I’ve been following the news and distortions of what has been happening in Charlotte. So far, I think the worst article I’ve read is from the Daily Mail: ‘He was allowed to drive away alive’: White motorist armed with a GUN is filmed driving slowly through crowd of protesters in Charlotte.
What unfolded in situation covered in this article is important considering all the other discussion about what to do if you find yourself in a car surrounded by violent protesters. The Daily Mail covered the account as described by the writer Heather Head.
White dude drives into crowd of peaceful protesters, draws gun, allowed to drive away alive. With my own eyes. #CharlotteProtest,’ she wrote alongside the shocking clip.
There are some details that watching the video (in the Daily Mail article) that this terrible assessment fails to cover. First and foremost, the protesters were not “peaceful” by any means. I am not a lawyer, but shouting “no justice, no peace” in the middle of a riot is prima facie evidence that they are not peaceful. The protesters had advanced on the man in his car and surrounded it. Some people were actually pounding on the car.
The Daily Mail admits to all this but doesn’t seem to acknowledge what it means: ‘No justice, no peace,’ the group are heard chanting before they spot the man’s weapon.
It is at that point the gun come out. INSTANTLY the situation changes. The once aggressive protesters back away from the car as one yells “he’s got a gun.” You can see phones come out and record the man in the car with the gun. The attitude of the protesters suddenly shifts to crybully victim. They were fine being the ones in power, being aggressive and threatening. The second they found out that their intended victim was willing to fight back, they decided it wasn’t fair.
The Daily Mail then proceeds to make some statements that are deliberately inflaming and a distortion of reality.
The man was reportedly allowed to drive away from the scene.
Allowed to drive away by who? The police? I didn’t see a single cop anywhere in that scene. I’m pretty sure most of them were busy else where controlling a riot. Should the police have detained the man? How about the rioters? They “allowed” him to drive away, but they had no authority to keep him from driving away in the first place. By blocking his leaving the scene, they were engaged in criminal activity.
Although open carry is legal in North Carolina, it is illegal to openly carry a gun at a protest. The law states: ‘You may not carry a weapon at a parade, funeral procession, picket line, or other demonstration, except for guns carried on a rack in a pickup truck. ‘You may not carry a weapon during civil disorder, riot, or other disturbance involving three or more people.’
That is true, not just in NC, but in most states. The idea being, you can’t take a gun to a riot. Makes sense. But this is irrelevant if the riot comes to you. I don’t know all the facts about what happened here, but from everything else I read about how many other people were trapped in cars surrounded by protesters; I am going to assume that this man was trying to get away from the protest and was not part of it. If that is the case, he didn’t go to the protest with a gun. He had a gun and the protest found him.
‘I wish no ill on anyone. I just want the truth out. I want people to recognize that racism exists, it’s real, and it has real consequences.’ [Heather Head]
So racism is the reason this man did what he did? Not wanting to become the Charlotte version of Reginald Denny wasn’t it? It is now racist to not want to be beat, perhaps to death, by rioting BLM activists? I severely doubt that “you are a racist for not letting a black man vent his anger from a history of systematic oppression by kicking in your skull” will fly as an argument for all but the most ardent progressives.
This happened the same night and not far from where the “white man in a car with a gun” incident occurred (original video is unavailable):
Some might argue that what the guy in the car did was brandishing, and therefore illegal. Given the circumstances, I think (again, I’m not a lawyer and I’m not giving advice) was the best possible outcome. The way I see it. The threat to the man was real. Had he followed Glenn Reynolds advice, people would have gotten hurt.
This way, the man got away without anybody being injured or killed, except maybe for some crybully butt-hurt. The presence of the gun deescalated the situation by making the rioters back off.
I think the only thing that the man did that was wrong was to stick the gun out the window. That increased the risk it could have been taken from him. I would have kept my window up in that situation. Then again, my windows aren’t tinted.
This was (again, I’m not a lawyer) a valid defensive gun use, even though no shots were fired. A potentially deadly situation was averted. But of course, the media can’t spin in like that.
Personally, I’d rather have to flash my piece from inside my truck than have to power wash rioter off of a winch bumper.