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 don’t believe folks have the right to unlawfully restrain someone. Blocking traffic is illegal.
Judges…?
< Snap! > < Snap! > < Snap! > < Snap! > and the East German judge says < Щелчок! >
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.
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.
Blocking traffic is illegal but that’s not a proportionate response, nor is it a legal one. If someone is trying to block you and you drive around them that’s fine. But “pushing” someone with your vehicle is a bad idea because if you injure that person, it’s usually considered vehicular assault. Typically that crime occurs if a person is driving “recklessly” or “carelessly”, 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.
Wait. You can’t run over jaywalkers or shoot those who litter? What’s the point of a 2nd amendment then?
Anyways, I guess you do have the freedom to illegally block traffic. That doesn’t mean you have the freedom from being consequenced.
As you love to say, will you be happy when someone decides YOU’RE in the way and busts your jaw?
“Consequenced”??
- There is no such word.
- 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.
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.
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.
Slavery WAS legal. Seizing freedom for yourself if you were a slave was not.
We’re gonna stamp out hate, poke it in the eye…
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.
I’m not sure why you would post this. It has nothing to do with the issue.
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.
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.
:rolleyes: Moving a vehicle “forward slowly” so that it actually strikes and pushes a pedestrian is illegal.
Cool story, bro.
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.
Good choice, a double monkey punch would have been too much.
CMC fnord!
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.
not if you’re under threat.
it was relevant to the discussion. by his actions I felt threatened.
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 don’t have the right to shut down vital infrastructure.