Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => The Roundtable => Topic started by: Ron on November 09, 2023, 10:43:26 AM
-
https://nypost.com/2023/11/08/news/gunman-seen-shooting-dead-eco-protesters-in-panama/
American lawyer, 77, busted in Panama after gunning down two eco-protesters blocking highway in shocking video
Can anyone identify what weapon he was using?
This is a weird story, what could he possibly have been thinking?
-
Glock 26 would be my guess
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12728101/kenneth-darlington-panama-climate-change-protesters-shoot-dead.html
(https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2023/11/09/08/77558147-12728101-This_is_the_shocking_moment_an_irate_motorist_shot_dead_an_envir-a-9_1699518206260.jpg)
(https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2023/11/09/08/77559911-12728101-The_man_still_holding_the_handgun_is_seen_attempting_to_clear_th-a-12_1699518368486.jpg)
-
This is a weird story, what could he possibly have been thinking?
I'll take mental health issues for a $1000, Alex.
-
This is a weird story, what could he possibly have been thinking?
"I'm old, I'm pissed, and since no one is doing anything about this *expletive deleted*it I guess I'll have to."
Brad
-
I just edited my above guess to Glock 26 after I noticed there's no front rail
-
This is a weird story, what could he possibly have been thinking?
Not very far ahead, is my guess.
-
Much better to steer clear of these things, ESPECIALLY in a foreign country. (Story said he had dual citizenship, but still . . . :facepalm: ) I wager that had this 77 year old done the same here, he'd spend the rest of his life in MUCH nicer prison conditions than he'll find down in Panama.
Hmmm . . . couldn't an argument be made that by arresting the shooter and not arresting the people blocking the highway, the police have joined with the criminals and are functioning as their security detail?
-
...arresting the shooter and not arresting the people blocking the highway, the police have joined with the criminals and are functioning as their security detail?
That's a big part of the problem all over. The freedom to protest is a sacrosanct right but it's been been weaponized to the point where actions which deprive others of their rights - or even puts them in danger - aren't just tolerated, they're protected by law enforcement. Protestors have been allowed to run roughshod, with full police protection, over pretty much every part of society. That's bred an "anything goes" attitude and needs to stop. Want to stand on the side of the road, hold a sign, and scream your lungs out? Fine by me. That's your right. Want to blockade a road because you're pissy about something? You're a criminal. Go to jail.
I can't recall which, but haven't some states enacted legal protections for drivers who run over barriers, and protestors, because they're being attacked by a mob in the street and are in fear for their lives?
Brad
-
I haven't heard any final results, but I think in most cases people who run over people to escape have been okay. I don't know about people who plow through protests injuring people.
I recall a new law was proposed in one state. I don't know if it passed.
-
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/F-fWfOCWAAA0lkB?format=jpg&name=small)
-
Doesn't take long for the memes to get started
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/F-d4fOYWgAAx6yt?format=jpg&name=medium)
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/F-d7HJEa4AAUoNA?format=jpg&name=large)
-
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/F-d7HbaaAAA8j6C?format=jpg&name=medium)
-
Crap ton more at this link
https://twitter.com/Alphafox78/status/1722477901579440512
-
That's a big part of the problem all over. The freedom to protest is a sacrosanct right but it's been been weaponized to the point where actions which deprive others of their rights - or even puts them in danger - aren't just tolerated, they're protected by law enforcement. Protestors have been allowed to run roughshod, with full police protection, over pretty much every part of society. That's bred an "anything goes" attitude and needs to stop. Want to stand on the side of the road, hold a sign, and scream your lungs out? Fine by me. That's your right. Want to blockade a road because you're pissy about something? You're a criminal. Go to jail.
I can't recall which, but haven't some states enacted legal protections for drivers who run over barriers, and protestors, because they're being attacked by a mob in the street and are in fear for their lives?
Brad
So who get's to decide when a cause is OK to block a road for? Because I'm pretty sure there were a lot of pissed off drivers for this one:
(https://www.gannett-cdn.com/-mm-/d252d0f61bf7068bb020792bc85b7d21ae4df518/c=0-92-1790-1099&r=x1683&c=3200x1680/local/-/media/Montgomery/2015/03/01/B9316206437Z.1_20150301013352_000_G059UEA5G.1-0.jpg)
I'm not going to say that global warming whining is on the same level as Dr. King's push to get people to be allowed to vote, but that is a danger when you start saying "people can protest, but..." If the cause was popular they wouldn't need to protest.
In the cases where mobs attack drivers like we saw last week in MN? Sure, go weapons free. *expletive deleted*ck those guys. But the superglue to the road dipshits are pretty non-violent.
-
So who get's to decide when a cause is OK to block a road for? Because I'm pretty sure there were a lot of pissed off drivers for this one:
(https://www.gannett-cdn.com/-mm-/d252d0f61bf7068bb020792bc85b7d21ae4df518/c=0-92-1790-1099&r=x1683&c=3200x1680/local/-/media/Montgomery/2015/03/01/B9316206437Z.1_20150301013352_000_G059UEA5G.1-0.jpg)
Didn't they have a permit for that?
-
but that is a danger when you start saying "people can protest, but..." If the cause was popular they wouldn't need to protest.
If you want to protect the abuse and weaponization of a right to the detriment of others, go ahead. That's the "ends justify the means" argument. Me, I'm different. I think wrong is wrong, and that actively weaponizing a right to the point it knowingly deprives others of their possessions or freedoms should be punishable up to whatever legal limit applies.
Protection of inalienable rights is the most valiant of causes and due every effort possible. Intentional abuse of rights for malevolent means, no matter how noble the intent or end result, is abhorrent.
Brad
-
Getting stuck in traffic cause by a protest is no reason to start shooting people however inconvenient it may be.
Having your car surrounded by a violent mob threatening to pull you out of the car and kill you is.
-
Nobody should be allowed to block the road for a protest... except maybe if it is cleared so there are cops to re-direct traffic. Maybe?
People shouldn't shoot anyone just for blocking the road either.
-
The violence came during the third week of protests over a large mining contract that allows Canada-based First Quantum Minerals to operate the region’s largest pit copper mine for at least 20 more years.
Senor D'Anconia could not be reached for comment.
As he was loaded into the police transport, Mr. Darlington was heard muttering "Who is John Galt?" under his breath.
-
(https://nypost.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2023/11/SHOOT.jpg?resize=1024,682&quality=75&strip=all)
That's a hell of an action photo. The bokeh, the lighting, the spent case at eyebrow level. Someone with some serious equipment took that photo. That's a major telephoto lens with a large aperture to get enough light for that shutter speed to get the brass not to smear in motion. And that much subject separation from the background.
-
Didn't they have a permit for that?
Considering the State Police attacked and beat them, I'm going to assume they did not. At least not for the whole 50 or so miles.
If you want to protect the abuse and weaponization of a right to the detriment of others, go ahead. That's the "ends justify the means" argument. Me, I'm different. I think wrong is wrong, and that actively weaponizing a right to the point it knowingly deprives others of their possessions or freedoms should be punishable up to whatever legal limit applies.
Protection of inalienable rights is the most valiant of causes and due every effort possible. Intentional abuse of rights for malevolent means, no matter how noble the intent or end result, is abhorrent.
Brad
Just to make sure I'm not misunderstanding you here: Your position is that freedom to use a road trumps any cause for protest, and that the Selma marchers should have been punished up to the legal limit for blocking the road between Selma and Montgomery?
I'm not sure I'd go that far even if, as I said, the eco protestors are not IMHO as righteous as MLK was.
-
Just to make sure I'm not misunderstanding you here: Your position is that freedom to use a road trumps any cause for protest, and that the Selma marchers should have been punished up to the legal limit for blocking the road between Selma and Montgomery?
If they weren't permitted to block a motorway? Yes.
Just because history looks favorably on the act now doesn't take away from it being a malicious imposition on others then. Again, it's an "ends justify the means" argument, a very dangerous and quite slippery slope.
Also, it's not "freedom to use a road" we're talking about, it's "malicious imposition of your feelings/position/cause" upon others. Using the former excuses the blocking actor's actions by implying it's the motorists' fault for wanting to properly use an unimpeded public roadway.
Brad
-
Isn't any effective protest an "imposition of your feelings/position/cause" upon others?
-
I'm opposed to protests blocking major thoroughfares 100%. If you want me to have empathy for your cause don't act in a borderline anarchist manner, flaunting the law, punishing innocent people by disrupting their lives. Not to mention the reallocation of emergency service personal AND as is typically seen, the disruption of their fastest routes to real emergencies.
Haul the protesters all away, ticket them and call it good. If they resist, even passively, charge them with resisting arrest, trespassing etc.
I'm opposed to running over or shooting non-violent protesters.
-
If you want to protect the abuse and weaponization of a right to the detriment of others, go ahead. That's the "ends justify the means" argument. Me, I'm different. I think wrong is wrong, and that actively weaponizing a right to the point it knowingly deprives others of their possessions or freedoms should be punishable up to whatever legal limit applies.
Protection of inalienable rights is the most valiant of causes and due every effort possible. Intentional abuse of rights for malevolent means, no matter how noble the intent or end result, is abhorrent.
Brad
Agreed and kudos.
"But the superglue to the road dipshits are pretty non-violent."
I see that as committing a false arrest.
A crime is a a crime. And a crime for a "good cause" demeans the value of the word "good." (Besides still being a crime.)
-
Is Panama the sort of place where people blocking the road might be reasonably suspected of being part of an abduction scheme?
OK, having now seen some of the footage, that is likely not a relevant question.
-
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/F-ilw8DWIAEvRPF?format=jpg&name=900x900)
-
The problem with arguments in favor of blocking roadways for causes of sufficient righteousness or import is that every issue is of maximum righteousness and import today.
-
The problem with arguments in favor of blocking roadways for causes of sufficient righteousness or import is that every issue is of maximum righteousness and import today.
Yep, every radical thinks their issue is the most righteous.
-
I thought Panama's gun laws were pretty strict...
And apparently they are, but not nearly as strict as other countries down there.
https://livinginpanama.com/panama/guns/
Interesting thing is that you have to pass a psych screening in Panama to get a gun. Apparently this guy did, IF he had the gun legally, which I suspect that he did.
-
The problem with arguments in favor of blocking roadways for causes of sufficient righteousness or import is that every issue is of maximum righteousness and import today.
Sure. Agreed.
Conversely the problem with locking up every protester that commits a crime is that every government is sure they aren't oppressing anyone.
-
It is interesting to compare the comments in here with the comments on the J6 thread.
Those guys are being punished "up to whatever legal limit applies." After all and we seem to universally agree it's too harsh.
-
It is interesting to compare the comments in here with the comments on the J6 thread.
Those guys are being punished "up to whatever legal limit applies." After all and we seem to universally agree it's too harsh.
Whatever leftist/uniparty judges can get away with is the new definition of "up to whatever legal limit applies."
Following the undercover feds into breaking in and trespassing into the capital should result in some punishment.
It was largely entrapment but don't be stupid and break the law. Where it gets weird is all the images and videos of the police shepherding the crowd through the doors. If a cop is letting you in is it still trespassing?
-
Whatever leftist/uniparty judges can get away with is the new definition of "up to whatever legal limit applies."
Yes? As far as I know no one is claiming those sentences exceed the maximum established in statute for the charges. So it would seem to be within the legal limit, even if retarded.
Following the undercover feds into breaking in and trespassing into the capital should result in some punishment.
It was largely entrapment but don't be stupid and break the law. Where it gets weird is all the images and videos of the police shepherding the crowd through the doors. If a cop is letting you in is it still trespassing?
Apparently it is trespassing, yes.
That kind of speaks to my point in questioning some of the posts here. A blanket "Any protest that breaks a law is bad and should be punished " is going to very quickly lead to no protests being allowed. The British chick silently praying is another prime example of where enabling that philosophy leads.
It's also worth asking what good is a protest that disrupts nothing? If nothing is disrupted, it's very likely nothing will change.
Again, I tend to agree that these particular idiots aren't protesting for the right thing, but I also think it's important to keep ways to actively protest legitimate bad things available so that if we need to throw some tea in a harbor again, we can.
It's also important to unblur the line between protests, even annoying ones like blocking roads, and mob violence that is often adjacent to them. One is infuriating but important, the other should be shut down with force, either governmental or not. The "fiery but mostly peaceful " narrative is a cynical attempt to steal credibility for riots from protests.
-
. . .
Following the undercover feds into breaking in and trespassing into the capital should result in some punishment. . . .
The majority of them (the ones who didn't break windows, steal stuff from offices, or scuffle with capitol cops) should be punished in exactly the way the protestors who invaded the SCOTUS building were punished when they were protesting the appointment of Judge Kavanaugh.
As for Panama, people have a right to peacefully protest, but they DO NOT have a right to trample on other people's rights to travel, to peaceably assemble, etc.
-
That kind of speaks to my point in questioning some of the posts here. A blanket "Any protest that breaks a law is bad and should be punished " is going to very quickly lead to no protests being allowed. The British chick silently praying is another prime example of where enabling that philosophy leads.
I take your point, but I think the major point of contention is that there is no consistent standard to which protests are held. A protest from the left can do just about whatever they damn well please with relatively minimal long-term consequences for a small fraction of the protesters. A protest on the right sees maximal consequences for as many protesters as can be located through an incredible expenditure in resources to identify and locate every possible violator. Plus, demonstrators on the right tend to do so in good faith with their faces uncovered and cell phones on, whereas demonstrators on the left often go into the protest presuming they will be taking part in criminal behavior and take steps to conceal their identity and practice basic opsec.
It may be that those who are calling for a blanket response are seeking any sort of equal standard.
I'd also note that having a standard of behavior for protests or limit on what can be done during a legal protest is not the same thing as prohibiting protests across the board. Just because a theoretical law says a protest can't arbitrarily block traffic, loot a Target, or burn down a federal building doesn't mean that protests are prohibited or that it is going to lead to silent prayer being prohibited. Also, many protests make a point to be transgressive, so wherever you draw the line it will be crossed.
It's also worth asking what good is a protest that disrupts nothing? If nothing is disrupted, it's very likely nothing will change.
I don't think that's true. Most things that have seen significant political change have done so without disruptive protests. The idea behind protests tends to be to change things RFN.
... it's important to keep ways to actively protest legitimate bad things available so that if we need to throw some tea in a harbor again, we can.
That protest wasn't legal, and ended up in a civil war. If it comes to the necessity of kicking off a civil war, the laws relating to the legality of blocking traffic during a protest will be the least of your concerns.
It's also important to unblur the line between protests, even annoying ones like blocking roads, and mob violence that is often adjacent to them. One is infuriating but important, the other should be shut down with force, either governmental or not. The "fiery but mostly peaceful " narrative is a cynical attempt to steal credibility for riots from protests.
That's absolutely correct.
-
I take your point, but I think the major point of contention is that there is no consistent standard to which protests are held. A protest from the left can do just about whatever they damn well please with relatively minimal long-term consequences for a small fraction of the protesters. A protest on the right sees maximal consequences for as many protesters as can be located through an incredible expenditure in resources to identify and locate every possible violator. Plus, demonstrators on the right tend to do so in good faith with their faces uncovered and cell phones on, whereas demonstrators on the left often go into the protest presuming they will be taking part in criminal behavior and take steps to conceal their identity and practice basic opsec.
It may be that those who are calling for a blanket response are seeking any sort of equal standard.
Sure, I agree there should be an equal standard. I think that standard needs to be closer to the "let non-violent protests happen" than the "decades in jail for trespassing"
I'd also note that having a standard of behavior for protests or limit on what can be done during a legal protest is not the same thing as prohibiting protests across the board. Just because a theoretical law says a protest can't arbitrarily block traffic, loot a Target, or burn down a federal building doesn't mean that protests are prohibited or that it is going to lead to silent prayer being prohibited. Also, many protests make a point to be transgressive, so wherever you draw the line it will be crossed.
In theory you are correct, but the posters I was answering here repeatedly used the law, and legal standard as the line for what protests should not be allowed. If you allow the government to remove a form of protest by passing a law, they will quickly remove nay effective redress of grievances. That is pretty universal throughout history, and the reason that we the Founding Fathers felt the need to put the redress of grievances as protected in the 1A.
I don't think that's true. Most things that have seen significant political change have done so without disruptive protests. The idea behind protests tends to be to change things RFN.
I don't think that's true at all. The VAST majority of major political change in the world took either a disruptive protest, or outright violence. Just in the US, Women's suffrage, temperance, The Civil Rights movement, abolition of slavery, ending wars, the whiskey rebellion, legality of abortion (both directions), the list goes on and on. Either disruptive protests to make the Normies sit up and take notice, or outright violence. Restoring Gun rights are about the only change that didn't, although I bet a bunch of leftists would call those open carry protests from the 2010's "disruptive".
That protest wasn't legal, and ended up in a civil war. If it comes to the necessity of kicking off a civil war, the laws relating to the legality of blocking traffic during a protest will be the least of your concerns.
That's my point. That protest wasn't legal, but it was still a valid protest, and the Crown had another 2 years after that where they could have responded to the grievances of the colonists and averted war. They didn't, but they could have because the colonists used illegal protests for quite some time. I could have just as easily used the protests outside the Boston Customs House in 1770 as an example. There are plenty of protests that are illegal in the time and place they are held, which are righteous and should not be slapped down with a blanket "It's against the law and interferes with other people, so should be stopped."
And my other point is, because of that historical fact, and the predisposition of governments and their agents to think they are always right up to and past when they are shooting protesters, we should be very careful about impeding non-violent but illegal political protests. If they damage private property hold them accountable for that (like the morons that glued themselves to VW's tent a couple years ago).
The corollary to that, is we should have a bit of leniency for regular folks that are faced with illegal acts. Those videos of the truck drivers dragging people off the roads in Europe are probably technically committing assault, but should not be charged, as long as they didn't permanently injure someone. Running a car through people just sitting there or shooting them is over the line though.
-
I noticed many in the MSM keep referring to this guy as an American but he's Panamanian born*, apparently lives in Panama, but does carry dual American-Panamanian citizenship. So do you call him Panamanian, American, or both?
Before someone comes along and says "actually" on the technical definition of the term American yes I know.
*Saw that somewhere now I can't remember where.
-
"Old Dude over-reacts with a gun is American" fits the narrative for clicks better.
"Panamanian shoots another Panamanian" doesn't get a lot of interest.
-
"Old Dude over-reacts with a gun is American" fits the narrative for clicks better.
"Panamanian shoots another Panamanian" doesn't get a lot of interest.
Yeah, that had occurred to me which is what prompted me to ask before going there..
-
"There are plenty of protests that are illegal in the time and place they are held, which are righteous and should not be slapped down with a blanket 'It's against the law and interferes with other people, so should be stopped.' "
Sorry, but that sure looks like Orwellian "doublethink" to me.
And "petitioning for grievances" does not, in my opinion, grant a license to interfere with other peoples' rights.
If you have to go from A to C because you have to make a mortgage payment or go to the bathroom or simply on a whim, and there's a protest/demonstration to make sunspots illegal at B which is blocking your progress, those protestors/demonstrators should face lawful removal and lawful sanctions.
I do not see how you can word-flood your way out of that.
Self-righteousness does not righteousness make.
Terry, 230RN
-
I will now destroy dogmush's arguments by agreeing with them. Sorry, mush.
Some of what the patriot movement did in the 1770s was less than respectful of people's rights. They formed mobs to destroy (not just vandalize but destroy) the homes of loyalist officials, or physically assault them. Blacks sitting at privately-owned lunch counters were not exactly helping those businesses to thrive. Or take the trucker protests in Canada a little while back. I don't know much about those, but weren't they a little disruptive?
-
Sure, I agree there should be an equal standard. I think that standard needs to be closer to the "let non-violent protests happen" than the "decades in jail for trespassing"
Absolutely fair.
In theory you are correct, but the posters I was answering here repeatedly used the law, and legal standard as the line for what protests should not be allowed. If you allow the government to remove a form of protest by passing a law, they will quickly remove nay effective redress of grievances. That is pretty universal throughout history, and the reason that we the Founding Fathers felt the need to put the redress of grievances as protected in the 1A.
The legal line will always be drawn somewhere. Maybe that line is machete genocide. Maybe the line is silent prayer. The fact that members here are saying that there should be a legal line that restricts some "non-violent" tactics doesn't mean that the next step is prohibition of silent prayer.
I particularly bridle at a vehicle being stopped by a mob because such unlawful detentions are often (in the US context especially) accompanied by property damage and violence against the vehicle's occupants.
That's my point. That protest wasn't legal, but it was still a valid protest, and the Crown had another 2 years after that where they could have responded to the grievances of the colonists and averted war.
Some of what the patriot movement did in the 1770s was less than respectful of people's rights. They formed mobs to destroy (not just vandalize but destroy) the homes of loyalist officials, or physically assault them.
Sure, in that case an illegal protest eventually accomplished its goal. Sometimes violent protests accomplish their goals. Sometimes violent protests are even righteous.
Does that mean we should tolerate political violence as a rule? If not, why not?
-
On trespassing, there was at least one J6 protestor who had charges trespassing charges dismissed after being able to show video of an officer at the door waving him in. I don't know if they tried to pile on more charges. It is my understanding that most of the charges they putting on these people are not trespassing. It is a bunch of vague stuff like terrorism, interfering with official proceeding, and other stuff.
-
Jared Leto Climbs Empire State Building & Panamanian Activists Have a Bad Day | Ep 59 Normal World
https://youtu.be/5yhwUFJhhRA?si=IS-3P8HC2wmf_3Z1&t=402
-
I'm still seeing a lot of doublethink here.
There are prudent avenues for valid or invalid protests ("redress of grievances") including letter-writing campaigns, etc. But the validity you have assigned to your grievance may not match up with that of the person whose immediate rights are being trampled.
That's why I chose the protest to be "against sunspots" as an example.
And "fairness?" What's "fair" does not necessarily equate to what's legal, and "what's legal" may not match up to what's fair.
Remember when in self-defense situations, you had a duty to retreat, and now you have no duty to retreat if you have a right to be there?
Do you see a parallel concept at work there?
I'm not condoning what our partially American friend did in Panama, but I am trying to clarify the fact that you have a right to transit from A to C without your clear right to progess being interrupted at B by someone who may or may not have a valid grievance. And who has other valid avenues to express their grievance
Again, your right to petition is not a license to trample on my right to get to point C.
-
On trespassing, there was at least one J6 protestor who had charges trespassing charges dismissed after being able to show video of an officer at the door waving him in. I don't know if they tried to pile on more charges. It is my understanding that most of the charges they putting on these people are not trespassing. It is a bunch of vague stuff like terrorism, interfering with official proceeding, and other stuff.
And they also sentenced a guy to decades in jail who never set foot in the Capitol because they didn't like what he was saying, claiming he encouraged others. By that standard, our current VP and other D politicians ought to be facing charges for the violent "peaceful protests" of 2020.
-
The rule of law is a façade in the USA. When convenient or deemed necessary TPTB just ignore the law.
We all ignore laws all the time, that's how things are designed. TPTB need to be able to roll up any given person if need be and they can always find a reason or fabricate a reason ie lawfare.
-
The roads are public and belong to everyone. People protesting in the road are not "blocking the road", they are USING their roads. For a constitutionally protected activity. Probably a better use of the roads, on the balance.
Yeah violent protesters are scum. Many of the causes (and people) are stupid. And anyone who runs out in front of traffic and gets hit sort of asked for it. But the entitlement shown by motorists anytime somebody dares to use "their" roads always makes me sympathetic to the protesters. Thousands of people descend on our roads every day and block them, in cars, while polluting and making miserable noise, killing hundreds and injuring thousands per day in the process, usually for mundane or stupid reasons; a sea a taillamps drinking foreign oil stretching to infinity all across the country, and everyone thinks that's normal. Well if it's perfectly ok for you to sit on the road in your pavement princess, it's perfectly ok for protesters to protest there if you ask me. It's a reclamation of public spaces for something better.
-
Zahc, I earnestly hope for you to have the opportunity to enjoy the roads on which your lifestyle relies being put to the better use you prefer.
-
Well if it's perfectly ok for you to sit on the road in your pavement princess, it's perfectly ok for protesters to protest there if you ask me. It's a reclamation of public spaces for something better.
No, the roads were designed and intended for vehicular travel. Traffic jams aren't protests and not intentional. To use your reasoning, it would be fine to drive SUVs on hiking trails to "protest"........, well, anything.
-
(https://nypost.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2023/11/SHOOT.jpg?resize=1024,682&quality=75&strip=all)
That's a hell of an action photo. The bokeh, the lighting, the spent case at eyebrow level. Someone with some serious equipment took that photo. That's a major telephoto lens with a large aperture to get enough light for that shutter speed to get the brass not to smear in motion. And that much subject separation from the background.
It's almost like they were primed and ready with the media machine just in case someone actually did something about the unlawful obstruction of travel and detainment.
You know, if I detained a bunch of people somewhere against their will I'd probably get charged with unlawful detention/kidnapping, and those people I did it to would be with-in their rights to defend themselves from me with lethal force. Just sayin'.
-
I pointed that out earlier, kgbsquirrel.
I said that it was possible that the protesters themselves might be guilty of unlawful arrest charges by blocking the drivers from their legitimate movement.
https://armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?topic=69071.msg1417746#msg1417746
Ho hum.
But noooooo, since their cause was "good," and "just" and "noble," and "altruistic," they have a right to eviscerate the drivers' rights.
Right?
Ho hum again.
(https://media.tenor.com/images/2f225f224b404de3f15c4a588724f245/tenor.gif)
Sheldon "You people have to learn to listen to me," Cooper. :rofl:
Terry, 230RN :)
-
I remember back during the '60s or '70s a bunch of radical students or hippies took to setting up roadblocks somewhere in the Appalachians, and then demanding drivers pay a "toll" to pass. They'd then disappear before the police would arrive. (This was before cell phones, so it took the victims a while to get to a phone and call the cops.)
According to legend, a group of soldiers - Green Berets - took to cruising the hills in civilian garb, looking for these people. They eventually found them, and administered a little attitude adjustment. Nobody was killed but the hippies all experienced a thorough pummeling.
No more hippie roadblocks. :rofl:
-
I remember back during the '60s or '70s a bunch of radical students or hippies took to setting up roadblocks somewhere in the Appalachians, and then demanding drivers pay a "toll" to pass. They'd then disappear before the police would arrive. (This was before cell phones, so it took the victims a while to get to a phone and call the cops.)
According to legend, a group of soldiers - Green Berets - took to cruising the hills in civilian garb, looking for these people. They eventually found them, and administered a little attitude adjustment. Nobody was killed but the hippies all experienced a thorough pummeling.
No more hippie roadblocks. :rofl:
Nowadays the government would spare no effort in hunting down the soldiers and prosecute them while leaving the hippies largely alone.
-
Let us be honest about this. These climate "protestors" are blocking roads because they know that is the only way they can get any attention for their stupid issue. They have too few people involved and most normal people don't give a damn about it. It is the same reason they are trying to damage art work and glue themselves to floors and road ways.
IMO, a protest is not necessarily disruptive. It is supposed to be part of the right to free speech and assembly. If your assembly of 20 people in a park doesn't get enough attention, are you then allowed to "assemble" in more and more inappropriate/dangerous places until it does get attention? Seems like you are getting beyond simple free speech and assembly at that point.
And I am not saying they should be jailed for years over this. Just removed from the roadway and/or forced to confine their protest to the side of the road. The only charges I can think of would be misdemeanors. Should have been the same with the J6 people. If the authorities wanted to remove them from the capital, that could be done pretty easily. From the videos released, they didn't even do that. The prosecutions over that are wildly politicized and out of proportion to what was actually done.
-
Let us be honest about this. These climate "protestors" are blocking roads because they know that is the only way they can get any attention for their stupid issue. They have too few people involved and most normal people don't give a damn about it. It is the same reason they are trying to damage art work and glue themselves to floors and road ways.
In this case, I think these protesters might be distinct from the Stop Oil types in Europe. I've heard that they were protesting the extension of mining rights for a particular, local copper mine that pollutes the area. Not to justify their choice of protest, but that makes me feel more sympathy toward these particular protesters than when I associated them with the entitled Greta types.
And I am not saying they should be jailed for years over this. Just removed from the roadway and/or forced to confine their protest to the side of the road.
I think this is the biggest issue. If the police won't move people who are maliciously blocking roadways for their intended use (or bike lanes, or sidewalks, or airport runways, zahc) then it is a problem with the police.
-
You know, if I detained a bunch of people somewhere against their will I'd probably get charged with unlawful detention/kidnapping, and those people I did it to would be with-in their rights to defend themselves from me with lethal force. Just sayin'.
There wasn't anyone "detained" to anywhere near the standard of lethal self defense at that protest.
-
There wasn't anyone "detained" to anywhere near the standard of lethal self defense at that protest.
Agree, as far as I know there was nothing stopping people from just leaving.
-
It all revolves around the interpretation of "peaceably to assemble".
Protesters that are being violent lose their constitutional license. But assembling in a public space isn't violence just because you want to occupy that space instead. That's nothing but the old "speech I don't like is violence" BS.
In practice, we know that whenever the right engages in political speech, the media and the left wing (but I repeat myself) always call it "violence" and "threatening". Whenever the left engages in actual violence, the media calls it "speech". Both are BS, and BS should always be called.
-
One other side point: When the justice system consistently fails to provide justice, you often end up with vigilante justice in one form or another. Unfortunately, a lot of vigilante actions end up like this: poorly thought out, done in anger, and/or very disproportionate.
-
But assembling in a public space isn't violence just because you want to occupy that space instead.
I don't think you really believe that, except when and where it doesn't significantly impact you.
-
"doublethink
/dŭb′əl-thĭngk
noun
Thought marked by the acceptance of gross contradictions and falsehoods, especially when used as a technique of self-indoctrination.
The power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them.
Believing two contradictory ideas at the same time." *
And of course, by its very nature, it is impossible for one to recognize when one is doublethinking.
Terry, 230RN
*The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 5th Edition
-
The roads are public and belong to everyone. People protesting in the road are not "blocking the road", they are USING their roads. For a constitutionally protected activity. Probably a better use of the roads, on the balance.
Yeah violent protesters are scum. Many of the causes (and people) are stupid. And anyone who runs out in front of traffic and gets hit sort of asked for it. But the entitlement shown by motorists anytime somebody dares to use "their" roads always makes me sympathetic to the protesters. Thousands of people descend on our roads every day and block them, in cars, while polluting and making miserable noise, killing hundreds and injuring thousands per day in the process, usually for mundane or stupid reasons; a sea a taillamps drinking foreign oil stretching to infinity all across the country, and everyone thinks that's normal. Well if it's perfectly ok for you to sit on the road in your pavement princess, it's perfectly ok for protesters to protest there if you ask me. It's a reclamation of public spaces for something better.
Show us on the doll where Henry Ford hurt you…
Jesus Christ we get it you hate cars and love trains and unhinged rants about the evilness of the automobile
-
If a protest mob decided to walk very slowly down a major highway (not controlled access interstate) would they have the right of way over the vehicle?
How about a group of bicyclists do a similar protest, do they have the right of way?
I know in Iowa when passing a bicyclist, you must pass like you do a car and give a full lane clearance.
-
If a protest mob decided to walk very slowly down a major highway (not controlled access interstate) would they have the right of way over the vehicle?
How about a group of bicyclists do a similar protest, do they have the right of way?
I know in Iowa when passing a bicyclist, you must pass like you do a car and give a full lane clearance.
Cyclists do that around here not even as a protest, just out showing off their Lycra. And yes they have the right of way. You have to give the bike at least 3 ft clearance, which when they are packed up and feral means going full on into the other lane like passing a car.
-
Some roads, specifically, most federal interstates (if not all of them), are marked as prohibiting pedestrians and frequently, certain other equipment.
As one example, IL-ANNOY at one time (don't know if they still do) also barred motorcycles with engines less than 150cc.
Protestors do NOT have the right to block an interstate regardless of their reason(s).
-
Most controlled access highways forbid pedestrians, bicycles, and low-powered motorcycles as a normal matter, so protesting on them would be illegal.
-
While we're on the subject
Jonathan Choe Journalist (Seattle)
@choeshow
HAPPENING NOW: Traffic at standstill once again as pro Palestine protesters start march at corner of 4th Ave and Pine St in downtown Seattle. Drivers so frustrated their coming out of cars to yell at organizers. One guy tried to drive through bike lane but was blocked by FAR-LEFT activists doing security. #Seattle
https://twitter.com/choeshow/status/1723481753099313626?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw
And the police just watch
Note what someone posted in the comments
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/F-sLx2EbMAA-Ppa?format=jpg&name=medium)
-
Nowadays the government would spare no effort in hunting down the soldiers and prosecute them while leaving the hippies largely alone.
More and more, the police are becoming a security detail for the mob. They won't stop mob actions, but they WILL jump with both feet on anyone who fights the mob.
Even federally - the Border Patrol, tasked with preventing illegal aliens from entering the US, is enabling their entry by removing barriers or welding gates open.
How long before "Defund the Police" resurfaces in a really ugly way - e.g., the taxpayers will vote to get rid of the cops who aren't doing their d*** jobs? This would open the door for vigilantes, and for reasons already mentioned in (for example) post #60 above, I DON'T want to see that.
-
I'm not so sure we should entirely blame the cops as they don't have much choice in these matters. They are taking their instruction from the politicians and bureaucrats above them.
-
While we're on the subject
https://twitter.com/choeshow/status/1723481753099313626?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw
And the police just watch
Note what someone posted in the comments
[img width=600]https://pbs.twimg.com/media/F-sLx2EbMAA-Ppa?format=jpg&name=medium
I'm assuming that it is this same one:
https://twitchy.com/brettt/2023/11/13/seattle-cops-watch-over-antifa-bike-brigade-blocking-traffic-n2389758
I note there were antifa there holding "kill nazis" signs. Since everyone to the right of them is a nazi, can I assume they threatened my life and then use my vehicle or gun as a defensive tool to escape the threat?
In case anyone thinks I'm asking sarcastically, I'm not. If someone says they want to kill me, I'll take them seriously and act accordingly.
-
Most controlled access highways forbid pedestrians, bicycles, and low-powered motorcycles as a normal matter, so protesting on them would be illegal.
I excluded controlled access roads in my post.
-
So if pedestrians are walking where they have the right of way (and you say you aren't talking about places they don't), then what's the actual question?
-
I'm not so sure we should entirely blame the cops as they don't have much choice in these matters. They are taking their instruction from the politicians and bureaucrats above them.
Oh. Well if they are just following orders, OK then. That's cool.
-
So if pedestrians are walking where they have the right of way (and you say you aren't talking about places they don't), then what's the actual question?
Pedestrians do not generally have the right of way in the travel lanes of roads, even excluding controlled access roads. That was just some nonsense you made up.
They do typically have the right of way at crosswalks, however if there are signals they also typically must obey those signals.
-
Oh. Well if they are just following orders, OK then. That's cool.
You can say that all you want, but even if many of the "good" cops quit in disgust, the local PD will find someone to wear their badges who doesn't care what orders they follow.
-
You can say that all you want, but even if many of the "good" cops quit in disgust, the local PD will find someone to wear their badges who doesn't care what orders they follow.
Whether or not they care what their orders are doesn't matter, so long as they follow them. And that's where a lot of departments & agencies are right now, from officers who idly stand by and watch mobs cause mayhem to those who actively turn on the populace, like the ones involved in warrantless firearm seizures in post-Katrina NOLA and the border patrol members cutting wires on the border in TX to facilitate entry by illegal aliens today.
-
Oh. Well if they are just following orders, OK then. That's cool.
Not the same thing as you are making it out to be.
-
You can say that all you want, but even if many of the "good" cops quit in disgust, the local PD will find someone to wear their badges who doesn't care what orders they follow.
If the "good" cops follow the orders, or quit and let other people follow the orders, what's the functional difference to me? Either way some badges are not upholding the Law. Specifically in the situation we were talking about here, some badges were [are] allowing mobs to ransack businesses and attack motorists and pedestrians, or in the mentioned CBP behavior they are purposefully destroying border controls. So "good" cops or not, if they are engaging in that behavior, what good are they to us?
And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand?... The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin's thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt!
-
Not the same thing as you are making it out to be.
Really?
Do you think we have a fair and impartial justice system in the US? If not, who enforces that system at the level it interacts with citizens? Will they or will they not shoot you if you refuse to let them impose the [muti-tiered, capricious] justice system on you?
-
So if pedestrians are walking where they have the right of way (and you say you aren't talking about places they don't), then what's the actual question?
I'll rephrase my question.
If a group of protesters decide to walk in a mass down a street or non-controlled access highway, inhibiting the flow of traffic, do they have the right of way to use the street or non-controlled access highway? Think a roadway without sidewalks or a shoulder.
Controlled access roadways, we know that answer because by law they are not permitted to walk down the road. Then they could be charged with a misdemeanor or whatever.
I'm not defending any protesters or their behaviors, just curious.
-
I'll rephrase my question.
If a group of protesters decide to walk in a mass down a street or non-controlled access highway, inhibiting the flow of traffic, do they have the right of way to use the street or non-controlled access highway? Think a roadway without sidewalks or a shoulder.
Controlled access roadways, we know that answer because by law they are not permitted to walk down the road. Then they could be charged with a misdemeanor or whatever.
I'm not defending any protesters or their behaviors, just curious.
No, Not in the US, although details vary by state, in general Pedestrians don't have the Right of Way while jaywalking (walking in street outside of a crosswalk). However, pretty much every jurisdiction has some form of a law requiring drivers to exercise due care to avoid any collision. So a vehicle driver must still not hit the pedestrians, even though they don't have the right of way.
So if someone steps out into the road in front of you, not in a crosswalk, and you do everything you can to stop but still hit them, as a driver you are likely not at fault and wouldn't be criminally charged. The problem with these protests is "do everything you can to stop" generally means stopping and sitting there at these protests. Pushing through with a vehicle, even slowly, absent some other threat or extenuating circumstance will still be criminal in most cases.
Hence the stalemate that is so frusterating for people.
-
Really?
Do you think we have a fair and impartial justice system in the US? If not, who enforces that system at the level it interacts with citizens? Will they or will they not shoot you if you refuse to let them impose the [muti-tiered, capricious] justice system on you?
Your statement was an attempt to link to the "just following orders" defense used by WWII war criminals. Not the same thing.
And no, I don't believe we have a fair and impartial justice system in the US. I doubt we ever have.
-
Your statement was an attempt to link to the "just following orders" defense used by WWII war criminals. Not the same thing.
And no, I don't believe we have a fair and impartial justice system in the US. I doubt we ever have.
"My bosses told me to treat [group] unfairly and I will do so, using the .Gov's monopoly on force up to an including killing them"
It's exactly the same thing, the only difference is the degree to which "unfairly" is lethal.
But to avoid a full on Godwin, the cops and soldiers that rounded up the Nisei and herded them into camps were following orders. When the 12th Infantry Fixed bayonets and gassed families in Washington DC they were following orders.
When the feds ignored Seattle, Minneapolis, and Portland riots that killed people and destroyed the lives of the J6 demonstrators they were also following orders.
It's all the same cancer.
-
If a group of protesters decide to walk in a mass down a street or non-controlled access highway, inhibiting the flow of traffic, do they have the right of way to use the street or non-controlled access highway? Think a roadway without sidewalks or a shoulder.
I think, in most cases, yes. IANAL though. But the pressing question at hand is, what are you going to do about it? If you are even thinking about shooting them or running them over (for what reason exactly?), that's not even close to justified in any universe. They are guilty of, at most, a traffic violation. A clever lawyer could probably hit them with something...disturbing the peace is the classic catch-all, but it's not clear who the victim is. It wouldn't take a clever lawyer at all to charge anyone who threatened them with harm...that's just regular old assault. The police officers that the twitter people were claiming were "siding with the protesters" were doing the right thing... protecting the protesters, where there is a clear disparity of force.
Jaywalking is not actually a legal reality in most places, it's more of an urban legend. It's basically problematic to ban people from crossing roads on foot that are perfectly fine to cross in a car. There is usually no legal obligation to cross at crosswalks, but there usually IS a converse legal obligation for cars to yield right of way to crossing pedestrians even outside of marked crosswalks. Again, very difficult in a free country to say you can only walk in places where the government painted stripes on the ground. That's just not a thing, thankfully.
-
I think, in most cases, yes. IANAL though. But the pressing question at hand is, what are you going to do about it? If you are even thinking about shooting them or running them over (for what reason exactly?), that's not even close to justified in any universe. They are guilty of, at most, a traffic violation. A clever lawyer could probably hit them with something...disturbing the peace is the classic catch-all, but it's not clear who the victim is. It wouldn't take a clever lawyer at all to charge anyone who threatened them with harm...that's just regular old assault. The police officers that the twitter people were claiming were "siding with the protesters" were doing the right thing... protecting the protesters, where there is a clear disparity of force.
Jaywalking is not actually a legal reality in most places, it's more of an urban legend. It's basically problematic to ban people from crossing roads on foot that are perfectly fine to cross in a car. There is usually no legal obligation to cross at crosswalks, but there usually IS a converse legal obligation for cars to yield right of way to crossing pedestrians even outside of marked crosswalks. Again, very difficult in a free country to say you can only walk in places where the government painted stripes on the ground. That's just not a thing, thankfully.
Whew. <Terry wipes brow>
Da Capo:
If you deny me my right to peaceful passage, I might forgive you.
Might not.
-
I think, in most cases, yes. IANAL though. But the pressing question at hand is, what are you going to do about it? If you are even thinking about shooting them or running them over (for what reason exactly?), that's not even close to justified in any universe. They are guilty of, at most, a traffic violation. A clever lawyer could probably hit them with something...disturbing the peace is the classic catch-all, but it's not clear who the victim is. It wouldn't take a clever lawyer at all to charge anyone who threatened them with harm...that's just regular old assault. The police officers that the twitter people were claiming were "siding with the protesters" were doing the right thing... protecting the protesters, where there is a clear disparity of force.
Jaywalking is not actually a legal reality in most places, it's more of an urban legend. It's basically problematic to ban people from crossing roads on foot that are perfectly fine to cross in a car. There is usually no legal obligation to cross at crosswalks, but there usually IS a converse legal obligation for cars to yield right of way to crossing pedestrians even outside of marked crosswalks. Again, very difficult in a free country to say you can only walk in places where the government painted stripes on the ground. That's just not a thing, thankfully.
Jaywalking is a colloquialism and you are correct that that term is not usually in the statutes. There are 100% statutes that limit Pedestrians outside of marked crosswalks. For example, in FL:
(3) Where sidewalks are provided, no pedestrian shall, unless required by other circumstances, walk along and upon the portion of a roadway paved for vehicular traffic.
...
(10) Every pedestrian crossing a roadway at any point other than within a marked crosswalk or within an unmarked crosswalk at an intersection shall yield the right-of-way to all vehicles upon the roadway.
......
(12) No pedestrian shall, except in a marked crosswalk, cross a roadway at any other place than by a route at right angles to the curb or by the shortest route to the opposite curb.
As the numbers imply, there are quite a few more restrictions on Pedestrians in that section, these were just the ones that jumped out as more relative to this conversation. We are rarely as free as we should be.
Infractions of that section or non-criminal traffic violations.
-
https://twitter.com/toddstarnes/status/1723914427311796481?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1723914427311796481%7Ctwgr%5Eb3b8a89eafdd3ca638d58b4ea9366f84064553e1%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fgunfreezone.net%2F
What do you think about these aholes?
-
https://twitter.com/toddstarnes/status/1723914427311796481?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1723914427311796481%7Ctwgr%5Eb3b8a89eafdd3ca638d58b4ea9366f84064553e1%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fgunfreezone.net%2F
What do you think about these aholes?
They're aholes, but not, in that video, being violent so what you supposed to do? You could run them off with some applied violence, say from that overpass about 150 yds out, but as has been discussed ad nauseam in this thread, they haven't justified legal violence.
FWIW I do agree with the folks here that say you are going to see more and more vigilante type stuff if the .Gov continues to fail to provide the peace they promised to when they got a monopoly on violence. Not ideal, but kinda inevitable.
-
The link says "gun waving thugs". Were there people with guns shutting down traffic or did they just park and block the road? The response would sort of hinge on that. I am also curious how long that lasted.
However, I would be a bit irritated if I were driving through that area and hit a traffic jam because they were joy riding.
-
Same area
. https://twitter.com/EndWokeness/status/1724149438803808629?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1724149438803808629%7Ctwgr%5Ef7a63fbc027f613646669ee93987d1093b4beac5%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fgunfreezone.net%2F
Yes, the ones that blocked the road for the side show were said to be armed.
-
I'm not so sure we should entirely blame the cops as they don't have much choice in these matters. They are taking their instruction from the politicians and bureaucrats above them.
That's what they claimed at Nuremberg. >:D
-
That's what they claimed at Nuremberg. >:D
Ancient history. Kids probably don't even know what that is. Some town near Fredericksburg.
IMO, the better cops are probably finding other jobs or retiring. I would like to say more and more cops will just follow orders, but the big city DA's don't protect the cops all the time. It will probably continue to be an inconsistent mess depending on where you are.
-
"My bosses told me to treat [group] unfairly and I will do so, using the .Gov's monopoly on force up to an including killing them"
It's exactly the same thing, the only difference is the degree to which "unfairly" is lethal.
But to avoid a full on Godwin, the cops and soldiers that rounded up the Nisei and herded them into camps were following orders. When the 12th Infantry Fixed bayonets and gassed families in Washington DC they were following orders.
When the feds ignored Seattle, Minneapolis, and Portland riots that killed people and destroyed the lives of the J6 demonstrators they were also following orders.
It's all the same cancer.
Doing something unfair - no matter how serious - based on orders is now equivalent to the Holocaust? ;/
The good news is that you've certainly got a lot of college kids and professors who will agree.
-
Doing something unfair - no matter how serious - based on orders is now equivalent to the Holocaust? ;/
The good news is that you've certainly got a lot of college kids and professors who will agree.
Please. Context matters. I was talking about officers using the force of government to jail and/or commit violence on people based on political motivations.
Specifically:
HankB said:
More and more, the police are becoming a security detail for the mob. They won't stop mob actions, but they WILL jump with both feet on anyone who fights the mob.
To which RocketMan Replied:
I'm not so sure we should entirely blame the cops as they don't have much choice in these matters. They are taking their instruction from the politicians and bureaucrats above them.
To which I repled:
Oh. Well if they are just following orders, OK then. That's cool.
I later even followed up with Non-Nazi events where police and government actors "were just following orders" to bad outcomes. Pretty sure I even threw a Gulag Archipelago quote in the discussion to further un-Godwin the conversation. So save your "you called it the Holocausts!!!111!" pearl clutching.
But let's play your silly game anyways. It's been well documented historically that the vast majority of Nazi's weren't killing the Jews. Lots and lots of regional Police, (and later vichy-esque officials) were just arresting the people they were supposed to and putting them on trains. They didn't know where those trains went, and if they hadn't followed orders, they probably would have been on the trains themselves. That's the Banality of it.
No the US government is not currently killing people wholesale (in this country) but they are jailing people and ruining their lives. 25 years in jail and your family is gone, your career is gone, when you get out you probably are stuck in poverty or dependent on the state for the rest of your life. How is the cop that loaded that guy in a truck for his date with "justice" that different from the rural Polish cop loading some refugees on a train? Both can claim orders, both can claim innocence of the final result, both can claim that they'd face consequences of their own if they didn't follow orders.
-
Please. Context matters. I was talking about officers using the force of government to jail and/or commit violence on people based on political motivations.
Obviously. Calling out your absolutely freaking stupid claim of equivalence is not defending bad policing or bad governmenting.
Cops doing crappy stuff under orders is not automatically the same thing as Auschwitz. Context matters, but so does scale and enormity.
So save your "you called it the Holocausts!!!111!" pearl clutching.
:rofl: You literally compare bad police to genocide and have the stones to accuse me of pearl clutching?
No the US government is not currently killing people wholesale (in this country) but they are jailing people and ruining their lives. 25 years in jail and your family is gone, your career is gone, when you get out you probably are stuck in poverty or dependent on the state for the rest of your life. How is the cop that loaded that guy in a truck for his date with "justice" that different from the rural Polish cop loading some refugees on a train? Both can claim orders, both can claim innocence of the final result, both can claim that they'd face consequences of their own if they didn't follow orders.
As a wise man once told me: Context matters.
It wasn't the rural Polish cops who had loaded refugees onto trains to death camps who tried to claim they were just following orders at Nuremburg. In addition, the "superior orders" defense absolutely does work ... just not for war crimes, crimes against humanity, and manifestly illegal actions. It kind of surprises me that someone as intelligent, thoughtful, well-read, and with as much military experience as you is trying to sell that fractally wrong bullshit.
-
NM
-
YT decides that one of Brandon Herrera's gun meme review videos needed a climate change context box because this one is all on our shooter here.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ldHhLB1KzqA
-
Been poking around catching videos on the anger the blockers has generated in the blockees. I'll say this --if you have blood pressure problems, don't go exploring in that video area.
From what I can tell, the UK cops are more ballsy about treating the blockers than our pussypants cops (or their superiors).
I note one jurisdiction (I forget which) has increased the fine to 50 big ones, I forget whether that was thousands of Pounds or Dollars. Maybe that was Australia, whose gene pool is probably more full of no-nonsense types, and some of the blockees are "mechanically" moving the blockers along by use of horsepower. Funny to watch three or four jerkwater blockers trying to hold back a car as it advances. I grin: Three jerkpowers against 200 horsepowers. :)
All the theoretical, ethical, legal, and moral principles tossed back and forth in this thread don't seem to mean a hill of beans to the general population of furious blockees who are missing airplane flights and picking up kids at school.
As opposed to the infantile self-righteousness of the blockers.
I'm toying with the advisability of getting a gross of long wire ties if it ever happens to me. I'd distribute them generously to any of my fellow blockees to anchor the blockers to things near the sidewalks so they can't run back in the street to continue the blockade. Not that I, personally, would use them, but I'd be willing to provide them to angry blockees.
For free.
As I said before, you got rights, but so do I, and your right to petition against grievances, however serious, does not trump my right to peaceable passage to wherever I was going, however trivial.
I repeat my caution about watching those vids if you have BP problems.
Terry, 230RN
-
. . . I'm toying with the advisability of getting a gross of long wire ties if it ever happens to me. I'd distribute them generously to any of my fellow blockees to anchor the blockers to things near the sidewalks so they can't run back in the street to continue the blockade . . .
Instead of wire ties, I'd suggest super glue to anchor them to the sidewalks, away from the roadway.
-
Been poking around catching videos on the anger the blockers have generated in the blockees. I'll say this --if you have blood pressure problems, don't go exploring in that video area.
From what I can tell, the UK cops are more ballsy about treating the blockers than our pussypants cops (or their superiors).
I note one jurisdiction (I forget which) has increased the fine to 50 big ones, I forget whether that was thousands of Pounds or Dollars. Maybe that was Australia, whose gene pool is probably more full of no-nonsense types, and some of the blockees are "mechanically" moving the blockers along by use of horsepower.
Funny to watch three or four jerkwater blockers trying to hold back a car as it advances. I grin: Three jerkpowers against 200 horsepowers. :)
All the theoretical, ethical, legal, and moral principles tossed back and forth in this thread don't seem to mean a hill of beans to the general population of furious blockees who are missing airline flights and picking up kids at school.
As opposed to the infantile self-righteousness of the blockers.
I'm toying with the advisability of getting a gross of long wire ties if it ever happens to me. I'd distribute them generously to any of my fellow blockees to anchor the blockers to things near the sidewalks so they can't run back in the street to continue the blockade. Not that I, personally, would use them, but I'd be willing to hand them out to angry blockees.
For free.
As I said before, you got rights, but so do I, and your right to petition against grievances, however serious, does not trump my right to peaceable passage to wherever I was going, however trivial.
I repeat my caution about watching those vids if you have BP problems.
Terry, 230RN
Edited to cure line-wrapping problem.
-
Instead of wire ties, I'd suggest super glue to anchor them to the sidewalks, away from the roadway.
:rofl:
But of course! I should have thought of that !
You're a mean one, Mr. HankB !
Same problem for the po-po in removing them as with them glued to the street, though.
Maybe they could leave them stuck there on the sidewalk like in the old days of putting miscreants in the pillory.
(https://i5.walmartimages.com/asr/4a90cad6-7e5d-473c-bbcc-6df814868212.9c15e4e06bd4cb3b3aab141b646bdc62.jpeg)
Sweet justice! He ain't goin' nowhere neither!
(Amusing hypocrisy on my part: only two weeks ago I was bitching about corporal punishment. <laughing at myself>)
-
I would just continuously douse their faces in paper spray until they decide it is time to go.
I saw a video once of some protestors who chained themselves inside the office of a timber company or something. A cop applied paper agent of some sort to their eyes with cotton swabs... they immediately started crying and gave up.
-
(https://hosting.photobucket.com/images/x383/WLJohnson1/zpf1jw8jh5251.webp)
-
(https://hosting.photobucket.com/images/x383/WLJohnson1/screen-shot-2011-11-23-at-1-46-24-am.webp)