Jump to content

Conservative law professor on Charlotte protestors: "Run them down


drvoke
 Share

Recommended Posts

1520022_1280x720.jpg

 

 

 

That twitter comment will probably cost him his job. Students will protest until he is fired.

 

 

http://www.salon.com/2016/09/22/run-them-down-glenn-reynolds-baffled-at-brief-twitter-ban-over-inflammatory-charlotte-protesters-tweet/

 

 

 

On Wednesday night, Glenn Reynolds — creator of the blog Instapundit, a University of Tennessee law professor and conservative USA Today and News Sentinel contributor had an idea about how to handle the demonstrators walking along Interstate 277. Earlier this week, the shooting death of 43-year-old Keith Lamont Scott by an African-American police officer set off a wave of protests and violence. So Reynolds, following the action on Twitter, linked to a WBTV News report and photograph of the protestors who were backing up traffic and suggested,”Run them down.”

The social-media response was quick and much of it justly appalled, with multiple people asking on Twitter for a response from the University of Tennessee and USA Today. But in the meantime, Twitter’s administration, which has come under increasing demands this year to do better in taming its deluge of abusive, violent commentary, issued a temporary suspension of Reynolds’ Instapundit account.

It sounds like the enforcement wasn’t handled with the greatest finesse. “I saw it was suspended and didn’t know why,” Reynolds told the News Sentinel on Thursday. He admitted, “Yes, that was my post. It was brief, since it was Twitter, but blocking highways is dangerous and I don’t think people should stop for a mob, especially when it’s been violent.”

Yes, and nothing says that you’re concerned about violence like suggesting protestors be mowed down.

He later edited his post to explain, “If Twitter doesn’t like me, I’m happy to stop providing them with free content. . . . I don’t even know that this is why I was suspended, as I’ve heard nothing from Twitter at all. They tell users and investors that they don’t censor, but they seem awfully quick to suspend people on one side of the debate.”

On Hugh Hewitt’s show Thursday morning, he said, “I have to say I don’t apologize for the sentiment.”

His Twitter supporters had already been hard at work hand-wringing over the “whoohoo censorship!” of the “free-speech advocate and well-known Conservative.” And in a lengthy defense on Reason, editor Nick Gillespie argued, “Whatever you think of the tastefulness of his suggestion regarding the protesters in Charlotte, the idea that he is seriously inciting any sort of actual or real threat is risible.” He added, “So, as with the banning of Milo Yiannopoulis, the alt-right Breitbart editor, we’re not talking about classic censorship here in which the government clamps down on speech it finds offensive or subversive.”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why not run them down? Police aren't doing jack about it. Innocent people are getting beat. Time to call in the National Guard and get this shit in order.

.

When I was in the Army stationed at Ft Myers, VA...I use to watch the 3RD INF do riot drills with like 4 foot batons.

 

I would not want to be standing in front of them...if they were breaking bad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1520022_1280x720.jpg

 

 

 

That twitter comment will probably cost him his job. Students will protest until he is fired.

 

 

http://www.salon.com/2016/09/22/run-them-down-glenn-reynolds-baffled-at-brief-twitter-ban-over-inflammatory-charlotte-protesters-tweet/

 

 

 

On Wednesday night, Glenn Reynolds — creator of the blog Instapundit, a University of Tennessee law professor and conservative USA Today and News Sentinel contributor had an idea about how to handle the demonstrators walking along Interstate 277. Earlier this week, the shooting death of 43-year-old Keith Lamont Scott by an African-American police officer set off a wave of protests and violence. So Reynolds, following the action on Twitter, linked to a WBTV News report and photograph of the protestors who were backing up traffic and suggested,”Run them down.”

The social-media response was quick and much of it justly appalled, with multiple people asking on Twitter for a response from the University of Tennessee and USA Today. But in the meantime, Twitter’s administration, which has come under increasing demands this year to do better in taming its deluge of abusive, violent commentary, issued a temporary suspension of Reynolds’ Instapundit account.

It sounds like the enforcement wasn’t handled with the greatest finesse. “I saw it was suspended and didn’t know why,” Reynolds told the News Sentinel on Thursday. He admitted, “Yes, that was my post. It was brief, since it was Twitter, but blocking highways is dangerous and I don’t think people should stop for a mob, especially when it’s been violent.”

Yes, and nothing says that you’re concerned about violence like suggesting protestors be mowed down.

He later edited his post to explain, “If Twitter doesn’t like me, I’m happy to stop providing them with free content. . . . I don’t even know that this is why I was suspended, as I’ve heard nothing from Twitter at all. They tell users and investors that they don’t censor, but they seem awfully quick to suspend people on one side of the debate.”

On Hugh Hewitt’s show Thursday morning, he said, “I have to say I don’t apologize for the sentiment.”

His Twitter supporters had already been hard at work hand-wringing over the “whoohoo censorship!” of the “free-speech advocate and well-known Conservative.” And in a lengthy defense on Reason, editor Nick Gillespie argued, “Whatever you think of the tastefulness of his suggestion regarding the protesters in Charlotte, the idea that he is seriously inciting any sort of actual or real threat is risible.” He added, “So, as with the banning of Milo Yiannopoulis, the alt-right Breitbart editor, we’re not talking about classic censorship here in which the government clamps down on speech it finds offensive or subversive.”

Inciting racial violence. the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Self defense: Texas law

 

 

This would cover driving over rioters, and even resisting police if they are unlawful (ymmv)

 

SELF-DEFENSE. (a) Except as provided in Subsection (B), a person is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force. The actor's belief that the force was immediately necessary as described by this subsection is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:

(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the force was used:

(A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor's occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;

(B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor's habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or

© was committing or attempting to commit aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery;

(2) did not provoke the person against whom the force was used; and

(3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used.

(B) The use of force against another is not justified:

(1) in response to verbal provocation alone;

(2) to resist an arrest or search that the actor knows is being made by a peace officer, or by a person acting in a peace officer's presence and at his direction, even though the arrest or search is unlawful, unless the resistance is justified under Subsection ©;

(3) if the actor consented to the exact force used or attempted by the other;

(4) if the actor provoked the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force, unless:

(A) the actor abandons the encounter, or clearly communicates to the other his intent to do so reasonably believing he cannot safely abandon the encounter; and

(B) the other nevertheless continues or attempts to use unlawful force against the actor; or

(5) if the actor sought an explanation from or discussion with the other person concerning the actor's differences with the other person while the actor was:

(A) carrying a weapon in violation of Section 46.02; or

(B) possessing or transporting a weapon in violation of Section 46.05.

© The use of force to resist an arrest or search is justified:

(1) if, before the actor offers any resistance, the peace officer (or person acting at his direction) uses or attempts to use greater force than necessary to make the arrest or search; and

(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the peace officer's (or other person's) use or attempted use of greater force than necessary.

(d) The use of deadly force is not justified under this subchapter except as provided in Sections 9.32, 9.33, and 9.34.

(e) A person who has a right to be present at the location where the force is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the force is used is not required to retreat before using force as described by this section.

(f) For purposes of Subsection (a), in determining whether an actor described by Subsection (e) reasonably believed that the use of force was necessary, a finder of fact may not consider whether the actor failed to retreat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Ha war shootin' up in tha alley-ah

When a brutha whub ma kinky hay-odd.

Ha seed tha niggurs in tha valley-ah

An that when ha knowed ha war day-odd.

 

A choir of jun-gull bunney-ahs

Glistenin' fine-smellin' jig-ah-boos . . . . ."

 

 

Who knows the rest of the lyrics to the stirring old shitskin hymn, "Niggurs In Tha Valley-ah?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Reginald Danny would agree.... Down shift and roll

 

Reginald Denny you moron. He forgave his attacker YOU MORON/PEDOPHILE!

 

Republican Mayor Philip Giordano is serving a 37-year sentence in federal prison for sexually abusing 8- and 10-year old girls.

 

Republican Mayor John Gosek was arrested on charges of soliciting sex from two 15-year old girls.

 

Republican County Commissioner David Swartz pleaded guilty to molesting two girls under the age of 11 and was sentenced to 8 years in prison.

 

Republican legislator Edison Misla Aldarondo was sentenced to 10 years in prison for raping his daughter between the ages of 9 and 17.

 

Republican Committeeman John R. Curtain was charged with molesting a teenage boy and unlawful sexual contact with a minor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...