:24 pm

    Damn, Milhouse, that’s hard core. You’re sounding like me. I agree entirely. And the group that organized the blockade should be sued for the psychological trauma and emotional distress caused by the experience. (The driver in Austin should consider suing BLM and anyone else involved in the organization of the event that resulted in his having to take a life.)
    But “St Rachel the Pancake”? That’s absolutely brutal! I laughed off my shiny metal ass! (Now in the process of bolting it back on.)

Rioting, looting and illegally blocking public roads

I reject the LIES…!

    MarkS in reply to LisaGinNZ. | July 28, 2020 at 6:16 pm

    It is also a violation of 18 U.S. Code § 241.Conspiracy against rights. Let’s all hold our breaths while we wait for Barr to start enforcing the law!

Is this what happened in Charlottesville when the driver of a car hit and killed a protester? I read he was mobbed and was trying to get away.

    The Friendly Grizzly in reply to EdReynolds. | July 28, 2020 at 6:27 pm

    The driver was white so being in fear of his life was not a defense. He was white, so, racist, so, guilty.

    This is the issue here, and this will sound racist as hell, but I will say it anyway. Whites, the dominant culture, ceded control of society. Peace, order, a system of laws, all are being given up for the sake of… I am not sure what.

    South Africa gave up its society, and look what it got them. Same with Rhodecia. Look what it has gotten them.

    rscalzo in reply to EdReynolds. | July 29, 2020 at 8:24 am

    He actually hit a car which was pushed into the protester.

Dad used to tell me about wiring a spark plug to the tail pipes to light up the exhaust fumes. Also some story about wiring a coil to the sheet metal. Light ’em up.

    JusticeDelivered in reply to MrE. | July 29, 2020 at 6:47 pm

    Modern cars do not have a large amount of fuel air in the pipe. Old cars dumped a slug of extra gas and advanced the timing to get rapid acceleration.

smalltownoklahoman | July 28, 2020 at 6:37 pm

Video about what to do if you find yourself in one of these situations.

the_last_l3oyscout | July 28, 2020 at 6:41 pm

I live in Austin, but also think the Austin case is interesting for other reasons. I don’t know why the car was where it was at. I have been avoiding that part of town for months, but some people can’t. The car was where it was, it was surrounded, and a man with an “ASSAULT RIFLE” (SUPER SCARE QUOTES) drew his weapon on the driver. He was not pushing his wife in her wheelchair as the “mostly peaceful protestors” ™ have claimed. There are images of this on Twitter. He is not pointing directly at the driver in the images I have seen, but I think it is very reasonable for the driver to have feared for his life from the man brandishing the “ASSAULT RIFLE” in a way meant to intimidate or threaten. The driver fired five shots, injuring no one else despite reports from the “mostly peaceful protestors” ™. At this point he is able to drive away, when a second “mostly peaceful protestor” ™ fires three shots at the car with his gun. Both shooters have been interviewed by police. Both have concealed carry permits if I remember correctly. I also believe both weapons are being held by APD along with the vehicle. To me, the second shooter is the one in trouble here. He was not fired upon, was not threatened, and the vehicle was (I believe) driving away from him. If it was driving towards him he might have a self defense case. The driver of the car seems completely within his rights to me.

The whole point of getting in the street is to get someone killed. And, it will always be some dumb kid who is a sightseer, not an organizer. Organizers have better situational awareness.

That’s why good mamas don’t let their kids go to demonstrations.

Dusty Pitts | July 28, 2020 at 7:07 pm

One more time, slowly for those who still haven’t gotten the message:










MoeHowardwasright | July 28, 2020 at 7:10 pm

When you ccw you have a higher bar to meet. Someone banging on your vehicle and screaming at you is not free license to “light um up”. A civilian who panics while being harassed during a roadway protest is going to have leeway if someone is injured while surrounding or jumping on said vehicle. CCW is a different animal. If they break a window or pry open a door, you are now in physical danger. You can’t fire indiscriminately, however, taking out the immediate threat is within established doctrine. Most casual ccw holders rarely practice and will most likely hit someone in “center mass”. This will cause the others to stay back momentarily and they can then drive away and call 911. Uncle Sam trained me in a different manner. You don’t shoot to wound, you shoot to kill. A catastrophic head wound will shock and cause normal people, even protesters who think there is safety in numbers to recoil. The aftermath of this type of lesson will cause a certain percentage of protesters to go back to the basement. We haven’t gotten there yet, but we are close, real close.

    CommoChief in reply to MoeHowardwasright. | July 28, 2020 at 7:54 pm


    Correct if one person is palms down banging on the hood. In that case it is a single aggressor, causing or attempting to cause property damage, as well as create fear in the driver.
    Probably not a good idea to fire on that individual.

    So what to do instead? Maneuver the vehicle so that you can bypass this individual.

    Then reality kicks in. Vehicle becomes surrounded. Multiple people banging or rocking the vehicle. Some of whom have something in their first. What is it? You can’t quite ID it but it’s the size of a small semi-auto. Could be a phone.
    At any rate now you have less options, not because of your choices but because the mob choose to surround your vehicle.

    Not a good tactical situation for the driver. What to do? No favorable options at this point.

    1. Drive through the mob
    2. Hang right till the cops clear you an exit
    3. Cops don’t/won’t/can’t get to you so you must
    A. Wait till the mob let’s you go uninjured
    B. Wait till the mob drags you out for a curb stomping
    4. Engage the mob with your oral argument
    5. Engage the mob with firearms

    Those are the likely outcome when LEO refuse to disperse the mob from illegally taking control of a road and preventing you from traveling. The sooner the arrests for unlawful detention and or kidnapping begin the sooner this crap stops.

    DaveGinOly in reply to MoeHowardwasright. | July 29, 2020 at 1:43 pm

    Moe may have been right, but I have an objection to your logic.

    A CCW holder does not have “a higher bar to meet.” Typically, CCW holders are humans too, and just as likely to be put into fear of their lives by an attack by a mob as any other non-CCW holding human. If that fear is put into the CCW holder when certain other elements are in place (e.g., imminence, opportunity, disparity of force, etc.), his decision to shoot is just as good (or as bad) as anyone else’s in the same situation. Legally, there exists no “higher bar” for lawful self-defense by CCW holders – the standard is the same for everyone.

    Also, other mobsters are “accessories” to the armed assault, merely by impeding your travel and facilitating the attack. I believe this makes them valid targets too. (I’m awaiting feedback, from the good readers here, on this assertion.)

      CommoChief in reply to DaveGinOly. | July 29, 2020 at 2:00 pm


      Valid observations about ccw, however I specifically refrained from mention of ccw or any higher duty. The use of deadly force standard is the same for everyone no matter what they choose to utilize to inflict that deadly force.

    JusticeDelivered in reply to MoeHowardwasright. | July 29, 2020 at 7:48 pm

    Moe, can I be Larry?

    JusticeDelivered in reply to MoeHowardwasright. | July 29, 2020 at 10:28 pm

    “You don’t shoot to wound, you shoot to kill.”

    That is my attitude, if you have to shoot, you do not want to have someone to come around and attack again. I always told my wife to aim a bit above the belt buckle, and to double tap.

    You really have no idea of their intentions, need to assume the worst.

I’ve found yellow jackets are very effective at getting people to move away.

There’s also a device- though it takes a bit of juice and hasn’t been approved for cop use that will emit a magnetic wave and drop you in a few seconds. It’s been tested to stop cars rather than spike strips or PIT maneuaver and basically fouls out all codes in a car’s computer (basically an EMP). In the tests, drivers were said to have gotten out and puked after being hit with it.

    DaveGinOly in reply to Andy. | July 29, 2020 at 1:44 pm

    The last thing you want to do when in a vehicle trapped by a mob is nuke your own electronics with an EMP.

There’s also this… from our friends in China and Russia.

buckeyeminuteman | July 28, 2020 at 10:34 pm

Climbing on the hood of somebody’s car is NOT protected by the First Amendment.

If Joshua is aiming at the tires of the Jeep,it’s obvious from the photo that he is aiming juuust a bit high.

They tell us they have the right to block road and force traffic away and that drivers don’t have the right to use the roads to get to their destination.

They tell us that assaulting people with thrown objects, sticks, fireworks, lasers, etc., is a peaceful protest and that words used by conservatives are violence that causes so many to tremble in fear for their own safety.

They tell us that riots that have been occurring nightly for months are not their fault but the fault of the federal government for daring to protect federal property weeks after the riots started.

They tell us to follow the science, but when doctors and research shows overwhelming evidence of the beneficial use of certain medications, such as hydroxycholorquine that was hawked by President Trump, they censor the conversation claiming it to be propaganda that no one should be allowed to hear.

They change the definitions of terms such “racism” to now mean any situation where an unequal outcome is realized (a revitalized form of Marxism) in order to demonize everything upon which this country was founded.

They tell us that we must shut down all commerce and destroy the entire country and our economy to protect us from losing even a single life to Covid-19 and all who disagree are members of a death cult.

They tell us that America is irredeemably racist with all whites being the source of this racism despite evidence showing America to be one of the least racist countries in the world.

The list of this insanity goes on and on and all of it comes from the Leftists representing the Democratic Party. They expect everyone to support these and other even more irrational claims and vote democrat this fall. They believe they will be overwhelmingly successful. Are they completely nuts?

texansamurai | July 29, 2020 at 8:40 am

liberal prosecutor or not, show me the law that says my loved ones or myself are required to allow a bunch of protesters(rioters), especially if they’re armed, to actually injure/shoot/pull me from my vehicle before i’m allowed to react to defend myself/my loved ones from attack

no way–if the perp is armed, they’re going to die right there–if not, then they might survive if they stay out from under/in front of my vehicle as we escape

the guy in austin reacted perfectly==kudos to him

If this happens to me I am driving through the crowd.
My philosophy?
I’d rather get a ticket and a possible court case than die at the hands of a crazy rioter.

    CaptTee in reply to Homemaker. | July 29, 2020 at 4:39 pm

    Generally speaking, if you are in a hostage situation, you are allowed to do whatever it takes to free yourself.