Black Lives Matter
And if we're talking law here, running someone down deliberately with a motor vehicle is a far greater offence than a public order misdemeanor.

http://definitions.uslegal.com/v/vehicular-homicide/

If you deliberately ram into someone with a motor vehicle in the US you are potentially guilty of attempted vehicular homocide. So really Pichu Bro, both morally and legally, nobody has the right to run someone over deliberately, whatever the reason.
Reply
It's illegal if the protesters do not warn the city first and allow them to plan traffic diversions like they do for races and parades, if you do a protest at the spur of the moment in the street, it is illegal. Since normal traffic seems to be flowing through I'm going to assume most of these street blockings are illegal.
Reply
https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution..._amendment

There is no legal requirement to give prior notice, rather, in some cases, requesting prior notice could potentially be in breach of the Constitution.

However, something from my replies you seem to have missed, it is completely illegal to deliberately hit somebody with your motor vehicle and in many cases would provide grounds for a conviction of attempted murder.

If you want to get on the high horse about legality I wouldn't try climbing it on the back of liberty and charging it headlong into the constitution in defence of people who are actually committing serious, punishable crimes.
Reply
You don't need proir notice unless you are going to be impeding traffic although it can vary.

https://www.aclu.org/know-your-rights/wh...or-protest

I'm not pro-hitting people with cars, i'm just saying that if they are going to be in the road they should not be shocked if an angry driver reacts to them.
Reply
I'm not saying girls deserve to be raped, but if they go out wearing a short skirt they should not be surprised

See how silly blaming the victim is?
Reply
I'll be responding to your longer post at some point when I actually have time to type something of substance up, but for now I'd like to say that I think comparing the common 'she was asking for it' fallacy with disrupting traffic and potentially causing a severe ruckus is just a tad short sighted. They differ greatly in severity, #of victims, intent, effect, etc.

Honestly, I don't see how making a lot of people really angry is a good way of getting support. Especially when you compare the effect it had on commerce in the 60's when population density wasn't nearly as bad as it is today
Discount Jontron
Reply
(07-14-2016, 07:14 PM)King Wrote: I'm not saying girls deserve to be raped, but if they go out wearing a short skirt they should not be surprised

See how silly blaming the victim is?
I don't see how these are comparable when a rape victim is not intending to be attacked when people disrupting traffic are out to disrupt traffic. People in the streets are not so much a victim of anything but their own stupidity.
Reply
(07-14-2016, 08:42 AM)pichubro Wrote: No one has the right to break the law and stand in the street in the middle of traffic. Tongue

Breaking the law is wrong but it shouldn't forfeit your life. We have due process for this reason.

(07-14-2016, 04:50 PM)pichubro Wrote: You don't need proir notice unless you are going to be impeding traffic although it can vary.

https://www.aclu.org/know-your-rights/wh...or-protest

I'm not pro-hitting people with cars, i'm just saying that if they are going to be in the road they should not be shocked if an angry driver reacts to them.

They should be shocked that they would harm other people because that's illegal. Doing something illegal isn't justified because someone else is doing something illegal unless there are specific laws and circumstances in place (ie killing in self defense)
-.---.----..
Reply
(07-14-2016, 07:49 PM)Tex Wrote: I'll be responding to your longer post at some point when I actually have time to type something of substance up, but  for now I'd like to say that I think comparing the common 'she was asking for it' fallacy with disrupting traffic and potentially causing a severe ruckus is just a tad short sighted. They differ greatly in severity, #of victims, intent, effect, etc.

That's fine Tex, take as long as you need, no rush.

'She was asking for it' is legitimately a stupid fallacy sure, but suggesting people are at fault for being the victims of attempted vehicular homicide because they were demonstrating their first amendment right(s) is not far off of suggesting girls who get to drunk shouldn't be surprised if they get raped. One silly decision doesn't legitimise a serious crime against your person.

Quote:Honestly, I don't see how making a lot of people really angry is a good way of getting support. Especially when you compare the effect it had on commerce in the 60's when population density wasn't nearly as bad as it is today

I think it's different to the 60s, King intended to make their presence so known their message could not be ignored at a state level. BLM are doing it to hit the 'system' where it hurts, economically. It's the same reason we as workers strike. I don't think it's a good idea, at all, because it won't do enough economic damage to be a viable tactic and, as you said, will simply make Joe Public annoyed.

Annoyance however does not justify attempted murder.
Reply
(07-14-2016, 10:51 PM)pichubro Wrote:
(07-14-2016, 07:14 PM)King Wrote: I'm not saying girls deserve to be raped, but if they go out wearing a short skirt they should not be surprised

See how silly blaming the victim is?
I don't see how these are comparable when a rape victim is not intending to be attacked when people disrupting traffic are out to disrupt traffic. People in the streets are not so much a victim of anything but their own stupidity.

what

Jesus, people are not intending to get hit by cars PichuBro because no one in their right fucking mind would assume someone who is legally driving will attempt to commit vehicular homicide over a minor inconvenience, much less actually suggest the behavior is the fault of the victim.

In response to your ACLU link, a quote from it.

Quote:Many permit procedures require that the application be filed several weeks in advance of the event. However, the First Amendment prohibits such an advance notice requirement from being used to prevent protests in response to recent news events.

The First Amendment protects their right to not provide notice.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacy_Clause

The constitution is the supreme word of law for America. BLM are not acting outside of legality. The fucking retards driving into them deliberately, however, are.
Reply
Sure, but exactly why stand in the street?

This is what baffles me. I'm not trying to victim blame, I'm trying to understand the logic.
Reply
(07-15-2016, 06:36 AM)King Wrote: I think it's different to the 60s, King intended to make their presence so known their message could not be ignored at a state level. BLM are doing it to hit the 'system' where it hurts, economically. It's the same reason we as workers strike. I don't think it's a good idea, at all, because it won't do enough economic damage to be a viable tactic and, as you said, will simply make Joe Public annoyed.

Annoyance however does not justify attempted murder.


~And other faggotry~
Reply
Surely there's a better way. If traffic's blocked most of the people in the cars won't see the protest anyway and are just stuck for reasons unknown.
Reply
We aren't debating if it's effective, we were deabting if it is a) Legal (is is) and b) justification for attempted vehicular homicide (it isnt)
Reply
We are?

But I agreed with you in post 138 on legality even if the legality is not exactly the most clear cut. And I don't think it's justified for people to be run over, I'm just of the opinion to not stand in the road in the first place because I think it's incredibly stupid.
Reply
Well it's clearly not effective, they're trying to cause economic disruption by delaying traffic and incurring costs when people are sent out to deal with it, which on paper and on a large scale (like the highway) works but in practice (the inner town/city roads) doesn't cause anything beyond minor disruptions and annoyance.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)