Regardless if someone is illegally in the road or not, that does not give you the right to run them over or attempt to push them out of the way with your vehicle, full stop. That would still be considered vehicular assault. Note that the other vehicles in the situation were being left alone.
These road blockades have a long history of attacking drivers and should always be assumed to be violent, the movements have completely failed to police themselves and so if there's no police around assume the worst and let a jury sort it out.
Especially since this comes off the heels of a person literally being murdered just like that in Seattle.
It's clearly an accident, not premeditated murder.
> At about 1:30 a.m. Saturday, the suspect allegedly drove into a group of protesters on a section that the WSP had closed about midnight. Mead said a car drove around a series of “support vehicles” that protesters were using to block I-5 and protect themselves, and onto the shoulder of the freeway, where protesters were standing.
> “A vehicle drove through the closure and struck multiple pedestrians on the freeway,” Trooper Rick Johnson said in a tweet. [1]
Actual video of the murder in question [2]. The driver was driving on the wrong side of the road, drove past multiple barricades and swerved into protesters. He hit them and then fled the scene. I'm going to assume good faith and say you were not aware of these updates.
[1] https://ktvz.com/news/national-world/2020/07/05/seattle-prot...
[2] https://twitter.com/4t4r11/status/1279470869774061568?s=20
The Provo event happened June 29. The Seattle event happened early morning July 4th.
And what in the links you post show poster to which you are responding is objectively wrong?
At this point it appears you are disregarding facts all together and arguing from some type of religious fervor. Something like a young earth creationist. I don't mean this in an offensive fashion but just as a reality check for you.
And the video shows that the car was the aggressor (and yes, revving your engine like that is assault even by itself. Assault can just be a legitimate threat of violence). It also shows that the car hit protesters, which is now aggravated assault with a deadly weapon.
You don't get to run people over just because they're in the street when you start from a standstill.
Ok, but that is the case referred to as clearly showed by the links. So it didn't "come on the heels".
"and yes, revving your engine like that is assault"
No it isn't. Particularly not the level of assault that justifies a shooting.
"You don't get to run people over just because they're in the street"
Agreed. Neither do you get to shoot people for revving their engine. Why would you even try to defend that?
They only brought the links out once a third person was clearly referencing the I5 incident and spreading falsehoods about it.
There was about a dozen recent instances of cars running through protesters prior to this.
> No it isn't.
You do know the car wasn't in a lane anymore, right? That road only has two car lanes and a bus lane. That SUV is driving through a bike lane, and probably a bit on the sidewalk.
I'm not saying the shooter was justified, but I am saying that the SUV committed assault by driving through protesters before being shot at.
The immediate threat of violence with the capacity to carry it out is assault, yes; completed violence is battery or worse.
Now that said, I want you to watch the video and tell me how it was an accident. The driver drove to the highway using the wrong entrance past multiple barriers (as said by the police), turned around, drove past another set of cars blocking him and then proceeded to swerve into two individuals and then drive away.
Can you tell me which part of that video indicates it was an accident?
That's optimistic, as the conflict between reality and their argument is probably what has elevated the fervor.