Republicans ‘Make Bigotry Great Again’
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
You might think it was a crime, but last week, a grand jury did not.
The reference is to the case of one Jared Lafer. He is a white man in his 20s who, in September of last year, was driving in Johnson City, Tennessee, when he came upon a small group of Black Lives Matter protesters in a crosswalk. According to witnesses, Lafer’s SUV bumped a man named Johnathon Bowers, whereupon Bowers, standing directly in front of the vehicle, smacked the hood to get Lafer’s attention. In response, Lafer allegedly accelerated, plowing through the group and leaving Bowers with two broken legs — all of it captured on cellphone video.
Instead of stopping, Lafer continued home to Bakersville, across the border in North Carolina. There, he hired a lawyer and turned himself in two days later. His level of contrition might be judged from his social-media activity afterward. The Tennessee Holler, a self-described “progressive news site,” grabbed a screenshot of a since-deleted posting: a meme of a relieved-looking man with the caption: “When you thought you hit a dog but turns out it was just a looter.”
To which someone named “Jared Lafer” responds, “This is GREAT!” with a laughing-till-you-cry emoji. Lafer is also reported to have called Black Lives Matter a “Marxist” group.
Yet the grand jury declined to indict him, determining that — the video and the eyewitnesses notwithstanding — there was insufficient evidence to do so. “This is not a case about racism,” defense attorney Mac Meade said. Because of course not. It never is. The attorney, according to WLOS-TV in Asheville, explained that Lafer simply “did what he felt was necessary to get out of a situation that he felt was dangerous to his family.”
So, just to make sure we’ve all got the picture: He’s the one who was armed with over two tons of motor vehicle while the protesters were armed with signs, peaceably using a crosswalk. But he’s the victim. He’s the one who was so threatened he was entitled to use potentially lethal force.
As signs of the times go, this one is neon.
It is impossible to separate this from a spate of laws recently passed or under consideration in Republican fiefdoms to protect motorists who drive through — or over — protesters. But more broadly, what happened here is reflective of what is happening in this country as it abandons the process of seriously grappling with its heritage of racial oppression — and with the effort to repair the damage thereof — that began in the civil-rights years. We have slid from that lofty peak of aspiration and idealism to this marshy ground of delusion and lies where many white people now firmly believe they are the true victims of racial oppression, where it is a matter of controversy just to declare that Black lives matter, where Jared Lafer walks free.
That process has gone on for decades, but it accelerated under the last president, who coddled white supremacy, who gave it a platform and a sheen of respectability it had not enjoyed since the 1950s. Now its theories are promoted on cable news and embraced by Republican lawmakers. The motto of these last years might as well have been “Make Bigotry Great Again,” because that’s what the GOP did.
And this is the price we pay. A white man with a demonstrated antipathy toward Black Lives Matter protesters drives through them in a crosswalk, injures a man — and flees the scene. You’d think that would be a crime. But this is America in 2021.
So you would be mistaken.
Tags
Who is online
118 visitors
Is it TX or FL where the governor has made it legal to run over protesters? Sometimes it is hard to remember as both states have so much in common and not in a good way.
But this is a white conservative North Carolina man in Tennessee, there was really never any chance he'd ever be indicted. Of course if it was the same location with a black North Carolinian in Tennessee ramming his car into a KKK or neo-Nazi protestors crossing a crosswalk breaking both the legs of a white conservative Christian and dirtying his white sheet there would have been charges and a conviction.
Mere speculation on your part.
Yeah, protesters never beat innocent people. Trust people breaking the law to protect you.
That's Lafer.
My problem with this scenario is that we can call these "peaceful" rallies, and maybe they are, but be peaceful on the sidewalk, rally peacefully on the lawn of City Hall, or in front of the police station, etc. Once your rally takes you into the street, for the purpose of disrupting the flow of traffic...you play at your own risk. I'm not supporting your right to peacefully assemble in the middle of the road, for the purpose of blocking traffic.
There were a spate of these incidents. Here's another.
The other issue is that a grand jury didn't find enough evidence to proceed. Charges were brought though. Maybe they see it differently under the following scenario, who knows?
At the 32 second mark of the top video the white suv is stopped. At the 34 second mark he is intentionally running someone over. That person could have been killed.
Do you think running someone over was justified?
Look on the bright side---maybe the dumbfuck protesters learned they are incapable of stopping a 3000 pound vehicle, and perhaps they should stop walking in the damn middle of the roads.
I don't condone just running over people haphazardly, but WTF do they think they are doing in the fucking road anyways?
If the driver felt endangered, yes.
Exactly. And if there hadn't been as many incidents of drivers being intimidated or outright assaulted by "peaceful" protestors in the streets then some of these incidents likely would have never happened.
The dumb asses shouldn't have been forcibly blocking the street.
BLM should quit attacking and annoying innocent civilians with their phony grievances.
Correct verdict
Maybe in Tennessee they dont care if drivers run over protesters who have blocked their way for a few seconds but I dont think he would have received such favorable treatment elsewhere in the country.
Tell me why again protesters have the right to impede the legal movements of others?
There are a whole lot of places where you get very little sympathy if you're injured while committing a crime.
remember the atari video game frogger?
Absolutely not. That is assault with a deadly weapon and attempted murder.
I've been in the situation. I didn't run over anyone, but I got out and whipped that ass. Some dumbass beats on my hood, he's gonna get what he has asked for. My response may change, depending on how many dumbasses are blocking the road, and who I have with me. My family, large crowd beating on my car? Yeah, can't say I get out there. Can't say I don't lay someone down either.
My thoughts are these.
If you are talking about justification...it's different in every circumstance. The videos you were so eager to discard showed different circumstances. The last appears to show a guy that was able to remove himself from the situation, by turning around, only to come at the intersection from a different direction, at high speed, running over several people. I don't think he would be justified. Someone blocked in...maybe the jury or grand jury sees it differently.
I think allowing these bastards to block traffic, without consequence, is a bad practice. If the LEOs aren't going to put a stop to it, then you can't blame a citizen for running down a dumbass that is standing in the road. Keep your ass on the sidewalk.
In the middle video the black vehicle is "stopped" by three or four protesters for appx. 20 seconds, apparently peacefully, before the driver drives into them. Fortunately he was going slowly enough for them to get out the way. I dont think drivers are allowed to run peaceful protesters over because they were delayed by 20 seconds.
Why do you think it's peaceful? They're actively trying to stop traffic coming from several directions. Who knows what they intended to do?
What gave the protesters a right to impede anyone's legal movements?
Then call a cop. If someone blocks your path as you are walking down a street , can you shoot them?
Depends on where you live, Some liberal cities give protesters magical, special rights that others don't have.
Tell me again why protesters have the right to impede the legal movements of anyone?
I watched the video. I didnt see any gestures indicating violence. Do you think it is ok to drive your car into people who are blocking your way?
Do you think protesters should have a legal right to impede legal movements by others, and if so, why?
Yeah. Riiiight. You should definitely keep 911 on the line while they drag you from the car and beat you lifeless.
I know you like to look at liberals through rose-colored lenses, but in the real world these incidents can go spectacularly wrong. There is zero justification for these idiots blocking the road. I don't wish injury on them, I just wish they were smarter.
But if you're standing in the middle of the road, you can hardly complain when you get hit by a car.
I dont know whether or not they have the "right". If they dont have the right you call a cop unless your life or health is in danger. I dont see anyone in danger in the first three videos . You cant just run people over because they are aggravating you.
The guy in Johnson City intentionally ran over people who were peacefully blocking his way. The video shows nothing else.
Not your call, it didn't happen to you.
Dumbasses standing in roads made for vehicles MIGHT get run over, that is just a fact.
If the protesters weren't in the road, pretty sure none of them would have been hit by a car.
No such thing as peacefully blocking the way of anyone who wants to drive on a roadway. The protesters shouldn't have been there to begin with.
Utter nonsense. If someone steps in front of you on a sidewalk and blocks your path, can you hit them with a baseball bat?
Kidnapping is the unlawful restraining of a person by force. In at least one state deadly force is allowed as a self-defense. Your question is no slam-dunk.
Are you trying to say that if someone steps in front of you on a sidewalk and blocks your path they could be charged with kidnapping ? Good luck with that one.
If someone impedes my progress, I consider that a threat, so yes, if they attempt to block me from where I am LEGALLY allowed to go, then hell YES.
Are you of the mind that protesters have special rights or something?
What would you do if a KKK rally blocked your path as you were driving? If they made driving unsafe because of THEIR actions alone? You think they can tell you where you are allowed to drive now?
You have no idea what was said, if threats were made, or what took place. The report said the idiot slapped or punched the hood of the car.
It depends. If it's a little old lady or a mother with children or somebody who drops something and needs to pick it up or anyone who's struggling to get across the street, then no, it's not OK.
If somebody attacks you or is attacking your car and you have reason to believe it's escalating, then you absolutely do what you need to do to get out of there.
In the case of "protesters", I'd personally probably never run over one unless gunshots had already been fired.
That said, I have no sympathy for people who think reality should not apply to them because....."feelings". The rest of the world has been taught from a very young age that you don't stand in the middle of the street because you might get hit by a car.
But that somehow isn't supposed to apply to "protesters". They feel utterly entitled to do whatever they want, with wanton disregard for physics, math, reality in general, and anything anybody else might want. So they howl with outrage when their idiotic actions result in completely predictable consequences.
By which you mean "committing a crime".
If someone steps in front of me on the sidewalk for the sole purpose of preventing me from going where I want to go...I'm definitely moving them.
The video clearly shows him running over someone who was just standing there. There is no chance it was an accident.
What happened before or after the few seconds that are seen on the video we dont know.
I did read a story where someone who was a witness to the incident said it was "outrageous" that the driver was not indicted.
I never said it was an accident.
Exactly.
A witness who was part of the protesters? You would kinda expect them to say that.
You keep moving the goal posts but my point is that the answers arent as simple as you present.
“If someone impedes my progress, I consider that a threat,”
Really? Seriously? It wouldn’t sway you to their way of thinking? Lol.
But seriously, what type of moron would think that inconveniencing others, or perhaps instilling fear in them, is a good way to sway them to join, or be sympathetic, to their cause?
if these idiots cause people to fear for their safety, put the pedal to the metal people.
you didnt really give much information in that scenario.
i would first have to assertain if the blocking was intentional or not , i would do that by trying to side step towards the street to go around , if they move to continue blocking i then have to determine the purpose or reason they are doing so , i can do that by taking a step back and stepping again to the side and making a motion for them to proceed by me , if they refuse , i can pretty much say it wasnt an accident and that it was done so purposely , i then have o figure out if it was done under agression , with intended violence or a direct threat .
Usually by then one will know what is going on so , one can bring a knee up if close enough to drive their balls out of their mouth , throat punch them and end it with no loss of life , or use even more agressive things such as a knife or straight razor across a cheek or throat , or a firearm if one is carried , carrying a ball bat is not exactly something one would do inconspicuously and not attract attention . but yes once the situation has been determined to be agressive , hostile or with violent intent , force to stop the issue woud be warrented and likely end up with the one who started it wishing they had not .
it is an inherent human right to defend ones self as deemed nessisary by ones self that need not be included in the constitution or the laws . that does not mean one would not have to answer to the law .
The bottom video doesnt show the circumstances clearly enough to be of use here.
So, he was stopped and after that the hood was banged on? Remember Reginald Denny? What do you think he would do differently today?
Never, ever stop!
In PA, they start falling as soon as the door is pulled open.
Many years ago, Vons went on strike. I did my shopping there as it was only 3 blocks from my house. I honored the strike and used Mom and Pop stores even if it cost more to do so. I did use Vons for the ATM though and would always tell the protesters exactly why I was going in and usually got a thumb's up. But one day I needed something my M/P stores did not have. Six protesters bunched together and blocked the entrance. I told them that if they thought their actions would stop me from going in to think again. I said it with such conviction that they parted like the Red Sea. The cops showed up as they violated one of the conditions to strike there, not blocking any entrance or exit. All six got citations. Would I ever run one over one with my car if they blocked me in prohibiting me from going in any direction, hell no. I would call the cops under a charge of false imprisonment.