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.
Furthermore, with respect to the differences between a "peaceful protest" and a "civil disobedience"....one's 'right' to protest ends when you interfere with others' freedom of movement.
Civil disobedience is a form of peaceful protest. The fact that a protest is inconvenient to you does not mean that it is violent or not a protest.
Civil disobedience by definition, is an unlawful gathering.
Blocking my legitimate movement is a battery(I think that's what it's called in court) under all state laws.
No it is not.
So I don't have legitimate movement on highway? You're gravely mistaken.
Indeed... those who chose to block highways and major thoroughfares just to draw attention to their cause are taking a great risk, something that is NOTthe job of public safety officials to ignore.
There is no risk if you are a safe driver. There is a great inconvenience, perhaps, but the only risk comes from reckless and/or negligent drivers who are 100% responsible for any harm. You know the protest is there, you are free to stop your vehicle and wait until the protest is out of the way before proceeding. If all drivers do this there is zero risk to anyone.
Not every driver is a good driver... in fact, we're surrounded by idiots on the road.
Stop whitewashing this, it's more than an inconvience. It's a safety hazard as well, potentially impacting emergency vehicle movements.
from the aclu's website:
" A protest that blocks vehicular or pedestrian traffic is illegal without a permit."
Get your permit and block traffic for weeks for the cause.
so if a construction worker holds a stop sign up while you're driving down the road, do you consider that battery as well?
Again, blocking roads can be done legally, it is not automatically civil disobedience. And unless you can quote a specific law, I again refer to the first amendment.
If the driver did, indeed hit & killed the pedestrian, that's auto manslaughter.
Then I'll be sure to maim the next protestor I see... Just to be sure a human can live without legs, right? Those are completely superfluous, like a fetus?
Jesus fething Christ. Of course the political party that things anyone from Syria must be a sleeper agent until proven otherwise thinks its a good idea to force people to prove they didn't warrant being physically harmed.
You're being hyperbolic... dial it down a bit please.
The sad thing is that we're not being hyperbolic, and that's why there's no point in taking this gak seriously anymore.
Furthermore, with respect to the differences between a "peaceful protest" and a "civil disobedience"....one's 'right' to protest ends when you interfere with others' freedom of movement.
Damn straight. I say we go back in time, arrest all those silly protestors and hang um from the closest tree with the nicest rope money can by. I vote we start with Martin Luther King Jr. Then we'll do Ghandi (big two really important), and from there we'll find Rosa Parks (make sure you rape her first that's how it was done back then and obviously if she can't prove she has a right to sitting in the front of the bus when the law says she clearly doesn't she's gonna have to prove she had a right to sit there after we subject her to some "physical force").
Blocking my legitimate movement is a battery(I think that's what it's called in court) under all state laws.
Oh I'm so sor'eh masta. I never get in ya way again masta.
Far to often, our culture has become excessively deferential to violating the rights of others.
Seriously?
fething seriously?
Are you fething serious right now?
feth it.
Nothing more to do with this.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/01/15 06:51:43
Peregrine wrote: 3) Ignores the fact that a driver must yield to pedestrians in all circumstances, even if the pedestrian is not in the road in the correct place.
Pretty sure you have to defer to state law in that regard. In Indiana, at least, you yield to pedestrians in cross walks. Jaywalkers do NOT have the right of way, which would lump protesters in the same vein as jaywalkers, as far as the law goes. So yeah, block a road in Indiana, and you can be arrested.
As far as "...life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" goes, if someone is made late to their job because of this, or happens to get fired because of not being somewhere on time, or some majorly important service can't be rendered because of the blockade, wouldn't that interfere with "the pursuit of happiness"? Your rights are guaranteed until you infringe upon the rights of others, whether your rights violations are sympathy enducing or not.
One, I'm not Peregrine and Peregrine isn't me. Who are you asking the question?
Two, your question isn't relevant to anything I or Peregrine have said or either of our criticisms so I'm not clear on why it matters or warrants answering.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/01/15 06:57:00
Co'tor Shas wrote: I still want to know what attrocties "the left" commited.
Historically?
Stalin and the Soviets.
Mao.
Pol Pot.
Khmer Rouge.
Fidel Castro.
The Stasi.
Or recently?
Sexualisation of children through sex ed.
The undermining of the traditional family unit.
Attacking the right to free speech in the name of fighting racism, sexism, and many other isms.
Putting the rights of foreign immigrants or terrorists at a higher priority than American/European citizens.
Cosying up to Islamic nations like Saudi Arabia or Palestine and damaging the US-Israel relationship.
Whether true or not (I make no claim as to their veracity), these are "crimes" the Left are frequently accused of. To shrug your shoulders and pretend to be unaware of what the Right accuse the Left of doing is either disingenuous or ignorant.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/01/15 07:00:03
Peregrine wrote: 3) Ignores the fact that a driver must yield to pedestrians in all circumstances, even if the pedestrian is not in the road in the correct place.
Pretty sure you have to defer to state law in that regard. In Indiana, at least, you yield to pedestrians in cross walks. Jaywalkers do NOT have the right of way, which would lump protesters in the same vein as jaywalkers, as far as the law goes. So yeah, block a road in Indiana, and you can be arrested.
As far as "...life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" goes, if someone is made late to their job because of this, or happens to get fired because of not being somewhere on time, or some majorly important service can't be rendered because of the blockade, wouldn't that interfere with "the pursuit of happiness"? Your rights are guaranteed until you infringe upon the rights of others, whether your rights violations are sympathy enducing or not.
does that only apply to protesters, or are you looking to sue the next construction company that makes you late for work? or if theirs an accident on the road, you should sue the people who caused the accident for infringing on your rights.
Allow me to quote a favorite saying among the Navy:
If you're late, it's on you, leave earlier and plan ahead because gak happens.
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.
Like Whembly, I have no sympathy for idiots in the street trying to stop traffic getting hit by cars. A protest with a permit is one thing. This is something a city can plan for and maybe work around.
The stupidity in Fergusen and like situations make it at the moron's own risk if they decide to get into the way of traffic.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/01/15 07:04:06
Co'tor Shas wrote: I still want to know what attrocties "the left" commited.
Historically?
Stalin and the Soviets.
Mao.
Pol Pot.
Khmer Rouge.
Fidel Castro.
The Stasi.
Or recently?
Sexualisation of children through sex ed.
The undermining of the traditional family unit.
Attacking the right to free speech in the name of fighting racism, sexism, and many other isms.
Putting the rights of foreign immigrants or terrorists at a higher priority than American/European citizens.
Cosying up to Islamic nations like Saudi Arabia or Palestine and damaging the US-Israel relationship.
Whether true or not (I make no claim as to their veracity), these are "crimes" the Left are frequently accused of. To shrug your shoulders and pretend to be unaware of what the Right accuse the Left of doing is either disingenuous or ignorant.
LOL, that is the dumbest thing I've ever seen posted here. Oh I'm aware the right blames the left for everything with no regard to facts or evidence, and as always the correct thing to do is laugh at dumb stuff like this.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/01/15 07:04:13
It's still a peaceful protest. Making a peaceful protest illegal doesn't make it cease being a peaceful protest.
So I don't have legitimate movement on highway? You're gravely mistaken.
What does this have to do with the crime of battery? Blocking a road is not battery, period.
Not every driver is a good driver... in fact, we're surrounded by idiots on the road.
Yes, this is true, but we hold those idiots responsible (in civil and/or criminal court) when their idiocy hurts someone. We don't say "it's ok, they took a risk because idiots like you are on the road" and excuse their harmful actions.
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: Whether true or not (I make no claim as to their veracity), these are "crimes" the Left are frequently accused of. To shrug your shoulders and pretend to be unaware of what the Right accuse the Left of doing is either disingenuous or ignorant.
So the guy who complained about libel is now knowling repeating claims you suspect might be false (otherwise you'd have no reason to voice any doubt as to their veracity) to smugly equate protestors who oppose an oil pipeline running through their lives with Pol Pot and the Stasi, and then claims anyone who somehow didn't connect "evils of the left" in a modern political discussion about the contemporary United States with such things is ignorant or disingenuous?
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: Then by your own standards you are advocating violence, the exact thing you are accusing Whembly of, which makes you a hypocrite.
It does no such thing. My accusations against whembly have nothing to do with a general "no advocating violence" rule. I object to his choice of victims for that advocacy, and I object to his attempts to weasel out of responsibility for the things he said.
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
It has gotten remarkably rude in here recently, with a lot of people violating the rules of dakka. I'm going to lock this for a short while. That's not an invitation to create new politics threads, this is a general slap of the hands away from the keyboards. Everyone use the next couple of hours to cool down before the thread unlocks.
Unlocked. Remember the rules of dakka dakka, you all agreed to them when you joined the website.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/01/15 08:39:15
I wish I had time for all the game systems I own, let alone want to own...
A ridiculous claim that has nothing to do with reality.
The undermining of the traditional family unit.
"Undermining" the obligation to live according to right-wing Christian ideology is not an atrocity. The US is a secular nation and, while right-wing Christians are free to follow the rules of their religion, they do not have the right to force the rest of us to do the same.
Attacking the right to free speech in the name of fighting racism, sexism, and many other isms.
No such thing is happening. Freedom of speech has never meant freedom from ordinary citizens objecting to your speech, the right to force private property owners to let you speak on their property, or a right to have an audience listen to you. The left is doing nothing to attack freedom of speech.
Putting the rights of foreign immigrants or terrorists at a higher priority than American/European citizens.
Nobody is putting the rights of terrorists at a higher priority, and the foreign immigrants "risk" is vastly overstated.
Cosying up to Islamic nations like Saudi Arabia or Palestine and damaging the US-Israel relationship.
IOW, doing just what the right has been doing? The right has been a fan of Saudi Arabia and any other Islamic nation that happens to be useful for their foreign policy goals. The only real difference is that the left isn't as eager to give Israel a blank check to commit whatever abuses it wants in the name of "security", but that's hardly anything worthy of the label "atrocity".
Whether true or not (I make no claim as to their veracity), these are "crimes" the Left are frequently accused of. To shrug your shoulders and pretend to be unaware of what the Right accuse the Left of doing is either disingenuous or ignorant.
Co'tor Shas asked for examples of atrocities done by "the left". The things you mentioned are not atrocities at all. Nor is the request faking ignorance, it's a demand for proof of a ridiculous accusation. I (and presumably Co'tor Shas) do not expect any answer to be provided, because no such atrocities exist to be presented.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/01/15 08:51:00
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
whembly wrote: It's mainly a misdemeaner for public nuisance and unlawful assembly.
...which also makes it OK if these people are hit by cars.
Ninth... stop lying. I'm not saying it's OK of these people are hit by cars.
I interpreted your statements about having zero empathy/not caring if these people get hit by cars as meaning you felt it was OK if that happened. I don't see how that was an unreasonable interpretation, or how it means I was lying, even I was wrong.
As a sidenote I don't really understand the inciting murder and whatnot line of conversation going on and I assure you my views have nothing to do with that.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/01/15 08:52:21
Just Tony wrote: Pretty sure you have to defer to state law in that regard. In Indiana, at least, you yield to pedestrians in cross walks. Jaywalkers do NOT have the right of way, which would lump protesters in the same vein as jaywalkers, as far as the law goes.
So in Indiana if you ignore a jaywalker and, instead of stopping and letting them cross, you run over them you honestly think "but I had right of way" is going to be a sufficient defense in court?
So yeah, block a road in Indiana, and you can be arrested.
That isn't the issue here. Nobody is objecting to the idea of arresting people for blocking the road and removing them so that traffic can move again. The issue is a proposed law that makes "they were protesting in the road" a defense if you hurt or kill someone with your car. Under this proposed law the state would have the near-impossible burden of proving that the act was deliberate murder, instead of the current situation where the driver is presumed to be at fault for hitting a pedestrian unless they can prove that the accident was unavoidable.
As far as "...life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" goes, if someone is made late to their job because of this, or happens to get fired because of not being somewhere on time, or some majorly important service can't be rendered because of the blockade, wouldn't that interfere with "the pursuit of happiness"? Your rights are guaranteed until you infringe upon the rights of others, whether your rights violations are sympathy enducing or not.
"Pursuit of happiness" is not a right under US law.
Automatically Appended Next Post: And to answer an earlier question:
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: What about that famous "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" aspect of the Declaration of Independence? Was that just a bit of prose, and never codified in the Constitution or other law?
Honest question here, I'm not American.
The "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" bit is from the Declaration of Independence, which is not law. It was a propaganda document published before the US even won the war to become an independent nation, and before the failed government that existed before our current constitution. Some of the ideas have become law elsewhere, but "pursuit of happiness" has not. It remains, at most, an often-quoted statement of US values with no legal status.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/01/15 09:00:11
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
NinthMusketeer wrote: As a sidenote I don't really understand the inciting murder and whatnot line of conversation going on and I assure you my views have nothing to do with that.
The inciting murder line of conversation exists because people (Peregrine et al) were explicitly saying...that he was inciting murder. Literally in those exact words.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: The inciting murder line of conversation exists because people (Peregrine et al) were explicitly saying...that he was inciting murder. Literally in those exact words.
If you're going to say "literally in those exact words" you might want to actually read the posts in question to see if those words are used. I never used the word "incite", and it is not an accurate description of what I objected to whembly doing.
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
A ridiculous claim that has nothing to do with reality.
The undermining of the traditional family unit.
"Undermining" the obligation to live according to right-wing Christian ideology is not an atrocity. The US is a secular nation and, while right-wing Christians are free to follow the rules of their religion, they do not have the right to force the rest of us to do the same.
Attacking the right to free speech in the name of fighting racism, sexism, and many other isms.
No such thing is happening. Freedom of speech has never meant freedom from ordinary citizens objecting to your speech, the right to force private property owners to let you speak on their property, or a right to have an audience listen to you. The left is doing nothing to attack freedom of speech.
Putting the rights of foreign immigrants or terrorists at a higher priority than American/European citizens.
Nobody is putting the rights of terrorists at a higher priority, and the foreign immigrants "risk" is vastly overstated.
Cosying up to Islamic nations like Saudi Arabia or Palestine and damaging the US-Israel relationship.
IOW, doing just what the right has been doing? The right has been a fan of Saudi Arabia and any other Islamic nation that happens to be useful for their foreign policy goals. The only real difference is that the left isn't as eager to give Israel a blank check to commit whatever abuses it wants in the name of "security", but that's hardly anything worthy of the label "atrocity".
Whether true or not (I make no claim as to their veracity), these are "crimes" the Left are frequently accused of. To shrug your shoulders and pretend to be unaware of what the Right accuse the Left of doing is either disingenuous or ignorant.
Co'tor Shas asked for examples of atrocities done by "the left". The things you mentioned are not atrocities at all. Nor is the request faking ignorance, it's a demand for proof of a ridiculous accusation. I (and presumably Co'tor Shas) do not expect any answer to be provided, because no such atrocities exist to be presented.
First, they aren't my claims, so please don't make this personal. I'm playing Devil's Advocate, saying "This is what the Right alleges. How do you not know this?". Whether they're true or not is a separate matter. Lord of Hats has also tried to drag me down this tangent and personally attacked me as though they are positions that I personally hold. Maybe I do, maybe I don't. But I refuse to follow that tangent.
Second, Atrocities was Cotor's choice of words, not the person he was asking the question of. The person he was talking to referred to "evils" of the left, not atrocities. "Evils" has a lower standard than "atrocities". Many things the Left does are considered "evil" by the Right, and vice versa. Whereas Atrocities has a much more severe connotation and definition. Whether he intended to or not, Cotor subtly shifted the goal posts by changing the discussion from "Evils" to "Atrocities", and we've all been arguing past each other at straw men on this point since then. I wish I'd noticed sooner.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: The inciting murder line of conversation exists because people (Peregrine et al) were explicitly saying...that he was inciting murder. Literally in those exact words.
If you're going to say "literally in those exact words" you might want to actually read the posts in question to see if those words are used. [...]I never used the word "incite"
Fine. I checked back over your posts, and my use of the term "literally in those exact words is inaccurate hyperbole. I apologise for that. However...
and it is not an accurate description of what I objected to whembly doing.
Yes it is. You might not have used the exact words, but it is exactly what you said.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: I'm playing Devil's Advocate, saying "This is what the Right alleges. How do you not know this?".
Then your devil's advocacy is completely wrong. The question is not "I don't know what the right believes", it's "the right's accusations of evil are absurd, and I bet you can't point out any that aren't".
Are you retracting this statement?
No, because it's true. Saying "lol, zero sympathy" about a murder victim and "I'm all for this" about a law excusing the murder is advocating, or at least approving of that murder. What it isn't doing is inciting murder, which refers to a specific crime, not merely saying positive things about an act of murder.
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
Prestor Jon wrote: No, trying to punish a company because a member of the ownership who is only tangentially involved with the company makes a donation from their personal wealth as a private citizen to the Republican presidential candidate's campaign for the sole purpose of trying to intimidate anyone else from making personal donations to politicians you don't like is clearly an operation designed to suppress speech.
I don't know, this sounds an awful lot like people using their freedom of speech to say "use the free market to purchase from companies that I favor". Freedom of speech means that the government won't censor you for having unpopular opinions, it does NOT mean that your fellow citizens will not say " that guy".
What exactly did LL Bean the corporate entity do wrong that warrants a boycott and what is the goal of the boycott?
Who cares? LL Bean is not entitled to sales. Nor is there an obligation to only boycott for "good" reasons, from a freedom of speech or free market point of view. You can certainly disagree with the people advocating or participating in the boycott, but this isn't a freedom issue.
The outraged group has made it very clear that their goal is to punish LL Bean and the memeber of the Bean family that donated to Trump because they don't like Trump. Trying to whip up an angry online mob to punish businesses in order to intimidate people into withholding their support from politicians you deem unworthy is downright unAmerican.
It's not un-American at all, you just don't understand what freedom of speech means. Nothing about American law guarantees you freedom from the consequences of your speech.
You're not understanding the argument I'm making. I never said boycotts were bad I said that Trump's tweet supported Linda Bean's right to free . speech.
Linda Bean is free to support any political candidate she wants. She has a right to vote for whomever she wants, hold whatever political beliefs she wants and support any candidate she wants and the fact that she chose to support a candidate that opposed the candidate you chose to support doesnt give you any moral, ethical or reasonable cause to attack her and seek to punitively damage her livelihood. ("you" refers to the boy otters not Peregrine)
Linda Bean happens to be a relative of the founder of LL Bean so she has a minority ownership interest in the company but doesn't hold any influence over LL Bean. The company has no connection to the Trump campaign the boycotters only want to hurt LL Bean's sales as a means to force Linda Bean to be divested from the company to punish her for supporting Trump. Nobody should be punished for supporting the "wrong" candidate. We're all free to support different candidates and hold different views and nobody should be ok with punishing people just because they hold different beliefs than you.
If people want to try to change the way LL Bean runs their business because they don't like some aspect of their current operation that's fine but there's nothing the company could have or should have done to prevent the founder's great granddaughter from writing a personal check out to a presidential campaign. Protesting that is just dumb. It's the same kind of ridiculous guilt by association transitive property hooey that the Republicans tried to use against Obama in 2008 that was met with derision by the Democrats. Obama's minor connection to Bill Ayers didn't make Obama a terrorist or terrorist sympathizer and LL Bean doesn't endorse Trump just because a stockholder donated to Trump's campaign.
This is akin to people protesting the New England Patriots because Tom Brady was a supporter of the Trump campaign. Brady's endorsement of Trump doesn't carry over and somehow taint the team or signify an endorsement of any or all of Trump's views/positions by the Patriots. No one should feel the need to try to enact a boycott against the Patriots to get Brady cut from the team and kept out of the NFL because he supported the "wrong" candidate.
I'm not surprised this thread go locked temporarily there can be an unhealthy amount of absolutism in political discussions these days.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: I'm playing Devil's Advocate, saying "This is what the Right alleges. How do you not know this?".
Then your devil's advocacy is completely wrong. The question is not "I don't know what the right believes", it's "the right's accusations of evil are absurd, and I bet you can't point out any that aren't".
Are you retracting this statement?
No, because it's true. Saying "lol, zero sympathy" about a murder victim and "I'm all for this" about a law excusing the murder is advocating, or at least approving of that murder. What it isn't doing is inciting murder, which refers to a specific crime, not merely saying positive things about an act of murder.
Just because somebody gets hit by a car doesn't mean it's murder or that the driver was at fault. Numerous times on my commute I've seen people run across multiple lanes of a highway with 55-70mph speed limits just because jaywalking across the highway is a shortcut. If you're driving along obeying the law, staying in your lane, not speeding, maintaining a safe distance between yourself and other cars etc. and some guy decides to run across the highway like a human version of the game Frogger you can't control when that guy runs into the highway, if he times it right, how fast he runs, when you see him etc. Hitting that guy with your car wouldn't necessarily be murder. Jaywalking is illegal because it's dangerous and so is blocking traffic without first obtaining a permit. This isn't a preplanned march or parade route it's an unexpected group of people walking into traffic in the roadway. If you want to literally go out and play in traffic you're choosing to create a life threatening situation, protestors could be fatally struck by cars and the unexpected traffic jam could cause fatal car accidents.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/01/15 11:08:03
Prestor Jon wrote: You're not understanding the argument I'm making. I never said boycotts were bad I said that Trump's tweet supported Linda Bean's right to free . speech.
No, I understand it perfectly, you're just wrong. The right to free speech means that the government can not prevent you from speaking or punish you for doing so. It does not mean that private citizens can not treat you badly for speaking. Linda Bean is free to support any political candidates she wants, and people are free to express their disgust with her actions and say " you, vote for someone else". Trump's tweet was not supporting Linda Bean's right to free speech (which is not being infringed upon), it was supporting some bizarre "right" to never have any consequences for your speech or beliefs, no matter how horrible they are.
No one should feel the need to try to enact a boycott against the Patriots to get Brady cut from the team and kept out of the NFL because he supported the "wrong" candidate.
This I will agree with. Nobody should support a boycott against the Patriots because of Brady's political choices. They should be supporting a boycott against the Patriots because the Patriots and Brady. If you're a Patriots fan you're already the lowest of the low, so expecting you to vote correctly would be wildly unrealistic.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Prestor Jon wrote: Just because somebody gets hit by a car doesn't mean it's murder or that the driver was at fault. Numerous times on my commute I've seen people run across multiple lanes of a highway with 55-70mph speed limits just because jaywalking across the highway is a shortcut. If you're driving along obeying the law, staying in your lane, not speeding, maintaining a safe distance between yourself and other cars etc. and some guy decides to run across the highway like a human version of the game Frogger you can't control when that guy runs into the highway, if he times it right, how fast he runs, when you see him etc. Hitting that guy with your car wouldn't necessarily be murder. Jaywalking is illegal because it's dangerous and so is blocking traffic without first obtaining a permit. This isn't a preplanned march or parade route it's an unexpected group of people walking into traffic in the roadway. If you want to literally go out and play in traffic you're choosing to create a life threatening situation, protestors could be fatally struck by cars and the unexpected traffic jam could cause fatal car accidents.
You're missing the point here.
Currently the driver is presumed to be at fault, but not required to be at fault. The driver can use the "it wasn't possible to avoid them" defense in court, but has the burden of proof and must convince the jury that the accident was in fact unavoidable. If you hit someone who suddenly sprints across a 70mph road within your reasonable stopping distance you aren't at fault. But if you're speeding, driving drunk, failed to stop even though you had sufficient stopping distance, etc, you are responsible for the injury/death and pay the price. And "but they were doing something illegal" isn't going to be an acceptable defense. You don't get to kill someone just because they're doing something illegal, you're still obligated to attempt to avoid the pedestrian. Whether or not the police punish them for jaywalking is an entirely separate question.
The proposed law reverses the burden of proof: the driver is presumed to be innocent unless the prosecution can prove that it was a deliberate act of murder, as long as the victim was illegally blocking traffic. This is a huge problem because meeting that burden of proof is virtually impossible unless the defendant is stupid enough to confess to a crime. If they say "oops, it was an accident" the prosecution can't prove that it was deliberate. So if you're mad about a protester standing in the road and blocking your commute you can just keep driving, and if they don't dodge fast enough and you kill them you can't be punished for it.
It should be pretty obvious why the current situation is clearly better than the alternative.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/01/15 11:20:29
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
Which is how March, the three-volume graphic novel that he wrote about the US civil rights movement and his role in it, with collaborators Andrew Aydin and Nate Powell suddenly became the best-selling book on Amazon.com, and sold out of the internet seller’s entire back stock, though they have been getting more copies in.
Top Shelf Comix are already preparing to meet the demand with this the sudden surge for the series, already extremely popular, with the third and final volume topping many Best Of 2016 lists. But for those unable to find print copies, it is available digitally on ComiXology as well.
Congressman John Lewis should finally focus on the burning and crime infested inner-cities of the U.S. I can use all the help I can get!
That's a great last sentence there.
That press officer sure is gonna earn their paycheck.
The poor man really has a stake in the country. The rich man hasn't; he can go away to New Guinea in a yacht. The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly; the rich have always objected to being governed at all
We love our superheroes because they refuse to give up on us. We can analyze them out of existence, kill them, ban them, mock them, and still they return, patiently reminding us of who we are and what we wish we could be.
"the play's the thing wherein I'll catch the conscience of the king,
Breotan wrote: I'm actually hoping that once he becomes President he'll be too busy to be on social media. It's one thing to make the election a three ring circus act but he can't be pulling his Trump vs Rosie "I'll sue you" tantrums while he's President.
An US president with an active twitter account. The worst of the worst. 140 letters to cause conflicts on the world. Germans are Nazis and Chinese are steeling. His world is very simple. He might be smart in business terms but in terms of politics he has no clue whatsoever.
Former moderator 40kOnline
Lanchester's square law - please obey in list building!
Illumini: "And thank you for not finishing your post with a "" I'm sorry, but after 7200 's that has to be the most annoying sign-off ever."
d-usa wrote: "When the Internet sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending posters that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing strawmen. They're bringing spam. They're trolls. And some, I assume, are good people."
There has been some talk about laws and I wanted to add some context....
Battery is an un-consented to touch. Nothing to do with blocking your movement. That idea is just odd.
Drivers hitting peds.... A driver is always assumed to be in control of their vehicle and acting in a reasonable manner. That means they should be able to stop within a reasonable amount of time and distance IF objects appear in their path. Often you have requirements about your distance between cars based on speed and road conditions. This essentially legislates the "reasonable" portion.
If someone runs out in front of your car, assuming you are operating sober and within speed limits and not texting, the actual assumption is you didn't do anything wrong. The "they just ran out" excuse works pretty well. BUT... if they "just ran out" 200 feet in front of you and you never even slowed...well, you're screwed. All of this seems pretty reasonable, right? The law they're discussing actually is pretty horrific. You can see someone blocking traffic, 200 feet away, and just not slow down. You are allowed to just mow them over. How reasonable does that seem?
protesting.... You either support people's right to free speech and assembly or you don't.Period. You either stand up for our constitutional rights or you don't. Period. The question about what is "appropriate" when it comes to protest isn't a question or debate. It is merely people trying to say, in a faux southern genteel way, "don't protest. Just please shut up. Whatever you're complaining about doesn't effect me nor should it." The point of protest is to make your opinion known and to let others know what the situation is and why you are protesting. It is supposed to effect others. Thats sort of the point. The forces of status quo would rather you just protest in your living room. That way no one has to see or hear you and no one has to recognize the situation. That just wont fly.
Civil Disobedience...the point is to break the law. The point is to be punished for breaking an unjust law. To bring attention for the unjust nature of the situation..like getting arrested for drinking at a whites only fountain.
Boycotts...a great way to non-violently effect the world.
Trumps LL Bean tweet...I think a lot of people forget that Trump isnt a person. He is the PEOTUS. That title and that position does not give him the same or more rights. It is a grave responsibility that often limits what your responses may indeed be. It's pretty obvious trump doesn't get that. Being president is a job that comes with responsibilities and expectations. Trump is treating it like it is no more important then workin the fry machine at Wendy's.
"Burning the aquila into the retinas of heretics is the new black." - Savnock
"The ignore button is for pansees who can't deal with their own problems. " - H.B.M.C.
I'm confused. If I'm carrying concealed at the mall, and I'm coming up the escalator, and someone is at the top of the escalator standing there looking at his phone while blocking my path off the escalator, he is battering me because he is restricting my right to free movement. So it's okay for me to draw and defend myself, right?
That's what the kids get for playing Pokémon Go!
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/01/15 14:45:59
d-usa wrote: "When the Internet sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending posters that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing strawmen. They're bringing spam. They're trolls. And some, I assume, are good people."
that guy".
