You shouldn't be able to camp someone's house and chant at them. Even if they're not home. These people need to be arrested and given some real sentences. You can't harass someone like this and get away with it. (well, I mean, they do, but they shouldn't be able to.)
And in NYC, the extremist environmentalists were out in force to shut down the city. These people need some real prison time too. When you do stuff like this you shut down comerce and prevent ambulances, police and fire from getting to emergencies.
Nutters like these don't meet people in normal ways, I fear. Riots for them are social occasions and they do it instead of going to parties or church or where ever else normal people meet people. And there are so many riots these days that their messages don't get through because it's all just white noise at this point. Unless you're the people being inconvenienced (or dead thanks to a late ambulance) in which case you're not going to be sympathetic to their pathetic cause.
And this is not free speech. Free speech is writing a letter, making an Ad or writing a book. Not blocking traffic or showing up at people's houses with metaphorical torches and pitchforks.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
There was a march that closed down the 14th St. Bridge into DC once that had traffic tied up for hours. I worked at home that day, for other reasons, but had I been caught in it I would have sued the group in small claims court for my time.
And when I won I would have used the money to take out an ad telling people how to go about filing the same claim.
Dagonee
Posted by J T Stryker (Member # 6300) on :
If those people where at my house, a no tresspassing sign would go up real quick, along with a we don't dial 911 sign.
edit: spelling
[ August 28, 2004, 04:56 PM: Message edited by: J T Stryker ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
You can't shoot someone for trespassing on your land. You go to jail right quick for that.
Dagonee
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
Depending on the location, you have to be able to demonstrate you had reason to plausibly believe your life was in danger.
Using lethal force in defense of property is illegal - at least in Georgia.
-Trevor
Posted by J T Stryker (Member # 6300) on :
Legally, I only go to jail if I hit them, there is no law against sitting on your front porch shooting trap.
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
Yeah, right. Pull the other one.
Technically, it's illegal to discharge a firearm inside the city limits (Atlanta, anyway).
Whether you intended to hit them or not, a lawyer could argue reckless endangerment.
That's the fun thing about the law - it's all in how you argue it.
-Trevor
Posted by Da_Goat (Member # 5529) on :
Heh, one of the houses in Prescott has a sign up that says:
"No trespassing. Violators will be shot. Survivors will be shot again."
Posted by J T Stryker (Member # 6300) on :
I'm not in the city limits, the roads suck out here, but the laws are simpler.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Pixie, what was your big problem with the first group?
The man owns a large home. Some people came up and knocked on the door, asking to give him a letter saying "Please stop supporting this organization." When the doorbell wasn't answered they began some chanting and screaming to get some press. They probably assumed that the person inside was snubbing them in a rude way.
Is the first part any different than when any poll worker or politician comes knocking at more door asking me to vote for them?
The second part, while being rude, is not dangerous or evil in any way. Sure, they were just after some press time, just trying to get their message out. That doesn't mean they should be shot.
Is it rude? Yes.
Is it an effective way to convince some one to change thier mind? No.
But is it a crime requiring hard jail time? No.
now, the idiots who damaged the golf course or blocked traffic are common crimminals and should be arrested.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Dan, I take it then you have no objections to pro-life groups that picket outside abortion providers' homes?
Because that's always made me uncomfortable.
Dagonee
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
Sorry Dag - which one made you uncomfortable for purposes of this thread, the pro-life groups or the abortion providers?
-Trevor
Posted by odouls268 (Member # 2145) on :
quote: You can't shoot someone for trespassing on your land.
Sure ya can. You can't legally shoot someone for trespassing on your land, but that's not really the same question.
[ August 29, 2004, 06:13 PM: Message edited by: odouls268 ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Well, actually both do.
But in the context of this thread, it's the people picketing the abortion providers' houses that make me uncomfortable.
Dagonee
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Ya mean like OperationRescue. Then there's folks like CherylSullenger who has "given up terrorism". Now she spends her time photographing the children of those she opposes, then attaches the children's names and home&school addresses to the their photographs for mailers, public postings, etc
[ August 29, 2004, 07:23 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I mean what I said. You can talk about whatever you want.
Dagonee
Posted by bunbun (Member # 6814) on :
quote:Ya mean like OperationRescue. Then there's folks like CherylSullenger who has "given up terrorism". Now she spends her time photographing the children of those she opposes, then attaches the children's names and home&school addresses to those photographs for mailers, public postings, etc
Your account of Cheryl Sullenger's behavior is disturbing, but the links you posted are very partisan in their own right. To be honest, I am only moved _away_ from extremists, on pretty much any issue. If I am trying to make a strong case on a given point, I usually avoid calling the other side names or drawing attention to their personal flaws. This is because I like to present myself as a rational individual who knows what she's talking about, and so bolster my argument.
This approach, combined with good personal hygiene, has won some arguments for me. Also, I smell nice, and I keep my friends and stay out of jail. It's a win-win-win situation.
[ August 29, 2004, 07:42 PM: Message edited by: bunbun ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Welcome aboard, Bunbun. Nice name - I assume you're a sluggite?
Posted by bunbun (Member # 6814) on :
Not so much, these days. I liked the whole "my computer's been eaten by Satan bit," but being a one time mac fan, I couldn't stomach it for long.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Picketing in front of someone's house is a free speech issue. See, the streets are generally public property. But you can't just indefinitely use the roadway for picketing, etc.
Eventually, when you've had your say and are just becoming a nuisance, the beleaguered business or residence can get some sort of restraining order to keep you away.
There are laws in most major cities about having to register if you are going to have a large public assembly. They did that to stop rioting and to hold people responsible if things get out of hand, I suspect. And to give police some way to stop unruly protests that are not covered by a city permit (like the bicycle thing).
I agree that blocking traffic is a bad idea for protesters. It might get them press coverage, but it is illegal and generally just ticks off everyone who gets stuck in it. Plus the effect on emergency services is not pleasant to contemplate. If someone died waiting for an ambulance to arrive those people should be held accountable. For sure.
BUT!!!
Pixiest, when you call these people rioters, it makes me wonder if you've ever seen a riot or know what one is. You say they've been on the rise lately. Here? In the US? Just what events are you talking about? The public baccanals at some major universities perhaps? The stuff after the Rodney King verdict was the last even middling sized riot I can recall in this country.
England had a pretty good sized on in 1985.
But really, the stuff that's been happening in this country has been relatively mild and very localized. Not really worthy of the term "riot."
I wonder exactly why you would use such terminology if it wasn't to just be inflammatory yourself.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Bump
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Free speech is writing a letter, making an Ad or writing a book. Not blocking traffic or showing up at people's houses with metaphorical torches and pitchforks.
Public protests have been an important part of the US political landscape since the Boston Tea Party. For individuals and groups that can't afford to produce a commercial and buy advertising time, public protests are often the only way to get their side discussed and reported by the media.
Public non-violent protests have brought all sorts of important changes to the US including women's sufferage, civil rights, and the 40 hour work week.
Writing letters can also become harassment if basic rules of civil discourse are ignored. At some point public protest, like all other forms of free speech, can cross a line and become harassment. But to suggest that they are not an important aspect of free speech is to show an ignorance of the our history.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:If someone died waiting for an ambulance to arrive those people should be held accountable. For sure.
Is this really any different from a traffic jam caused by any other reason. If someone crashes their automobile while talking on their cell phone or trying to swat a fly, and the resulting crash keeps ambulances from getting through we don't hold the driver accountable for the deaths.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
No, but there intent wouldn't be to obstruct traffic illegally for their own gain, would it?
Kwea
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
From a legal perspective, downstream consequences of intentional tortious acts are more likely to produce liability than downstream consequences of negligence. The difference is very significant, especially since intentional acts give rise to punative damages.
Dagonee
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
quote:punative damages
We make them read the Smackdown threads???
Actually, I do see a big difference in liability between someone whose stupidity or lack of driving skill causes a death and someone whose deliberate actions cause a death...downstream as Dag said.
I would think the important thing would be whether someone could be shown to be negligent or willfully destructive. If you fail to safeguard against foreseeable negative consequences of your actions, that's bad. If you willfully ignore the foreseeable negative consequences, that's worse.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
I'm still waiting for Pixiest to define "riot" for us.
Posted by Jess N (Member # 6744) on :
I'm with Stryker, if they're in my yard, they're fair game. Actually, though, in Georgia you can shoot them if they make an attempt to get into your home. So, if they're hanging in a window as if to come inside, they're fair game.
I believe in free speech and the right to protest, but not at the expense of someone else's life and especially, not if you have nothing of value to say. Now I know value is relative, but a number of the protesters I've heard about this week seem to be motivated more by the opportunity to get on the news networks than actually pushing a real issue. As always, however, I will admit that my observations are only my observations and may end up rubbing someone the wrong way or actually be wrong.
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
We make them read the Smackdown threads??? ![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)