Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #201  
Old 11-26-2019, 11:17 AM
Mundane Super Hero is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Posts: 204
Quote:
Originally Posted by RTFirefly View Post
Also, even if I was at the front of the line, with protesters standing directly in front of my car, it still wouldn't matter if they're protesting against abortion or against guns or what. They're still human beings. That matters. You don't treat people as things; that's what sin is.


I wish I could claim credit for that last sentence, but no. It's from Terry Pratchett's Carpe Jugulum. In 49 years as a Christian, it's easily the most insightful thing I've heard about sin. So naturally it was written by an atheist. Bravo for life's little ironies.

Dammit! This space-bar is Still not an up-vote button....
  #202  
Old 11-26-2019, 12:23 PM
Atamasama's Avatar
Atamasama is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 4,764
Quote:
Originally Posted by RTFirefly View Post
Speaking of assuming, could you link to that definition you quoted? I bet the law or reg containing the government definition defines 'force' somewhere too. Here you're assuming that 'standing in the street' qualifies as 'force' with respect to the definition of terrorism. I'm not saying you're wrong, but you haven't shown that you're right to do so either.
Here is the FBI’s stance:

https://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/p...rism-2002-2005
There is no single, universally accepted, definition of terrorism. Terrorism is defined in the Code of Federal Regulations as “the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives” (28 C.F.R. Section 0.85).

I’m glad you asked me to quote it because some of the sources seem to truncate it a bit. The FBI cites “force and violence” which is significantly different than the code as quoted elsewhere. Given that it has to be force and violence, I’d concede that just blocking a road doesn’t meet the standard until rocks are thrown or people start swinging weapons. Or at least brandishing weapons, which I believe is legally considered a violent act. The event in the OP (which I remain convinced is BS by the way), if it did happen as claimed (a protestor blocking a vehicle and wielding a weapon) might count.

To anyone who might dismiss the threat, a “stick” isn’t something you should dismiss as a weapon. A stick or pole of sufficient mass and structural strength can be a deadly weapon, with even one strike to the head. Or through the windshield of a moving car it could cause a multiple fatality accident. I can’t tell from the video if it was the equivalent of a baseball bat or a yard stick. (Or a painted Nerf bat given my belief that it was fake.)

Last edited by Atamasama; 11-26-2019 at 12:24 PM.
  #203  
Old 11-26-2019, 01:09 PM
Kobal2's Avatar
Kobal2 is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Paris, France
Posts: 19,127
Quote:
Originally Posted by RTFirefly View Post
Also, even if I was at the front of the line, with protesters standing directly in front of my car, it still wouldn't matter if they're protesting against abortion or against guns or what. They're still human beings. That matters. You don't treat people as things; that's what sin is.

I wish I could claim credit for that last sentence, but no. It's from Terry Pratchett's Carpe Jugulum. In 49 years as a Christian, it's easily the most insightful thing I've heard about sin. So naturally it was written by an atheist. Bravo for life's little ironies.
While I'll always politely applaud anyone who recognizes Sir PTerry's contributions to life, the Universe, and everything ; if I'm being honest my own take is much more down to Earth : if your life if SO important ; and what you're going to be late for is SO impossibly crucial that you cannot possibly just... hang back and appreciate a good protest, or even a bad one, just because you now have a legit good reason As Seen On TV to let your bucket chair down and back, close your eyes, crank up the System of a Down (or the Vivaldi, I ain't judging here, you can be as white a person as you like ! ) and just let it *all* go for a while...
Then you're probably the kind of guy Bill Hicks was talking about when he was riffing about "not only should marijuana be legalized, it should be *mandatory*." .
  #204  
Old 11-26-2019, 01:32 PM
RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 40,040
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kobal2 View Post
While I'll always politely applaud anyone who recognizes Sir PTerry's contributions to life, the Universe, and everything ; if I'm being honest my own take is much more down to Earth : if your life if SO important ; and what you're going to be late for is SO impossibly crucial that you cannot possibly just... hang back and appreciate a good protest, or even a bad one, just because you now have a legit good reason As Seen On TV to let your bucket chair down and back, close your eyes, crank up the System of a Down (or the Vivaldi, I ain't judging here, you can be as white a person as you like ! ) and just let it *all* go for a while...
Then you're probably the kind of guy Bill Hicks was talking about when he was riffing about "not only should marijuana be legalized, it should be *mandatory*." .
Gotta say, I like your take on it as well.
  #205  
Old 11-26-2019, 01:39 PM
Kearsen1 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Austin
Posts: 392
Quote:
Originally Posted by Walken After Midnight View Post
You missed out a crucial part of the synopsis. The guy hits the vehicle after the driver drove his vehicle into him for several yards.

Neither person comes out looking good, and both should face criminal charges. The driver should face more serious charges for the brutal physical assault. He had the other guy on the floor, not fighting back. He could have restrained him, but instead proceeded to punch the man in the head several times.
Uh there was only one person to break the law Ö Hint: It wasn't the driver
  #206  
Old 11-26-2019, 01:43 PM
Sailboat's Avatar
Sailboat is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 12,030
All you people asserting that blocking traffic is a terrorist-like offense and one is justified in forcing one's way through -- even with a vehicle -- or "ending the threat" by assault ARE in fact in favor of arresting or assaulting pro-life protesters blocking access to abortion clinics...right?

Last edited by Sailboat; 11-26-2019 at 01:45 PM.
  #207  
Old 11-26-2019, 01:49 PM
The Tooth is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Calgary, Alberta
Posts: 4,812
I've never come across the idea of shoving someone with a car. Is that like vehicular assault? Smells like it.
  #208  
Old 11-26-2019, 01:51 PM
Great Antibob is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 5,409
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kearsen1 View Post
Uh there was only one person to break the law Ö Hint: It wasn't the driver
If 'compliant with the law' is where you set your morality bar, I've got....30000+ years of human history that wants to have a word.
  #209  
Old 11-26-2019, 01:52 PM
Kobal2's Avatar
Kobal2 is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Paris, France
Posts: 19,127
Quote:
Originally Posted by RTFirefly View Post
Gotta say, I like your take on it as well.
Kumbaya, my not_recognized_as_a_reasonable_moral_authority Lord, kumbaya !

Last edited by Kobal2; 11-26-2019 at 01:53 PM.
  #210  
Old 11-26-2019, 02:42 PM
Kearsen1 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Austin
Posts: 392
Quote:
Originally Posted by Great Antibob View Post
If 'compliant with the law' is where you set your morality bar, I've got....30000+ years of human history that wants to have a word.
Morality?
Compliant with the law is where I set my "at fault" bar and my "should face criminal charges" bar. Which was in the post I quoted ...

Last edited by Kearsen1; 11-26-2019 at 02:43 PM.
  #211  
Old 11-26-2019, 02:48 PM
Atamasama's Avatar
Atamasama is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 4,764
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sailboat View Post
All you people asserting that blocking traffic is a terrorist-like offense and one is justified in forcing one's way through -- even with a vehicle -- or "ending the threat" by assault ARE in fact in favor of arresting or assaulting pro-life protesters blocking access to abortion clinics...right?
Running people over with your car is vehicular assault or even homicide depending on the result. Thatís not okay. Thatís being a sociopath.

Pro-life protestors blocking access to a clinic should be dispersed, absolutely. By law enforcement of course.
  #212  
Old 11-26-2019, 03:09 PM
Banquet Bear's Avatar
Banquet Bear is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 5,674
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kearsen1 View Post
Uh there was only one person to break the law Ö Hint: It wasn't the driver
...we don't know what happened, we don't know where it happened, we don't know what happened before the video started, we don't know what happened after, we know fuck-all about what happened here.
  #213  
Old 11-26-2019, 03:39 PM
Rick Kitchen's Avatar
Rick Kitchen is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Citrus Heights, CA, USA
Posts: 17,603
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bullitt View Post
An Antifa guy tried blocking someoneís car, smacks the car with a bat or pipe. It did not end well for him.

https://www.redstate.com/bonchie/201...ell-seriously/

Canít we discuss civilly? Protest civilly? Agree to disagree, then vote accordingly?
Where is it a given that this person is Antifa?
  #214  
Old 11-26-2019, 04:47 PM
Kearsen1 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Austin
Posts: 392
Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquet Bear View Post
...we don't know what happened, we don't know where it happened, we don't know what happened before the video started, we don't know what happened after, we know fuck-all about what happened here.
Right right
When its your side, video evidence is proof of nothing. I get it.
I mean his mom could have given him fucking tuna fish instead of the ham he asked for. His boss could have docked him for taking off even though his leave wasn't approved.


But from the video , we do KNOW.
  #215  
Old 11-26-2019, 05:05 PM
Banquet Bear's Avatar
Banquet Bear is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 5,674
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kearsen1 View Post
Right right
When its your side, video evidence is proof of nothing. I get it.
...you don't even know what fucking side I'm on. You don't fucking get it.

Quote:
I mean his mom could have given him fucking tuna fish instead of the ham he asked for. His boss could have docked him for taking off even though his leave wasn't approved.
Is the video real? Was is staged? Was it an attempt at a viral prank? Russian propaganda? Road rage? An actual real protest? Where was it filmed? Who filmed it? What city?

Quote:
But from the video , we do KNOW.
No we fucking don't. We know nothing about the video except what the original twitter poster claimed (that it was Extinction Rebellion/Antifa) and what Red State speculated ("This is likely just a regular, Antifa anti-capitalist")

That is all we KNOW. Until you can show the provenance of the video all that it is is a video. It shows and demonstrates nothing.
  #216  
Old 11-26-2019, 05:10 PM
Mundane Super Hero is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Posts: 204
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kearsen1 View Post
But from the video , we do KNOW.

No, you don't. You really, really don't. For all we know this could have been performance art with all sides in on it and either Jaime Kennedy or Ashton Kutcher sliding their smarmy asses on out from the sidelines after yelling "cut".


Show me a name. Show me a police report. Show me Verifiable Facts or get lost.
  #217  
Old 11-26-2019, 05:16 PM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm is online now
Champion Chili Chef
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 63,141
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kearsen1 View Post
Right right
When its your side, video evidence is proof of nothing. I get it.
I mean his mom could have given him fucking tuna fish instead of the ham he asked for. His boss could have docked him for taking off even though his leave wasn't approved.


But from the video , we do KNOW.
All we know is that it is a video.
Just like this one.
  #218  
Old 11-26-2019, 05:25 PM
Walken After Midnight is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 5,398
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kearsen1 View Post
Uh there was only one person to break the law Ö Hint: It wasn't the driver
If the pedestrian had instead been in a car and had blocked the road, should the other guy have used his vehicle to ram the car and push it out of the way?
  #219  
Old 11-26-2019, 05:31 PM
Chisquirrel is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 2,738
Quote:
Originally Posted by octopus View Post
You are a special kind of special. You do realize there is a big difference between extrajudicial mob violence and violence as a mechanism that the governed have chosen to use as a tool? Please tell me you are not equating a democratic state with checks and balances and due process and written law with terrorists, thugs, and vigilantes?
Then why are you defending the extrajudicial violence of the driver first hitting the pedestrian with his car then getting out and beating him?
  #220  
Old 11-26-2019, 05:45 PM
octopus's Avatar
octopus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 9,360
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chisquirrel View Post
Then why are you defending the extrajudicial violence of the driver first hitting the pedestrian with his car then getting out and beating him?
If someone is blocking your legal right of way pushing them out of the way is fine by me.

Last edited by octopus; 11-26-2019 at 05:46 PM.
  #221  
Old 11-26-2019, 05:56 PM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm is online now
Champion Chili Chef
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 63,141
Quote:
Originally Posted by octopus View Post
If someone is blocking your legal right of way pushing them out of the way is fine by me.
Breaking the law with intent to do bodily harm is fine by you?
Then calling you a hypocritical piece of shit is fine by me.
  #222  
Old 11-26-2019, 06:08 PM
octopus's Avatar
octopus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 9,360
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
Breaking the law with intent to do bodily harm is fine by you?
Then calling you a hypocritical piece of shit is fine by me.
So what? I donít believe folks have the right to unlawfully restrain someone. Blocking traffic is illegal.
  #223  
Old 11-26-2019, 06:10 PM
Mundane Super Hero is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Posts: 204
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
Breaking the law with intent to do bodily harm is fine by you?
Then calling you a hypocritical piece of shit is fine by me.

Judges...?


< Snap! > < Snap! > < Snap! > < Snap! > and the East German judge says < Щелчок! >
  #224  
Old 11-26-2019, 06:13 PM
Walken After Midnight is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 5,398
One point about the "stick", which I'm still not sure isn't an umbrella. When the footperson hits the vehicle, the "stick" is behind him, perhaps attached to, or tucked behind, the rucksack. It is not in the footperson's hands. The footperson strikes the vehicle with a gloved hand twice. The second time he hits the vehicle with his hand, the movement of his body causes the "stick" to fly out from his rucksack and it hits a lower part of the car. At no point does the footperson hit the vehicle with the "stick". The contact between the "stick" and the vehicle appears to be entirely accidental/unintentional.

Last edited by Walken After Midnight; 11-26-2019 at 06:14 PM.
  #225  
Old 11-26-2019, 06:21 PM
Kimstu is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 23,045
Quote:
Originally Posted by octopus View Post
So what? I donít believe folks have the right to unlawfully restrain someone. Blocking traffic is illegal.
But violently assaulting someone for blocking traffic is also illegal (and worse, it's violent assault).

Pro-tip: you are also not allowed to deliberately run down jaywalkers, even though they are also doing something illegal.

Said it before, saying it again: The attitudes of right-wingers on this topic reflect a deliberate effort on the part of conservatives both to pathologize the act of civil protest and to normalize reactions of hostility, intimidation and violence in response to acts of civil protest.
  #226  
Old 11-26-2019, 06:26 PM
Atamasama's Avatar
Atamasama is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 4,764
Quote:
Originally Posted by octopus View Post
So what? I donít believe folks have the right to unlawfully restrain someone. Blocking traffic is illegal.
Blocking traffic is illegal but thatís not a proportionate response, nor is it a legal one. If someone is trying to block you and you drive around them thatís fine. But ďpushingĒ someone with your vehicle is a bad idea because if you injure that person, itís usually considered vehicular assault. Typically that crime occurs if a person is driving ďrecklesslyĒ or ďcarelesslyĒ, and driving when you know a pedestrian is in front of you with the intent to push them is absolutely a careless act. Even moving slowly, if they fall (which can easily happen to anyone being pushed) and they fall in front of the vehicle, even if your wheels pass over the person slowly the weight of the car alone can cause serious injury or death.
  #227  
Old 11-26-2019, 06:27 PM
octopus's Avatar
octopus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 9,360
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimstu View Post
But violently assaulting someone for blocking traffic is also illegal (and worse, it's violent assault).

Pro-tip: you are also not allowed to deliberately run down jaywalkers, even though they are also doing something illegal.

Said it before, saying it again: The attitudes of right-wingers on this topic reflect a deliberate effort on the part of conservatives both to pathologize the act of civil protest and to normalize reactions of hostility, intimidation and violence in response to acts of civil protest.
Wait. You canít run over jaywalkers or shoot those who litter? Whatís the point of a 2nd amendment then?

Anyways, I guess you do have the freedom to illegally block traffic. That doesnít mean you have the freedom from being consequenced.
  #228  
Old 11-26-2019, 06:38 PM
Chisquirrel is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 2,738
Quote:
Originally Posted by octopus View Post
If someone is blocking your legal right of way pushing them out of the way is fine by me.
As you love to say, will you be happy when someone decides YOU'RE in the way and busts your jaw?
  #229  
Old 11-26-2019, 06:39 PM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm is online now
Champion Chili Chef
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 63,141
Quote:
Originally Posted by octopus View Post
Wait. You canít run over jaywalkers or shoot those who litter? Whatís the point of a 2nd amendment then?

Anyways, I guess you do have the freedom to illegally block traffic. That doesnít mean you have the freedom from being consequenced.
"Consequenced"??
1. There is no such word.
2. This is the fucking BBQ Pit-If you think it is fine and dandy to hit someone with your vehicle intentionally if they inconvenience you, have the stones to say so. You will be absolutely wrong morally, ethically and legally...but other morally, ethically and legally wrong assholes will look up to you, at least.
  #230  
Old 11-26-2019, 06:42 PM
Kimstu is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 23,045
Quote:
Originally Posted by octopus View Post
Anyways, I guess you do have the freedom to illegally block traffic. That doesn’t mean you have the freedom from being consequenced.
Sure, but the only consequences of such actions that civilized people should support are legal ones. E.g., you get arrested for illegally blocking traffic, you get scowled at and yelled at by the drivers you're inconveniencing, you get scolded on social media by people who recognized you, you get grounded by your mom and dad, etc. All those are legitimate consequences of deliberately violating traffic laws as an act of protest.

Nowadays, however, people are being actively encouraged to condone illegal violent aggression against protestors as a normal and expected, even inevitable, form of "consequences" for blocking traffic. That's basically just outsourcing violent repression of civil protest to malevolent volunteers, and recruiting said volunteers to carry it out.

Last edited by Kimstu; 11-26-2019 at 06:43 PM.
  #231  
Old 11-26-2019, 06:45 PM
octopus's Avatar
octopus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 9,360
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimstu View Post
Sure, but the only consequences of such actions that civilized people should support are legal ones. E.g., you get arrested for illegally blocking traffic, you get scowled at and yelled at by the drivers you're inconveniencing, you get scolded on social media by people who recognized you, you get grounded by your mom and dad, etc. All those are legitimate consequences of deliberately violating traffic laws as an act of protest.

Nowadays, however, people are being actively encouraged to condone illegal violent aggression against protestors as a normal and expected, even inevitable, form of "consequences" for blocking traffic. That's basically just outsourcing violent repression of civil protest to malevolent volunteers, and recruiting said volunteers to carry it out.
Folks on this board advocate violence over wearing a hat or supporting the president. Where's your concern over those posters? Oh? It fits your biases? You don't say.
  #232  
Old 11-26-2019, 06:49 PM
Kimstu is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 23,045
Quote:
Originally Posted by octopus View Post
Folks on this board advocate violence over wearing a hat or supporting the president.
And if I ever supported the advocacy of such measures that you allege, I'd be a hypocrite. But in fact I never have.

So your whataboutish attempt at deflection isn't really getting you anywhere.
  #233  
Old 11-26-2019, 06:51 PM
margin is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 1,257
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kearsen1 View Post
Morality?
Compliant with the law is where I set my "at fault" bar and my "should face criminal charges" bar. Which was in the post I quoted ...
Slavery WAS legal. Seizing freedom for yourself if you were a slave was not.
__________________
They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.
  #234  
Old 11-26-2019, 06:55 PM
Musicat is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Sturgeon Bay, WI USA
Posts: 21,393
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
KILL THE EXTREMISTS!!!

One of my favorite bumper stickers.
We're gonna stamp out hate, poke it in the eye...
  #235  
Old 11-26-2019, 07:02 PM
Magiver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Dayton Ohio USA
Posts: 28,764
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimstu View Post
But violently assaulting someone for blocking traffic is also illegal (and worse, it's violent assault).
Yes but that's not what happened. A masked person blocks someone's path and yells at them. This is not the actions of a sane person and is perceived as a threat. Instead of running him over the driver moves the vehicle forward slowly. Crazy person then goes to driver's door and strikes it. Again, this can be perceived as a threat.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimstu View Post
Pro-tip: you are also not allowed to deliberately run down jaywalkers, even though they are also doing something illegal.
I'm not sure why you would post this. It has nothing to do with the issue.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimstu View Post
Said it before, saying it again: The attitudes of right-wingers on this topic reflect a deliberate effort on the part of conservatives both to pathologize the act of civil protest and to normalize reactions of hostility, intimidation and violence in response to acts of civil protest.
A couple of months ago I had a mountain of a person get in my face and try to goad me into a fight. I shoulder butted him back 5 feet even though he hadn't touched me. By your logic I assaulted him. by my logic I was in fear of getting pummeled and acted accordingly.

It doesn't seem by your responses that you've ever dealt with anyone who appears unstable. This is how the person wearing a mask and yelling at the driver appeared.

If that was a police officer instead of joe citizen then there is every likelihood masked guy would have been subdued by the officer.
  #236  
Old 11-26-2019, 07:16 PM
Kimstu is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 23,045
Quote:
Originally Posted by Magiver View Post
Yes but that's not what happened.
Well, see above discussion for how much we actually know about what in fact happened in this alleged incident of which there seems to be zero other documentation or information available.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Magiver
Instead of running him over the driver moves the vehicle forward slowly.
Moving a vehicle "forward slowly" so that it actually strikes and pushes a pedestrian is illegal.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Magiver
A couple of months ago I had a mountain of a person get in my face and try to goad me into a fight. I shoulder butted him back 5 feet even though he hadn't touched me.
Cool story, bro.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Magiver
If that was a police officer instead of joe citizen then there is every likelihood masked guy would have been subdued by the officer.
See above discussion for how much we actually know about what in fact happened in this alleged incident. How much we actually know about what would have happened if the circumstances of the alleged incident had been significantly different from what they appear to be is, not surprisingly, even less.
  #237  
Old 11-26-2019, 07:21 PM
crowmanyclouds's Avatar
crowmanyclouds is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: ... hiding in my room ...
Posts: 4,761
Quote:
Originally Posted by Magiver View Post
{...} I shoulder butted him back 5 feet {...}
Good choice, a double monkey punch would have been too much.

CMC fnord!
  #238  
Old 11-26-2019, 07:21 PM
Magiver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Dayton Ohio USA
Posts: 28,764
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimstu View Post
Well, see above discussion for how much we actually know about what in fact happened in this alleged incident of which there seems to be zero other documentation or information available.
Yes, it "COULD" be a completely different set of circumstances. We're discussing what we can see in the video. the answers you're objecting to are based on presumptions. Whether the presumptions are wrong doesn't negate the answers to which the presumptions were made. They are theoretical answers and not a definitive to the outcome of the story.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimstu View Post
Moving a vehicle "forward slowly" so that it actually strikes and pushes a pedestrian is illegal.
not if you're under threat.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimstu View Post
Cool story, bro.
it was relevant to the discussion. by his actions I felt threatened.

Last edited by Magiver; 11-26-2019 at 07:24 PM.
  #239  
Old 11-26-2019, 07:28 PM
Kimstu is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 23,045
Quote:
Originally Posted by Magiver View Post
not if you're under threat.
Another of your theoretical answers based on your "presumptions".

Making this sort of "presumption" to give every possible benefit of the doubt to people who violently assault protestors is part of the attempted normalization of repression of civil protest that I'm talking about.
  #240  
Old 11-26-2019, 07:37 PM
octopus's Avatar
octopus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 9,360
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimstu View Post
Another of your theoretical answers based on your "presumptions".

Making this sort of "presumption" to give every possible benefit of the doubt to people who violently assault protestors is part of the attempted normalization of repression of civil protest that I'm talking about.
Protest on a side walk or in a park then. You donít have the right to shut down vital infrastructure.
  #241  
Old 11-26-2019, 07:45 PM
Kobal2's Avatar
Kobal2 is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Paris, France
Posts: 19,127
Quote:
Originally Posted by octopus View Post
Protest on a side walk or in a park then. You donít have the right to shut down vital infrastructure.
Good point. And if you're going to strike, do it on Sunday and/or after business hours !
  #242  
Old 11-26-2019, 07:49 PM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm is online now
Champion Chili Chef
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 63,141
Quote:
Originally Posted by octopus View Post
Protest on a side walk or in a park then. You donít have the right to shut down vital infrastructure.
If you see someone breaking the law, call the police-Don't publicly encourage others to illegally assault them in response...especially if you happen to be a gutless wonder looking for vicarious and violent thrills.
  #243  
Old 11-26-2019, 07:54 PM
Walken After Midnight is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 5,398
Quote:
Originally Posted by Magiver View Post
We're discussing what we can see in the video.
As the video starts, the footperson appears to be stepping from the sidewalk/side and he stops in the road/path of the stationary vehicle. The driver of the vehicle is outside the vehicle and returning to the driver seat from the direction of the footperson.

We don't know what's gone on prior to the start of the video, but it seems likely that there was some interaction between the two individuals since the footperson appears to be speaking and gesticulating to the driver.

The footperson is standing still/"blocking the road" for six seconds before being hit by the car. The time period between the driver entering his vehicle and closing the door, and the forward movement of the vehicle into the footperson is less than two seconds.
  #244  
Old 11-26-2019, 07:59 PM
Atamasama's Avatar
Atamasama is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 4,764
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
If you see someone breaking the law, call the police-Don't publicly encourage others to illegally assault them in response...especially if you happen to be a gutless wonder looking for vicarious and violent thrills.
Bingo.
  #245  
Old 11-26-2019, 08:09 PM
raventhief's Avatar
raventhief is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 5,082
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimstu View Post
Another of your theoretical answers based on your "presumptions".

Making this sort of "presumption" to give every possible benefit of the doubt to people who violently assault protestors is part of the attempted normalization of repression of civil protest that I'm talking about.
If he felt threatened, it seems a bit silly to get out of the car, doesn't it?
  #246  
Old 11-26-2019, 08:16 PM
Kimstu is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 23,045
Quote:
Originally Posted by octopus View Post
Protest on a side walk or in a park then. You donít have the right to shut down vital infrastructure.
Nobody is disagreeing that it's illegal to break the law by illegally blocking traffic. I entirely agree that people should not break the law.

But trying to make such actions sound extra grave by calling traffic "vital infrastructure" is also part of these pro-repression tactics.

Conservatives are trying to make it sound as though the illegal traffic-blocking activities of protestors are intrinsically so bad and dangerous that we should automatically expect drivers to assault protestors, and consider that the protestors were "asking for it" if drivers do assault them. That, as I said, is just encouraging the public to take on the task of violently repressing civil protest.
  #247  
Old 11-26-2019, 08:36 PM
octopus's Avatar
octopus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 9,360
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimstu View Post
Nobody is disagreeing that it's illegal to break the law by illegally blocking traffic. I entirely agree that people should not break the law.

But trying to make such actions sound extra grave by calling traffic "vital infrastructure" is also part of these pro-repression tactics.

Conservatives are trying to make it sound as though the illegal traffic-blocking activities of protestors are intrinsically so bad and dangerous that we should automatically expect drivers to assault protestors, and consider that the protestors were "asking for it" if drivers do assault them. That, as I said, is just encouraging the public to take on the task of violently repressing civil protest.
If you are talking about the USA how are you being repressed?
  #248  
Old 11-26-2019, 08:46 PM
Walken After Midnight is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 5,398
He was blocking traffic for less than two seconds, which I'm not sure would pass muster.

There's still no evidence from the video that this is a protest, an attempt to block traffic, or that the footperson is an "antifa" or protester of any type.

Really, we can make up whatever fantasy we like about what has precipitated this incident.

So, I'll have a go. The guy in the truck is a hardcore Trump supporter and white nationalist. He was driving along when he saw someone with brown-colored skin across the street. He immediately stopped his vehicle in the middle of the road, and went and punched this person while cursing them with racial epithets. He was returning to his vehicle when he encountered the footperson, who just happened to be walking by at the time and who had witnessed the incident. The white nationalist Trump supporter shoulder-butted footperson out of the way, around five feet. Footperson remonstrated with white nationalist Trump supporter as he got back into his vehicle. White nationalist Trump supporter immediately started up his vehicle, and then accelerated forward, driving his vehicle into footperson, pushing him backwards for several yards. Footperson then struck the vehicle twice with his gloved hand. White nationalist Trump supporter got out of his vehicle and gave footperson a beating.
  #249  
Old 11-26-2019, 09:04 PM
Kimstu is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 23,045
Quote:
Originally Posted by octopus View Post
If you are talking about the USA how are you being repressed?
Do you really not understand the difference between the claims "This is a deliberate effort to encourage the attitude that violently assaulting protestors blocking traffic is normal and reasonable, in order to exert a repressive effect on acts of civil protest", and "I personally am presently being repressed"?

Or was that just a consciously desperate attempt at further goalpost-shifting?
  #250  
Old 11-27-2019, 03:09 AM
Budget Player Cadet is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 9,722
Maybe we should stop assuming that the guy who hedged for like a page on whether or not Heather Hayes was responsible for her own murder at the hand of neo-nazis has anything of value to say on...

...anything. At all. Seriously, just stop responding to him. He's a fucking tool and the sooner everyone stops reading and quoting what he says, the better.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:50 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017