You are just adorable when you're pretending to be smarter runs so counter to what's actually happening. If someone has to go from point A to point B and some dipshits have decided to engage in criminal activity (and make no mistake, there's zero ambiguity in that being the case with the "protestors" actions) that happens to be on that route that is not on that person. It's not. Not even a little bit.
WTH does some (no doubt with you a "continuum") of likelihood have to do with lawful travel? This is really at the heart of the matter. Are we conceding point A to point B travel to criminals or aren't we? F'em.
Now if your sole contention is "some places are more likely to be problematic that others regarding possible protestor interaction" in an FYI sort of way then that could stand on it's own merit but only to that extent. The problem is that the situation is pretty much inextricably tied to the first part cited, being anybody should be able to be driving wherever the hell they are legally allowed and anyone unlawfully hindering that can pound sand. What people have been saying is that the pickup truck's driver* holds zero guilt for driving on a legal road in a legal manor.
If you (and by that I mean anyone) can somehow demonstrate that the actual purpose of someone is to drive to a place of established protest with the express mind to instigate a violent interaction then there's certainly a conversation to be had with that sort of activity. Of course, the burden of proving that is very much on those making such assertions.
