|
Kryptos
Stranger

Registered: 11/01/14
Posts: 12,263
Last seen: 38 minutes, 46 seconds
|
Re: Is there ANY good argument for blocking traffic? [Re: qman]
#26870473 - 08/08/20 06:52 PM (3 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
qman said: Wonderful, convince some broke ass white people that the system is corrupt. What an accomplishment.
Sadly, that is something that needs to be done. Approximately half of the broke ass white people think that the system is perfectly fine, it's just uppity minorities getting in their way.
|
Vahn421
Awakening Moonlighter



Registered: 04/03/12
Posts: 2,162
Loc: Portland
Last seen: 3 years, 4 months
|
Re: Is there ANY good argument for blocking traffic? [Re: shivas.wisdom] 1
#26870475 - 08/08/20 06:53 PM (3 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
shivas.wisdom said:
Quote:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Quote:
shivas.wisdom said: The discussion was about you holding other people to a standard of 'make believe' that you don't hold yourself to. Your "make believe" (as you're so wont to say) about knowing the "intent about whether or not the guy wanted to get out of there or not after being attacked" is exactly that - make believe.
As I explained in another post, you can't have 100% certainty about intent. Do I know with 100% certainty that the guy wanted to get out of there after being attacked? No. But it seemed pretty clear to me from the video that that's what the guy wanted to do. That's why I asked " I think that was pretty clear, was it not?"
You're right, I can't KNOW with 100% certainty that's why the guy raced out of there; maybe he remembered he was late for a dinner party. There are other possibilities.
So since we've established that the intent of both groups isn't known, let's give both groups the benefit of the doubt and analyze their actions:
If we assume neither groups were acting maliciously, the drivers response to a perceived threat of physical harm (driving forward into a crowd instead of reversing) recklessly endangered the lives of multiple people; the protesters response to a perceived threat of physical harm consisted of property destruction consistent with that required to disable a vehicle.
Do you dispute this depiction?
I dispute it, yes, because it is impossible to disable the vehicle. The proposal that the vehicle CAN be disabled is essentially ludicrous. Even popping a tire and bashing a window, that truck hauled ASS away from the crowd, driving more reckless than it had been before. I've said it like 4 times already but, a malicious vehicle isn't slowing down so you can do something silly like pop its tires, and an vehicle that is otherwise harmless will panic and may do something stupid, like drive off with a motorbike under his tires.
This creates more problems and more chances for injury, it's not solving anything.
--------------------
Edited by Vahn421 (08/08/20 06:55 PM)
|
Brian Jones
Club 27



Registered: 12/18/12
Posts: 12,340
Loc: attending Snake Church
Last seen: 5 hours, 21 minutes
|
Re: Is there ANY good argument for blocking traffic? [Re: natedawgnow]
#26870481 - 08/08/20 06:57 PM (3 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
natedawgnow said: Bro I've given examples but I got other shit to do than skim through this whole thread and others to link you to examples. Seriously I dont care enough. People who post here know your tactics so they dont need proof and you'll refute evidence anyway.
Legit I just want you to hold yourself to the same standard you hold others. If you're unwilling to do that then what more can ya do.
Not worth my time. I got mushrooms to grow and fish to catch
 
Good luck with the fishing. I've got a really good river that runs through the middle of my town. It had the state record walleye until recently.
-------------------- "The Rolling Stones will break up over Brian Jones' dead body" John Lennon I don't want no commies in my car. No Christians either. The worst thing about corruption is that it works so well,
|
qman
Stranger

Registered: 12/06/06
Posts: 34,927
Last seen: 1 day, 9 hours
|
Re: Is there ANY good argument for blocking traffic? [Re: Kryptos] 1
#26870492 - 08/08/20 07:02 PM (3 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Kryptos said:
Quote:
qman said: Wonderful, convince some broke ass white people that the system is corrupt. What an accomplishment.
Sadly, that is something that needs to be done. Approximately half of the broke ass white people think that the system is perfectly fine, it's just uppity minorities getting in their way.
So what is some broke ass white person going to change if they have a different worldview on the situation? Not a dam thing.
They're barking up the wrong trees because The Elite have convinced them to do so.
Yeah, it's broke ass white people holding everybody down, it has nothing to do with the people in power. It's redneck shit brains that's at fault, not the Banksters on Wall Street.
|
Brian Jones
Club 27



Registered: 12/18/12
Posts: 12,340
Loc: attending Snake Church
Last seen: 5 hours, 21 minutes
|
Re: Is there ANY good argument for blocking traffic? [Re: qman] 1
#26870506 - 08/08/20 07:10 PM (3 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
qman said: They should be at the homes of CEO's, billionaires, members of Congress, state representatives, MSM whores, Wall Street Banksters and the rest of the scum bags. Why the hell are they protesting on the city streets where the other peasants live?
Wonderful, convince some broke ass white people that the system is corrupt. What an accomplishment.
You're right and they are starting to do that. https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2020-06-05/george-floyd-protesters-skipped-south-la In Southern California they targeted rich areas. Much better way to get the attention of the elites.
-------------------- "The Rolling Stones will break up over Brian Jones' dead body" John Lennon I don't want no commies in my car. No Christians either. The worst thing about corruption is that it works so well,
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger



Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 4 months, 21 days
|
Re: Is there ANY good argument for blocking traffic? [Re: Brian Jones]
#26870519 - 08/08/20 07:21 PM (3 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Nice.
-------------------- I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them. I also attack my side if I think they're wrong. People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.
|
SirTripAlot
Semper Fidelis



Registered: 01/11/05
Posts: 7,459
Loc: Harmless (Mostly)
Last seen: 47 minutes, 30 seconds
|
Re: Is there ANY good argument for blocking traffic? [Re: Brian Jones]
#26870528 - 08/08/20 07:30 PM (3 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Will they listen behind a wrought iron fence or hear past the humming of thier yachts? Interesting if current and future tech can aid in protests....physical bodies do seem necessary for protests.
-------------------- “I must not fear. Fear is the mind-killer. Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration. I will face my fear. I will permit it to pass over me and through me. And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path. Where the fear has gone there will be nothing. Only I will remain.”
|
ballsalsa
Universally Loathed and Reviled



Registered: 03/11/15
Posts: 20,837
Loc: Foreign Lands
|
Re: Is there ANY good argument for blocking traffic? [Re: qman]
#26870678 - 08/08/20 09:04 PM (3 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
qman said: They should be at the homes of CEO's, billionaires, members of Congress, state representatives, MSM whores, Wall Street Banksters and the rest of the scum bags. Why the hell are they protesting on the city streets where the other peasants live?
Those places are on streets, but yes, I agree. Some of that has started. (No justice, No sleep) 2am demonstrations. Nobody's gone full Puerto Rico's and wheeled a guillotine to the governor's mansion yet but give it time.
--------------------
Like cannabis topics? Read my cannabis blog here
|
shivas.wisdom
בּ



Registered: 02/19/09
Posts: 13,428
Loc: Turtle Island
Last seen: 28 minutes, 57 seconds
|
Re: Is there ANY good argument for blocking traffic? [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03] 1
#26870897 - 08/09/20 02:02 AM (3 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Quote:
shivas.wisdom said:
Quote:
There have been at least 66 incidents of cars driving into protesters from May 27 to July 6, including 59 by civilians and seven by law enforcement, according to Ari Weil, a terrorism researcher at the University of Chicago's Project on Security and Threats.
There have been two fatalities – in Seattle and in Bakersfield, California – and at least 24 of the civilian cases have been charged by law enforcement, Weil said.
Weil said that by analyzing news coverage, court documents and patterns of behavior – such as when people allegedly yelled slurs at protesters or turned around for a second hit – he determined that at least 19 of the 59 civilian incidents were malicious and four were not. Weil said he did not have enough information to classify the motives of the remaining 36 incidents.
Drivers are hitting protesters as memes of car attacks spread
Ok. And how many tens of thousands of cars have driven past protesters holding signs? The pictures in your article shows protesters standing on sidewalks with cars driving by in the street.
Similarly, how many tens of thousands of cars have driven past protesters holding signs without being attacked? In the incident in question, the video shows a single vehicle moving towards a large crowd on a clearly obstructed road at night. The picture in the article shows a group on a sidewalk during the day while regular traffic drives by on the road. Context is significant when determining a threat, be it by a person or a vehicle.
Quote:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Quote:
shivas.wisdom said: Since we've established that the intent of both groups isn't known, let's give both groups the benefit of the doubt and analyze their actions:
If we assume neither groups were acting maliciously, the drivers response to a perceived threat of physical harm (driving forward into a crowd instead of reversing) recklessly endangered the lives of multiple people; the protesters response to a perceived threat of physical harm consisted of property destruction consistent with that required to disable a vehicle.
Do you dispute this depiction?
The odds of that the driver was going to run people over are what? Maybe 1 in 10,000 or so? (again, unless you have some evidence I haven't yet seen to share, then I'll easily change my mind)? Take your best guess. The odss that the driver was being attacked by the protesters were what? 99.99% or so? Take your best guess again.
I've shown evidence of at least 66 incidents of cars driving into protesters over a span of 5 weeks, with >19 being malicious attacks. How many drivers have been physically attacked by protesters during this same span of time? Not property damage to the vehicle, but physically attacked the driver. Last time you were asked about this you had to go back to a single incident during the LA riots of '92.
Edit: Besides, that misses the point of what I'm saying. As ballsalsa has said earlier, the intention of the driver doesn't go into play when we consider whether the other group was justified in perceiving a threat. As we've discussed, we can't know another persons intent and so it isn't relevant when we consider whether an individual/group was reasonably justified in perceiving a threat or not. I've already explained why I believe the protesters were reasonably justified in perceiving a threat from the vehicle - both the specifics of that one incidence and the general prevalence of vehicle attacks recently - and that their actions seem inline with responding to the perceived threat of a vehicle rather than acting with intent to harm the driver. If you disagree with my view, perhaps you can clarify your opinion by explaining what - if any - conditions must be present before you would consider it reasonably justified to view a vehicle as a threat, and what would be an appropriate response.
Edited by shivas.wisdom (08/09/20 02:28 AM)
|
shivas.wisdom
בּ



Registered: 02/19/09
Posts: 13,428
Loc: Turtle Island
Last seen: 28 minutes, 57 seconds
|
Re: Is there ANY good argument for blocking traffic? [Re: Vahn421] 1
#26870899 - 08/09/20 02:11 AM (3 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Vahn421 said:
Quote:
shivas.wisdom said: So since we've established that the intent of both groups isn't known, let's give both groups the benefit of the doubt and analyze their actions:
If we assume neither groups were acting maliciously, the drivers response to a perceived threat of physical harm (driving forward into a crowd instead of reversing) recklessly endangered the lives of multiple people; the protesters response to a perceived threat of physical harm consisted of property destruction consistent with that required to disable a vehicle.
Do you dispute this depiction?
I dispute it, yes, because it is impossible to disable the vehicle. The proposal that the vehicle CAN be disabled is essentially ludicrous. Even popping a tire and bashing a window, that truck hauled ASS away from the crowd, driving more reckless than it had been before. I've said it like 4 times already but, a malicious vehicle isn't slowing down so you can do something silly like pop its tires, and an vehicle that is otherwise harmless will panic and may do something stupid, like drive off with a motorbike under his tires.
This creates more problems and more chances for injury, it's not solving anything.
Some of the recent vehicular attacks have turned around to drive into the crowd a second time. Popping a vehicles tires, while not immediately disabling it, while definitely affect the maneuverability of the vehicle. But, this brings me back to this question:
Quote:
shivas.wisdom said: Vahn, so what exactly is your solution to fascist terrorists targeting protests with vehicular attacks? Because it sounds a whole lot like you suggest we capitulate to the fascist terrorists by fearfully avoiding any circumstances that could possibly result in a vehicle attack.
You stated you weren't ready to answer the question before first establishing a baseline frequency of occurrence:
Quote:
Vahn421 said: Let's start by identifying how often they actually happen. People usually ask me for evidence. I'm asking you to provide it first so we can establish a baseline of frequency of occurrence.
So I supplied this:
Quote:
shivas.wisdom said:
Quote:
There have been at least 66 incidents of cars driving into protesters from May 27 to July 6, including 59 by civilians and seven by law enforcement, according to Ari Weil, a terrorism researcher at the University of Chicago's Project on Security and Threats.
There have been two fatalities – in Seattle and in Bakersfield, California – and at least 24 of the civilian cases have been charged by law enforcement, Weil said.
Weil said that by analyzing news coverage, court documents and patterns of behavior – such as when people allegedly yelled slurs at protesters or turned around for a second hit – he determined that at least 19 of the 59 civilian incidents were malicious and four were not. Weil said he did not have enough information to classify the motives of the remaining 36 incidents.
Drivers are hitting protesters as memes of car attacks spread
But you never responded back and now you appear to have returned to your refrain that we should capitulate to fascist terrorists by avoiding any situation where we risk vehicular attack. Now that we've established the baseline frequency, surely you have a better solution to propose.
--------------------
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger



Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 4 months, 21 days
|
Re: Is there ANY good argument for blocking traffic? [Re: shivas.wisdom]
#26870921 - 08/09/20 02:54 AM (3 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
shivas.wisdom said: In the incident in question, the video shows a single vehicle moving towards a large crowd on a clearly obstructed road at night.
What do you mean by "clearly obstructed"? Do you mean by a motorcycle that drove in front of the truck? I saw no obstructions whatsoever other than people walking in the street well ahead of the truck.
Quote:
shivas.wisdom said: Context is significant when determining a threat, be it by a person or a vehicle.
Of course it is, and that's why I keep asking if you have a context video showing the truck to be a threat. All I see is a truck driving down a street towards a group of protesters and slowing down as he approached, until he got attacked. I saw no detour signs, roadblocks, or anything else to warn the driver to take a different path. If you saw something I missed, take a screen shot and post it. I keep saying I'll easily change my mind with new evidence.
Quote:
shivas.wisdom said: I've shown evidence of at least 66 incidents of cars driving into protesters over a span of 5 weeks, with >19 being malicious attacks. How many drivers have been physically attacked by protesters during this same span of time? Not property damage to the vehicle, but physically attacked the driver. Last time you were asked about this you had to go back to a single incident during the LA riots of '92.
Yes, I realize there were previous attacks, but I haven't yet seen evidence that this truck intended to attack. Was there a detour sign the truck ignored? If so, post it.
Quote:
shivas.wisdom said: Edit: Besides, that misses the point of what I'm saying. As ballsalsa has said earlier, the intention of the driver doesn't go into play when we consider whether the other group was justified in perceiving a threat. As we've discussed, we can't know another persons intent and so it isn't relevant when we consider whether an individual/group was reasonably justified in perceiving a threat or not. I've already explained why I believe the protesters were reasonably justified in perceiving a threat from the vehicle - both the specifics of that one incidence and the general prevalence of vehicle attacks recently - and that their actions seem inline with responding to the perceived threat of a vehicle rather than acting with intent to harm the driver. If you disagree with my view, perhaps you can clarify your opinion by explaining what - if any - conditions must be present before you would consider it reasonably justified to view a vehicle as a threat, and what would be an appropriate response.
Yes, I understand your point that the protesters were nervous.
But I share qman's view on this (and Vahn) unless you have more evidence we haven't seen.
-------------------- I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them. I also attack my side if I think they're wrong. People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger



Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 4 months, 21 days
|
Re: Is there ANY good argument for blocking traffic? [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03]
#26870927 - 08/09/20 03:10 AM (3 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
So I tried to find more evidence supporting your point, and I found this article:
Nationalist Review
Quote:
“I don’t wanna run nobody over, y’all started throwing s*** at my motherf***in’ truck. Y’all are stupid man, f***in’ dumb, idiot protesters. You think you’re doing good, but you’re doing bad. I love black people. The s*** you’re doing up there? It’s stupid. You started piling s*** on my motherf***in’ truck for no reason.
The truck was at a complete stop when the driver was attacked by antifa-BLM rioters. At no point was anyone in any danger whatsoever (besides for the driver who had his windows smashed in).
I agree with that last statement based on what I saw in the video, unless you have something new to share.
-------------------- I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them. I also attack my side if I think they're wrong. People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.
|
Vahn421
Awakening Moonlighter



Registered: 04/03/12
Posts: 2,162
Loc: Portland
Last seen: 3 years, 4 months
|
Re: Is there ANY good argument for blocking traffic? [Re: shivas.wisdom]
#26870934 - 08/09/20 03:19 AM (3 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
shivas.wisdom said:
Quote:
Vahn421 said:
Quote:
shivas.wisdom said: So since we've established that the intent of both groups isn't known, let's give both groups the benefit of the doubt and analyze their actions:
If we assume neither groups were acting maliciously, the drivers response to a perceived threat of physical harm (driving forward into a crowd instead of reversing) recklessly endangered the lives of multiple people; the protesters response to a perceived threat of physical harm consisted of property destruction consistent with that required to disable a vehicle.
Do you dispute this depiction?
I dispute it, yes, because it is impossible to disable the vehicle. The proposal that the vehicle CAN be disabled is essentially ludicrous. Even popping a tire and bashing a window, that truck hauled ASS away from the crowd, driving more reckless than it had been before. I've said it like 4 times already but, a malicious vehicle isn't slowing down so you can do something silly like pop its tires, and an vehicle that is otherwise harmless will panic and may do something stupid, like drive off with a motorbike under his tires.
This creates more problems and more chances for injury, it's not solving anything.
Some of the recent vehicular attacks have turned around to drive into the crowd a second time. Popping a vehicles tires, while not immediately disabling it, while definitely affect the maneuverability of the vehicle. But, this brings me back to this question:
Quote:
shivas.wisdom said: Vahn, so what exactly is your solution to fascist terrorists targeting protests with vehicular attacks? Because it sounds a whole lot like you suggest we capitulate to the fascist terrorists by fearfully avoiding any circumstances that could possibly result in a vehicle attack.
You stated you weren't ready to answer the question before first establishing a baseline frequency of occurrence:
Quote:
Vahn421 said: Let's start by identifying how often they actually happen. People usually ask me for evidence. I'm asking you to provide it first so we can establish a baseline of frequency of occurrence.
So I supplied this:
Quote:
shivas.wisdom said:
Quote:
There have been at least 66 incidents of cars driving into protesters from May 27 to July 6, including 59 by civilians and seven by law enforcement, according to Ari Weil, a terrorism researcher at the University of Chicago's Project on Security and Threats.
There have been two fatalities – in Seattle and in Bakersfield, California – and at least 24 of the civilian cases have been charged by law enforcement, Weil said.
Weil said that by analyzing news coverage, court documents and patterns of behavior – such as when people allegedly yelled slurs at protesters or turned around for a second hit – he determined that at least 19 of the 59 civilian incidents were malicious and four were not. Weil said he did not have enough information to classify the motives of the remaining 36 incidents.
Drivers are hitting protesters as memes of car attacks spread
But you never responded back and now you appear to have returned to your refrain that we should capitulate to fascist terrorists by avoiding any situation where we risk vehicular attack. Now that we've established the baseline frequency, surely you have a better solution to propose.
I first asked for a baseline and yes, you then you provided the article which was a good start. Koods then mentioned something about having another source that asserted similar claims specifically for the month of June. I then asked koods (or anyone would be fine, really) if he could find the claim because one of the incidents in June that took place was in my hometown and I want to know exactly how the media is counting these before going further.
In general, my answer would likely be the same (take two steps back out of the road and no one will get hurt), but for the sake of crunching numbers and seeing how bad the problem actually is, I'm still looking for evidence where I can see specific cases compiled, so I can cross check them individually and see what criteria people are using to classify cases.
--------------------
Edited by Vahn421 (08/09/20 03:22 AM)
|
Vahn421
Awakening Moonlighter



Registered: 04/03/12
Posts: 2,162
Loc: Portland
Last seen: 3 years, 4 months
|
Re: Is there ANY good argument for blocking traffic? [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03]
#26870936 - 08/09/20 03:20 AM (3 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Edit: Whoops!
--------------------
Edited by Vahn421 (08/09/20 03:21 AM)
|
Vahn421
Awakening Moonlighter



Registered: 04/03/12
Posts: 2,162
Loc: Portland
Last seen: 3 years, 4 months
|
Re: Is there ANY good argument for blocking traffic? [Re: Vahn421] 1
#26870937 - 08/09/20 03:23 AM (3 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Popping a vehicles tires, while not immediately disabling it, while definitely affect the maneuverability of the vehicle.
Addressing this statement specifically, you're FAR more likely to make someone panic and accidentally injure someone with their still mobile slightly handicapped vehicle (a good person who is now panicking), than you are likely to stop an actual aggressor from harming you. The fact you THINK you can cripple the maneuverability of the vehicle doesn't matter. A malicious vehicle would never even give you anything close to the chance to try. Only good/reasonable guys hit their brakes when a motorbike drives in front of them in the first place.
In other words, you're far more likely to make things worse than you are going to make it better.
--------------------
Edited by Vahn421 (08/09/20 03:27 AM)
|
ballsalsa
Universally Loathed and Reviled



Registered: 03/11/15
Posts: 20,837
Loc: Foreign Lands
|
Re: Is there ANY good argument for blocking traffic? [Re: Vahn421]
#26871191 - 08/09/20 08:50 AM (3 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
I agree that it is very difficult to disable a hostile vehicle with non projectile weapons held in one's hands. The smart thing to do (and I expect to see more of this) would be to use passive area denial weapons to deter vehicles from approaching in a threatening manner. Caltrops are a good start. I can only imagine that as these sorts of attacks happen more frequently folks will stop trying to play nice and simply shoot on sight any vehicle that menaces them while protesting. After all, the most effective way to stop a vehicle is to eliminate the driver. I wouldn't advise anyone to wait and see whether a potentially hostile actor is going to mow them down or just slowly hit them with a car because they think that is an appropriate response to making a wrong turn.
--------------------
Like cannabis topics? Read my cannabis blog here
|
shivas.wisdom
בּ



Registered: 02/19/09
Posts: 13,428
Loc: Turtle Island
Last seen: 28 minutes, 57 seconds
|
Re: Is there ANY good argument for blocking traffic? [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03] 1
#26871355 - 08/09/20 10:42 AM (3 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Quote:
shivas.wisdom said: In the incident in question, the video shows a single vehicle moving towards a large crowd on a clearly obstructed road at night.
What do you mean by "clearly obstructed"? Do you mean by a motorcycle that drove in front of the truck? I saw no obstructions whatsoever other than people walking in the street well ahead of the truck.

Quote:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Quote:
shivas.wisdom said: I've shown evidence of at least 66 incidents of cars driving into protesters over a span of 5 weeks, with >19 being malicious attacks. How many drivers have been physically attacked by protesters during this same span of time? Not property damage to the vehicle, but physically attacked the driver. Last time you were asked about this you had to go back to a single incident during the LA riots of '92.
Yes, I realize there were previous attacks, but I haven't yet seen evidence that this truck intended to attack. Was there a detour sign the truck ignored? If so, post it.
I've never claimed to know whether the truck intended to attack. I don't believe anyone here has made that claim. Quit with the make belief. The argument is that the crowd of protesters were reasonably justified in perceiving the truck as a threat. I also notice you didn't attempt to answer my question regarding evidence of drivers being physically attacked by protesters.
Quote:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Quote:
shivas.wisdom said: Edit: Besides, that misses the point of what I'm saying. As ballsalsa has said earlier, the intention of the driver doesn't go into play when we consider whether the other group was justified in perceiving a threat. As we've discussed, we can't know another persons intent and so it isn't relevant when we consider whether an individual/group was reasonably justified in perceiving a threat or not. I've already explained why I believe the protesters were reasonably justified in perceiving a threat from the vehicle - both the specifics of that one incidence and the general prevalence of vehicle attacks recently - and that their actions seem inline with responding to the perceived threat of a vehicle rather than acting with intent to harm the driver. If you disagree with my view, perhaps you can clarify your opinion by explaining what - if any - conditions must be present before you would consider it reasonably justified to view a vehicle as a threat, and what would be an appropriate response.
Yes, I understand your point that the protesters were nervous.
But I share qman's view on this (and Vahn) unless you have more evidence we haven't seen.
Ok, not sure why you neglected to answer yet another question then: If you disagree with my view, perhaps you can clarify your opinion by explaining what - if any - conditions must be present before you would consider it reasonably justified to view a vehicle as a threat, and what would be an appropriate response.
--------------------
|
shivas.wisdom
בּ



Registered: 02/19/09
Posts: 13,428
Loc: Turtle Island
Last seen: 28 minutes, 57 seconds
|
Re: Is there ANY good argument for blocking traffic? [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03]
#26871369 - 08/09/20 10:51 AM (3 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said: So I tried to find more evidence supporting your point, and I found this article:
Nationalist Review
Quote:
“I don’t wanna run nobody over, y’all started throwing s*** at my motherf***in’ truck. Y’all are stupid man, f***in’ dumb, idiot protesters. You think you’re doing good, but you’re doing bad. I love black people. The s*** you’re doing up there? It’s stupid. You started piling s*** on my motherf***in’ truck for no reason.
The truck was at a complete stop when the driver was attacked by antifa-BLM rioters. At no point was anyone in any danger whatsoever (besides for the driver who had his windows smashed in).
I agree with that last statement based on what I saw in the video, unless you have something new to share. 
"Antifa-BLM rioters". Surely a quality source of journalism.
"At no point was anyone in any danger whatsoever". Really? So none of these people were in any danger whatsover?
Some other great journalism from that rag: Marijuana taxes to fund reparations program in Chicago Suburb Did you know that sanctuary cities increase the number of representatives a state receives? It’s true, here’s why… This Radical Marxist Group Won 12+ Seats Last Night…The Democratic Socialists Of America MUST Be Stopped Italian parliamentarian calls for arrest of Bill Gates NASA Goes “Woke” And Bans Use Of “Offensive” Names For Space Objects Citing Discrimination
--------------------
|
Vahn421
Awakening Moonlighter



Registered: 04/03/12
Posts: 2,162
Loc: Portland
Last seen: 3 years, 4 months
|
Re: Is there ANY good argument for blocking traffic? [Re: ballsalsa]
#26871374 - 08/09/20 10:52 AM (3 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
ballsalsa said: I agree that it is very difficult to disable a hostile vehicle with non projectile weapons held in one's hands. The smart thing to do (and I expect to see more of this) would be to use passive area denial weapons to deter vehicles from approaching in a threatening manner. Caltrops are a good start. I can only imagine that as these sorts of attacks happen more frequently folks will stop trying to play nice and simply shoot on sight any vehicle that menaces them while protesting. After all, the most effective way to stop a vehicle is to eliminate the driver. I wouldn't advise anyone to wait and see whether a potentially hostile actor is going to mow them down or just slowly hit them with a car because they think that is an appropriate response to making a wrong turn.
Or you could just stop trying to complicate it and step out of the road where you don't belong anyway.
This really feels like a lot of pretzeling.
--------------------
|
Vahn421
Awakening Moonlighter



Registered: 04/03/12
Posts: 2,162
Loc: Portland
Last seen: 3 years, 4 months
|
Re: Is there ANY good argument for blocking traffic? [Re: shivas.wisdom]
#26871378 - 08/09/20 10:54 AM (3 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
shivas.wisdom said:
Quote:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said: So I tried to find more evidence supporting your point, and I found this article:
Nationalist Review
Quote:
“I don’t wanna run nobody over, y’all started throwing s*** at my motherf***in’ truck. Y’all are stupid man, f***in’ dumb, idiot protesters. You think you’re doing good, but you’re doing bad. I love black people. The s*** you’re doing up there? It’s stupid. You started piling s*** on my motherf***in’ truck for no reason.
The truck was at a complete stop when the driver was attacked by antifa-BLM rioters. At no point was anyone in any danger whatsoever (besides for the driver who had his windows smashed in).
I agree with that last statement based on what I saw in the video, unless you have something new to share. 
"Antifa-BLM rioters". Surely a quality source of journalism.
"At no point was anyone in any danger whatsoever". Really? So none of these people were in any danger whatsover?
Some other great journalism from that rag: Marijuana taxes to fund reparations program in Chicago Suburb Did you know that sanctuary cities increase the number of representatives a state receives? It’s true, here’s why… This Radical Marxist Group Won 12+ Seats Last Night…The Democratic Socialists Of America MUST Be Stopped Italian parliamentarian calls for arrest of Bill Gates NASA Goes “Woke” And Bans Use Of “Offensive” Names For Space Objects Citing Discrimination
Yes, and the rioters created this reality. They created a scared, confused, now hostile truck.
--------------------
|
|