Its rather irritating when I type exactly why I am fine with it and then you turn it on it’s head and claim I mean something else (and it isn’t just you)
Please read for comprehension or shut the fuck up (see the irony!)
Sure, if you want you kid to never stick up for themselves of for injustices that they see.
No, if I were of the mindset that they should be free to do what they want, then I’d encourage them to punch people for saying “fuck you”.
But rather, I am of the mindset that they should be allowed to express their opinion without fear of violent retribution.
To be honest, as much as I chuckle when I see the gif of Spencer getting punched in the face, the person who hit him was in the wrong, and even his speech should face only verbal repercussions, not violent ones.
What term do you use when you tell a woman that she was at fault for what she was wearing or where she went? I think that that is the word you are looking for.
You are another who likes to twist and turn what I type into what you think i mean. Wrong again!
Fear? No , they don’t need to fear but they damn sure should be aware that a violent reaction may happen when you are screaming Fuck You to someone.
And secondly, I wouldn’t be teaching my kids to speak like that, it sounds ignorant and like you can’t convey meaning with other words, when you resort to cursing at people.
Every action that you do may come with a repercussion that is unwarranted or violent, and you are doing a disservice to little Timmy if you don’t explain that to him otherwise he will get out in the real world and he gets punched for simply cursing at someone.
personally, I teach my kids to be civil first and foremost, if that fails then deal with the situation.
As for this …
…
…
Just sad.
Oh no, I would teach my kids that there are assholes out there that may choose to be violent for unjustifiable reasons. The world’s kinda a shitty place, and they should know that.
But they shouldn’t be afraid to express themselves because there are assholes out there.
And while “fuck you” is not always the best choice of words in a civil discourse, sometimes they are in fact the best words to express some sentiments.
You are the one who is victim blaming here. Saying that the victim encouraged the attack. That they should take responsibility for their actions that caused someone to assault them.
I’m not sure what else you want to call it.
One More Time.
I am not blaming the victim, merely stating that he is responsible for his actions. His actions caused a reaction (see; Science) Whether that reaction was improbable, or guaranteed changes nothing. That was a reaction he did not want. He could have stopped the action from happening by doing a single thing differently.
Be civil.
END>
in case it is hard to understand, I am not talking to him, or the one who punched. I am giving responsibility to those who make the choices they do.
It can be extrapolated throughout the entirety of the world.
Not caught up on the thread, but this stood out.
That’s self-contradictory. Local ordinances are the law. It may only be misdemeanors, but still. Marching in the streets may be Constitutionally protected (I do not know - that ACLU link says it is with restrictions), and might not be against federal law, and it certainly isn’t destructive behavior by itself, but city, town, county ordinances are “law”.
The certainly have the right to respond to things being thrown at them to cause harm. Water bottles, rocks, and Molotov cocktails are various shades of dangerous to them. However, what level of response is justified and acceptable is the issue. Taking apprehenders into custody or dispersing violent crowds is appropriate, however, gassing and pepper ball shooting and impact rounds (bean bags, etc) should be reserved for actual riots, not people peacefully assembling and refusing to disperse because of some curfew or inconvenience to access. Shooting impact rounds at protesters’ faces is an outright violation of basic duty. Sure, “I was trying to hit the radio.” That’s not a defense, they are trained for center of body shots or extremities but to avoid the head. They know their aim with those things is not that precise. Striking protesters with batons for simply refusing to move out of the way or pepper-spraying directly in the face is also a no-no. Those are outrageous and should be disciplined or even prosecuted, if the legal system actually worked for the people.
The actions of the feds here is atrocious and should be repudiated by any decent person. It’s mind boggling that the same voices screaming “Tyranny!” over being told to wear a mask and socially distance are standing aside or rooting for the government when the jackboots are actually in the streets. It’s truly a case of “They’re not coming for me or my guns, we’re cool.”
Okay, last time, as you have said this repeatedly, and I agree that that is what you said. I agree that he is responsible for his actions. What we disagree with is whether he is responsible for the actions of the criminal who assaulted him.
Agreed that that is what you said. It was his fault. He caused the reaction.
Agreed that that is what you have said.
We are not in disagreement as to what you have said, or that you have said that he is at fault for the actions of the criminal who assaulted him.
Not even sure what it is that you are arguing about, at this point. You are saying that it was his fault that he was assaulted. I say it was the entirely the fault of the criminal that assaulted him.
We can agree to disagree. I can leave it here.
I have said that he is responsible for his actions. Period.
If he didn’t want to deal with the fall out of the possible repercussions, do not do the action that caused the repercussion.
So no, I am not blaming the victim for being punched, merely saying that he could have avoided the entire thing by, being civil.
Say what?
Where is your evidence that the person who got beaten up wanted to be beaten up?
His actions did not cause the other person to hit him. That is not remotely science.
This is starting to remind me of a batterer saying ‘She made me hit her!’ because his wife didn’t do what he told her.
It really is rather tiresome defending something you make up. He got what he wanted by getting to say what he wanted, how he wanted to say it. Especially when it comes from the usual suspects.
The punch was evidently to you and others, an unforeseen repercussion.
Unforeseen, not because it was utterly impossible, but because it’s not in this century generally accepted or expected to hit somebody because of something they said – just as nobody thinks it’s utterly impossible to be rear ended if they stop at a red light, but nobody thinks of it as something they expect to happen at any given stop.
I don’t know what circumstances you’re living in, but I read a whole batch of various sources, and spend time with a fair variety of people, and people swear at each other with some frequency, sometimes with considerable vehemence; but no it is not just normal behavior to respond by hitting them. And yes I have been to protest marches. Sometimes people who go by give us thumbs up; sometimes they swear at us. Happened in the 70’s, happens in the 2020’s. None of the people swearing showed any signs of expecting to be punched for it.
If being punched were a reasonable expectation as a response to words, there’d be a whole lot more battery cases in the news than there are. Because people swear at other people all the time.
And it is most certainly not a ‘win-win’ situation when somebody gets punched. Unless, perhaps, between willing people in a boxing ring or some other consensual game in which the punch is within the rules.
The First Amendment protections for peacable assembly are supreme (see supremacy clause) and have been incorporated against the states (see 14th Amendment due process clause). If going on a particular march is a right protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments, then any law which violates that right is unconstitutional and therefore null and void as a matter of law.
~Max
Which they get around with that sneaky word “peaceful”
If the protest turns non-peaceful, then no Constitutional rights are being violated by breaking it up.
I do question, at what point and to whom does that judgement fall upon?
Who decides whether the assembly is peaceful or not? Rioting and looting? Moving barricades? Taunting? Where is the line?
I think this is the core disagreement between you and Kearsen1 and I, at least when “something they said” happens to be “fuck you”. Now can we get back to the topic of legal issues with black-bagging protestors in Portland?
~Max
Defending themselves against Patriot Prayer and/or Proud Boys?
That was going to be the follow up question. And one that has proven successful in the past I would assume, if agitators (whomever they may be) can change the landscape of an assembly, does it get shut down?
I would assume the answer to this falls along partisan lines.
Um…
It does not follow; there are other Constitutional rights besides the right to assemble peaceably. Whatever procedure is used to break up a violent protest must still respect all the other applicable rights of protestors.
Law enforcement makes the decision (who else?), but if called upon courts get the last say. For an example of the courts calling bullshit, read Edwards v. South Carolina, 372 U.S. 229 (1963). C.f. Feiner v. New York, 340 U.S. 315 (1951). Law enforcement does not have the discretion to selectively enforce local statutes so as to effectively become content-based censors, Cox v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 536, 557 (1965).
~Max