An Unsettling Confrontation.

The terrifying incident of being nearly run over while peacefully protesting is far more than a personal affront; it represents a deeply unsettling challenge to the very foundation of democratic society. To experience such a blatant act of aggression—a vehicle used as a weapon against a civilian exercising their constitutional rights—is to witness a profound betrayal of the ideals this nation purports to uphold. This experience forces a confrontation with the bewildering truth that some individuals are willing to resort to monstrous tactics, directly contradicting the solemn military oaths sworn to defend the country against fascism.

The core of this outrage lies in the stark disconnect between patriotic rhetoric and violent action.

Posse Comitatus is a Latin phrase meaning "the power of the county." Historically, it refers to the authority of a county sheriff or other law enforcement officer to summon able-bodied civilians to assist in maintaining peace, apprehending criminals, or conducting rescue operations. Think of a "posse" in an old Western film – that's the concept.

In the United States, the most significant application of this concept is the Posse Comitatus Act, a federal law signed on June 18, 1878, by President Rutherford B. Hayes. It is codified at 18 U.S.C. § 1385.

The core purpose of the Posse Comitatus Act is to limit the direct involvement of federal military personnel in domestic civilian law enforcement activities.

All Military personnel, upon enlistment, pledge to protect the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

This oath embodies a commitment to the principles of liberty, justice, and the rule of law.

Yet, when individuals intentionally use intimidation and potentially lethal force against fellow citizens engaged in peaceful dissent, they embody a chilling domestic threat. This isn't a mere difference of opinion; it's an attempt to silence opposition through terror, fundamentally undermining the democratic process that allows for diverse voices and civil discourse.

The tactics employed by the driver, in their sheer disregard for human safety and the right to protest, bear an uncomfortable resemblance to Fascist methods of suppressing dissent. While labeling an individual's actions as definitively "fascist" typically refers to broader political movements, the intent to quash opposition through violence echoes historical patterns of authoritarianism and oppression. When the peaceful act of assembly is met with vehicular aggression, it feels like a direct assault on the democratic process itself, aiming to impose will through terror rather than persuasion. This behavior reveals a dangerous willingness to abandon democratic principles in favor of brute force, raising urgent questions about the strength of our civil society.

The "bewildering truth" of this incident is the profound shock that such an event can occur in a society that prides itself on guaranteeing fundamental rights. It shatters the expectation of civil conduct and lays bare the underlying tensions and animosities festering within. For a peaceful protester, believing in the power of the collective voice and the right to express dissent, to be met with such a violent and cowardly act is deeply disorienting. It forces an immediate and terrifying confrontation with the reality that not everyone respects the democratic process or the fundamental human right to safety and freedom of expression.

Ultimately, this experience underscores a critical challenge facing contemporary democracies: how to protect the right to protest and foster civil discourse when confronted with individuals willing to resort to extreme and violent measures to suppress dissent. The anger and frustration are not merely personal; they reflect a shared concern for the erosion of foundational democratic values when such blatant acts of aggression go unchecked.