We have freedoms here in America. And you have the freedom to burn the nation's flag if you want. Its covered under 1A. No one is forcing you to. And people who do burn it look like dipshits who bite the hand that feeds. But that's what is great about America. Freedom and individualism.
@Ita Mori , flag burning was upheld by the US Supreme Court as freedom of expression protected by the Constitution's First Amendment. Hand in hand with
@tehpope 's answer, just because it's legal doesn't necessarily mean it's a good idea. Those that do it tend be seen more as edgelords than protestors with valid grievances. There's also an irony in people wanting to destroy the symbol of a place that grants them freedom of expression not always found elsewhere.
The fact that we were supposed to be so for free expression that you could burn a flag was monumental. You know the leftists will publically skin you for burning the flag of their envisioned utopia if they got their way, and all protesting would be met with executions and the execution of your family, because if you have any complaints it is only admitting that you are evil.
These same people that proudly burn the US flag are likely the first to cry "Hate crime" or "Erasure" if someone wanted to burn one of their flags or emblems as a form of protest.
Once you raise a firearm and aim at a human target, that's technically assault in many jurisdictions.
IANAL, either, but I believe this might fall under the concept of simple assault which includes words and actions that make a reasonable person feel unnecessarily threatened. This is why it's important for weapons owners to know the applicable laws when the time comes for them to defend themselves. For example, some places might consider firing a warning shot in the air careless discharge because there's no way to know where the bullets will come down and whether they might strike/kill innocent bystanders.
And that my friends is the insidious poison these fools are trying to inject into our society. Racial division.
Just as COVID-19 didn't necessarily drive the wedge between people as some wanted as part of their campaign of FUD (fear, uncertainty, and doubt), most normies haven't yet bought into a wedge of racial division as shown by most average people of various races still getting along and worried more about daily challenges than each other.
Shouldn't it be, I don't know, report the facts and let us make up our minds? Why does it have to be a game of "MY SIDE HAS TO WIN DAMNIT!!!"
Not to mention the media's game of, "We decide what you see and think, not you."
I think it's credible this guy was simply confused. If there was no other traffic maybe it's possible he could have gone the wrong way onto the road.
Older freeways built in urban or downtown areas might have unavoidable curves if there was limited right of way or buildings that couldn't be demolished or relocated for whatever reason. It can be quite scary as a driver to be driving at or below posted speed, enter such a curve, and find something on the other end that shouldn't be there that requires a fast response to avoid a nasty accident.
For similar reasons, some of these freeways' exit and entrance ramps end up configured in unusual -- sometimes confusing -- ways as well. It's easy to find one' self about to get on the wrong ramp in such a situation if one isn't paying attention to signage and/or pavement markings.
Not knowing the area or what led up to the event, it remains to be seen how he managed to get on the freeway past the blockade. However, it's understandable that he likely had an "Oh shit!" moment when rounded and the curve and swerved to avoid the vehicles blocking the main lanes only to find pedestrians on the shoulder that he couldn't avoid -- especially when it looks like they moved into his path when they would have otherwise been safe behind their makeshift barrier.
Maybe his car has a hit-and-run prevention feature installed that prevents the car from running after a recent collision. Teslas have similarly invasive features, why not other modern cars?
As much as I can understand the theory and reasoning behind this, it's concerning if such a vehicle auto-disables itself even if it's still driveable. In an incident like this, a car that self-disables while an angry mob converges on the driver is an undesirable situation. Drivers need to be able to leave the scene of an accident if the car is driveable and circumstances warrant it or even necessitate it.
They're also kind of throwing the protesters under the bus in statements in the article which to me indicates they aren't automatically siding with the protesters:
From the passage you quoted, "Mead said at the press conference that protesters had shut down the interstate for 19 days in a row."
If this hadn't taken place out west, I'd be wondering why local officials were allowing protestors to block a major freeway route for 19 consecutive days wow. Unfortunately, I'm not optimistic enough to think that this will encourage the city to finally take action against the protestors for impeding traffic or make the protestors realize this was a bad idea that needs to stop before more people get hurt or killed.
As much as I hope the driver has a good enough attorney to exonerate him, I would wonder if a trial would see the argument raised that protesters gathered in the middle of a freeway and moving towards a swerving vehicle (per the video clips seen here) creates unclean hands or a case for comparative negligence.