(February 12, 2017 at 10:06 am)paulpablo Wrote:

(February 12, 2017 at 9:58 am)Aoi Magi Wrote: No, what you are describing is assault, and yes in case of assault one should defend themselves. But running over someone for simply protesting by blocking traffic is not justifiable.

In murica, that granny across the street can easily pull a gun on me, so should I just randomly drive over her so that I "don't have to wait for that to happen"?

If that granny pulls a gun out on you while in front of your vehicle then I think it would be classed as reasonable force to run her over.

I don't understand why you are saying no to begin your sentence.

I fully understand that I am indeed describing an assault.  Yes I am describing an assault.  That's the point I'm making.  Describing an assault that might happen in some instances where a vehicle is surrounded and the driver of the vehicle doesn't know the intentions of the people blocking the path.

I'd extend that to describing robbery, theft of a vehicle and so on.  A vehicle could be stopped for any number of crimes.

I'm not saying the best thing to do is plow through everybody incase someone in front of you is a criminal. 

But I can understand that if someone is run over as a result of blocking someone's path in certain circumstances I think it would be justifiable action.  Which I can't see how anyone could disagree with but on this forum....who knows.

You are having such a hard time understanding because you are trying to push a different topic than what is being discussed. The bills in the OP are about protests, not assaults. Murder as a means of self-defense is a separate issue, and one that is very subjective.

(February 12, 2017 at 10:06 am)Thena323 Wrote: By murder? Lol....

Well, it wouldn't necessarily kill them but it could and it would be justified.

(February 12, 2017 at 10:16 am)Aoi Magi Wrote:

(February 12, 2017 at 10:06 am)paulpablo Wrote: If that granny pulls a gun out on you while in front of your vehicle then I think it would be classed as reasonable force to run her over.

I don't understand why you are saying no to begin your sentence.

I fully understand that I am indeed describing an assault.  Yes I am describing an assault.  That's the point I'm making.  Describing an assault that might happen in some instances where a vehicle is surrounded and the driver of the vehicle doesn't know the intentions of the people blocking the path.

I'd extend that to describing robbery, theft of a vehicle and so on.  A vehicle could be stopped for any number of crimes.

I'm not saying the best thing to do is plow through everybody incase someone in front of you is a criminal. 

But I can understand that if someone is run over as a result of blocking someone's path in certain circumstances I think it would be justifiable action.  Which I can't see how anyone could disagree with but on this forum....who knows.

You are having such a hard time understanding because you are trying to push a different topic than what is being discussed. The bills in the OP are about protests, not assaults. Murder as a means of self-defense is a separate issue, and one that is very subjective.

I wasn't talking about a bill.

I was talking about your comment where you said there's no good reason for a random person to run another person over because they're blocking the way.
If you're talking about within the realms of a peaceful protest then I agree with you.
But if that protest takes any kind of violent expression then it could be justifiable to drive through people to escape violence.

(February 12, 2017 at 9:57 am)paulpablo Wrote:

(February 12, 2017 at 9:43 am)TaraJo Wrote:

The lesson?  Lefties should start going to their protests with guns.  Lots of guns.  And threats to use those guns.

And don't use those guns to shoot out the windows of starbucks and an apple store, because you know you're going to be in the starbucks next week on your apple laptop.

You realize that the hipsters aren't actually the ones who are vandalizing or actively protesting, right?  I mean, they just spent $60 on those new shoes; they aren't going to ruin them running away from the police.

But, anyway, my point remains.  I'm sick and tired of liberals, progressives, whatever, trying to demonstrate peacefully and being labeled as violent rioters.  Meanwhile, right wing groups are routinely going to their protests with guns, threatening to use those guns against the government at every fucking turn, and they never get called violent.  Also worth pointing out, the tea party, the armed ones, the ones who are constantly threatening to use those guns, they've been the ones who have gotten what they wanted.  They wanted the Iraq war and they got it and then they wanted tax cuts and they got them (even if it WAS mostly tax cuts for billionaires).  Meanwhile, no matter how many left wing protests have been had, lefties have been constantly losing on the economic front for the past 30 years.  I have to wonder, if liberals marched for stronger unions, if we marched for a higher minimum wage, if we marched for greater income equality, and we brought weapons to those marches with specific threats to use those weapons, do you think maybe we'd start getting what we want?

(February 12, 2017 at 10:16 am)Bella Morte Wrote:

(February 12, 2017 at 10:06 am)Thena323 Wrote: By murder? Lol....

Well, it wouldn't necessarily kill them but it could and it would be justified.

No. It's NOT justified, under many of the circumstances you and your dipshit cohorts are describing.

Killing or maiming several individuals, because you FEEL one or more them MIGHT throw a rock at you on a PUBLIC STREET, doesn't cut the mustard, baby. If you believe it should, well then...you're a piece of shit.

I don't know what else to tell you, kid.

(February 12, 2017 at 10:43 am)Thena323 Wrote: No. It's NOT justified, under many of the circumstances you and your dipshit cohorts are describing.

Killing or maiming several individuals, because you FEEL one or more them MIGHT throw a rock at you on a PUBLIC STREET, doesn't cut the mustard, baby. If you believe it should, well then...you're a piece of shit.

I don't know what else to tell you, kid.

It's very much justified. Don't surround a vehicle in an intimidating manner and you won't get run over. I must be a piece of shit for supporting the right for people to defend themselves but whatever.

This discussion isn't going to get anywhere. I have my opinion and you have yours.

(February 12, 2017 at 10:20 am)paulpablo Wrote: I wasn't talking about a bill.

I was talking about your comment where you said there's no good reason for a random person to run another person over because they're blocking the way.
If you're talking about within the realms of a peaceful protest then I agree with you.
But if that protest takes any kind of violent expression then it could be justifiable to drive through people to escape violence.

To clear up my views, until someone shows actual intent of assault, use of lethal force is not justified, and even then it is subjective. Blocking traffic, and intent of assault are separate things, no need to conflate them. The bill is absolutely horrible.

(February 12, 2017 at 10:53 am)Aoi Magi Wrote:

(February 12, 2017 at 10:20 am)paulpablo Wrote: I wasn't talking about a bill.

I was talking about your comment where you said there's no good reason for a random person to run another person over because they're blocking the way.
If you're talking about within the realms of a peaceful protest then I agree with you.
But if that protest takes any kind of violent expression then it could be justifiable to drive through people to escape violence.

To clear up my views, until someone shows actual intent of assault, use of lethal force is not justified, and even then it is subjective. Blocking traffic, and intent of assault are separate things, no need to conflate them. The bill is absolutely horrible.

I'm not saying blocking traffic and assualt are the same.

I'm not saying that rioting and protesting are the same.

I'm saying that riots can be a form of desctructive protest.

I'm saying there are instances of blocking traffic in order to assault/rob/cause criminal damage.

And in some of those instances I do see it as justified to drive forwards to try and escape violence.

If a person is run over in some of those instances then I imagine there are times when the driver of the vehicle could be seen to have taken a justifiable action.

(February 12, 2017 at 10:53 am)Bella Morte Wrote:

(February 12, 2017 at 10:43 am)Thena323 Wrote: No. It's NOT justified, under many of the circumstances you and your dipshit cohorts are describing.

Killing or maiming several individuals, because you FEEL one or more them MIGHT throw a rock at you on a PUBLIC STREET, doesn't cut the mustard, baby. If you believe it should, well then...you're a piece of shit.

I don't know what else to tell you, kid.

It's very much justified. Don't surround a vehicle in an intimidating manner and you won't get run over. I must be a piece of shit for supporting the right for people to defend themselves but whatever.

Hmm...not exactly. 

You're a piece of shit, because you support the right for people to "defend" themselves in a violently excessive/unrestrained manner, against those belonging to any subgroup you feel comfortable devaluing and/or marginalizing.

Yeah. I'm pretty sure that's it.

(February 12, 2017 at 9:56 am)Jesster Wrote: Sometimes protests do need to be taken to the streets.

Some of the most effective techniques for shaming the powers that be do not involve chanting "shame" at all.