Protesters blocking roadways

[chipbennett]

Lol, you sly dog....I see you slipped in that "surroundings your vehicle" part. One does not have surround your vehicle to be blocking the roadway.

Is that not what we're talking about, though? Is that not what happens at one of these "protests" when a driver attempts to assert his right of way?

 

[Kutnupe14]

Is that not what we're talking about, though? Is that not what happens at one of these "protests" when a driver attempts to assert his right of way?

There's a difference between blocking the roadway, and attacking a vehicle. Once they start attacking an occupied vehicle, they stop being blockers, and start being threats. But from what I've seen, it more typical of people in cars being smart, and staying well away from people blocking the street.

 

[chipbennett]

There's a difference between blocking the roadway, and attacking a vehicle. Once they start attacking an occupied vehicle, they stop being blockers, and start being threats. But from what I've seen, it more typical of people in cars being smart, and staying well away from people blocking the street.

There is certainly a difference between a chain of people, arm-in-arm, across a roadway, and an amorphous mob of hundreds of people massing in the road to obstruct traffic. The reasonableness of fear, and the confluence of ability-opportunity-jeopardy, also differ in the two scenarios. But from what I've seen, the latter scenario is the more common.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Semantics. Reasonable belief of forcible felony. I think being subjected to a felony (criminal confinement) by hundreds of people intentionally surrounding your vehicle and intentionally preventing your lawful travel is grounds for reasonable belief of being subjected to a forcible felony.



More semantics:

IC 9-21-17-7Crossing roadway at point not marked as a crosswalk; yield ofright-of-way to trafficSec. 7. A pedestrian crossing a roadway at a point other thanwithin a marked crosswalk or within an unmarked crosswalk at anintersection shall yield the right-of-way to all vehicles upon theroadway.

Those "semantics" are the difference between a good shoot and a prison sentence. As I recall someone once said, words have meaning. Plus, still nope. I recommend you re-read 35-41-3-2 and if still unclear consult an attorney prior to putting your understanding in to practice. Feel free to continue to modify the scenario until you get the response you want, but up this point you're wrong and I would highly recommend anyone who is reading this to further research the matter before deciding you're justified in pulling a gun because someone blocked the roadway, even if there's hundreds of them. And that's ignoring the questionable wisdom of pulling a gun on hundreds of people...

Citing an IC code that calls someone who is jaywalking a pedestrian as backing up a statement that people aren't pedestrians if they are jaywalking is still nope. I'm not even sure where you're trying to go with that.

 

[chipbennett]

Those "semantics" are the difference between a good shoot and a prison sentence. As I recall someone once said, words have meaning. Plus, still nope. I recommend you re-read 35-41-3-2 and if still unclear consult an attorney prior to putting your understanding in to practice. Feel free to continue to modify the scenario until you get the response you want, but up this point you're wrong and I would highly recommend anyone who is reading this to further research the matter before deciding you're justified in pulling a gun because someone blocked the roadway, even if there's hundreds of them. And that's ignoring the questionable wisdom of pulling a gun on hundreds of people...

...because a hostile crowd intentionally preventing you from traveling on a public roadway, and surrounding your vehicle, doesn't represent a significant disparity of force, and doesn't cause the driver reasonably to fear for his personal safety?

(And that doesn't even get into the many instances where the people unlawfully blocking the roads are preventing ambulances and other emergency vehicles from getting to hospitals/emergencies.)

Citing an IC code that calls someone who is jaywalking a pedestrian as backing up a statement that people aren't pedestrians if they are jaywalking is still nope. I'm not even sure where you're trying to go with that.

The point is that calling them "pedestrians" implies that they have the right of way, when in fact, regardless of their status as pedestrians, they do not, in fact, have the right of way. Even as pedestrians, they are not lawfully in the roadway, and are not lawfully taking the right of way from vehicles.

And we are not talking about mere jaywalking here, anyway.

 

[BugI02]

That type of stuff like blocking roads is pretty low down crap. Whatever happened to trucks with water cannons and those high tec sound devices ect? IMO they need to decisively shut crap like that down sending a message of you may do it but it is gonna be very uncomfortable. Take the fun right out of it.

I believe the formulation you're looking for is " I can't stop you from doing it, but I can make you wish you hadn't"

Where's Joe Arpaio when you need him

 

[BugI02]

...because a hostile crowd intentionally preventing you from traveling on a public roadway, and surrounding your vehicle, doesn't represent a significant disparity of force, and doesn't cause the driver reasonably to fear for his personal safety?

(And that doesn't even get into the many instances where the people unlawfully blocking the roads are preventing ambulances and other emergency vehicles from getting to hospitals/emergencies.)



The point is that calling them "pedestrians" implies that they have the right of way, when in fact, regardless of their status as pedestrians, they do not, in fact, have the right of way. Even as pedestrians, they are not lawfully in the roadway, and are not lawfully taking the right of way from vehicles.

And we are not talking about mere jaywalking here, anyway.

If you just don't want your time wasted by liberal tools, I believe the app 'Waze' can help you with that

If you want people prevented from using a tactic of civil disobedience you disagree with, or you wish to be given the right to use lethal force in a non-existential situation, I fear you will be disappointed

 

[chipbennett]

If you just don't want your time wasted by liberal tools, I believe the app 'Waze' can help you with that

If you want people prevented from using a tactic of civil disobedience you disagree with, or you wish to be given the right to use lethal force in a non-existential situation, I fear you will be disappointed

It's not a matter of what I agree or disagree with; it is a matter of what is lawful vs. unlawful. Blocking roadways is not a "tactic of civil disobedience"; it is a dangerous act of mass violation of civil liberties.

 

[Gary119]

So maybe this would be a good time to perfect the pepper spray/ laser beam/ water cannon spraying/
electron pulse inducing/ Tiny Tim playing vehicle anti road blocking control module I've been working on? It was originally for squirrels but maybe a change in plans......

 

[chipbennett]

So maybe this would be a good time to perfect the pepper spray/ laser beam/ water cannon spraying/
electron pulse inducing/ Tiny Tim playing vehicle anti road blocking control module I've been working on? It was originally for squirrels but maybe a change in plans......

Can you configure it with a million foot-candle lamp, too?

 

[Gary119]

Can you configure it with a million foot-candle lamp, too?

I like the way you think!

With or without strobes?

Don't tell anyone but I have a super secret optional disco ball!

 

[BehindBlueI's]

...because a hostile crowd intentionally preventing you from traveling on a public roadway, and surrounding your vehicle, doesn't represent a significant disparity of force, and doesn't cause the driver reasonably to fear for his personal safety?

(And that doesn't even get into the many instances where the people unlawfully blocking the roads are preventing ambulances and other emergency vehicles from getting to hospitals/emergencies.)



The point is that calling them "pedestrians" implies that they have the right of way, when in fact, regardless of their status as pedestrians, they do not, in fact, have the right of way. Even as pedestrians, they are not lawfully in the roadway, and are not lawfully taking the right of way from vehicles.

And we are not talking about mere jaywalking here, anyway.

Keep adding to the scenario until you get what you want, but as originally framed, nope. I am quite serious in that you probably want to run it by your attorney before you go pulling on someone for blocking you in or surrounding your car.

Pedestrian means you are on foot. Simple. It's nothing to do with right of way. Even the IC code you posted says the same thing, as does any crash report involving a pedestrian, as does common usage...so still not sure where you're going with that.

 

[chipbennett]

Keep adding to the scenario until you get what you want, but as originally framed, nope. I am quite serious in that you probably want to run it by your attorney before you go pulling on someone for blocking you in or surrounding your car.

Pedestrian means you are on foot. Simple. It's nothing to do with right of way. Even the IC code you posted says the same thing, as does any crash report involving a pedestrian, as does common usage...so still not sure where you're going with that.

I'm only trying to describe the scenario to portray accurately what is involved in a typical BLM "block-the-roads" type of illegal demonstration. As for me personally: I would do my best to avoid them to begin with. And as long as everyone is on the same page regarding pedestrians not inherently having the right-of-way in all situations, then my point is made.

 

[Butch627]

Seems like the lines are being drawn very close by these protesters. When In Chicago shutting down the Trump rally the "protesters" vandalized cars that were parked in a parking garage and I believe they also vandalized cars with drivers in them as they were leaving the garage. They also smacked around some of the Trump supporters trying to get away from the chaos. The rally was on a university property so it was illegal to carry, but not illegal to have a loaded gun in the car with a valid permit. I believe cars on the expressway were also vandalized when the "protesters" shut it down for a time.

 

[churchmouse]

Seems like the lines are being drawn very close by these protesters. When In Chicago shutting down the Trump rally the "protesters" vandalized cars that were parked in a parking garage and I believe they also vandalized cars with drivers in them as they were leaving the garage. They also smacked around some of the Trump supporters trying to get away from the chaos. The rally was on a university property so it was illegal to carry, but not illegal to have a loaded gun in the car with a valid permit. I believe cars on the expressway were also vandalized when the "protesters" shut it down for a time.

What....wait.....vandalism and violence...This cannot be.

 

[printcraft]

What....wait.....vandalism and violence...This cannot be.

Don't forget about egging the woman and tackling another guy and splitting another guys head open.
peaceful folks.

 

[BugI02]

I'm only trying to describe the scenario to portray accurately what is involved in a typical BLM "block-the-roads" type of illegal demonstration. As for me personally: I would do my best to avoid them to begin with. And as long as everyone is on the same page regarding pedestrians not inherently having the right-of-way in all situations, then my point is made.

Chip, run that idea to its extreme. Yeah a person J-walking is not in the crosswalk and does not prima facie have the right of way ... but you still can't deliberately run them down. If you accidently hit them on a dark and stormy night when they were not in a crosswalk that might provide some legal cover, but if you told the court you didn't bother to brake because they didn't have the right of way? Vacation at the crossbar hotel

 

[chipbennett]

Chip, run that idea to its extreme. Yeah a person J-walking is not in the crosswalk and does not prima facie have the right of way ... but you still can't deliberately run them down. If you accidently hit them on a dark and stormy night when they were not in a crosswalk that might provide some legal cover, but if you told the court you didn't bother to brake because they didn't have the right of way? Vacation at the crossbar hotel

I agree 100%.

it also has absolutely nothing to do with the situation being discussed here.

 

[BugI02]

"Chip, run that idea to its extreme ..."

Coulda' fooled me. Seems like you're arguing for a right to force your way through demonstrators blocking the road using your car as a blunt instrument and/or the right to draw down on the demonstrators or perhaps even shoot if you find yourself trapped because of your actions

Not sure about IN but in OH to have presumption of self defense you can't initiate the confrontation. Seems like trying to run the blockade wouldn't meet that standard

 

[Thegeek]

Here? Before it was changed, Obstructing Traffic.

[FONT=&amp]IC 35-42-2-4[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]Obstruction of traffic[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp] 35-42-2-4 Sec. 4. (a) A person who recklessly, knowingly, or intentionally obstructs vehicular or pedestrian traffic commits obstruction of traffic, a Class B misdemeanor.[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp] (b) The offense described in subsection (a) is:[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp] (1) a Class A misdemeanor if the offense includes the use of a motor vehicle; and[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp] (2) a Class D felony if the offense results in serious bodily injury.


[/FONT]

So, in case of (1), I park my car blocking a lane and it's an A misdemeanor. If I do it with my body, a B misdemeanor. But, what does that mean for the person affected? Whey try to go around a person and are obstructed by another and then yet another? It doesn't say anything about using force.

Appropriate force:
Tell them to allow you to pass. Then slowly creep forward to push them out of the way. If they escalate, you elevate your force. I'd really like to see one of the drivers have a bottle of pepper spray and hose them all down. I'm all for protesting, but holding traffic hostage is not protest. I think it's use of unjust force and everyone affected should have the right to respond in kind.