|
ballsalsa
Universally Loathed and Reviled



Registered: 03/11/15
Posts: 21,251
Loc: Foreign Lands
|
Re: Is there ANY good argument for blocking traffic? [Re: Vahn421]
#26871385 - 08/09/20 10:59 AM (3 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Vahn421 said:
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.
I'm sorry you feel that way but my position is very straightforward. In fact, it is your position. Why do you believe these people are less entitled to your universal laws of justice than anyone else?
--------------------
Like cannabis topics? Read my cannabis blog here
|
shivas.wisdom
בּ



Registered: 02/19/09
Posts: 13,462
Loc: Turtle Island
Last seen: 16 hours, 18 minutes
|
Re: Is there ANY good argument for blocking traffic? [Re: ballsalsa] 1
#26871398 - 08/09/20 11:04 AM (3 years, 6 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.
Yea this is exactly what is developing. In my personal experience, any protest that takes to the public roads has always had people assigned to keep people safe from traffic. I can't know for sure, but I highly suspect the individual on the motorbike was part of this group that night.
The only responses we have to fascist vehicular attacks is to either capitulate to them by avoiding anything that risks their attack, or to prevent all vehicles from entering the area and treat any that ignore the warnings as a threat. Unless people have other solutions? I know vahn suggests "take two steps back out of the road and no one will get hurt" but I'm not sure how that will protect us from fascists terrorists.
--------------------
|
Kryptos
Stranger

Registered: 11/01/14
Posts: 12,322
Last seen: 1 hour, 32 minutes
|
Re: Is there ANY good argument for blocking traffic? [Re: qman]
#26871442 - 08/09/20 11:34 AM (3 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
qman said:
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. 
I think you missed the point.
That half of the broke ass white people that think the system is perfectly fine and that minorities are the problem, are the ones that are supporting the people in power. What they could change is how they vote, and that's a very big change.
|
ballsalsa
Universally Loathed and Reviled



Registered: 03/11/15
Posts: 21,251
Loc: Foreign Lands
|
Re: Is there ANY good argument for blocking traffic? [Re: shivas.wisdom]
#26871458 - 08/09/20 11:45 AM (3 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Plastic stretch wrap such as is used to prepare pallets of goods for shipping has been used as a barrier to some effect in Hong Kong
--------------------
Like cannabis topics? Read my cannabis blog here
|
Asante
Mage


Registered: 02/06/02
Posts: 86,957
|
Re: Is there ANY good argument for blocking traffic? [Re: ballsalsa]
#26871560 - 08/09/20 12:46 PM (3 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
That looks very Wile E Coyote
-------------------- Omnicyclion.org higher knowledge starts here
|
SirTripAlot
Semper Fidelis



Registered: 01/11/05
Posts: 7,523
Loc: Harmless (Mostly)
Last seen: 2 hours, 53 minutes
|
Re: Is there ANY good argument for blocking traffic? [Re: Asante]
#26871580 - 08/09/20 12:58 PM (3 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Acme and rockets do come to mind.
-------------------- “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: 21,251
Loc: Foreign Lands
|
Re: Is there ANY good argument for blocking traffic? [Re: SirTripAlot]
#26871600 - 08/09/20 01:08 PM (3 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
I've heard that elmer's glitter glue can make windshield visibility an issue for any vehicle, even intimidating armored ones.
--------------------
Like cannabis topics? Read my cannabis blog here
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger



Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 5 months, 8 days
|
Re: Is there ANY good argument for blocking traffic? [Re: shivas.wisdom] 1
#26871613 - 08/09/20 01:15 PM (3 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
shivas.wisdom said:
Quote:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said: What do you mean by "clearly obstructed"?

What are you showing me here? Did the pickup drive through that fence before he was attacked? Source?
Quote:
shivas.wisdom said:
Quote:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said: 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.
My mistake, I thought people were arguing the protesters were justified in their attack.
Quote:
shivas.wisdom said: The argument is that the crowd of protesters were reasonably justified in perceiving the truck as a threat.
So if I perceive a threat coming, I'm allowed to attack?
Enlil, can you please weigh in on this? I SERIOUSLY doubt that's legal unless the threat was a bit more obvious.
Quote:
shivas.wisdom said: I also notice you didn't attempt to answer my question regarding evidence of drivers being physically attacked by protesters.
I think everyone remembers the Rodney King beating, and I suspect that memory into came to this guy's head after a motorcycle was thrown in front of him and his windows were getting smashed in. Regardless, does he not have the right to be scared and run, like you feel the protesters had a right to be scared and smash his truck in?
Quote:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said: 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.
I share the view that qman and vahn already expressed. If the truck is perceived as a possible threat, people should get out of its way rather than attack it. The truck wasn't moving too quickly and gave them plenty of time to move if they wanted. But they preferred to smash his truck instead.
-------------------- 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: 5 months, 8 days
|
Re: Is there ANY good argument for blocking traffic? [Re: shivas.wisdom] 1
#26871621 - 08/09/20 01:21 PM (3 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
shivas.wisdom said: "At no point was anyone in any danger whatsoever". Really? So none of these people were in any danger whatsover?
Seriously??? This was AFTER the guy was attacked and a mob was chasing him. I was clearly asking if the protesters were in danger BEFORE they attacked.
I agree when the guy was fleeing for his safety, he put others in danger.
-------------------- 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.
|
qman
Stranger

Registered: 12/06/06
Posts: 34,927
Last seen: 40 minutes, 11 seconds
|
Re: Is there ANY good argument for blocking traffic? [Re: Kryptos]
#26871623 - 08/09/20 01:24 PM (3 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Kryptos said:
Quote:
qman said:
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. 
I think you missed the point.
That half of the broke ass white people that think the system is perfectly fine and that minorities are the problem, are the ones that are supporting the people in power. What they could change is how they vote, and that's a very big change.
Really, more D's in office is going to affect the billionaires and Banksters on Wall Street? I don't think so.
|
ballsalsa
Universally Loathed and Reviled



Registered: 03/11/15
Posts: 21,251
Loc: Foreign Lands
|
Re: Is there ANY good argument for blocking traffic? [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03] 2
#26871646 - 08/09/20 01:37 PM (3 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Fal,
you know I like you, but it is hard to take you seriously on this issue. You apparently think it is reasonable to drive into a crowd for the crime of inconveniencing you on the road and even claim to have done so in the past. Clearly, this isn't something we are going to see eye to eye on if you think it is ok to hit people with your car.
--------------------
Like cannabis topics? Read my cannabis blog here
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger



Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 5 months, 8 days
|
Re: Is there ANY good argument for blocking traffic? [Re: ballsalsa] 1
#26871672 - 08/09/20 01:54 PM (3 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
ballsalsa said: Fal,
you know I like you, but it is hard to take you seriously on this issue. You apparently think it is reasonable to drive into a crowd for the crime of inconveniencing you on the road and even claim to have done so in the past. Clearly, this isn't something we are going to see eye to eye on if you think it is ok to hit people with your car.
You're misrepresenting my position though. I never said it was ok for the guy to drive into a crowd as he tried to escape from the attack. I was simply stating that happened AFTER he was attacked, not before.
-------------------- 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.
|
ballsalsa
Universally Loathed and Reviled



Registered: 03/11/15
Posts: 21,251
Loc: Foreign Lands
|
Re: Is there ANY good argument for blocking traffic? [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03]
#26871678 - 08/09/20 02:01 PM (3 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
uh...you explicitly stated that you yourself have driven slowly through a crowd and conjectured that perhaps that was the driver's intent. It was part of your narrative about intent and why the driver wasn't a threat.
--------------------
Like cannabis topics? Read my cannabis blog here
|
MagicMush123
moon person



Registered: 01/22/15
Posts: 5,101
Loc: Chinada
|
Re: Is there ANY good argument for blocking traffic? [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03] 1
#26871713 - 08/09/20 02:29 PM (3 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Quote:
shivas.wisdom said: "At no point was anyone in any danger whatsoever". Really? So none of these people were in any danger whatsover?
Seriously??? This was AFTER the guy was attacked and a mob was chasing him. I was clearly asking if the protesters were in danger BEFORE they attacked.
I agree when the guy was fleeing for his safety, he put others in danger.
I guess bals and Shiva missed that there were other cars on the road during this video. You can even see a van also heading towards the protest on that long straight road
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger



Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 5 months, 8 days
|
Re: Is there ANY good argument for blocking traffic? [Re: ballsalsa] 1
#26871760 - 08/09/20 03:05 PM (3 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
ballsalsa said: uh...you explicitly stated that you yourself have driven slowly through a crowd and conjectured that perhaps that was the driver's intent. It was part of your narrative about intent and why the driver wasn't a threat.
Ok, perhaps I misunderstood your post. Are you saying that when I drove slowly through a crowd, people would have had a right to start smashing up my car?
You're probably right then. We're not going to see eye to eye on this.
-------------------- 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.
|
shivas.wisdom
בּ



Registered: 02/19/09
Posts: 13,462
Loc: Turtle Island
Last seen: 16 hours, 18 minutes
|
Re: Is there ANY good argument for blocking traffic? [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03]
#26871857 - 08/09/20 04:07 PM (3 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Quote:
shivas.wisdom said:
Quote:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said: What do you mean by "clearly obstructed"?

What are you showing me here? Did the pickup drive through that fence before he was attacked? Source?
I intentionally left the video title in the image so you could verify the video but here you go:
My statement you questioned was this "In the incident in question, the video shows a single vehicle moving towards a large crowd on a clearly obstructed road at night." That image shows a large crowd on a clearly obstructed road at night, and that was where the single vehicle was moving towards. Do you still dispute my statement?
Quote:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Quote:
shivas.wisdom said:
Quote:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said: 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.
My mistake, I thought people were arguing the protesters were justified in their attack.
Are "this truck intended to attack" and "the protesters were justified in their attack" equivalent statements?
The key aspects of arguing self-defense are 'imminent threat', 'reasonable fear', and 'proportional force'. Imminent threat means the threat faced must have been imminent such that it put the person, or the one they were defending, in fear of immediate harm. Reasonable fear means that fear is assessed according to the reasonable-person standard, which asks what an ordinary and reasonable individual would do under the circumstances. Thus, for instance, a person may have been threatened by someone holding a toy gun and responded by assaulting or harming the man. If a “reasonable personal” would also have believed that the toy gun was a real threat and have responded with fear as well, the defendant’s actions will likely be considered self-defense. When a person’s response does not meet the reasonable-person standard, but they still did truly fear a threat of harm, this is called imperfect self-defense. Imperfect self-defense will not act as a complete defense to the crime that is charged, but many places will allow it as a defense that lessens the charges brought against the defendant. Proportional force means that the force used is proportional to the threat faced. This is very important in the context of deadly force. A person may not use deadly force to respond to a threat that was not itself deadly. Thus, for example, if a defendant is faced with the threat of being punched in the face during an argument, they cannot respond by stabbing the other individual. This would not constitute self-defense. However, if the person believes they are about to be shot and shoots back, this may be considered proportional force. Source
Let us first examine the actions of the protesters:
Imminent threat? Undoubtedly the presence of the vehicle qualifies as an imminent threat because the potential for immediate harm was present. Reasonable fear? I would argue that the trend of vehicular attacks on protests together with the specifics of a single unknown vehicle moving towards a large crowd on a clearly obstructed road at night would combine to grant justification for reasonable fear - at the very least, I would argue that imperfect self-defense would still hold. Proportional force? Nothing in the video shows anything inconsistent with attempts to immobilize a threatening vehicle, so I would argue the protesters used proportional force in their defensive actions.
Now lets examine the actions of the driver:
Imminent threat? For sure, I'm not going to argue against this one. Reasonable fear? I won't argue against this one either. Proportional force? Definitely not. You don't get to accelerate into a large crowd of people because a few people damaged your vehicle. The driver responded with deadly force against a large crowd of uninvolved people because their vehicle was being damaged. That is not reasonable force. Why was reversing away from the crowd not an option?
Giving both sides the benefit of the doubt, I still don't see how you can still condone the actions of the driver of the pickup truck.
Quote:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Quote:
shivas.wisdom said: I also notice you didn't attempt to answer my question regarding evidence of drivers being physically attacked by protesters.
I think everyone remembers the Rodney King beating, and I suspect that memory into came to this guy's head after a motorcycle was thrown in front of him and his windows were getting smashed in. Regardless, does he not have the right to be scared and run, like you feel the protesters had a right to be scared and smash his truck in?
You mean Reginald Denny - not Rodney King. That still avoids answering my question about whether this has been happening recently - especially on a similar scale to >19 malicious vehicular attacks in 5 weeks.
Even so, I've granted both the driver and protesters the benefit of the doubt at every instance in this thread. As you can see in my response regarding self-defense above: the driver may have been warranted to be scared and run - that doesn't justify driving his vehicle into a crowd of people instead of reversing in the direction he came from. That was not a proportional response to the threat.
Quote:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Quote:
shivas.wisdom said: 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.
I share the view that qman and vahn already expressed. If the truck is perceived as a possible threat, people should get out of its way rather than attack it. The truck wasn't moving too quickly and gave them plenty of time to move if they wanted. But they preferred to smash his truck instead.
How does "get out of its way" address the threat of malicious vehicular attacks?
--------------------
|
shivas.wisdom
בּ



Registered: 02/19/09
Posts: 13,462
Loc: Turtle Island
Last seen: 16 hours, 18 minutes
|
Re: Is there ANY good argument for blocking traffic? [Re: MagicMush123]
#26871873 - 08/09/20 04:20 PM (3 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
MagicMush123 said: I guess bals and Shiva missed that there were other cars on the road during this video. You can even see a van also heading towards the protest on that long straight road 
The van I assume you refer to is a large distance away from the protest - we only see it as the pickup truck drives past nearly 10 seconds after crashing through the fence. Can you provide a screen shot of the other cars that were on the road during the video, because this is what the video shows me:

Unless you are including the cars in the far distance, the motorbike, or the parked vehicle (likely part of the protest) facing the other way, then "a single vehicle moving towards a large crowd on a clearly obstructed road at night" still seems an appropriate description.
--------------------
|
Vahn421
Awakening Moonlighter



Registered: 04/03/12
Posts: 2,162
Loc: Portland
Last seen: 3 years, 5 months
|
Re: Is there ANY good argument for blocking traffic? [Re: ballsalsa]
#26871930 - 08/09/20 05:03 PM (3 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
ballsalsa said: I've heard that elmer's glitter glue can make windshield visibility an issue for any vehicle, even intimidating armored ones.
Do you really think cars arent going to panic and drive off if they make them feel afraid?
Fantasyland, man.
--------------------
|
Vahn421
Awakening Moonlighter



Registered: 04/03/12
Posts: 2,162
Loc: Portland
Last seen: 3 years, 5 months
|
Re: Is there ANY good argument for blocking traffic? [Re: Vahn421]
#26871937 - 08/09/20 05:08 PM (3 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
I cannot believe shiva and ballsalsa are still wasting their breath on this conversation trying to defend a position not even founded in reality.
They live in a fantasy land on this issue, pretending puny humans can be heroes to stop actual malicious drivers. Life is not a LARP, kids. You're going to get hurt.
--------------------
|
shivas.wisdom
בּ



Registered: 02/19/09
Posts: 13,462
Loc: Turtle Island
Last seen: 16 hours, 18 minutes
|
Re: Is there ANY good argument for blocking traffic? [Re: Vahn421] 2
#26871942 - 08/09/20 05:10 PM (3 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Weak minds discuss people. I, an average mind, prefer to discuss events.
--------------------
|
|