Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Jesus Christ on a Bike.

these s in the with a rusty mace.

http://www.telesurtv.net/english/news/Republicans-Want-to-Protect-Drivers-Who-Hit-DAPL-Protesters-20170114-0005.html

Shifts the burden of proof to the protestor.

After the Ferguson riots and NC riots... I have zero empathy.

I'm for this. Looking at ND's makeup, I really doubt this'll pass... unless, the peeps there are pissed at the protestors.

This is is boys, Whembly has OKed murder if it's against the other side!

Grow up... I said no such thing.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Jesus Christ on a Bike.

these s in the with a rusty mace.

http://www.telesurtv.net/english/news/Republicans-Want-to-Protect-Drivers-Who-Hit-DAPL-Protesters-20170114-0005.html

Shifts the burden of proof to the protestor.

After the Ferguson riots and NC riots... I have zero empathy.

I'm for this. Looking at ND's makeup, I really doubt this'll pass... unless, the peeps there are pissed at the protestors.

This is is boys, Whembly has OKed murder if it's against the other side!

All praise to glorious party. How dare anyone disagree and exercise "right to protest." Under the wheels with them I say!

 LordofHats wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Jesus Christ on a Bike.

these s in the with a rusty mace.

http://www.telesurtv.net/english/news/Republicans-Want-to-Protect-Drivers-Who-Hit-DAPL-Protesters-20170114-0005.html

Shifts the burden of proof to the protestor.

After the Ferguson riots and NC riots... I have zero empathy.

I'm for this. Looking at ND's makeup, I really doubt this'll pass... unless, the peeps there are pissed at the protestors.

This is is boys, Whembly has OKed murder if it's against the other side!

All praise to glorious party. How dare anyone disagree and exercise "right to protest." Under the wheels with them I say!

Walking in the middle of a street or highway to shut down traffic isn't 'protesting'. That's civil disobedience.

 whembly wrote:
Grow up... I said no such thing.

 whembly wrote:
After the Ferguson riots and NC riots... I have zero empathy.

So yes, you did in fact say that murder is ok.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
That's civil disobedience.

AKA protesting.

 whembly wrote:

Walking in the middle of a street or highway to shut down traffic isn't 'protesting'. That's civil disobedience.

Oh for the love of God...

We're really at that point.

 whembly wrote:
However, wanted an exec fired (like Brendan Eich's Mozilla... who stepped down) is chilling free speech imo.

No it isn't. Freedom of speech has never meant "you can't be fired for the things you say".

 Peregrine wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
That's civil disobedience.

AKA protesting.

Not legally.

The moment you break the law (ie, shutting down a street/highway) it stops being "a protest" and becomes "a civil disobedience".

 whembly wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Jesus Christ on a Bike.

these s in the with a rusty mace.

http://www.telesurtv.net/english/news/Republicans-Want-to-Protect-Drivers-Who-Hit-DAPL-Protesters-20170114-0005.html

Shifts the burden of proof to the protestor.

After the Ferguson riots and NC riots... I have zero empathy.

I'm for this. Looking at ND's makeup, I really doubt this'll pass... unless, the peeps there are pissed at the protestors.

This is is boys, Whembly has OKed murder if it's against the other side!

Grow up... I said no such thing.

Really? Did you not just say that you are OK with a law that allows drives to kill or injure people protesting and blocking the road, by making it harder to prosecute because you have, and I quote, "zero empathy". Literally read what you just wrote and think about it more than the three seconds you usually give stuff. The law is a fethed-up revenge fantasy come alive.

 Peregrine wrote:

 whembly wrote:
However, wanted an exec fired (like Brendan Eich's Mozilla... who stepped down) is chilling free speech imo.

No it isn't. Freedom of speech has never meant "you can't be fired for the things you say".

Didn't say so... only pointing out how despicable it is to advocate someone to lose his/her job over said person's speech.

 whembly wrote:
Not legally.

The moment you break the law (ie, shutting down a street/highway) it stops being "a protest" and becomes "a civil disobedience".

Civil disobedience is a form of protest.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 whembly wrote:
However, wanted an exec fired (like Brendan Eich's Mozilla... who stepped down) is chilling free speech imo.

No it isn't. Freedom of speech has never meant "you can't be fired for the things you say".

Didn't say so... only pointing out how despicable it is to advocate someone to lose his/her job over said person's speech.

Yes you did, it's right there in that post FFS.

However, wanted an exec fired (like Brendan Eich's Mozilla... who stepped down) is chilling free speech imo.

If the right to free speech is not involved here then why did you explicitly say the words "free speech" in that sentence?

 whembly wrote:

Walking in the middle of a street or highway to shut down traffic isn't 'protesting'. That's civil disobedience.

So it's OK too injure and kill people who are disobeying the law to protest? I thought gak like that died in the 60's, but I guess that's a perfectly fine thing to say.

 whembly wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Jesus Christ on a Bike.

these s in the with a rusty mace.

http://www.telesurtv.net/english/news/Republicans-Want-to-Protect-Drivers-Who-Hit-DAPL-Protesters-20170114-0005.html

Shifts the burden of proof to the protestor.

After the Ferguson riots and NC riots... I have zero empathy.

I'm for this. Looking at ND's makeup, I really doubt this'll pass... unless, the peeps there are pissed at the protestors.

This is is boys, Whembly has OKed murder if it's against the other side!

All praise to glorious party. How dare anyone disagree and exercise "right to protest." Under the wheels with them I say!

Walking in the middle of a street or highway to shut down traffic isn't 'protesting'. That's civil disobedience.

And what about simply crossing the street at a crosswalk and getting hit and killed by someone running the red light? Kinda hard to prove your innocence when you're dead...

 Tannhauser42 wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Jesus Christ on a Bike.

these s in the with a rusty mace.

http://www.telesurtv.net/english/news/Republicans-Want-to-Protect-Drivers-Who-Hit-DAPL-Protesters-20170114-0005.html

Shifts the burden of proof to the protestor.

After the Ferguson riots and NC riots... I have zero empathy.

I'm for this. Looking at ND's makeup, I really doubt this'll pass... unless, the peeps there are pissed at the protestors.

This is is boys, Whembly has OKed murder if it's against the other side!

All praise to glorious party. How dare anyone disagree and exercise "right to protest." Under the wheels with them I say!

Walking in the middle of a street or highway to shut down traffic isn't 'protesting'. That's civil disobedience.

And what about simply crossing the street at a crosswalk and getting hit and killed by someone running the red light? Kinda hard to prove your innocence when you're dead...

Hey man. If he hadn't been protesting the existence of red lights and cross walks he'd still be alive.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Jesus Christ on a Bike.

these s in the with a rusty mace.

http://www.telesurtv.net/english/news/Republicans-Want-to-Protect-Drivers-Who-Hit-DAPL-Protesters-20170114-0005.html

Shifts the burden of proof to the protestor.

After the Ferguson riots and NC riots... I have zero empathy.

I'm for this. Looking at ND's makeup, I really doubt this'll pass... unless, the peeps there are pissed at the protestors.

This is is boys, Whembly has OKed murder if it's against the other side!

Grow up... I said no such thing.

Really? Did you not just say that you are OK with a law that allows drives to kill or injure people protesting and blocking the road, by making it harder to prosecute because you have, and I quote, "zero empathy". Literally read what you just wrote and think about it more than the three seconds you usually give stuff. The law is a fethed-up revenge fantasy come alive.

The law doesn't "allow" drivers to kill or injure people. Jaysus... are you reading what you're writing here?

Walking in traffic is dangerous fething gak. People ought to know better.

If you wanna protest and walk up/down a street... get a god damn permit for it. That's the right thing to do for public safety.... can you not see that?




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Tannhauser42 wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Jesus Christ on a Bike.

these s in the with a rusty mace.

http://www.telesurtv.net/english/news/Republicans-Want-to-Protect-Drivers-Who-Hit-DAPL-Protesters-20170114-0005.html

Shifts the burden of proof to the protestor.

After the Ferguson riots and NC riots... I have zero empathy.

I'm for this. Looking at ND's makeup, I really doubt this'll pass... unless, the peeps there are pissed at the protestors.

Um, the driver would be nabbed for manslaugter. Any podunk po-po can easily charge the driver for manslaughter. This isn't a "get out jail card".

This is is boys, Whembly has OKed murder if it's against the other side!

All praise to glorious party. How dare anyone disagree and exercise "right to protest." Under the wheels with them I say!

Walking in the middle of a street or highway to shut down traffic isn't 'protesting'. That's civil disobedience.

And what about simply crossing the street at a crosswalk and getting hit and killed by someone running the red light? Kinda hard to prove your innocence when you're dead...

 whembly wrote:


If you wanna protest and walk up/down a street... get a god damn permit for it. That's the right thing to do for public safety.... can you not see that?

What I see is a political party punishing dissent for the mere act of dissent, and a constituency that cheers them on with no thought and no consideration.

The word "fascist" in regards to Republicans has finally ceased to be hyperbole.

 whembly wrote:
Walking in traffic is dangerous fething gak.

No it isn't. In the kind of "shut down the street" protests we're talking about the protest is easily visible, traffic is slowed sufficiently that braking distance and reaction time are not relevant, and the only reason hitting a person is at all a possible outcome is that people don't want to accept that the road is shut down and try to force their way through. If you are driving safely, which includes yielding to pedestrians no matter where they may be or what you might think of their actions, you will not hit a protestor.

 Tannhauser42 wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Jesus Christ on a Bike.

these s in the with a rusty mace.

http://www.telesurtv.net/english/news/Republicans-Want-to-Protect-Drivers-Who-Hit-DAPL-Protesters-20170114-0005.html

Shifts the burden of proof to the protestor.

After the Ferguson riots and NC riots... I have zero empathy.

I'm for this. Looking at ND's makeup, I really doubt this'll pass... unless, the peeps there are pissed at the protestors.

Um, the driver would be nabbed for manslaugter. Any podunk po-po can easily charge the driver for manslaughter. This isn't a "get out jail card".

This is is boys, Whembly has OKed murder if it's against the other side!

All praise to glorious party. How dare anyone disagree and exercise "right to protest." Under the wheels with them I say!

Walking in the middle of a street or highway to shut down traffic isn't 'protesting'. That's civil disobedience.

And what about simply crossing the street at a crosswalk and getting hit and killed by someone running the red light? Kinda hard to prove your innocence when you're dead...

Any podunk po-po will nab the driver for at least manslaughter. This isn't a "Get out of jail card".

 whembly wrote:

The law doesn't "allow" drivers to kill or injure people. Jaysus... are you reading what you're writing here?

Walking in traffic is dangerous fething gak. People ought to know better.

If you wanna protest and walk up/down a street... get a god damn permit for it. That's the right thing to do for public safety.... can you not see that?

This is literally (and I mean that in the correct usage of the word) the opposite of a public safety law. It's making it easier for those who hit, injure, and even kill people blocking traffic harder to prosecute (because people were “having their lives disrupted” ).

Okay guys. Republicans are evil...

Walking in traffic amidst a protests is totes safe...

Great way to garner sympathy for our cause!

 whembly wrote:
The law doesn't "allow" drivers to kill or injure people.

That's exactly what it does. The proposed law changes the burden of proof to the victim. Currently if you hit a pedestrian the burden of proof is on you to prove that it was an unavoidable accident, not reckless driving/negligence/etc. Under the proposed law the driver is now assumed to be innocent (as long as the victim is a protestor illegally blocking the street) and won't be convicted unless the prosecution can prove that the act was deliberate. Because proving this is virtually impossible all a driver has to do to escape the consequences of murder is say "oops, I didn't mean to do it".


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
Walking in traffic amidst a protests is totes safe...

Again, yes, it is safe in this context. If all drivers involved are following the laws about yielding to pedestrians (and other safe-driving rules) traffic will be stopped entirely if is not safe to proceed through the protest area. The only danger comes from drivers who refuse to accept that the road is shut down and try to force their way through, creating a dangerous situation. 100% of the fault in any injury is with the driver, not the protestor.

 whembly wrote:
Okay guys. Republicans are evil...

Yes were reaching the point where people can say that and I won't give them a weird look.

Walking in traffic amidst a protests is totes safe...

No one said that, and if you stopped riding the bandwagon for a bit you'd realize how insane things are becoming.

Great way to garner sympathy for our cause!

And this is why it's all becoming a sick joke. You don't even realize how ludicrous it is to trumpet your "zero empathy" and then talk about how other people should look to you to garner sympathy.

 whembly wrote:
Okay guys. Republicans are evil...

Walking in traffic amidst a protests is totes safe...

Great way to garner sympathy for our cause!

Nobody said it was safe, but somehow I think making it less so is going to solve anything.

Driving while drunk is also not safe, they help that with campaign and laws, not by making it so all cars have worse handling when a drunk person drives it.

 whembly wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 whembly wrote:
However, wanted an exec fired (like Brendan Eich's Mozilla... who stepped down) is chilling free speech imo.

No it isn't. Freedom of speech has never meant "you can't be fired for the things you say".

Didn't say so... only pointing out how despicable it is to advocate someone to lose his/her job over said person's speech.

So it's despicable to use ones first amendment rights and advocate someone losing their job, but you're ok with people losing their lives for exercising their first amendment rights.

I think you have your priorities backwards and I agree, you have no empathy.

the highways are public spaces, therefore we are free to assemble there, and violating that right by trying to kill the protesters is the most unamerican thing you could possibly do.

Let's say that protesting on a freeway is breaking the law and deserves punishment to protect public safety...

...Since when does such a crime warrant being hit by a civilian car, with the trial coming afterward to see if the driver incorrectly carried out that punishment?

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Let's say that protesting on a freeway is breaking the law and deserves punishment to protect public safety...

...Since when does such a crime warrant being hit by a civilian car, with the trial coming afterward to see if the driver incorrectly carried out that punishment?

Hey man. If I can fantasize about gunning down a criminal in my house, why can't I fantasize about running down a criminal in my road?

Nothing wrong with killing people as long as they deserve it!

sirlynchmob wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 whembly wrote:
However, wanted an exec fired (like Brendan Eich's Mozilla... who stepped down) is chilling free speech imo.

No it isn't. Freedom of speech has never meant "you can't be fired for the things you say".

Didn't say so... only pointing out how despicable it is to advocate someone to lose his/her job over said person's speech.

So it's despicable to use ones first amendment rights and advocate someone losing their job, but you're ok with people losing their lives for exercising their first amendment rights.

Civil disobedience <> protesting.

The former can get you jailed/fined and the latter perfectly fine.

I think you have your priorities backwards and I agree, you have no empathy.

For shutting down a highway? I sure as feth don't have empathy...

the highways are public spaces, therefore we are free to assemble there,

That is incorrect. You can be arrested.

and violating that right by trying to kill the protesters is the most unamerican thing you could possibly do.

Jeez... it's put words in Whem's mouth night. No one is advocating killing the protesters.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
EDIT: you guys are on a silly roll tonight.

 whembly wrote:
Jeez... it's put words in Whem's mouth night. No one is advocating killing the protesters.

Nobody, except you when you say you have zero sympathy for a murdered protester.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Let's say that protesting on a freeway is breaking the law and deserves punishment to protect public safety...
...Since when does such a crime warrant being hit by a civilian car, with the trial coming afterward to see if the driver incorrectly carried out that punishment?

... hey, I'm not the one advocating that they warrant being hit by a car.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Jeez... it's put words in Whem's mouth night. No one is advocating killing the protesters.

Nobody, except you when you say you have zero sympathy for a murdered protester.

Didn't even write that. Quit lying.

 whembly wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 whembly wrote:
However, wanted an exec fired (like Brendan Eich's Mozilla... who stepped down) is chilling free speech imo.

No it isn't. Freedom of speech has never meant "you can't be fired for the things you say".

Didn't say so... only pointing out how despicable it is to advocate someone to lose his/her job over said person's speech.

So it's despicable to use ones first amendment rights and advocate someone losing their job, but you're ok with people losing their lives for exercising their first amendment rights.

Civil disobedience <> protesting.

The former can get you jailed/fined and the latter perfectly fine.

I think you have your priorities backwards and I agree, you have no empathy.

For shutting down a highway? I sure as feth don't have empathy...

the highways are public spaces, therefore we are free to assemble there,

That is incorrect. You can be arrested.

and violating that right by trying to kill the protesters is the most unamerican thing you could possibly do.

Jeez... it's put words in Whem's mouth night. No one is advocating killing the protesters.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
EDIT: you guys are on a silly roll tonight.

arrested for what exactly? if no laws are being broken it can't be civil disobedience.

keeping in mind "The First Amendment of the Bill of Rights provides that “Congress shall make no law … abridging … the right of the people peaceably to assemble.”

 Peregrine wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Jeez... it's put words in Whem's mouth night. No one is advocating killing the protesters.

Nobody, except you when you say you have zero sympathy for a murdered protester.

Saying you have Zero empathy does NOT equal advocating murder. Thats fething ridiculous. All it means is that a person doesn't care that it happened, that they won't shed a tear.

So attack Whembly for being a heartless bastard if you must, but accusing him of inciting violence is Libel and you owe Whembly an apology. This is a false accusation of a criminal offence.