File: 1591312709219.jpeg (170.23 KB, 724x1024, 181:256, aaa.jpeg) ImgOps Google
I didn't think this was controversial, but I've found on Facebook, it is. I'm not a lawyer, so I can't really talk with authority, so I'll ask here:
1) Is it legal to choose to run over protesters with a motorized vehicle if they are in your way?
2) If it is legal, is it in the public interest? (Obviously crime will not be in the public interest, so you have no need to argue in that case.)
I'm talking about generic protesters, if you want to talk about a protester threatening a driver's life, I'll ask you to argue that this is the expectation for a generic protester.
(If you want to share for countries other than USA, that's fine, too.)
People will often back-peddle and make excuses for things they would not otherwise when it is against groups they do not like.
This is why gun enthusiasts, who always claimed that they need unlimited guns to protect against the American government using it's military against civilians have been so silent lately, even though the government has done just that.
Personally, I would call that selection bias. My experience is, they've been quite heavily vocal about this situation, being quite happy to tell everybody this is exactly why you should own a gun, be you somebody protesting, or a shop keeper who must defend yourself from rioters.
You aren't wrong about the idea you're talking about here, though. For example, all those people who seem to be suddenly supportive of attacking innocent people, vandalizing looting and burning property, and generally behaving in an unjust manner to people who have not harmed you
File: 1591326425642.jpg (535.08 KB, 1529x1087, 1529:1087, 668d24089cd0e9d3a1a279d154….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
>>5561>1) Is it legal to choose to run over protesters with a motorized vehicle if they are in your way?
No, in general. Running over someone with a motor vehicle is deadly force, and is allowed only in situations where deadly force is allowed.>>5569>This is probably the worst OP I've seen here
Please try to be constructive in your comments. Even though we are anonymous on this board, it is often possible to guess who individual posters are, and I'm 90%+ certain that the OP poster of this thread made the thread in good faith. Saying that the original post was "probably the worst OP I've seen here" is a bit insulting to the person who made the thread.
I wrote on FB: "I'm not a lawyer, but I feel like clarifying:
You can't choose to run over protesters if they are on the street, at least not legally (and saying you should is against FB community standards). When a pedestrian enters a street, they have the right of way. Yes, physics. Yes, if you are credibly threatened, it's different. But you can't legally kill or injure people for obstructing travel.
That is all. Time for work."
The replies were not in agreement, to include "False. You can too run over protesters legally."
I wanted to check with more people before agreeing with the people who told me I was wrong.
File: 1591332436617.png (762.95 KB, 1000x1124, 250:281, updated-privacy-policy.png) ImgOps Google
From whom? Friends of yours, or random strangers? Facebook has a lot of morons who make idiotic posts.
You should never trust facebook for accurate information. I heard on Facebook that Mark Zuckerberg is a child molester. (https://chaser.com.au/world/social-media-should-not-fact-check-posts-says-child-molester-mark-zuckerberg/
Ponies and other animals who wish to talk about interesting subjects are not authorized memorable traits.>>5575
Friend of a friend, I think. If this were the only person, I could consider the person was just pulling my leg. I'm not able to make assessments about whether people are morons. I'm willing to accept the person was wrong in this case, though. I'm also willing to accept I'm wrong. Obviously, I guess, or I would not ask the question. This is an ongoing issue every protest and I do feel a bit frustrated by the diversity of beliefs. I'm not advocating obstructing traffic and understand it's probably illegal, in case saying that is helpful.
>>5573>things too literally
I think I figured it out.
What I'm seeing on social media is a species of hyperbole. If someone says something like "My truck would fix those protests fast!" it's like saying, "I'm so hungry, I could eat a horse!" I'm being silly -- "Oh, no! Those poor horses."
People are using hyperbole to express a healthy desire to see lawbreakers punished and roads cleared. If I were to protest, I'd do so nonviolently, as Martin Luther King, Jr. did, but even better, I'd not choose unlawful or obstructing behavior, so I have no reason to place my sympathies with protesters who block roads.
This thread was not as good as it could have been because it took me some time to integrate all the pieces. I think it helped me, but unless someone else was having similar trouble, it may not have been generally helpful. But thank you all.
"Riots are the language of the unheard" - Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
Regardless of how you feel about protesters, I still think it would be in poor taste to joke (or speak hyperbolically) about running them over. People are actually dying from being run over. It's not a joke.
>>5580>poor taste to joke
As they say, there's no accounting for taste.>People are actually dying from being run over. It's not a joke.
Yes, you are where I was before I realized about hyperbole. Maybe this thread is helpful to others after all.
They didn't. They attack businesses. Also, the majority of these protests are non-violent. Can we stop with the "violent thugs" rhetoric. Because you know, calling black people fighing for their rights "thugs" has some pretty nasty history to it. >>5582
Yes, it's hyperbole and people being insensitive. Nothing more. It doesn't mean they acutally think it is legal.
>>5583>They didn't. They attack businesses
That's what I just said. Did you stop reading halfway through?>Also, the majority of these protests are non-violent
Maybe so, but there's certainly a lot of violent rioters in the mix, and unfortunately they don't seem to be policing their own much nor do they seem inclined to condemn it publicly as far as I've seen.>Because you know, calling black people fighing for their rights "thugs" has some pretty nasty history to it.
It's not just black people, but regardless, thugs are thugs. Race doesn't come in to it.
Who is "their own" exactly? Protesters is not an organized group. It's all individual people upset with the current system.
I'm starting to suspect it is the same one or two people going to different threads to try and paint these protesters as violent. I don't know if you realized this, but perhaps a thread asking about the legality of running them over isn't the best place to try and shill a anti-protester rhetoric.
>>5585>Who is "their own" exactly? Protesters is not an organized group. It's all individual people upset with the current system.
Presuming someone isn't bussing people in for these protests, these are the cities the protesters live in.>I'm starting to suspect it is the same one or two people going to different threads to try and paint these protesters as violent.
I replied to someone excusing their violence.>>5580
And as far as 'shilling rhetoric' goes, I think you're a bit of a hypocrite, given you started out making up stuff with >>5565
I've laid out the following five step process on the use of potential deadly force. recklessly running over a protester would be vehicular manslaughter, and in that case, legal, however, if you get to the end of step 5b, it is in fact, self defense, and justifiable deadly force.
step 1, look for an alternative route and take it if possible.
step 2, if no alternative route is available, turn around.
step 3, if turn around is not possible, make a warning noise by honking extensively, revving the engine, or both. At night, also flash your lights.
step 4, if step 3 did not clear a path, scan protesters and observe body language. note any aggressive posture or makeshift weapons.
step 5a, if no weapons or aggressive posture are observed, slow to a safe speed, and proceed steadily through the area. You have no choice but to do so, and any injury on the part of someone blocking your path while you proceed at a safe speed is not your fault.
step 5b, if weapons or aggressive posture are observed, they are indicating both ability and intent to cause serious bodily harm. if you followed steps 1-3, you have exhausted other avenues, and those posing a threat to you have been reasonably warned. Deadly force is now justified. Increase speed and hope for their sakes they move.
File: 1591404948771.jpg (548.12 KB, 2560x1707, 2560:1707, GettyImages-1210050182.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
I see. If protesters like these blocked roads (which the article said they did), and offered a vehicle no escape routes (that is unknown), deadly force would be authorized because they are armed. I guess lines must be drawn somewhere, so that works.
Gun enthusiasts I've seen have all been very quick to say "This is why you should keep and bear arms".
They've been exceptionally vocal throughout all this in my experience, with pretty much every 2A activist I've seen mocking the old "You don't need a gun the police will protect you" garbage of old.
Typically speaking, action has to be taken first
for self defense to apply.
It does depend somewhat on specific circumstances, but running through a crowd because they've got bricks or sticks isn't necessarily justified. If they throw one at you, or smash your window, then sure that could be the case.
Understandable. "Better to be judged by..." and all that.
You might end up with a charge against you, but, I can understand the concern.
Even if that's true (I've seen no proof of this) this is EXACTLY the fantasy scenario they have been saying they need their guns for. If the government turned it's own military against civilians. But where are they? Why aren't they out there defending these people with their second amendment rights like they always said they would. It just shows that to be what it always was. A fantasy.
If you're willing to defend the second, then you should be willing to defend the first. That isn't what we are seeing. >>5588
A lot of posters here are seemingly obsessed with pin-pointing the exact moment where they are allowed to kill people and it's more than a little upsetting.
Some are showing up. Roof koreans are becoming a thing again. It's just, due to rioters attacking innocent people's property instead of the system that wronged them, they're usually taking a stance against what is an immediate threat to them.
There are also some with the more peaceful protests, though, as I understand it. https://twitter.com/ezralevant/status/1266131437436231681
File: 1591421143487.png (219.82 KB, 872x886, 436:443, 1521150653563.png) ImgOps Google
>>5594>Even if that's true (I've seen no proof of this) this is EXACTLY the fantasy scenario they have been saying they need their guns for. If the government turned it's own military against civilians. But where are they? Why aren't they out there defending these people with their second amendment rights like they always said they would.
1. It's uncertain whether a majority of the protesters would even want
this sort of armed defense by Second Amendment enthusiasts.
2. People generally don't go out and be free armed security for other groups. People use their weapons to defend themselves and the groups that they are part of.
3. Probably some of the protesters were
armed and ready, but fortunately didn't have to kill any misbehaving police officers.
4. Have you even read The Art of War
by Sun Tzu? It is foolish to do a full frontal assault against a superior enemy. If you want a picture of how a rebellion against the US government would play out, look at how insurgents in the Middle East have resisted the US military there.
Honestly, given the numbers involved, a full frontal assault would probably work.
But that'd require a lot of citizens to actually pull it off. And, that's not something anyone's going to want to do with people they don't like, disagree with, or wouldn't trust in power.