No Devastating Earthquake Or Fire. Just A Wee Tweet From A Professor.
"We will now move forward to rebuild our law school community," writes the University of Tennessee law school Dean Melanie Wilson.
You read that and you think, "Shattered bodies, shattered lives?"
Um, no...not quite.
A misconstrued tweet -- detailed just below.
Glenn Reynolds, the law prof -- and a truly decent guy whom I've known for a number of years -- writes in an apology email to those at the UT College of Law:
Thursday one of my 580,000 tweets blew up. I try to be careful and precise in my language. I didn't do that this time, and I unfortunately made a lot of people in the law school community sad or angry, something I certainly didn't mean to do, and feel bad about.I was following the riots in Charlotte, against a background of reports of violence, which seemed to be getting worse. Then I retweeted a report of mobs "stopping traffic and surrounding vehicles" with the comment "run them down."
Those words can be taken as encouragement of drivers going out of their way to run down protesters. I meant no such thing, and I'm sorry it seemed to many that I did. What I meant was that drivers who feel their lives are in danger from a violent mob should not stop their vehicles. I remember Reginald Denny, a truck driver who was beaten nearly to death by a mob during the 1992 Los Angeles riots. My tweet should have said, "Keep driving," or "Don't stop." I was upset, and it was a bad tweet. I do not support violence except in cases of clear self-defense.
I have always strongly supported peaceful protests, and I've spent years speaking out against police militarization and excessive police violence in my USA TODAY columns, on my blog, and on Twitter itself. I understand why people misunderstood my tweet and regret that I was not clearer.
He seemed to advocate violence in a tweet, he explained himself and apologized -- and there needs to be "rebuilding" after this?
Perhaps this is just use of the victim-chic language so popular on campuses lately.
However, as someone who's been defended by a very smart and fearless Sicilian-American badass, if you're a lawyer who's devastated because somebody makes a remark that goes a little too far...well, perhaps leave the law profession before you get into it, and do all the clients you'll never have a big favor.
Oh my goodness!
You mean it's not okay to say "run 'em down" to the people chanting "Kill the pigs."?
Bob in Texas at September 28, 2016 5:51 AM
Remember, the process is the punishment.
It'll keep the rest of the faculty, especially those without tenure, in line.
I R A Darth Aggie at September 28, 2016 6:28 AM
We all saw the LA riot video footage of Reginald Denny being dragged from his truck and beaten nearly to death. How is "run 'em down" not on everyone's mind who is caught in a traffic-stopping protest filled with violent chanting?
Conan hte Grammarian at September 28, 2016 7:03 AM
Well, I think "Run 'em down" does, on the face of it, seem like incitement to hurt people. But remarks must be taken in context. For example, yelling "fire!" in a crowded theater is a good thing -- if you are in a theater and smell smoke.
His remark was a tweet. He wasn't standing on a street telling somebody to run down somebody on the sidewalk.
We all make mistakes. Glenn looked back on this and felt he could have done better. He apologized. And he has a long history of being a prudent and peaceful guy.
Amy Alkon at September 28, 2016 8:30 AM
I actually took his tweet in the spirit that it was meant. And I don't feel he has any need to apologize.
If mobs are blocking my vehicle's path, then I have reason to fear for my safety, then "running 'em down" is a perfectly reasonable and legally justifiable response (though I would check with a lawyer first).
When I read his tweet, it brought to mind this incident from a few years ago, in which a motorcycle gang, thinking to turn the highway into their own personal playground to practice stunts, tried to brake check the driver of a Range Rover. When he justifiably felt threatened, he gunned it and, as far as I'm concerned, was far too careful to avoid the motorcyclists in his path as he pulled away.
If a mob stretches across a highway, thinking to obstruct, I'm going to keep right on driving, and if some end up in the hospital or worse, so be it. They should not have been threatening me.
Patrick at September 28, 2016 10:43 AM
Motorcycle training showed that it's better to maintain your speed over a bump and to hit it straight on than it is to slow down and lose control.
The same thing applies in a car and the last thing you want to do is to get trapped in w/cars bumper to bumper. Then it's just you against 15 or so innocent protesters.
(Maybe roll out trying to create chaos and confusion and then blend in to escape? Hasn't worked yet that I know of but ...)
Seriously, why should I assume that all these asswhipes want to do is shout slogans? Have they vetted everyone there? Esp. those in masks? The 15 - 21 year olds having fun?
You know the cops are standing off to side not wanting to do anything that would "escalate" the violence.
Bob in Texas at September 28, 2016 12:30 PM
He said "Run 'em down" because he meant "Run 'em down." That's not complicated. I don't know how much more "careful and precise" you can get with your language than that.
Later he thought twice and withdrew the remark and apologized.
No "rebuilding" necessary.
Can we stop the perpetual victimhood/offense that both sides are playing here?
Kevin at September 28, 2016 2:24 PM
That NYC video shows the problem - and that's in daylight with no riot. The bikers did, in fact, pull the driver out and beat him up. They tried to pull his wife out, but apparently the gawking bystanders protested, so they concentrated on the guy. One bystander finally intervened, and stopped the beating.
There were riots in Milwaulkee, where black rioters were blocking roads, targeting cars with whites, to drag the people out and beat them to the ground.
"Run them down" is the right answer. The driver could easily have sideswiped a couple of bikes "by accident". It *might* have ended the chase.
When they've got your car stopped, and are smashing the windows to get in, it's already too late. Still, that's the moment where you start shooting.
a_random_guy at September 29, 2016 1:59 AM
When they've got your car stopped, and are smashing the windows to get in, it's already too late. Still, that's the moment where you start shooting.
a_random_guy at September 29, 2016 1:59 AM
Yep. Whatever state you are in, except for the most socialist. A rock through any window of your car, followed by an attempt to enter the vehicle, gets you self defense, when you start shooting at the perpetrator(s). You have no place to safely retreat in that situation.
Isab at September 29, 2016 4:03 AM
Exactly, but for a perhaps non-obvious reason.
Say Reginald Denny had run them down, and killed or seriously injured a half dozen rioters.
Next riot. How eager much less eager do you think rioters might be to attack cars?
(Hello, Second Amendment. Meaningful self defense matters.)
Jeff Guinn at October 1, 2016 7:53 AM
Exactly, but for a perhaps non-obvious reason.
Say Reginald Denny had run them down, and killed or seriously injured a half dozen rioters.
Next riot. How eager much less eager do you think rioters might be to attack cars?
(Hello, Second Amendment. Meaningful self defense matters.)
Jeff Guinn at October 1, 2016 7:55 AM
Leave a comment