Traffic protesters getting run over by cars - good or bad?

[Deluge]

Traffic protesters getting run over by cars - good or bad? 

[Nationalist]

It's not good...but it is deserved.

[Deluge]

24 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

It's not good...but it is deserved.

It's good in a valuable lesson sort of way. These reprobates need to understand that it's not wise to stand in front of 3,000 lbs. of moving machinery with an engine and wheels. 

[robosmith]

2 hours ago, Nationalist said:

It's not good...but it is deserved.

I hope you try it and find out how badly the law treats attempted murder. 

[Nationalist]

2 minutes ago, robosmith said:

I hope you try it and find out how badly the law treats attempted murder. 

Whatever...

[CdnFox]

Unlawful violence is always bad. Once that line is crossed where do you stop? Shooting them?

Having said that I think that the protests are out of control as well and that it needs to be brought into a lawful state. Can't just block test roads and stop traffic like that. You're essentially holding people hostage and that's not okay either

You're right to protest is not the right to terrorize. And running people over isn't counter protest. Reasonable limits have to be put on these things

[gatomontes99]

3 hours ago, robosmith said:

I hope you try it and find out how badly the law treats attempted murder. 

It is not attempted murder if it's a viable threat on your life. Thanks to Reginal Denny, we know that violent rioters on the left will kill you. That's a plausible reason to believe harm will come. 

[Aristides]

1 hour ago, gatomontes99 said:

It is not attempted murder if it's a viable threat on your life. Thanks to Reginal Denny, we know that violent rioters on the left will kill you. That's a plausible reason to believe harm will come. 

Good excuse to put down protests of any kind. Someone inconveniencing you isn't an excuse to kill them. Prosecute them if they are breaking the law but you have no right to be a vigilante and execute people. If you do, expect to be charged with a crime yourself. We gave up lynch mobs a long time ago but I guess you guys yearn for the good old days.

[gatomontes99]

10 minutes ago, Aristides said:

Good excuse to put down protests of any kind. Someone inconveniencing you isn't an excuse to kill them. Prosecute them if they are breaking the law but you have no right to be a vigilante and execute people. If you do, expect to be charged with a crime yourself. We gave up lynch mobs a long time ago but I guess you guys yearn for the good old days.

What about this car:

They stopped and immediately got attacked. Don't they have a right to flee...live? 

But, there are limits:

This guy was free and clear and turned to attack someone running away from him. That is wrong and will be prosecuted. 

[Aristides]

2 minutes ago, gatomontes99 said:

What about this car:

They stopped and immediately got attacked. Don't they have a right to flee...live? 

But, there are limits:

This guy was free and clear and turned to attack someone running away from him. That is wrong and will be prosecuted. 

In the first case, the video isn't enough to determine either way but I can understand the motorist being terrified. It would come down to whether the court thought their reaction was justified. 

The second was clearly wrong and deserves prosecution. 

[User]

Here is my take... 

If the police are going to allow lawlessness in the streets, then there is going to be lawlessness in the streets or people forced to take matters into their own hands. 

I don't condone disproportionate uses of force, what I mean, is that if folks are going to stand in your way, you have no obligation to assume their intentions are good and should try to drive around or through them at slow speeds not intended to run them over or if safe, get out and move them out of the way. If they escalate and start becoming violent, then you presume they mean you harm and you accelorate to get clear of the area. If they are too stupid to move, that is on them. If they escalate more, then engage in whatever force is needed to defend yourself. 

 

[CdnFox]

3 hours ago, gatomontes99 said:

What about this car:

They stopped and immediately got attacked. Don't they have a right to flee...live? 

But, there are limits:

This guy was free and clear and turned to attack someone running away from him. That is wrong and will be prosecuted. 

Here's how it works 

 

 

[Venandi]

5 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Here's how it works 

Good video, thanks.

In the era of keyboard warriors, It should be mandatory viewing.

The general idea here is pretty intuitive to any sensible person, the problem is there's a distinct absence of sensible interactions in emotionally charged scenarios like this and hostile actions (by either party) is rapid onset, unexpected and unscripted. A recipe for over reaction if ever there was one. 

Most people have little experience with such things, as a result their immediate reaction to it is often over the top and generally inappropriate. By that I mean, had they encountered similar situations in the past, or even thought about potential courses of action (in the form of a mental exercise), the response would likely be more measured and thus more appropriate to the escalating force applied against them.

The notion that "they deserved" the application of unjustifiable lethal force is just as bad as the idea that it's OK to attack and injure innocent people who's only offence is driving on a public road.

Throw two of these individuals into the same scenario and people get hurt unnecessarily. 

 

Edited 21 hours ago by Venandi

[Deluge]

15 hours ago, robosmith said:

I hope you try it and find out how badly the law treats attempted murder. 

I hope all commuters try it and find out how the law treats attempted suicide. 

[Deluge]

10 hours ago, Aristides said:

Good excuse to put down protests of any kind. Someone inconveniencing you isn't an excuse to kill them. Prosecute them if they are breaking the law but you have no right to be a vigilante and execute people. If you do, expect to be charged with a crime yourself. We gave up lynch mobs a long time ago but I guess you guys yearn for the good old days.

Commuters just want to get home. It's not their fault that some piece of shit wants to throw his life at an automobile. 

[Deluge]

The problem is that protesters have way too much power in this kind of thing. 

Street protesting should be outlawed and prison sentences should be given, starting at 3 years, minimum. 

[Aristides]

2 hours ago, Deluge said:

Commuters just want to get home. It's not their fault that some piece of shit wants to throw his life at an automobile. 

Wanting to get home is no excuse for killing someone. 

[Deluge]

7 minutes ago, Aristides said:

Wanting to get home is no excuse for killing someone. 

Getting home is not killing someone. If some dumbass wants to get in front of your car then it's on the dumbass. 

"He suddenly got in front of my car, your honor. There was nothing I could do". 

Edited 17 hours ago by Deluge

[Deluge]

Moving cars are like magnets for the woke; they move towards them like birds flying too low. I wish there was a way we could treat these ldiots before they get themselves killed. 

[CdnFox]

34 minutes ago, Aristides said:

Wanting to get home is no excuse for killing someone. 

It is a perfectly legitimate excuse if the person is attempting to use physical force and violence to stop you. 

[WestCanMan]

I agree with what Ron DeSantis said because it's just plain common sense: "if you're surrounded by a mob, and you're about to get attacked/possibly killed, you have the right to escape in your vehicle."

Everyone has the right to defend themselves from attackers, even more of a right to escape - within reason - and that's multiplied several times if you have women and children with you.

If a guy with a crowbar is walking up to your window, or the back passenger window of your car where your kid is sitting, you have no choice but get away, and the safest way to do is that is by driving. Sitting there to find out what they're gonna do with that crowbar once your window is smashed is just stupid and unrealistic, and getting your kid out of a car seat to run away is even worse.

A good rule of thumb for attackers is: don't attack innocent victims because their rights to defend themselves are extensive, and quite unfortunate for you. 

A good rule of thumb for protesters is: once the mob gets unruly, gtfo of there unless you want to be a party to some awful crimes.

From a driver's POV doesn't mean "0-60 in 2 seconds to see how many points you can score", it basically means "honk your horn, start moving slowly, then see how the situation progresses. Maybe a few swerves while you're slowly accelerating will work. Maybe someone will fall down in front of you and you will have to stop for a second. But the bottom line is; if you gotta go, you gotta go. Just know that if you do something unreasonable, you are 100% responsible for that, and could end up in jail for decades remembering the scared faces and the screams of people who were just in the wrong place at the wrong time and meant you no harm. You could even look like an attacker, giving other people the right of self-defence. Uh-ohhhhh.

All of that applies equally to mostly peaceful BLM protests and ultra-violent bouncy castle protests.

Ideally protesters don't behave so violently that drivers feel the need to do something that would harm another person.

Ideally drivers remain calm and respect the freedoms of protesters and their right to safety.

But when there are tens of thousands of interactions between angry protesters and blocked-in drivers, there are millions of permutations, all with the potential for disaster. 

 

I hope that what DeSantis said gives protesters pause to think about the potential consequences of blocking in vehicles and threatening people, and that it doesn't make angry counter-protesters think that they can get away with murder. 

58 minutes ago, Aristides said:

Wanting to get home is no excuse for killing someone [now that the playoffs are over]. 

FIFY

[Venandi]

I think it's instructive for first world protesters (especially those prone to political violence) to get out and see the big bad world... more progressives should consider doing it. 

https://nationalpost.com/opinion/naive-western-activists-get-a-harsh-dose-of-reality-in-egypt

If we had compulsory military service and the requirement for 3 foreign deployments most of this nonsense would evaporate. The lack of perspective (in its absence) is simply breathtaking.

How many multi tour veterans do you see assaulting citizens in their cars because they drive a Tesla... or whatever. Virtually NONE, that's how many.

Edited 16 hours ago by Venandi

[Aristides]

33 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

It is a perfectly legitimate excuse if the person is attempting to use physical force and violence to stop you. 

If they are attacking you or you just can't avoid them, I would agree.

I was responding to this statement.

Quote

Commuters just want to get home. It's not their fault that some piece of shit wants to throw his life at an automobile. 

 

[Michael Hardner]

5 minutes ago, Venandi said:

... most of this nonsense would evaporate. The lack of perspective is simply breathtaking... 

Perspective being... that other countries don't have freedom ?

We could ban protesting and criticizing the government too.  Were you a Trudeau supporter by chance ?

[Venandi]

1 minute ago, Michael Hardner said:

We could ban protesting and criticizing the government too.  Were you a Trudeau supporter by chance ?

That's all ya got eh?