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

[CdnFox]

2 minutes ago, Aristides said:

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

I was responding to this statement.

 

Well, the 'throw his life at an automobile' would sort of indicate they were attempting to use force to stop or attack a person, but i suppose you could interpret it differently. I'd agree that you shouldn't got out of your way to hit people or the like just because you disagree with their protest. 

[Aristides]

6 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Well, the 'throw his life at an automobile' would sort of indicate they were attempting to use force to stop or attack a person, but i suppose you could interpret it differently. I'd agree that you shouldn't got out of your way to hit people or the like just because you disagree with their protest. 

Trying to impede someone by standing in front of them is not attacking them. It may be irritating as shit but it isn't assault. There are just a ton of grey areas around this and each case has to be taken individually. 

Edited Thursday at 04:34 PM by Aristides

[Deluge]

14 minutes ago, Aristides said:

Trying to impede someone by standing in front of them is not attacking them. It may be irritating as shit but it isn't assault. There are just a ton of grey areas around this and each case has to be taken individually. 

That's why you continue moving. You move as if the piece of shit isn't there. It's not assault if you're just moving, just like it's not assault if you're just standing in someone's way. 

[Deluge]

If someone wants to stand in front of traffic then they have to also want to be run-over by a car. That means drivers should be allowed to run-over people that want to be in front of their cars. 

[Michael Hardner]

45 minutes ago, Venandi said:

That's all ya got eh?

No, I asked a question too.

[Venandi]

50 minutes ago, Aristides said:

There are just a ton of grey areas around this

Yes, it's situational, but there really isn't a lot of grey with the application of deadly force, that's a good thing because you (we and us) are all criminally responsible for any excessive force, just as police officers, security guards and soldiers are.  

Any response has to be proportional, reasonable and (usually though not necessarily) applied incrementally whether you're dealing with people, cars or tanks. 

Using an extreme example, four tanks approaching your position along the main supply route at low speed with turrets depressed is not the same as four tanks line abreast speeding across the open ground with turrets stabilized and tracking. If you are arguing that it's the same because it's still four tanks and they're still approaching your position then you suffer from the same lack of perspective Mr Eyeball does.

If deadly force was justified for use against people who happen to be impeding your progress think about the fate of people at the grocery store who turn their carts sideways and block the aisle. I tend to think some of them do it deliberately... but that's just me. 

If they grab you in an attempt to forcibly impede your movements though it's a different thing, and it's one of the reasons I like Aikido despite its reputation in the BJJ community. If the person loses their balance and eats concrete when I attempt to free myself from their (unwanted and aggressive) grasp it isn't usually deemed an over reaction... it's the force of gravity at work. An apology and helping the person up goes a long way with spectators too.

On the other hand, a front leg round house kick to the left temple usually would be considered an over reaction. There are cameras everywhere now and it looks bad in court. 

 

 

Edited Thursday at 05:27 PM by Venandi

[Venandi]

16 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

No, I asked a question too.

Read the article, then consider that perspective starts with situational awareness. Seems a little lacking there doesn't it?

If you really want the master course consider why Egypt reacted the way it did, what's their perspective here and why? The question I have is what did you think was going to happen.

BTW, if you're looking for someone to trade insults with ya got the wrong guy.

Edited Thursday at 05:29 PM by Venandi

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, Aristides said:

Trying to impede someone by standing in front of them is not attacking them.

I believe it is. Anyone that would essentially Unlawfully confine you by boxing you in like that is threatening you. You have no idea what they are going to do next and you are not safe. As was mentioned in the video at that point moving forward and slowly pushing them out of the way with the vehicle is not unreasonable. If they begin to threaten to smash the windows or try and get into the vehicle as a result now your life is in danger for sure. Do what you got to do.

Tons and tons and tons of robberies and assaults start with someone blocking a vehicle's path forward by standing in front of it. As soon as somebody does that they're doing it to make you vulnerable and to control your actions directly and that is a threat. And as noted sometimes the only way to retreat from a threat if you are in a vehicle in that fashion is to continue to drive through the crowd, if you're surrounded

I mean if one twit just blocks an intersection or something obviously you can either go around or if he's preventing that you can back up turn around and go away. And in Canada the law is even more forgiving, all the losses is that if a person in Canada reasonably feels afraid for their safety they may take appropriate action, and the jury will have to decide if a reasonable person in that circumstance might feel threatened. I'm sorry but there is no jury in Canada that would not say if you are surrounded by people that are hostile like that that you don't feel threatened.

Protesters need to be aware that if they go overboard with their protests then somebody might go overboard with their fear response to that protest

[Venandi]

18 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Tons and tons and tons of robberies and assaults start with someone blocking a vehicle's path forward by standing in front of it.

Got to run but it's noteworthy that there's a difference between being deliberately intercepted with hostile intent (or the reasonable perception of it) and approaching a venue (like a picket line) that was blocked prior to your arrival. 

Aggressively forcing your way through that picket line is not the same as being aggressively targeted by four masked people during an intercept maneuver... that applies even in the absence of a hostile act taking place.

In this instance, any reasonable person would assume that the hostile act is forthcoming and and any proportional effort to avoid being victimized by it would likely be construed as justifiable even if it later turned out to be false assumption... say coworkers staging a prank on you.   

[Aristides]

1 hour ago, Deluge said:

That's why you continue moving. You move as if the piece of shit isn't there. It's not assault if you're just moving, just like it's not assault if you're just standing in someone's way. 

No, it is assault to deliberately run into someone. 

37 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

I believe it is. Anyone that would essentially Unlawfully confine you by boxing you in like that is threatening you. You have no idea what they are going to do next and you are not safe. As was mentioned in the video at that point moving forward and slowly pushing them out of the way with the vehicle is not unreasonable. If they begin to threaten to smash the windows or try and get into the vehicle as a result now your life is in danger for sure. Do what you got to do.

Tons and tons and tons of robberies and assaults start with someone blocking a vehicle's path forward by standing in front of it. As soon as somebody does that they're doing it to make you vulnerable and to control your actions directly and that is a threat. And as noted sometimes the only way to retreat from a threat if you are in a vehicle in that fashion is to continue to drive through the crowd, if you're surrounded

I mean if one twit just blocks an intersection or something obviously you can either go around or if he's preventing that you can back up turn around and go away. And in Canada the law is even more forgiving, all the losses is that if a person in Canada reasonably feels afraid for their safety they may take appropriate action, and the jury will have to decide if a reasonable person in that circumstance might feel threatened. I'm sorry but there is no jury in Canada that would not say if you are surrounded by people that are hostile like that that you don't feel threatened.

Protesters need to be aware that if they go overboard with their protests then somebody might go overboard with their fear response to that protest

So you think it is justified to assault and run over people on picket lines because they are in your way. 

[Venandi]

39 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Protesters need to be aware that if they go overboard with their protests then somebody might go overboard with their fear response to that protest

Indeed, another example of perspective, or lack of it.

Most people (on both sides) aren't normally subjected to these sort of emotionally charged, aggressive, in your face situations, it may be the first time in their lives for many of the participants... it's moderately stressful and as a result there's a very human tendency to over react and get it wrong. 

Anger is a close cousin of fear and both usually result in bad responses.

 

[User]

19 minutes ago, Aristides said:

So you think it is justified to assault and run over people on picket lines because they are in your way. 

Do you think it is OK to block roadways illegally?

 

[CdnFox]

22 minutes ago, Aristides said:

So you think it is justified to assault and run over people on picket lines because they are in your way. 

Oh are we at the point of the conversation where you realize you're wrong and therefore make up things I never said in order to try and argue against that? How cute.

How many picket lines are you aware of that just form without warning on  public streets, stop cars at random and behave in an offensive and threatening manner to people?

It would really be great if you guys on the left to find at least one person that can have a conversation without resorting to the kind of stupidity and tricks you would normally expect from a 12 year old.

[Deluge]

20 hours ago, Aristides said:

No, it is assault to deliberately run into someone. 

Wrong. 

It's assault if you pick someone out of the blue and try to run them over because you're an a$$hole. 

In this case the a$$hole is the protester, and the protester needs to be forced out of the way. 

[Aristides]

19 hours ago, User said:

Do you think it is OK to block roadways illegally?

 

If it's  illegal, no. That isn't what this topic is about. Do you believe blocking traffic deserves a death sentence?

Edited 22 hours ago by Aristides

[User]

14 minutes ago, Aristides said:

If it's  illegal, no. That isn't what this topic is about. Do you believe blocking traffic deserves a death sentence?

I already made my comment earlier here that if you had read would answer this question. The answer is no. 

My view is that if lawlessness is going to be supported by authorities, then expec to see similar levels of lawlessness to counter it with people driving through crowds slowly or around them or moving them out of the way. 

I support passing laws like Florida did that give civil and criminal liability protections to drivers who fear for their safety to flee.