Did this fail to make the radar because no one died (or was actually injured), or because it wasn’t conduct worthy of making the radar?
It doesn’t appear that anybody died, so you probably haven’t seen this. But yesterday a man allegedly drove into a crowd of protestors… kind of like the Alt-Right has been suggesting people do for years. Kind of like one person actually did in the attack that killed Heather Heyer.
Connecting unrelated events because of one common attribute creates a sense of parity, that they are the same thing. But “a sense” isn’t the same as a fact. And the facts simply don’t bear out the initial contention, that a man drove into a crowd of protesters. A KTLA reporter described it as a “vehicle slamming into crowds of protesters,” with the on-screen caption saying “car plows into protesters.”
Or was the man, Daniel Wenzek, just a guy in a car trying to slowly pass through the protest, with which he had no connection, to get to the other side so he could go about his day?
The alleged driver, Daniel Wenzek, was arrested on suspicion of assault with a deadly weapon, booked… AND THEN RELEASED pending further investigation.
I have a hard time believing Dibi al-Wenzek could drive his car into a crowd of people and then get released, pending further investigation.
Whether it’s true that the obvious explanation would become less so had the driver been of a different ethnicity is a fair question, but one that can’t be answered, no matter how hard a time one has believing otherwise.
They’re treating it like a damn traffic accident. “We don’t have any indication he was trying to harm somebody.” He drove his car INTO A CROWD OF PEOPLE! Are there good people, on both sides, of his windshield? Did the cops at least call him a cab home, or did they just release him and his weapon of choice back out onto the streets?
If someone wanted to plow into a group of protesters to do harm, he would have done so. They were in the street. He had a car. It’s not hard to do the math. Had there been any intention by Wenzek to harm anyone, the opportunity was there. Instead, he did what he appeared to do, drive slowly so as allow others to move out of the way so that no one was harmed, the protest could go on and he could go on too.
Flagrantly mischaracterizing conduct, even with the artful use of ALL CAPS, doesn’t convert the obvious into the nefarious.
Even if he wasn’t “politically motivated” in a terrorism sense, he at the very least saw a crowd of people and thought “F**k it, I need to get home.” Can we AT LEAST ask him to MAKE BAIL?
The false narrative of terrorism unravels with the argument that it isn’t terrorism at all, “in a terrorism sense.” What’s wrong with someone who wants to drive on a road to go wherever he wants? The protesters want to protest? That’s fine. The driver wants to drive? That’s fine too. The two things are unrelated, except to the extent that the protesters sought to prevent the driver from driving. As for why he would have to make bail (nice caps again), there is no remotely rational connection.
As usual, the “free speech” crowd is silent about this. If Daniel Wenzek had used the “Heckler’s veto,” they’d be crawling all over your Facebook page, decrying the break down of the First Amendment. But since he just tried to violently attack people actually exercising their free speech rights, it’s crickets from the white guy who really cares about the First Amendment near you.
Despite the “violently attack people” silliness, this effort to analogize Wenzek’s “disruption” of the protest that was directed at Congressman Ed Royce (R-CA), but impaired the movement of entirely unrelated motorists, fails miserably. This doesn’t demonstrate hypocrisy from the “‘free speech’ crowd,” but irrational grasping at straws to create an issue out of nothing. Indeed, then there’s the “Wenzek is a sex offender” piece, obviously unrelated to anything.
In fairness, this isn’t just Elie Mystal trying desperately to make a bad driving decision* into terrorism, racism and free-speech hypocrisy. The KTLA reporter was just as hyperbolic. But no amount of irrationality and hysteria can convert what is clear to anyone who isn’t desperately trying to make this into a white-supremacist-terrorist event into a cause for outrage.
There are bad things happening. This was not one of them. Rather than accomplish the goal of demonstrating how a white guy got away with terrorism, stories like this demonstrate the absurd length to which some will go to try to manufacture outrage out of nothing. Rather than win the hearts of those who are not already inclined to see racism under every rock, this demonstrates that “fake news,” ridiculous distortion of obvious facts and mindless hysteria are the weapons of social justice. This drives away anyone who might otherwise support their cause.
This story didn’t make the radar. It shouldn’t. Now that you put it on the radar, it accomplishes nothing but embarrassment and a loss of credibility. It should have stayed off the radar, as it undermines real stories of wrongdoing and the integrity of those who tell them. Bad things are happening, and the opportunity to make a real point will come. Don’t be so impatient that you feel compelled to create one out of nothing.
*That Wenzek drove, even at slow speed so as not to harm anyone, through the crowd in his effort to get beyond the protest doesn’t make it acceptable conduct. While protesters do not have the right to create captives of motorists driving on the road, stuck there unable to move until the protesters decide to go, there is a paramount duty of a driver not to harm a pedestrian, regardless of why the pedestrian is there. Even driving slowly through the crowd is dangerous and reckless, as it could potentially do grave harm.
Discover more from Simple Justice
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
So maybe the question should be; Why did the protesters not get a permit and permission to blockade the road with the prerequisite detour signs, ect.?
And how long should drivers have to wait until the protesters get bored and disperse from blocking the major intersection?
Most people don’t care about your (s)protest(/s) crybaby rant, they just want to get where they need to go.
I’m not inclined toward the need for government approval to protest. And much as drivers have lives totally unrelated to the protesters, they still don’t get to engage in reckless driving, sucky as it is to be held captive. None of this, however, gives rise to some white supremacist fantasy that defies obvious reality.
I’m not trying to be pedantic, but aren’t there laws on the books that prohibit blocking traffic?
Protesting on a sidewalk or in a public park is fine and everyone has that right. I agree 100 percent. But I don’t think there’s an inherent right to impede commerce by blocking major roadways and intersections.
Of course blocking traffic is against the law. Who doesn’t want protests to be totally compliant with the law?
Now that Elie has the helm, he’s wilder than ever.
When I was growing up, parents used to tell their kids, “Don’t play in the street.” That has been lost somewhere between the generations. In a similar incident some months ago, police did arrest a motorist who tried to slowly drive through a group of “protesters” obstructing the street to “protest” a police shooting of a tranny. The new logic is that “protesters” (at least appropriately “woke” ones) have the right to obstruct any and all public trafficways, and to swarm and attack any vehicle that tries to use the trafficways for their intended purpose. If any of the people jumping up and down on the car or beating on the front end of it fall down and get hurt, it is the driver’s fault. Drivers are supposed to know that they must park their vehicles and be detained by the protesters for as many days as it takes for the protesters to weary of making the streets impassable.
I’ve been chastised for being too kind to Elie, but I try to see things through his sensibilities. This time, there was no view of what happened, no matter how generous, that could justify his post.
He has been left in charge of the asylum over there, so now he is 100% unfiltered.
The video is a Rorschach test ink blot and could well be used in both law school and journalism school.
There are some calls that are close enough to serve as a litmus test of bias. This was more along the lines of DSM-5, so Rorschach is the right one.
From my latest CERN study on the relative scattering cross sections of vehicles and pedestrians:
In my new Heisenberg SUV,
You can tell where I happen to be.
But you’ve no way of knowing
How fast I am going.
If you see me, you’d better just flee!
Since I started binge watching Breaking Bad, I have a new appreciation of automotive marques.
Alternate scenario coverage:
Terror Victim Narrowly Escapes Alt-Right Violence
A college professor on his way to work narrowly escaped serious injury – or worse – on Thursday when his vehicle was attacked by a swarm of white nationalists marching in support of so-called “free speech.” The adjunct philosophy instructor was attempting to dialogue with protesters when the angry mob blocked his path out of the protest and began aggressively attacking his vehicle. As the situation escalated, he drove slowly forward through the increasing throng that sought to prevent his escape.
“I think he was trying to get through the crowd,” Lt. Adam Hawley told the News Tribune. “We don’t have any indication he was trying to harm somebody.”
“I decided the best course of action was to advance with restraint out of the situation to ensure our mutual safety,” the driver said. “I was especially worried that some of the crowd might be carrying bike locks, and I had forgotten mine at home.”
This incident is the latest in a national pattern of alt-right violence that has surged since the election of President Donald Trump.
user DecolonizeStarbucks comments:
Now will you people pay attention?!? Just imagine how the corporate media would be all over this if the situation were reversed. #LiterallyKillingUs #OnlyWokeHaveSouls #SmashNazis
Exceptionally well done. (“I had forgotten mine at him.” Brilliant.)
The sentence is beyond repair but replacing “trying to make this isn’t a white supremacist terrorist event ” with “trying to make this into a white supremacist terrorist event” would make it slightly less bad.
It was a friggin’ typo. Thanks for humiliating me. Again.
But “I had forgotten mine at him.” was. For the archives, of course, Sir.
They protest the system; claiming that the system has treated them badly. They proclaim that the system is not perfect. But as soon as someone violates a rule of the system in a way that they don’t like, they trust the system and want it to work for them, and to severely punish the transgressor.
Protest by nature goes outside the bounds of decorum and law, in order to call attention to a problem. Being so quick to employ the “bad” system to punish any opposition diminishes the credibility of their criticism.
Are you arguing hypocrisy, irony or wrinkly
It goes beyond hypocrisy; it’s weaponized cognitive dissonance. It’s like they read 1984 and thought doublethink was a good idea. They are out there protesting the government for (gasp) evicting a tiny percentage of illegal aliens from the country, and at the same time begging the government to more strictly enforce other laws. When you mix in the desire to have government more strictly regulate speech, it becomes a farce. Will they have protests to promote laws against protest?