Protesters blocking roadways

[jbombelli]

Misdemeanor? I'll sign a complaint.

 

[chipbennett]

"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

And it would seem to me that you're projecting. Your words in no way describe anything I've discussed in this thread.

 

[BugI02]

If one is being criminally confined, then one is being subjected to a felony. If one is being subjected to a felony, then one has the lawful right to use deadly force in self-defense. Can drivers run over the "protesters"? No. Can they pull guns on them to force them to cease their felonious actions? Yes, and they should start doing so.



This is pure projection. It matters not what the "protesters" are protesting. They are by definition not peacably protesting, because their actions are unlawful. Thus, their status as "protesters" is moot. They are criminals, violating the civil rights of mass numbers of law-abiding citizens.

I think you fundamentally misunderstand the 'disobedience' part of 'civil disobedience' Is not the law what they are disobeying?

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.

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.

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

And it would seem to me that you're projecting. Your words in no way describe anything I've discussed in this thread.

Ah, yes. How silly of me. Who knows where I could have gotten that idea

 

[chipbennett]

I think you fundamentally misunderstand the 'disobedience' part of 'civil disobedience' Is not the law what they are disobeying?

There is violation of law - especially, malum prohibitum law - and then there is acting in such a way so as to cause real harm to others - such as explicit and intentional violation of civil rights.

Civil disobedience is Rosa Parks refusing to sit in the back of the bus, not committing the equivalent of kidnapping the other passengers on that bus.

Ah, yes. How silly of me. Who knows where I could have gotten that idea

I've been very clear about referring to situations in which mobs legitimately put people in reasonable fear of imminent harm. You're employing argumentum ad absurdum.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

TI've been very clear about referring to situations in which mobs legitimately put people in reasonable fear of imminent harm. You're employing argumentum ad absurdum.

We can't read your mind, and your statements certainly weren't "very clear" in that regard, although you did continue to adjust until you got there.

 

[jbombelli]

There is violation of law - especially, malum prohibitum law - and then there is acting in such a way so as to cause real harm to others - such as explicit and intentional violation of civil rights.

Civil disobedience is Rosa Parks refusing to sit in the back of the bus, not committing the equivalent of kidnapping the other passengers on that bus.



I've been very clear about referring to situations in which mobs legitimately put people in reasonable fear of imminent harm. You're employing argumentum ad absurdum.

No. You were talking about protesters standing in the road, proclaimed that to be a felony of some sort, because they're illegally detaining you even though you would be free to get out of your car and walk away, and advocated using deadly force on them. Then you continually massaged your scenario to make it fit the negative answers you were getting.

 

[chipbennett]

No. You were talking about protesters standing in the road, proclaimed that to be a felony of some sort, because they're illegally detaining you even though you would be free to get out of your car and walk away, and advocated using deadly force on them. Then you continually massaged your scenario to make it fit the negative answers you were getting.

That's not "freedom". That then becomes a violation of fourth amendment-protected rights, to be forced to abandon one's vehicle, and have to walk (by oneself or with one's family or other occupants of the vehicle) through/around a hostile mob.

And I was never talking about protesters merely "standing in the road". I've only ever clarified, in order to refute those who either misunderstood (BBI) or blatantly twisted (Bug) what I was talking about.

 

[churchmouse]

 

[jbombelli]

That's not "freedom". That then becomes a violation of fourth amendment-protected rights, to be forced to abandon one's vehicle, and have to walk (by oneself or with one's family or other occupants of the vehicle) through/around a hostile mob.

And I was never talking about protesters merely "standing in the road". I've only ever clarified, in order to refute those who either misunderstood (BBI) or blatantly twisted (Bug) what I was talking about.

Go back and reread your own posts.

And... its not a 4th amendment violation unless the government is doing it. And nobody forced you to leave in your scenario.

 

[chipbennett]

Go back and reread your own posts.

And... its not a 4th amendment violation unless the government is doing it. And nobody forced you to leave in your scenario.

Untrue. A person absolutely can violate the rights of another that are enumerated in the fourth amendment - just as a person can violate any other of the constitutionally enumerated rights. The fourth amendment merely restricts the government from infringing upon the rights enumerated; the rights themselves pre-exist the constitution and its government restrictions on infringement. Just because the government isn't the entity violating said rights does not mean that said rights are not, in fact, violated.

 

[jbombelli]

Untrue. A person absolutely can violate the rights of another that are enumerated in the fourth amendment - just as a person can violate any other of the constitutionally enumerated rights. The fourth amendment merely restricts the government from infringing upon the rights enumerated; the rights themselves pre-exist the constitution and its government restrictions on infringement. Just because the government isn't the entity violating said rights does not mean that said rights are not, in fact, violated.

Oh. The same way INGO violates your rights to free speech because you can't write ****?

Got it.



Just keep on arguing your point, if anybody even knows what it is anymore. I see no further use in banging my head into your brick wall of wrong.

 

[churchmouse]

OK.....I see the :Popcorn: was ignored so lets do this..........Stand down.

Give it a rest.

Or go somewhere and have a cheeseburger and share the fries.

 

[Cameramonkey]

OK.....I see the :Popcorn: was ignored so lets do this..........Stand down.

Give it a rest.

Or go somewhere and have a cheeseburger and share the fires.

Fires? Somebody getting burned at the stake?

 

[churchmouse]

Crap.....fries man....share the fries..........

 

[chipbennett]

Oh. The same way INGO violates your rights to free speech because you can't write ****?

Got it.



Just keep on arguing your point, if anybody even knows what it is anymore. I see no further use in banging my head into your brick wall of wrong.

More straw men.

That's not a violation of rights. INGO isn't an entity with agency, so it is not capable of violating my right to free speech. However, a person is capable of violating another's right to free speech: for example, the heckler's veto (lay, not legal, usage of the term).

 

[jbombelli]

Whatever.

 

[Denny347]

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.

Actually, the ones I've worked (like the most recent one that this recording is from) there is no "surrounding" of vehicles. They just block the street. For us, they were marching all around downtown and decided to stop at Washington St/Illinois St under the Arts Garden. They stopped there for about 5 minutes then proceeded to march some more. From the incidents we've studied (I'm part of a group that specializes in dealing with this stuff) is that the BLM typically just blocks travel. It is not until someone drives INTO the crowd that the vehicles get surrounded and the occupants are placed in "fear".



http://vidmg.photobucket.com/albums/v21/Denny347/Misc/20160709_201403_zpst3fjs4qt.mp4