US citizen kills ecoprotesters in Panama

[cordex]

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.

[MechAg94]

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. 

[HankB]

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.

[RocketMan]

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.

[dogmush]

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!

[dogmush]

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?

[charby]

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.

[dogmush]

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.

[RocketMan]

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.

[dogmush]

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.

[zahc]

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.

[230RN]

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.

[dogmush]

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.

[Jim147]

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?

[dogmush]

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.

[MechAg94]

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. 

[Jim147]

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.

[JTHunter]

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. 

[MechAg94]

That's what they claimed at Nuremberg. 

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.

[cordex]

"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.

[dogmush]

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.

[cordex]

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.

  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.

[dogmush]

NM

[WLJ]

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

[230RN]

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