“A man was arrested during protests Wednesday evening in the Central West End after he drove through the crowd and later waved a gun at protesters. The incident happened during a day of demonstrations that brought protesters to several sites in and around St. Louis,” reports stltoday.com. Protesters blocked an intersection in the popular central west end area of St. Louis, surrounding a minivan containing a single white male, and jumped on the hood.  The driver took evasive action, spilling the hood-jumper into the street. He drew a firearm while apparently calling police . . .

One of the protesters claimed that the man struck one of the people who were blocking the street, and also called the police. There were no reports of an ambulance called to the area.

From thegatewaypundit.com:

 Photo captures man flashing gun at protesters in CWE

 

The person in the street is the man who had jumped on the hood of the minivan.

Defending driver on the phone with defensive firearm ready. St. Louis Post-Dispatch reporter David Carson was on the scene and took these photos and posted them on Twitter. According to the stltoday.com article, the protestors had broken the rear window of the van. Notice the cell phone, finger off the trigger, pistol pointed in a safe direction. He appears to know what he is doing.

Driver peacefully surrendering to police.

Something like this was bound to happen. Only days earlier, people in South St. Louis had banged on a car, and attacked the driver of the car with hammers, killing him. And protestors have been allowed to block traffic without threat of arrest in various parts of the city, increasing the likelihood of confrontations with motorists.

©2014 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice is included.
Gun Watch

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

98 COMMENTS

    • I have my Glock 19 on my belt with three mags and my AR15 under the seat with four mags. I said this last week. I refuse to get the Reginald Denny treatment.
      This is not brandishing a weapon or road rage. This is a clear use of a gun for self defense.

    • Assault with a deadly weapon at the least. But that dose highlight the main advantage of a gun. People naturally move out of the way of a gun, a car can be a weapon but people don’t react to it as they do a gun. This makes a car along with most other weapons less useful for defense.

      • Not a lawyer, but I’d think that would depend on the threat. If someone is bashing your window with a hammer and there are multiple of them, I’m hitting the accelerator. If hammer guy gets run over, he gets run over.

    • Good story, do you not recall mere months ago when a guy used that right pedal, then was pursued by a group of bikers until his car was pinned in traffic, with his wife and child inside with him, and he was dragged from the car by a mob including an off duty police officer and beaten nearly to death? For me, the first 15 reaching through my window would have gotten a .45 Silvertip center mass at a distance of 2 feet. Then I’d have to revert to the .380. I’ll bet it would never reach #3.

    • The so called “protestors” that jump on cars and killed the other driver are typically opportunists and looking for weak victims to intimidate, and exploit and do violence to. The only thing they have accomplished is to discredit the idea of nonviolent protest. Likely when word gets out that they might get shot for looting and attacking people in the name of “nonviolent protest” they will stay clear.

      • Peaceable protest is not the same as non-violent. A protest can be non-violent and not be peaceable. Peaceable means not disturbing the peace of the community. Blocking traffic disrupts the peace. None of these protests are covered by the first amendment.

    • It’s a very simple and clear line. The minute they threaten others or damage property they are no longer “protesters”, at that point they are just thugs.

  4. Gun? check.
    Cell phone? check.
    Audio/video recording glasses that can serve as safety and/or sun glasses that with one touch of a button can record everything you’re looking at? No? Well, why not?

    Refuse to be the next Zimmerman/Wilson.

    • I fully expect this guy to get all charges dropped before he ever sees a courtroom. Still BS that he was arrested at all.

        • Couldn’t the person be temporarily detained, rather than arrested, then released in a clear area if it was for safety?

        • What’s up with this “detained” stuff? The POWs were “detained” by various adversaries during the wars and conflicts we fought. That’s a BS term, IMO. Call it what it is: “Pre-Arrest.”

  6. Protestors jumping on cars… most unwise. I believe that would be the point where I would begin to fear for my life. Bravo for the driver’s restraint & trigger discipline. Arrested though. Figures. Guess arrested is better than dead.

    • Better not to have to deal with that crap in the first place. Driver was assaulted by the hood jumper and the window breaker. Plenty of reason to make ready for further escalation and battery by idiot protestors who need no reason at all ratchet up the violence. They’ll do it just because, and they don’t care if someone gets hurt.

      As for police ‘protection’ and police ‘presence’; coppers just can’t be everywhere at once in most jurisdictions (except maybe NYC where there’s probably something like 1.5 cops for every resident) especially when there is ongoing civil unrest that is mobile and once dispersed springs up somewhere else.

      Free speech my ass; hoodlums wilding at the slightest excuse which they themselves instigate and carry out. Of course this kinda thing is bound to happen.

      • Even for large police departments like NYC, you’re still looking at 228 residents for every cop, actually. No, the police absolutely cannot be everywhere at once, especially in places like NYC.

  9. He’ll be cleared. Brandishing is probably the best charge they could muster, and I’d say he was justified.

    If not, we can go block their sidewalks with cars in protest. Only seems fair.

  11. In Alabama, we have a little legal thing called, “Assumption of the risk.” It means that if, like these protestors, you are doing stupid, illegal things and win stupid prizes (getting run over), you’re claim for injury will be thrown out of court.
    Of course, if idiots block intersections here, the cops will not hesitate to charge them appropriately.

  13. I’m failing to understand why he was arrested?

    He had every reason to believe his life was in danger based on the events of the last week.

    So, what was he charged with, being a white male in the middle of racial rioting…?

    • “So, what was he charged with, being a white male in the middle of racial rioting…?”

      Yes. That’s it exactly.

      Can’t have the peons actually defending themselves against violent thugs, now can we? Can’t have a “normal person” showing that he can protect himself when the cops can’t/won’t, can we?

      That’s not how it is supposed to work for a subjugated population.

      If they were actually protesting what they claim to be protesting, they would be on HIS SIDE…protesting an illegal and immoral arrest regardless of race. But, we’ve all made this point before.

    • According to a former judge (you can find him in the “know your rights” videos) police officer’s job is three things, and only three things: find, arrest and help prosecute.

      Cops are evaluated based on their numbers. Felony arrests garner the most points and are worth money in terms of potential promotions and higher retirement pay. So they quite often find the slightest excuse to arrest someone.

      They don’t give a rat’s ass about fairness or justice, they are simply responding to the inherent incentive structures in police work.

  14. Hmm, so it continues, The Powers That Be allow rioting, looting, arson with minimal interference. But when The Oath Keepers volunteer to provide armed security, the feds call out the sniper squad and threaten to shoot them in the head if they don’t stand down.

    Now the PTB allow “Protestors” to illegally block traffic in a major city, but when a man pulls a gun in defense of himself, the police swarm the area and arrest the law abiding citizen defending himself from violent criminals.

    I saw a comment at the original site; the only “privilege” being show right now is the privilege of minorities to riot, loot and burn without any serious attempts to stop the mayhem by the government; and when law abiding citizens finally start using effective self-defense, the government freaks out and comes down on the law abiding citizenry like a ton of bricks.

    So now it’s becoming obvious to the people who the government considers to the true threat.

    • Gotta be politically correct n everything you do with Holder and his ilk still lurking. Cops (actually their command) are being overly cautious and allowing racist thugs to act out until they see them burn something or hurt someone.

      • “until they see them burn something or hurt someone.”

        Until?

        They have burned things and hurt folks and stood by and watched.

    • Remember, the primary reason for the existence of government agents is to get a paycheck and pension serve justice when people act in criminal fashion. Allowing criminals to riot and break laws is simple job security. Preventing people from stopping criminals who riot and break laws is also job security.

      • The primary reason for the existence of government agents is to keep the power in the hands of the politicians, the secondary reason is to provide revenue for the municipal unit to be spent by political class. Serving justice is facade that is crumbling before our very eyes. The Fox news watchers may still be under the impression that the police are there to keep order and the few rouge or over whelmed officers an apparition. I think the true peace officers are few and far between, with a majority of officers being good people just wanting to get home with as few problems (with the public and their superiors) as possible. But this majority, I feel, have the understanding that they are superior to the average citizen and must have total control or chaos will ensue.
        One comment about the story: I find it odd that this driver was arrested for basically what Wilson was exonerated on, a person, or persons, in the road, where they shouldn’t have been, and an attack on the driver, or vehicle, resulted with the driver fearing of harm pulling his weapon. Funny how the guy who killed someone wasn’t arrested but the one who didn’t was, I guess membership has its privileges.

      • Good story, but don’t we have to be pretty stupid to keep paying people who provided no help whatsoever when we actually needed them for something other than collecting speeding fines? I think your analysis has some holes. But I could be wrong.

  15. Somewhere between Pic #1 and Pic #2, the rear window was broken (I’m assuming, b/c of the driver’s turning his body round). Hey Mr. Photog, you had time to take a pic of the driver, what about a pic of the window breaker/assailant?

  16. People are of course welcome to exercise their First Amendment right to Free Speech.

    On the other hand it is illegal to assemble non-peaceably, block streets, jump on people’s cars, and break car windows. Given recent events where protesters criminals destroyed cars, I believe it is more than reasonable to be in fear of an imminent threat to your life or great bodily harm in that situation. Thus the man was therefore justified to have a firearm in hand.

  17. I stated two days ago on another blog the following opinion. When you block my vehicle and are intent on harming me or my passengers then it is YOU who threw the rule book into the trash can!! I would rather be judged by twelve than beaten to death by six!!

  18. Don’t forget Reginald Denny. I have been surrounded by a mob of black young thugs. Better to run over a few than die. And watch your a## in New York. Funny how this ties into the earlier post.

  19. I am sure he was “arrested” (read taken away) to cool the situation down. I fail to see what charge he would face. Again, the protestors are not just minorities, but they are pissed off. Better to cool down the situation rather than allow him to drive off and really get them going. It is getting cold and this will get old for them soon.

    • Exactly. In this case the cops may have done him a huge favor by arresting him. The driver showed great self restraint already. I doubt he wanted to shoot anybody. The only problem is they should have let him back out of the cop car after they got around the corner out of site. Those cops may have saved lives that moment as well as saving that man’s mental state and financial well being. I am certainly not endorsing false arrest but in the heat of the moment this may have been the best course of action . . . if only the car ride was a couple blocks over and “have a nice day sir.”

    • Yes, in general, the ones doing the road blockages around the country and scaring kids at Christmas tree lightings are white Marxists.

    • He should not have been arrested… but since we don’t know his name or have any charging information, are we sure he WAS arrested?

      Is it possible someone had the bright idea to just let the crowd and media assume that while he voluntarily goes to give a statement? That’s what I hope happened.

    • +1. Concur with Dirk. The driver has the look of someone with LEO or firearms training background.

      Good trigger indexing, weapon light, SA and fire discipline,while calling 911, while surrounded by a mob who apparently broke his back window. A careful exit and non-threatening posture once contacted by police.

      Remember the cops have to take the conservative approach with any situation involving a gun, until they have the facts, as best as possible. The are not lawyers, just in charge of public safety, including the suspect, builty or innocent.

      Even with the pictures and the clip posted above, its not 100% clear, exactly what happened as to “van hit protesters” or “protesters jumped on”, but we do have past behavior of protesters to give context, and thats not to their favor, at all. Clearly they have been over-the-top and confrontational to cops, reporters, and innocent bystanders, causing traffic accidents, and as a group completely unreliable as to witness statements, if not maliciously and deliberately giving false claims, a crime in itself.

      I give the driver bonus points for staying cool, once it got ugly, but minus points for poor headwork being there in the first place. 3 S rules apply. My $.02, YMMV.

      Interesting legal factoid I did not know – Castle Doctrine applies inside your car, too, in MO.
      http://adamwoody.com/2014/07/castle-doctrine-adam-woody-self-defense-missouri/

    • Here’s a better idea: round up the lawbreakers blocking the street, en masse, and drop them off in the drunk tank. That will allow the situation to “cool down”, and will preserve the rights of motorists to travel on public roadways, free of harassment and assault.

  20. So WTF was he arrested for? Look at the evidence (photos). He did everything right. I would have done the same.

  23. Is there precedent on whether large angry crowd (who might not be specifically angry at you) blocking the road constitutes enough of a threat to justify use of force, be it ballistic or automotive?

    • If they surround you, blocking your ability to escape, then yes. They have committed kidnapping or false imprisonment, a felony. Don’t know MO law but in GA, lethal force is authorized against persons in the act of a forcible felony. I would roll forward slowly and make some attempt to steer around the people but if they get in front and decide to get run over then they have made their choice. Once they start to break in to my vehicle, I will use one or both of two options; accelerate and/or shoot.

  25. Am I the only person who thinks that top picture appears to be from a video? I wonder if people learned their lesson after the motorcyclists posted the video of the New York City attack on Youtube.

  26. Hey TTAG – I think this one begs for a follow up post, keeping us apprised of whether formal charges are filed, for what, legal defense fund, etc.

    Thanks.

  27. That’s what he gets for being a white man. He had it coming. He owes those protestors a back window and maybe his life for the sins his great great great great grandpa may have committed. His first mistake was being a law abiding citizen, and taking responsibility for his own personal safety. He is not a cop, and should not own a weapon. Only state officials can own weapons. Submit. Do what we say, when we say. The state will provide safety for you and your family, if it deems your need appropriate and has the commensurate resources to do so. Carrying a weapon isn’t your right, it’s a privilege that was granted to you by the department of justice. Join the protestors and follow the edicts of your president and media outlets or suffer the consequences. Disobey and you will suffer grave consequences. You have been warned.

    • In all seriousness: if this is what really happened, Dude had no business being arrested. Protestors should have been booked for assault. Cops should reprimanded and put on leave for harassment. If the driver made road pizza with any of protestors their families should pay to clean his bumper, tires, repair the back window, and compensate him for pain and suffering.

      Getting real tired of this liberal bullshit that every gun owner is a white racist psycho. America is being run by a diverse bunch of criminals. If the meek are going to inherit the earth, let them have it. When the animals (race agnostic) start tearing each other to bits I will sit back and watch them do so.

  28. After what happened to Zamir Begic, I’ve been planning to do EXACTLY what this driver did if necessary. Anyone who stops and lets rioters break into his car is suicidal. I’ve been carrying an extra gun in the car, just in case, even though the danger here in my town is minimal. It’s an easy precaution to take.

    • Obama is on the way out and a new congress is on the way in. The 47% feel it slipping away. They are disgruntled that they didn’t get everything Obama promised. Remember Peggy the moocher? This has nothing to do with Ferguson and everything to do with the gimmie-gimmie-gimmie mentality of the rioters. They feel more sympathy is being given to the illegal immigrants and now they want theirs. This will grow and is already nation wide so no matter where you live, you need to be safe.

  31. Only a guess, but… If the protesters were just in the road blocking traffic and being a general pain in the ass, then the driver had no reason to “bump” a pedestrian. If he did that, that can be considered aggravated assault (a car is a lethal weapon). The the DRIVER would be the individual who instigated the whole ordeal.

    If the protesters were attacking his car first and he could prove to a jury, that he had a legal reason to fear for his safety, no problem, he goes home.

    Pulling the gun and defending himself after they broke into the car, after he bumped a pedestrian, that is all irrevelant. He was the defender at the moment the photos were taken. But I bet there is cell phone video prior as well showing the driver not so innocent prior.

    We will see

    • Legally, you’re right. But non-legally speaking, why should a bunch of people be able to break the law (blocking a street) and then claim the law as their shield when someone else breaks it (by ‘bumping’ them out of the way)?

      I guess what we need is a counter-protest… a dozen or so pickups with cow-catchers on them to slowly push through such a crowd.

    • Judging by the azz-first body position of the airborne yoot in the top picture, the only “bump” that occurred was when he slid off the hood and landed on his butt.

  32. “Only days earlier, people in South St. Louis had banged on a car, and attacked the driver of the car with hammers, killing him.”

    Dean, Dean, Dean, didn’t you get the script? It goes like this, “Only days earlier, people in South St. Louis had banged on a car, and attacked the driver of the car with hammers, killing him in an attack that had absolutely nothing to do with race because we said so.”

    I’m getting really, really tired of the Ministry of Truth deciding that they know for sure that people like Zimmerman and Wilson are racists because they’re white while they ignore flagrant racism from some in the black community. Was the hammer attack racially-motivated? I don’t know. Neither do STL police or the Ministry of Truth. So stop telling us that it wasn’t.

  33. Smells fishy. The narrative from the progtard press (CNN, CBS, etc) right now is that he “accelerated” – yet there is NO video, other than this very short clip at CBS showing the van slowing – ..wait…
    and no other video via google, livestream, buzz feed….with all the youtubers posting real time on other “police atrocities” real time…

    As I was clicking back to the tab, I noticed its gone…

    More photos from the St Dispatch photog here: http://www.stltoday.com/gallery/news/multimedia/motorist-hits-protesters-flourishes-a-gun/collection_13c3db31-cb19-5da1-b102-a654a3449693.html#0

    Looks like the front of the van was lower, and moving slowly, by virtue of clear focus on protester who is climbing on the hood, vs slightly out of focus by the one behind it…

    Then the one on hood is off, to the right, and the woman hanging on the mirror is also falling. Looks more like the protesters were actively blocking the way, hanging on to the car and jumping on hood, actually…

    Photog running from behind crowd, doesnt get faces, until he catches up and takes pics of the driver…

    • Probably because the photog only wanted pictures of the driver’s face, not the rest of them. . .

  34. btw, double checking on google search- still nothing-
    but there is THIS from a week ago in Ferguson- photos, no video apparently also pulled…

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2849774/Sickening-moment-hit-run-driver-smashes-crowd-Ferguson-protesters-drags-woman-20-feet-car-running-leg.html

    note how the StateRunMedia hysterically describes it as smashing into protesters, but if you look closely at the beginning- you see they have planned ahead, and spread a blanket across the windshield. One woman is laying on hood, smiling, calmly reviewing her camera screen, apparently, and the car is at a stop.

    • This stuff is getting entirely too close to home. Thanks for posting this. I think the natural inclination of people is to act normally, i.e., stop the car, get out, or at least not leave the scene of the incident. But doing that with a mob nearby, especially after they’d attacked your car, broken your windows, etc. is a huge mistake and a good way to get killed. This guy was in real danger at that point. Getting away from that place as quickly as possible and then calling the cops would be a very sensible thing to do. Most people, myself included I’m embarrassed to admit , wouldn’t think to do that.

  36. Why doesn’t that donut stuffing fat ass cop arrest the fuckers who broke his window? GDIT this is getting out of control. What happened to LAW and F-ORDER.

  37. The driver is not facing charges as of the Dec 4 article below.

    The driver of a van was taken into custody after he allegedly hit protesters while driving in the Central West End and then flashed a weapon, police said Thursday.

    Authorities said several people were protesting at the intersection of Euclid and Maryland when a van hit two demonstrators. Police said the driver of the van, a 57-year-old man who was not identified because he is not facing charges, entered the intersection and attempted to pass the group. He said a group of protesters then surrounded his van and began striking, banging, and throwing objects at the car, which resulted in the rear window being shattered.

    Photos: Wednesday’s protests in St. Louis | Mobile

    As he attempted to leave the scene, the two protesters were struck, police said.

    The man told police that after his window was shattered, he retrieved a gun from inside the car and then called police.

    Police said that due to contradicting reports from the van’s driver and protesters, no charges have yet to be filed. The driver was released from police custody as detectives continue their investigation.

    Read more: http://www.kmov.com/news/local/Driver-in-custody-after-allegedly-hitting-protesters-in-Central-West-End-284694331.html#ixzz3KxvlDcJ0

    • Thanks for the info.

      And while it would be great if the police could have locked up the vandals who broke his window and let the gun owner drive away, such actions might have incited a literal riot. And since the police aren’t allowed to be ‘brutal’ when facing violent criminals we would be talking about a dozen more burned businesses.

      • For some insane reason the county coppers have been taken off 12 hour shifts, and the Natty Guard has been cut way back. Things are getting more likely to be deadly, and there’s less presence available than ever.

        All indications are that incidents like this will continue to escalate in danger and frequency. The next guy might not be armed, and fearing for his life mow 20 of these animals down. Then things will get very interesting, very quickly. The outside agitators are there really looking to start a race war, and I can’t even imagine how they think that will turn out well. Latest nonsense spouted by Farrakhan indicates that is their desired outcome.

  39. Terminology pet peeve: can we please stop calling them “protesters” when they become lawbreakers?

    They cease being “protesters” when they illegally block the public roadways, when they illegally surround and detain vehicles attempting to traverse public roadways, and when they destroy property and attempt to assault drivers of those vehicles.

    The man pulled out his gun in response to a legitimate threat. Remember Reginald Denny? Remember Zemir Begic?

    Here’s a thought, Unified Command: arrest the assholes blocking the streets, harassing and assaulting drivers.

  40. I used to live about 200 yards from this incident, so I have some context to offer with these photos. Let me say first off that, all political opinions aside, I think this guy was out of line. Let me say why. The first thing is the location. This specific corner of the Central West End is one of the most heavily policed parts of Saint Louis. I’d say 85%-95% of the time there is at least one cop right there on the corner, and there are usually several more patrolling the neighborhood. So this would be a bad choice of venue if you wanted to cause trouble in a protest. My guess is that–in this part of the town at least–the protestors were civil. And their manner of dress would further suggest this. The density of protesters was also very low. This corner is completely squared in by buildings, so the people you see probably represent most of the people there. The picture on the bottom where the man is surrendering is also significant. It further corroborates the police presence and the low number of protesters present. You wouldn’t notice this without knowing the area, but the man is in fact surrendering less than 50 feet from the intersection where the incident occurred. In fact, given the direction of the car in each of the pictures, it looks like the man drove through the protest and directly into that cop. It’s only possible to drive about 10mph in that specific area since there is a sharp set of curves on the side of his approach and there are always people crossing through the parked cars there. Taking all of this together, the most plausible scenario that I can envision, given the evidence here, is that the man casually drove up to a peaceful protest and decided to press though it instead of turning around, thus escalating the situation. Someone then did something stupid and provocative, and the man responded by further escalating the situation, but this time drastically, to a potentially lethal encounter. If you’re armed you should have the common sense to avoid these kind of situations. He did precisely the opposite, and it looks like a deliberate choice.

    • Taking all of this together, the most plausible scenario that I can envision, given the evidence here, is that the man casually drove up to a peaceful protest and decided to press though it instead of turning around, thus escalating the situation.

      “Protesters” blocking the roadway and preventing the travel of drivers is, by definition, not a peaceful protest. It is unlawful activity. Therefore, your entire premise is specious.

    • Your most plausible scenario is that a guy decided to hit someone with a car to shorten his commute?

      We have several cases in the past weeks of vehicles being surrounded and their occupants assaulted, sometimes killed- are you sure you want to assume this crowd was just milling around?

  41. I guess the van driver didn’t want the Reginald Denny or the hammer treatment from a bunch of street savages, so why was it against the law to defend himself? Are the police protecting the rioters and protesters?

  44. They were talking about this on the Jamie Allman show (local radio talk show). Apparently the guy was taken into custody to protect him and get him out of there. It sounds like there are no charges to be filed.

    I’ll say this… two recent encounters between cars and “protesters.” They guy without the gun is dead. The guy with the gun has a broken windshield. I guess I’m going to keep carrying when I drive 270 to/from work.

Comments are closed.