|
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: shivas.wisdom]
#26871951 - 08/09/20 05:15 PM (3 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
My contempt is for your ideas, not you.
I've laid out a very rational case as to why all of this is completely unfounded. I've said it like 6 times and people are ignoring it.
You have a better chance getting hit by lightning that stopping a truck that has made up his mind.
I know it makes you all feel like heroes for pretending you're making a difference...but this is nuts.
--------------------
Edited by Vahn421 (08/09/20 05:15 PM)
|
christopera
Stranger


Registered: 10/13/17
Posts: 14,270
Last seen: 4 hours, 45 minutes
|
Re: Is there ANY good argument for blocking traffic? [Re: Vahn421]
#26871955 - 08/09/20 05:17 PM (3 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
No need to attempt to remove agency from protestors. It doesn’t further your argument one bit.
-------------------- Enjoy the process of your search without succumbing to the pressure of the result. A Dorito is pizza, change my mind. Bank and Union with The Shroomery at the Zuul on The internet - now with %'s and things I’m sorry it had to be me.
|
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]
#26871958 - 08/09/20 05:20 PM (3 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
shivas.wisdom said:
Quote:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said: Did the pickup drive through that fence before he was attacked?
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?
Ok, so the obstruction was in the road well ahead of the driver AFTER he was was attacked. No, I'm not questioning that. I thought you meant he drove through an obstruction before getting attacked.
Quote:
shivas.wisdom said: Are "this truck intended to attack" and "the protesters were justified in their attack" equivalent statements?
That depends on whether an attack on a truck that didn't attack first is justified. Many people here don't think it is. That's why I asked Enlil to weigh in. When I was in a similar situation, I don't think people smashing in my windows would have been justified.
Quote:
shivas.wisdom said: The key aspects of arguing self-defense are 'imminent threat', 'reasonable fear', and 'proportional force'.
Where did you get that? When I looked it up, there was also a fourth element: an unproved attack. Can you discuss that too please?
Quote:
shivas.wisdom said: 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.
I agree, that type of attack hasn't happened as often as the car attacks, though they're both relatively rare compared to the number of cars driving by protesters. I personally remember the Reginald Denny incident a lot better though.
Quote:
shivas.wisdom said: 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.
You may be right. I haven't discussed that yet, as I mentioned to balls.
-------------------- 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, 5 months
|
Re: Is there ANY good argument for blocking traffic? [Re: christopera]
#26871962 - 08/09/20 05:21 PM (3 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Let me ask you all a hypothetical.
What do you think the power structure of a community would look like if people like Antifa were in charge? If people like these protesters who broke the truck made all the rules? How would society change? How would it be re-structured? Would we be better off or worse off?
I already know the answer, but I'm very curious what you all come up with. I stand exactly where I stand because this human behavior spiral isn't anything new under the sun.
--------------------
Edited by Vahn421 (08/09/20 05:22 PM)
|
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] 1
#26871965 - 08/09/20 05:23 PM (3 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
shivas.wisdom said: 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.
Good luck expecting someone to act logically when you've just pumped their heart full of adrenaline and fear. You're really not getting this human behavior thing, man...
--------------------
Edited by Vahn421 (08/09/20 05:24 PM)
|
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]
#26872061 - 08/09/20 06:07 PM (3 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Quote:
shivas.wisdom said: 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?
Ok, so the obstruction was in the road well ahead of the driver AFTER he was was attacked. No, I'm not questioning that. I thought you meant he drove through an obstruction before getting attacked.
My point was that, from the perspective of the crowd, there was a single vehicle driving towards them despite the road being clearly obstructed - this is the context that I believe made this specific vehicle appear threatening.
Quote:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Quote:
shivas.wisdom said: The key aspects of arguing self-defense are 'imminent threat', 'reasonable fear', and 'proportional force'.
Where did you get that? When I looked it up, there was also a fourth element: an unproved attack. Can you discuss that too please?
I provided the source already - it didn't include unprovoked attack. I don't see how this would change my assessment though. The threat of attack that the protesters were reasonable in fear of would not have been considered provoked unless you consider a protest in the street provocation in itself. The threat of attack that the driver was in reasonable fear of would not have been considered provoked unless you consider driving up to the protest in the way the pickup did to consist of provocation.
Really, if anything, I would say that provocation strengthens the protesters self-defense case because it would be a lot harder to argue that a street protest could justifiably provoke a vehicular attack than it would be to argue that a truck rolling up to a street protest (especially in the current reality of recent high-profile vehicular homicides and malicious vehicular attacks against protests) could justifiably provoke an aggressive response. Let us update the analysis of mine.
The protesters:
Imminent threat? Undoubtedly the presence of the vehicle qualifies as an imminent threat because the potential for immediate harm was present. Provoked? Not unless a street protest is to be considered provocation for vehicular attack. 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. Provoked? Arguably, given the current climate of vehicles crashing into protests (at least 66 incidents over a span of 5 weeks with >19 being malicious). 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?
If you dispute any of this assessment, I would be interested in reading an alternative provided by you.
--------------------
|
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]
#26872068 - 08/09/20 06:11 PM (3 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Vahn421 said:
Quote:
shivas.wisdom said: 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.
Good luck expecting someone to act logically when you've just pumped their heart full of adrenaline and fear. You're really not getting this human behavior thing, man...
I understand human behaviours. I expect the protesters were feeling similar - especially considering the recent surge in vehicular attacks against protesters since George Floyd's murder. Irrational actions that lead to application of deadly force against uninvolved parties would not constitute a self-defense claim. As I said to qman, you couldn't spray a gun into a crowd because one person has assaulted you and you were full of adrenaline - the same logic applies while operating a vehicle.
--------------------
|
MagicMush123
moon person



Registered: 01/22/15
Posts: 5,101
Loc: Chinada
|
Re: Is there ANY good argument for blocking traffic? [Re: shivas.wisdom]
#26872087 - 08/09/20 06:22 PM (3 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
shivas.wisdom said:
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.
There was a car driving away from the protest and one van driving towards. The van diving towards wasn't "a large distance away" but rather within a block 
Look, i guess what it comes down to is, i think both parties were wrong. He probably shouldn't have drove up to the protest. Whether he drove up to the protest by accident or he really needed to pass and naively thought they'd part like the red sea or just drove up looking for a confrontation, i dont think that warranted the protesters to smash up his vehicle i think you're right that reversing would have been the best option, but hindsight is 2020. When you're in the heat of the moment and you unexpectedly get attacked and you're vehicle's already in drive, punching the gas might be the quickest and easiest option. Maybe the driver didn't know that smashing his windows in was a feeble attempt to disable his vehicle ( to say that is just laughable btw) and reasonably he probably thought they'd attempt to injure him once his windows were smashed in. Honestly cant believe you're down playing smashing his vehicle up as merely property damage. Sure on the surface it's mere property damage but in what world does someone not have reasonable fear of being physically harmed when a unruly mob is attacking your vehicle? Basically you're saying that 2 wrongs make a right and you're so biased that you're only seeing one side of the issue. Your side. And to be honest i thought you were more reasonable and better than that
|
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]
#26872116 - 08/09/20 06:37 PM (3 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
I'm not sure why you consider me to be taking sides when I've equally granted both drivers and protesters the benefit of the doubt when considering their actions. I laid this out fairly clear in my last response to Fal. If my line about property destruction appears callous to you, feel free to interpret the line as "the driver responded with deadly force against a large crowd of uninvolved people because they were afraid for their life. That is not reasonable force." I don't believe the adjustment significantly changes the point.
If you still believe my perspective is biased, I invite you to provide your own interpretation of imminent threat, provocation, reasonable fear, and proportional force for both parties. I'm not a lawyer so my interpretation is an amateur one and I'm open to it being wrong. The clearest way to help me understand where our positions differ would be to clearly fit your answer to those four categories.
--------------------
|
MagicMush123
moon person



Registered: 01/22/15
Posts: 5,101
Loc: Chinada
|
Re: Is there ANY good argument for blocking traffic? [Re: shivas.wisdom]
#26872150 - 08/09/20 06:50 PM (3 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
.
Edited by MagicMush123 (08/09/20 06:51 PM)
|
MagicMush123
moon person



Registered: 01/22/15
Posts: 5,101
Loc: Chinada
|
Re: Is there ANY good argument for blocking traffic? [Re: shivas.wisdom]
#26872151 - 08/09/20 06:51 PM (3 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Apparently you think that attacking an unknown vehicle in your proximity is more reasonable than simply walking away. If a vehicle is crawling towards you like in the video, whats more reasonable; parting like the red sea or confronting it and proceeding to smash it up? If you can say with a straight face that confronting and attacking a vehicle is more reasonable than moving away from it then you have picked sides
|
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]
#26872201 - 08/09/20 07:19 PM (3 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
shivas.wisdom said:
Quote:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said: Ok, so the obstruction was in the road well ahead of the driver AFTER he was was attacked. No, I'm not questioning that. I thought you meant he drove through an obstruction before getting attacked.
My point was that, from the perspective of the crowd, there was a single vehicle driving towards them despite the road being clearly obstructed - this is the context that I believe made this specific vehicle appear threatening.
But all you've established so far (and I'm open to new evidence) is that the road was obstructed at a different location than where the truck entered. I understand why the protesters were nervous, but I don't think that gives them the right to attack the truck without first being attacked. I guess it depends on what the law says, and we've seen different interpretations. I don't think you can't attack someone without first being attacked.
Quote:
shivas.wisdom said:
Quote:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said: There was also a fourth element: an unprovoked attack. Can you discuss that too please?
I don't see how this would change my assessment though.
It would completely invalidate your claim that the protesters had a right to self defense if they weren't attacked first.
Quote:
shivas.wisdom said: The threat of attack that the protesters were reasonable in fear of would not have been considered provoked unless you consider a protest in the street provocation in itself. The threat of attack that the driver was in reasonable fear of would not have been considered provoked unless you consider driving up to the protest in the way the pickup did to consist of provocation.
Really, if anything, I would say that provocation strengthens the protesters self-defense case because it would be a lot harder to argue that a street protest could justifiably provoke a vehicular attack than it would be to argue that a truck rolling up to a street protest (especially in the current reality of recent high-profile vehicular homicides and malicious vehicular attacks against protests) could justifiably provoke an aggressive response. Let us update the analysis of mine.
The protesters:
Imminent threat? Undoubtedly the presence of the vehicle qualifies as an imminent threat because the potential for immediate harm was present. Provoked? Not unless a street protest is to be considered provocation for vehicular attack. 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. Provoked? Arguably, given the current climate of vehicles crashing into protests (at least 66 incidents over a span of 5 weeks with >19 being malicious). 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?
If you dispute any of this assessment, I would be interested in reading an alternative provided by you.
Again, I never weighed in on whether the driver was guilty of being reckless after he was attacked. I said the protesters had no right to attack the driver without first being attacked.
I guess it depends on the law and whether preemptive self defense is allowed.
-------------------- 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]
#26872205 - 08/09/20 07:24 PM (3 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
The crowd is the obstruction. Driving into a crowd is an attack.
--------------------
Like cannabis topics? Read my cannabis blog here
|
qman
Stranger

Registered: 12/06/06
Posts: 34,927
Last seen: 40 minutes, 5 seconds
|
Re: Is there ANY good argument for blocking traffic? [Re: ballsalsa]
#26872328 - 08/09/20 08:53 PM (3 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
ballsalsa said: The crowd is the obstruction. Driving into a crowd is an attack.
I think the burden is really upon the organizers of the protest to make sure vehicles don't have the opportunity to come close to where the protest is taking place.
If they fail in that attempt and a vehicle ends up near the protesters by pure chance, that burden does not then switch to the driver of that vehicle.
My point here is the protection of innocent people accidentally driving into a street that has protesters and then getting attacked for that mistake. Protesters don't get to automatically attack vehicles because the organizers of that protest didn't do their jobs of potentially protecting them.
Can the organizers of these protests 100% protect them from all vehicles? No, but they at least have to try and then also assume some responsibility. Preemptively attacking vehicles isn't legal and it completely discredits any movement in my opinion.
|
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: qman]
#26872436 - 08/09/20 10:03 PM (3 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
qman said:
Quote:
ballsalsa said: The crowd is the obstruction. Driving into a crowd is an attack.
I think the burden is really upon the organizers of the protest to make sure vehicles don't have the opportunity to come close to where the protest is taking place.
I'm with qman.
-------------------- 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, 5 months
|
Re: Is there ANY good argument for blocking traffic? [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03]
#26872602 - 08/10/20 01:20 AM (3 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
I know we're all kind of repeating our positions, but mine really is purely mathematical. It's why I have my position in the first place.
You're far more likely, statistically, to make a non-violent car panic and do something stupid than you are likely to disable a car that has pre-meditated to harm protesters. Like 95-99% more likely.
A person in a truck that has premeditated to attack protesters isn't going to brake. This is the crux of my entire argument. Stop ignoring it.
How about we have an argument about whether or not I'm wrong about THAT?
--------------------
Edited by Vahn421 (08/10/20 01:36 AM)
|
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: Vahn421] 1
#26872614 - 08/10/20 01:31 AM (3 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
If a guy threw a motorcycle in front of my car, and people started bashing in my windshields, and a crowd was approaching my car, I know I'd have floored it too.
A video from an article I posted showed the guy honking at people who were in front of him while we was trying to get out of there, but shivas doesn't seem interested in it because of the source of the video. I guess we'll have to wait until it shows up on another site.
-------------------- 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] 1
#26872863 - 08/10/20 08:06 AM (3 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
We know. You already said that you think it's ok to drive into a crowd and *slowly* hit them with your car because they are in your way. You even said that you've done it yourself.
--------------------
Like cannabis topics? Read my cannabis blog here
|
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]
#26873021 - 08/10/20 10:30 AM (3 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Honestly, I really do get a kick out of it when protesters act genuinely shocked that these things happen to them when they stand in the road.
Those that choose to "disrupt" society need to be adequately prepared to deal with the consequences. Especially if their goal is to dismantle at least some of, if not all of the law. When they're done, who do they expect to protect them anyway?
--------------------
|
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]
#26873043 - 08/10/20 10:44 AM (3 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
ballsalsa said: We know. You already said that you think it's ok to drive into a crowd and *slowly* hit them with your car because they are in your way.
Source, or make believe?
I didn't say I hit anyone or that hitting anyone is ok. I've driven through a crowd as they stepped aside for me.
-------------------- 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.
|
|