Fl. Gov. Propose law to legalize running over BLM protesters

[Jebslund]

But standing in the road is totally an equivalently violent act to trying to rape someone, apparently. I don't get it either.

Yes. You're deliberately attempting to force a collision or physically prevent people from using a public road.

Which is equivalent to forcing intercourse how, precisely? Because last I checked, treestumping someone is not violent, and the only ones forcing a collision are the people who think it's okay to run someone down just because they're in the road.

[The Emerald Legion]

Yes. You're deliberately attempting to force a collision or physically prevent people from using a public road.

Which is equivalent to forcing intercourse how, precisely? Because last I checked, treestumping someone is not violent, and the only ones forcing a collision are the people who think it's okay to run someone down just because they're in the road.

So you're saying that if I stood in your front door. And refused to allow you to leave your home, you would consider that A-Ok?

[West Leas Oros 2]

So then you resort to raiding the very people you aim to protect? Go find a Walmart.

swing and a miss

Glad to see that the homes of struggling Americans are the real monuments of the bourgeoisie, and not, y'know, multi-million dollar corporations.

[Kowani]

swing and a miss

Glad to see that the homes of struggling Americans are the real monuments of the bourgeoisie, and not, y'know, multi-million dollar corporations.

You have fundamentally misunderstood what I was talking about.
Go back and try again.

[West Leas Oros 2]

Glad to see that the homes of struggling Americans are the real monuments of the bourgeoisie, and not, y'know, multi-million dollar corporations.

You have fundamentally misunderstood what I was talking about.
Go back and try again.

What else am I supposed to draw from "there's only so many Targets we can raid"? If not the corporations, who else are you raiding?

[Ifreann]

You have fundamentally misunderstood what I was talking about.
Go back and try again.

What else am I supposed to draw from "there's only so many Targets we can raid"? If not the corporations, who else are you raiding?

Why do you ask, need to make a report to the police?

[Kowani]

You have fundamentally misunderstood what I was talking about.
Go back and try again.

What else am I supposed to draw from "there's only so many Targets we can raid"? If not the corporations, who else are you raiding?

The point was actually that the outposts of corporations (which they don’t care about) are of a limited number, and when those are exhausted, the angry people will eventually turn to destroying their communities unless the anger abates.
This is not a socialist revolution, I don’t know why you expect it to act like one.

[West Leas Oros 2]

What else am I supposed to draw from "there's only so many Targets we can raid"? If not the corporations, who else are you raiding?

The point was actually that the outposts of corporations (which they don’t care about) are of a limited number, and when those are exhausted, the angry people will eventually turn to destroying their communities unless the anger abates.
This is not a socialist revolution, I don’t know why you expect it to act like one.

Be a lot cooler if it was.

[West Leas Oros 2]

What else am I supposed to draw from "there's only so many Targets we can raid"? If not the corporations, who else are you raiding?

Why do you ask, need to make a report to the police?

I need to ask because a whole lot of people are having their lives ruined. Regular, honest, hardworking people. Or is it all "collateral damage" to you?

[Ifreann]

Why do you ask, need to make a report to the police?

I need to ask because a whole lot of people are having their lives ruined. Regular, honest, hardworking people. Or is it all "collateral damage" to you?

A whole lot of people are having their lives taken by the police, why do you want to add to that number?

[West Leas Oros 2]

I need to ask because a whole lot of people are having their lives ruined. Regular, honest, hardworking people. Or is it all "collateral damage" to you?

A whole lot of people are having their lives taken by the police, why do you want to add to that number?

Cool strawman. Tell me again how opposing anarchists burning down people's fucking houses means I want the police to kill people?

[Ifreann]

A whole lot of people are having their lives taken by the police, why do you want to add to that number?

Cool strawman. Tell me again how opposing anarchists burning down people's fucking houses means I want the police to kill people?

And apparently, you don't understand how a "movement" starts. One cannot kick people out of a movement. There is no membership fees, no clubhouses, no membership rolls, etc.

Well, we can always forcibly remove them from our own protests, publicly denounce them, and bar them from any meetings or gatherings.

Forcibly remove them from the protests? And how would you know who they are beforehand?


God, what a joke of a statement.

Eh, doesn't have to be beforehand. If their face is visible though, it could be publicized so future protests could identify them.

What do you think happens after you publicise the identity of people with dirty hands? The police will leave them alone? Fascist gangs will leave them alone? No. They'll be arrested at best, quite possibly killed.

[West Leas Oros 2]

Cool strawman. Tell me again how opposing anarchists burning down people's fucking houses means I want the police to kill people?

Well, we can always forcibly remove them from our own protests, publicly denounce them, and bar them from any meetings or gatherings.

Eh, doesn't have to be beforehand. If their face is visible though, it could be publicized so future protests could identify them.

What do you think happens after you publicise the identity of people with dirty hands? The police will leave them alone? Fascist gangs will leave them alone? No. They'll be arrested at best, quite possibly killed.

Duh, we get the KGB to take care of them first.

[The Lone Alliance]

Killing your rapist when you could have easily decided to not go down that dark ally is totally self defense too. You don't have to like it.

These two situations have about as much in common as kelp and Mercury.

Not exactly, I'm talking about the handful of idiots who decide the proper reaction to a car showing up at their protest is to attack the car and attack the driver.

Do you really think that a person making a wrong turn deserves to have their windshields smashed and their person attacked?

You shouldn't have the right to drag a person out of their car and beat them to death because they showed up to your protests like what happened during the Rodney King riots. But that is the only case where I can see it as self defense.

From the way you two were posting it sounded like you believed that if a person makes a wrong turn and ends up in front of a protest that they "Deserve" whatever happens to them.

What do you think happens after you publicise the identity of people with dirty hands? The police will leave them alone? Fascist gangs will leave them alone? No. They'll be arrested at best, quite possibly killed.

So? Your enemies will be forced to waste time dealing with and removing your loose cannons that actively hurt the cause with their out of control behavior? And you even get to make them martyrs for the cause? Sounds like you're creating more headaches for the enemy while removing the deadwood from your side.

[Jebslund]

Which is equivalent to forcing intercourse how, precisely? Because last I checked, treestumping someone is not violent, and the only ones forcing a collision are the people who think it's okay to run someone down just because they're in the road.

So you're saying that if I stood in your front door. And refused to allow you to leave your home, you would consider that A-Ok?

People are blocking private property?

Also still not seeing the equivalency to rape. Someone blocking my door is a dickbag, yes, but, last I checked, it's not self-defense to kill or maim someone for being a dickbag.

[Kowani]

These two situations have about as much in common as kelp and Mercury.

Not exactly, I'm talking about the handful of idiots who decide the proper reaction to a car showing up at their protest is to attack the car and attack the driver.

I'm sure you can cite numerous examples of this happening.

Do you really think that a person making a wrong turn deserves to have their windshields smashed and their person attacked?

You shouldn't have the right to drag a person out of their car and beat them to death because they showed up to your protests like what happened during the Rodney King riots. But that is the only case where I can see it as self defense.

From the way you two were posting it sounded like you believed that if a person makes a wrong turn and ends up in front of a protest that they "Deserve" whatever happens to them.

I never said anything to that effect.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

Do you really think that a person making a wrong turn deserves to have their windshields smashed and their person attacked?

I think a person making a wrong turn at such speed they can't stop before running into what's around the bend, is guilty of quite serious negligent driving.

If there just happens to be a person on the road, it makes no difference whether that person is themselves committing a traffic offense. In situations where two parties collide and both are committing a traffic offense, the party who drove at speed into the stationary one is at fault. If someone dies, that driver has committed vehicular homicide (3rd degree) or manslaughter.

And maybe the law doesn't take it that seriously but they should. Sometimes the driver is excused in the US on the "reasonable person" test, that someone being on the road isn't something they should reasonably have to allow for, but even so in such a case of reckless speeding that they couldn't possibly stop, I think they'd be in some serious shit.

[The Lone Alliance]

Not exactly, I'm talking about the handful of idiots who decide the proper reaction to a car showing up at their protest is to attack the car and attack the driver.

I'm sure you can cite numerous examples of this happening.

https://www.kezi.com/content/news/The-U ... 93781.html
https://www.wral.com/woman-trapped-by-p ... /19173463/
https://www.11alive.com/article/news/cr ... 063a149695
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/we-ca ... r-BB161kaO

And that's deliberately avoiding biased right wing sites that seem to gleefully love to report on every suspected case of it happening to drive their viewers into a frenzy of fear and terror.

Then there's the confusing case in Utah that I can't get heads or tails where either a bunch of people surrounded a SUV and then one of them pulled a gun causing the driver to run them over while they opened fire on him, or some idiot decided that the best way to stop a person trying to push through the protest was to shoot them. Either way I think that seemed to be stupidity from everyone involved, crowd, driver, and shooter.

I never said anything to that effect.

So what do you believe should be done to a car that shows up to a protest, not a car that's ramming just a car that due to bad google directions or something suddenly is in front of your protest? What proper behavior should be done in this situation?

Do you really think that a person making a wrong turn deserves to have their windshields smashed and their person attacked?

I think a person making a wrong turn at such speed they can't stop before running into what's around the bend, is guilty of quite serious negligent driving.

Except I'm not talking about a car hitting people but a car that simply turns into and is suddenly sitting in front of a protest. No one has been injured and the only thing that's happened yet is the driver has realized the road is closed due to protest.

What should the protesters and what should the driver both do here?

Because from what I've seen is that there are cases where one or both sides have acted completely idiotic.

I've seen drivers who stupidly think they can just peacefully nudge protesters aside with their 2 ton death machine, and I've seen protesters who think the proper course of action is to surround a vehicle and scream at the driver for daring to be in their presence.

That's a whole lot of stupidity.

I think mostly your strategy on the previous page seems to work, or at least it seems to be the most peaceful way to defuse it. For some vehicles possibly giving space for turn around could be another option, and unless your protest is hugging a corner itself shouldn't be too hard, that would cover those vehicles that can't just back up again.

I think keeping distance in general is a good thing too because if you are afraid that the car is going to ram you, you need space to react against it, also giving space makes it much harder for the driver to claim they were "In fear for their life" if there's at least 8 feet between them and the protesters.

As for the driver the solution is simple, turn around, if there is something on that very road that you absolutely have to be on, that's the only position where I can see being let through would be an option, and I guess that could mean a spokesperson for the protesters could possibly settle that.

Ultimately though if someone does try to ram through the protest, protesters also need the space so they can react in time and not die.

[Kowani]

I'm sure you can cite numerous examples of this happening.

https://www.kezi.com/content/news/The-U ... 93781.html

So she drove into a riot, not a protest.
Hm yes this is definitely indicative of protesters.

https://www.wral.com/woman-trapped-by-p ... /19173463/

Yeah, that’s pretty bad.

https://www.11alive.com/article/news/cr ... 063a149695

“Gets attacked by armed mob”
Right wingers: “PEACEFUL PROTESTERSSSS”

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/we-ca ... r-BB161kaO

The dispatcher should probably be fired here.
Jesus Christ-

I never said anything to that effect.

So what do you believe should be done to a car that shows up to a protest, not a car that's ramming just a car that due to bad google directions or something suddenly is in front of your protest? What proper behavior should be done in this situation?

They should turn around and go the other way.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

I'm sure you can cite numerous examples of this happening.

https://www.kezi.com/content/news/The-U ... 93781.html

Yobbos moved onto the road in front of her, that makes it their fault. No "stand your ground" defense for them.

She's not entirely without blame though. There's a FIRE on the road, and she is carrying commercial passengers. Driving right up puts her passengers at risk, and she just froze as the crowd gathered. I'm pretty sure she missed an opportunity to reverse.

https://www.wral.com/woman-trapped-by-p ... /19173463/

Was she trapped in the car, or was she the one trying to pull the guy off her hood?
I'm with the police on this one. Nothing much happened. But I hope they learn from the experience: letting things slide got their own car surrounded.

https://www.11alive.com/article/news/cr ... 063a149695

"The victims told police they were driving on University Avenue attempting to get on the interstate when they were forced to stop by the group.

The victims told police the group, which included several people armed with handguns, approached the car ..."

Not conclusive. This could equally well have been a "car presses into crowd" (driver's fault) as "rioters run out in front of car" (rioters' fault) or even "rioters wave down car" (rioters' fault, but foolish to stop)

No video. No further opinion.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/we-ca ... r-BB161kaO

[/quote]

Also no video, but sufficient detail to give an opinion.

This woman drove into an already existing crowd, and got surrounded. If the police are right and the protesters had a permit, then police bear the only fault (not erecting official barricades), or the driver (driving around a barricade, or ignoring police who were apparently nearby). But not in any sense the crowd.

If the police are wrong, and the protesters-turned-rioters did not have a permit, the woman was still the aggressor for trying to penetrate the crowd, but obviously shouldn't have been beaten up for that. Both responsible.

If the protesters ran out in front of her car, as in the first example, when she'd come that far seeing a clear passage ahead, then the rioters (as they became) were completely at fault.

And that's deliberately avoiding biased right wing sites that seem to gleefully love to report on every suspected case of it happening to drive their viewers into a frenzy of fear and terror.

Then there's the confusing case in Utah that I can't get heads or tails where either a bunch of people surrounded a SUV and then one of them pulled a gun causing the driver to run them over while they opened fire on him, or some idiot decided that the best way to stop a person trying to push through the protest was to shoot them. Either way I think that seemed to be stupidity from everyone involved, crowd, driver, and shooter.

As to pushing through a crowd, it depends on how dense the crowd is and how aggressive the driver is with the throttle. Charging into an open space then stopping suddenly is a clear threat, and would justify an armed response 'in protection of others'.

As to your examples, I find rioters clearly at fault in the first of them, though carrying paying customers reflects badly on the woman's choice, while the second is rather minor (climbing on the hood) though they're also at fault. Third one, unclear, not enough details. Fourth, probably the driver at fault.

It's interesting how many are women. You didn't choose them deliberately, it's just a wrong assumption I made?

(Now I think of it, that does match up with some of the most aggressive drivers I see being women)

I never said anything to that effect.

So what do you believe should be done to a car that shows up to a protest, not a car that's ramming just a car that due to bad google directions or something suddenly is in front of your protest? What proper behavior should be done in this situation?

I think a person making a wrong turn at such speed they can't stop before running into what's around the bend, is guilty of quite serious negligent driving.

Except I'm not talking about a car hitting people but a car that simply turns into and is suddenly sitting in front of a protest. No one has been injured and the only thing that's happened yet is the driver has realized the road is closed due to protest.

What should the protesters and what should the driver both do here?

Protesters should hold their ground and yell angry stuff so it's really obvious to the driver that this is a bad place to be.

The driver should use the reverse gear back up, to some place they can turn off, or to a sufficient distance that they can do a three point turn.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

https://www.11alive.com/article/news/cr ... 063a149695

“Gets attacked by armed mob”
Right wingers: “PEACEFUL PROTESTERSSSS”

THIS is all the article says about how it started:

The victims told police they were driving on University Avenue attempting to get on the interstate when they were forced to stop by the group.

Not "their way was blocked". Not "forced to stop by a barricade". Not "forced at gunpoint".

I find this deliberate vagueness indicative of (a) police not tainting evidence for future trial, or (b) the victim being coached in how to give evidence without damaging their own testimony later.

In any case, it is very scanty and only one side of the story. HOW the car was "forced" to stop is the whole case.

[The Lone Alliance]

As to pushing through a crowd, it depends on how dense the crowd is and how aggressive the driver is with the throttle. Charging into an open space then stopping suddenly is a clear threat, and would justify an armed response 'in protection of others'.

As to your examples, I find rioters clearly at fault in the first of them, though carrying paying customers reflects badly on the woman's choice, while the second is rather minor (climbing on the hood) though they're also at fault. Third one, unclear, not enough details. Fourth, probably the driver at fault.

It's interesting how many are women. You didn't choose them deliberately, it's just a wrong assumption I made?
(Now I think of it, that does match up with some of the most aggressive drivers I see being women)

No it's more like that's the only local news articles I could find, I deliberately set out to avoid anything from Rightwing news sources because I cannot be sure if they're not playing it up to be worse than it actually was, funny enough apparently the Mainstream media seemed to completely avoid the subject like this because outside of that single MSN article no one really touched it.
I'm thinking it's because reporting stuff like that makes it far more likely that if cars get surrounded by protesters that they'll assume the worse and run them over to get away.

Unfortunately the Right Wing Media has no such qualms about terrorizing their viewers.

And why women, I don't know myself, maybe women are more likely to admit they were attacked, maybe it's an easier emotional appeal, or maybe male drivers are far more likely to act aggressively in that sort of situation and simply ram protesters out of the way. It's also possible that men are far more likely to talk to the right wing news sources and thus I'm completely missing their stories by my deliberate choice to refuse to accept right wing sources as unbiased.

I did find it interesting that nearly all of the people arrested in the North Carolina incident were white simply because it challenges the right wing narrative.

Protesters should hold their ground and yell angry stuff so it's really obvious to the driver that this is a bad place to be.

The driver should use the reverse gear back up, to some place they can turn off, or to a sufficient distance that they can do a three point turn.

Holding a sign saying "Road Closed" might help too.