She's a "liberal" in the ACLU sense. Civil rights apply to everyone, even the assholes and douchebags. She defends the assholes and douchebags.
Racist July 4th attack at Lake Monroe
- Thread starter cosmickid
- Start date
LOL. The MAGA lawyers have the answer. This is the reason law is supposed to be above politics. Disgraceful.
Politics have nothing to do with my opinion on the matter. YOU are politicizing it. MAGA is an embarrassment as is our president, but people like you assume after reading a couple of posts that everyone is as simple minded as you & can only see one side of every issue. You are no better than the alt-right, just a different brand of close minded...
So this seems to represent your viewpoint... The article from the Star discusses the fact that so far in Indiana there have been 3 incidents in 3 cities (Mishawaka, Indy, and here in Bloomington) where drivers hit pedestrians in the aftermath of a protest. At the very least, the driver in each case failed to Yield the Right of Way to pedestrians...
"As accounts and footage of these incidents make their way to social media, a common defense levied in support of the drivers is that protesters should stay out of the street if they don't want to be hit.
Marion County Prosecutor Ryan Mears previously told IndyStar that restricting a roadway in Indiana can potentially lead to a misdemeanor charge." But here is the "but"...
"But Mears added that if someone is driving a vehicle, that person ALWAYS has to yield to pedestrians, whether or not the driver necessarily has the right-of-way."
Now I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say that Law Enforcement has viewed the video. People on this board seem to downplay the fact that the protestor was standing in a crosswalk. But my guess is the crosswalk factor plays a huge role in the preliminary charges being TWO counts of Criminal recklessness and TWO counts of leaving the scene.
Now after doing a little digging I actually feel like the charge of recklessness may be upgraded to something more substantial...
A common element of recklessness...
"Driving at dangerously high speeds in a residential neighborhood or an area where there are several pedestrians." Also failure to yield- since she drove thru a crosswalk...
"In any recklessness claim, the main factor is that the defendant had knowledge that their conduct was dangerous to those around them. If the defendant was unaware, the court will consider whether the defendant should have known that their actions were dangerous." (Even if you try to claim she didn't know it was dangerous to drive at an inappropriate rate of speed in the center of Bloomington with someone on your hood and your view obstructed, I'm guessing the SHOULD HAVE KNOWN element would come in to play...
Now admittedly I'm not a lawyer, but I'm thinking the circumstances are going to make meeting these burdens of proof fairly elementary
"In order to prove that the defendant is guilty of recklessness, the plaintiff will generally need to meet the following elements:
- The defendant intended to commit the act in question;
- The defendant knew that such actions would pose a risk of harm;
- The risk of harm is in itself unreasonable, and greater than negligent action; and
- The defendant knew, or had reason to know, that others could be present and directly in harm’s way"
Two other incidents in Mishawaka and Indy involving drivers hitting protestors have resulted in Investigations. Charges haven't yet been filed in Mishawaka (as of Thurs) but the Police had forwarded the investigation and recommended charges.
The incident in Indy has resulted in criminal recklessness charges with the enhancement of a level 6 felony involving the use of a deadly weapon...
Notice the parallels and also key differences between Indy and Bloomington...
"On the night of June 8, a woman driving a minivan struck and injured multiple people protesting in Monument Circle.
Diane Goebel, 68, has been charged with a Level 6 felony count of criminal recklessness with a deadly weapon in connection to the incident.
Goebel is accused of accelerating her Toyota Sienna minivan into a crowd of pedestrians around 8:30 p.m..
According to court documents, which relied on witness testimony and video footage from nearby businesses, Goebel was driving east on the south side of the circle when she approached a group of protesters as the day's demonstrations were winding down.
Surveillance footage later showed Goebel attempting to "move forward through a narrow gap in the pedestrians," according to court documents. One pedestrian walked in front of the minivan, followed by a second.
Court documents say the minivan "continues to slowly roll forward." The pedestrians have their back to the car and "appear to bend backwards." The minivan briefly stops but then moves forward again, pushing the pedestrians.
As more protesters surrounded the vehicle, some began to strike the hood and sides of the minivan, court documents said. Several were in front of the vehicle and on the hood when it accelerated. It then stopped abruptly, throwing people from the hood.
Goebel increased speed again and drove away. At least four people told police they were hurt during the incident."
Now in Bennett's case no one "hit" her car. The young lady merely put her hands on the hood, prior to Bennett driving forward and accelerating very rapidly.
Now, this (IMO ) is key...
"Goebel told police she was driving around stopped traffic when people broke her right side windows and dented her fender. She said one woman jumped on her car, so she slammed her brakes.
Goebel said she drove to Pennsylvania Street, stopped and called 911. Video of the incident showed broken glass and what might have been a damaged windshield wiper on the street after the van drove away.
Prosecutor Mears told IndyStar that accounts from Goebel and at least one witness that protesters were hitting her vehicle factored into the charging decision."
Now I could be totally misreading that last sentence. But I took it to mean that the Prosecutor was considering the damage to her car and the fact that she called 911 (neither of which are an element of the Bloomington case) as MITIGATING FACTORS in her FAVOR. In other words, the charge might have been even more serious had she not experienced damage to her car and at least called to report that people had been injured...
But the main reason I feel an upgrade in charges against Bennett is likely is this key passage...
"Multiple witnesses said Bennett seemed to drive through the protest intentionally. According to Citizens Protest Response and Safety, a group providing security, medical assistance, and other services for the protests, Bennett said she was going to run protesters over."
https://www.indystar.com/story/news...e-reports-cars-hitting-protesters/5396540002/
Again I'm no lawyer, but that's my take.
Last edited:
Walking across the street is different than standing in the road to block it. I’m not encouraging drivers to mow down crowds of people, but on the other hand, if you don’t want to get run over, get out of the road...
So in other words, you’ve got nothing. Boy, I’ll bet your a world class lawyer with that kind of argumentative skill. Dumb & lazy.
I'm sure the bolded flys with Trump's base. But the wall is ONLY important to those folks, and that is why his approval numbers have tanked with Dems and Independents. Not only are there fewer registered GOP voters than Dems, but in a number of states registered Independents now outnumber Pubs as well...
He made a choice and defunded key programs that had been supported by both Dem and GOP Administrations to placate his base and fund their pet project. He gambled on not needing an adequate pandemic response plan and the means to implement it and he lost. So now he has to pay the piper, and try to get re-elected with approval numbers in the high 30s and trailing in states (like GA, OH, NC, etc...) that he won handily in 2016. The reality is that he's succeeded in not only basically assuring his own defeat, but he's put the GOP in danger of not only losing their majority but losing relatively safe seats like MT and IA in the process...
It sounds then like Joe should be expected to win in a landslide. Never underestimate the power of The Donald and his silent majority. Belittling him may come back to bite you in the ass a second time, one for each cheek. Wouldn’t that be something...having it happen again, the humiliation.
Again the protestors say their goal was to keep her from driving ahead and putting people further up Walnut who were still milling around at risk. The video basically shows other people in the street ahead of her who are forced to scramble out of the way as she barrels thru.
I actually think the scooter was left intentionally in he crosswalk in order to force drivers to slow down and stop without necessitating someone being in the crosswalk. It was only when the fat guy got out of the car and tossed the scooter aside that the young girl walked up to stand in front of the car.
Look at this passage from the court documents in the Indy case, and then watch this short clip to see how the actions of the drivers mirror each other...And keep in mind, Indy did not involve a vehicle stopped at a crosswalk. But look at the way Bennett inches forward and pushes the girl back, forcing her to step backward and eventually jump on the hood...
"Surveillance footage later showed Goebel attempting to "move forward through a narrow gap in the pedestrians," according to court documents. One pedestrian walked in front of the minivan, followed by a second.
Court documents say the minivan "continues to slowly roll forward." The pedestrians have their back to the car and "appear to bend backward." The minivan briefly stops but then moves forward again, pushing the pedestrians.
While the girl in this video is facing the car, you can clearly see her take about 4 or 5 steps back and be forced to bend forward when initially she was standing straight up. She appears to sense she is losing her balance and jumps on the hood reflexively. Guessing she felt/hoped that would force Bennett to stop, but instead Bennett accelerates and takes off...
The protestor may have also felt that since the passenger was standing outside, that it was unlikely the driver would drive thru the crosswalk and take off. You can see that he has to scramble to get back in, so it's not like he was expecting her to take off while he wasn't in the car. Which makes her actions appear even more crazy and unexpected...
I actually do expect a landslide. And how can you clam a candidate that loses the popular vote in 2016 by nearly 3 Million to his opponent, and has another 8 Million votes cast for 3rd party candidates represents anything approaching a "majority"? The last GOP Presidential candidate to garner anything close to a majority of votes cast was Bush 1.
The Dems even increased their popular vote majorities in the 2018 midterms getting an 8.6% popular vote advantage. In raw numbers that translated into 10 Million more votes for Dems than Pubs in the House and 11 Million more in the Senate. I don't think the Pubs won a single consequential race against a Dem incumbent in any state that didn't vote for Trump 2 yrs earlier in 2016. And in fact, the Pubs lost both key statewide races (Senate and Governor) in each of the 3 key states (MI, WI, and PA) which provided Trump with the EVs to get him to 270 in 2016. That's what I call "buyers remorse", 2 yrs in...
I don’t get some of the arguments here. It doesn’t matter if they should’ve been in the road or not. The lady was in no danger and had no right or reason to run them over. She could’ve easily backed up and gone down another road or, if she was dead set in going down that particular road, called the police and had it cleared out.
I don’t get why they were blocking the road. Get the fvck out of the road, simple enough.
Doesn’t matter why. They could have been BBQ’ing and she wouldn’t have a right to run them over.
I think the Democrats lost a lot of votes when they tore down the historical monuments in the parks. That showed us the kind of people they are in a dramatic way. They're the kind you don't want to be associated with. It's really that simple.
So than when you said that the media wasn't reporting her blood alcohol level for a reason, you were just making that up because you had to come up with some conspiracy theory because there was no humanly possible way they could have gotten it from her.
The lady was arrested and charged. Don't you think the police watched videos and interviewed people that were there? Not everything is a conspiracy. Maybe, just maybe, she was in the wrong.
But, you are sure reaching in your mind with everything going on right now.
Nobody really knows anything about the incident at this point in time, other than someone was on the hood of this lady's car while a guy was grabbing her door handle. I was just speculating how it might go down in a court of law. The media reports what they think their readership wants to hear, before the truth is known. I don't think the lady will be convicted of anything. What are you thinking, it was another attempted murder crime like Booker is claiming by the group of goober's failed hanging attempt?
He also attended and graduated from Punahou, the most exclusive and expensive private school in Hawaii.
What I find funny is you tried to attack the media on not reporting on something that they could never have reported on, her blood alcohol level, because she got arrested two days later. We have people that say the media makes things up to fit their agenda, yet when they don't do it, they don't do it to to fit their agenda. Seems kinda backwards, no?
You're trying really hard to discredit the victims in these scenarios here. The authorities have enough evidence to arrest the woman for felony charges that left one person hurt pretty bad and is lucky that she wasn't hurt worse. I think that the lady us getting what is coming to her and that's her day in court and from what it looks like, many days in a jail cell.
When one stands in harm’s way, one risks being harmed along the way. It’s the chance people choose to take.
Your deflection game is strong. You throw out things and hope it sticks to something and when called on it, you use generic lines that fit your criteria. You tried to say this lady was drunk and the media was hiding the fact and when called on it, tried to deflect about something else. That's your playbook, I see. You can't stay with the facts and have make things up to fit your narrative.
Do you not trust the cops in this instance that did the investigation, did interviews and made the arrest?
Let me tell you something, son..it is okay if I call you son, isn’t it? When I retired to the gravy portion of life, I suddenly realized that my remaining days are limited, relatively speaking, God willing. I decided then and there I was going to start believing what I wanted to believe and what I want to believe are only happy things. Let me give you an example...I don’t believe that group downtown B-town should have been protesting a reported murder attempt via tree hanging because it was a protest over an incident that didn’t happen. All I saw in the Monroe Lake videos was a relatively minor altercation that would have taken place even if the one black guy had been another white guy. Someone is overhead calling him a “nappy head”? That term hasn’t been used since Jussie Smollett’s scam. It’s no worse than us mocking Keady’s comb-over or Trump as “Carrot-top”. This Booker kid is nothing but a scam artist himself, hiding behind racism and all the other zealots protesting because it makes them feel like the big shots they always wanted to be.
I don’t think the lady in the wayward driven car wanted to harm anyone, other than forcing them out of the way to continue wherever the hell she intended to go from the outset. I kidded earlier about her wanting to not miss happy hour at the next bar, only because in her mug shot she had a really creepy look about her like she was pie-eyed and pussy-tailed, if you know what I mean (wink, wink). The media wants people to think the woman tried to mow them down because she hates blacks. I choose to believe my first scenario, that this woman respects people of color and panicked after this overly zealous protester jumped on the car hood for more drama rather than moving to the side like all the others who did. Why do I think like this? Because it makes me happy. Remember, I’m retired and I made a late life decision regarding my beliefs. I’m as full of shit as the next guy, which is every guy, including you, but at least I’m happy, I think! Oh, and who doesn’t love to slurp gravy!
Care to analyze that response, Mr “Dr. of Psychology 101”?
So if you can call me son, it's okay if I call you gramps, correct?
So, gramps, why haven't you answered one of my questions? Do you not support the authorities when they did their investigation and arrested the lady that hit the protesters. It seems like you don't for some reason. I would suspect they have way more info then you or I do, especially since all we've seen is a couple of videos. You seem to think one of the victims jumped on her hood for show. If you truly believe that, you might be the biggest goof I've encountered. At the very least, this lady is guilty of a hit and run. You can't deny that, or you can and will try and spin that.
And who are you to judge Booker? You weren't there. There was a group that was drawn there by the confrontation that is basically backing up Booker's claim though, correct? There were independent witnesses. I don't understand why this is so hard to understand.
Just because arrests weren't rushed doesn't mean they aren't coming. The process is going along.
I feel Abraxis really wanted to use the term "uppity".
To cross the road, yes. To block it, no. It’s one of the first things we teach kids. Don’t play in the road.
All fine and good, but you're (purposely?) ignoring HER criminal history, specifically the types of crimes she has been charged with...
Two years in prison for STALKING. Additional arrests for trespassing, harassment, and intimidation. I'm thinking Prosecutors are going to maintain her pushing forward and running into a pedestrian within a crosswalk as "intimidation", and she already has a prior...
I was wrong about the Criminal recklessness, thinking it was at the misdemeanour level. They have already levelled the charge at the class 6 felony level, and the deadly vehicle enhancement seems to be inevitable...They already distinguished between the injury levels of the 2 victims...
- Criminal recklessness, a level 6 felony
- Leaving the scene of an accident resulting in serious bodily injury, a level 6 felony
- Leaving the scene of an accident resulting in bodily injury, a class A misdemeanour
The driver was not threatened. A petite girl stood in front of her, and she and her passenger were perfectly safe just sitting there. No one is going to buy that she felt "intimidated". I can't just drive ahead when a road crew is working and a flagger is making me wait at a site where Traffic from opposite directions is being funnelled into a 1 lane road. I'm often impatient and curse to myself, but I do NOT drive forward till I'm given the OK...
I can't just say there's no one coming and you can't just keep me here then drive on, just because I want to. If I do, I'm likely going to be charged with and convicted of,among other things, criminal recklessness, because I'm endangering others. The guys not a cop, but he's warning me of the danger of driving forward, and there is usually not a crosswalk involved.
I don't see any way this lady with the criminal record and mental history just walks. Maybe you can be her pro bono Defense Counsel since you are such a proponent of her actions?
Accelerating with other pedestrians and parked cars in view while in a congested downtown area,, running thru red lights, and turning right to throw the passengers off while speeding down a side street are all factors that IMO, also weigh heavily against her. If she could exit Walnut after driving a few more blocks, why couldn't she have done so initially and used any of a myriad of side streets that connect to Walnut as her route North? NONE of this was necessary...
