cromulentenough:

socialjust-ish:

mccreezy:

socialjust-ish:

social-darwin-awards:

eliminativism:

rnmz13:

eliminativism:

rnmz13:

eliminativism:

siryouarebeingmocked:

blackoutcatharsis:

cisnowflake:

unaffiliatedpangolin:

southernsideofme:

Beep Beep Motherfuckers!!!

They made extra sure to get in front of the car because they were so sure nobody would run their dumbasses over.

If you stand in the road like this get fucked.

It’s really hard to be sympathetic here.

This is awful, honestly. Those are still people. And you guys are the same one’s saying not to punch Nazis yet, actively support running people over because they’re “inconvenient”?

Blocking roads is a dangerous form of protest. It’s even more dangerous when you actively put yourself in harm’s way by trying to plug a gap when you see a car trying to slip through.

The laws of physics are no respecter of persons, and they don’t give half a Hadron what you write on a piece of paper and glue to a stick when there’s a ton and change of Detroit metal Japanese fiberglass hurtling straight at your kneecaps.

I’m not even sure the car could’ve stopped.

Also, do you have half as much concern for the people whose lives the protesters disrupt? Heck, are you aware that a punch in the head can easily be lethal? Nazis, last time I checked, were people too.

Reblogging evidence of SYABM and others writing apologia for human beings getting run over by cars if they do something they do not approve of.

its rather hard to tell what the full context is, i.e. what was happening before that, could the driver have stopped or was it too late, etc.

It’s not too dissimilar from a burglar trespassing onto private property and being shot by the landowner with a gun. Was it really okay that the burglar was shot (and possibly killed) in and of itself? No, not really, but would it have happened if they hadn’t put themselves in a position to get shot? Again probably not.

I’m certainly not for committing acts of violence against people who disagree but unless the driver was at a stop and specifically decided to accelerate through the protesters you cant really ignore the protesters own hand in leading to the ultimate conclusion thereof.

The car accelerates as it approaches the white line on the ground.

Also look at the size of the crossroads. This car didn’t come around the tight corner of building – even if you have green light, you have to look out for pedestrians.

Running over a trafficked street like an idiot does not mean that the person is free to “get fucked” as some expressed it, it means that any car driver, if getting involved in an accident which he tried to avoid to the best of his ability but could not due to the behavioir of the pedestrian, will not be considered guilty and liable for damages.

That does not mean that if you cross the street where you are not allowed to makes you free game for anything a driver might do to you.

Pedestrian and car driver are not “equal parties”. The standards for the driver are higher and stricter specifically due to the voluntary usage of a car.

I agree, I’m not saying that the driver wasn’t being deplorable by plowing through those people, nor that the driver wasn’t at fault.

Anyone stupid enough to stand in the middle of a street for the purpose of obstructing it is certainly not deserving of being hit by a car, however they really don’t have much of a case to complain if in doing so if it was to happen.

At least where I live the law specifies that pedestrians are not supposed to be on the road except for in designated crosswalks or other unique situations. Moreover, cars and their drivers are clearly not supposed to be knowingly and willingly hitting pedestrians if it can be avoided.

I think its unfair to ignore any part that the protesters played leading into them getting run over by a lunatic piloting a four door sedan. Both the drivers and the protesters are at fault for what happened. And yes, the driver is most certainly held to a higher standard of conduct than a pedestrian, but again i don’t think that absolves the pedestrians of any responsibility.

My opinion has considerable overlap with what you wrote, so I think we have found agreement on the issue.

This is transparently saying “it’s okay to run people over if they are blocking the road, they deserve it.”

These same people somehow claim the moral high ground on “it’s okay to punch people if they are Nazis, they deserve it.”

Bear in mind that protesting is free speech just as spewing Nazi propaganda is. SYABM clearly places the ability to get to work on time above the lives of anyone who might be “in his way.” By that same logic, why don’t you say “do you have half as much concern for the lives of the people those Nazis disrupt?” Gee, I can’t possibly imagine why his mind wouldn’t go there.

@siryouarebeingmocked What an absolutely stellar display of the real motivations behind your rhetoric. Truly you are the most reasonable and rational user on this website. Consider yourself mocked.

It’s not too dissimilar from a burglar trespassing onto private property and being shot by the landowner with a gun. Was it really okay that the burglar was shot (and possibly killed) in and of itself? No, not really, but would it have happened if they hadn’t put themselves in a position to get shot? Again probably not.

@eliminativism, the above is likely legally untrue.

Some states have a ‘home is a castle’ law which removes any liability for such a situation – but I am somewhat sure those states only do it in the provision of self-defense. E.g., if a guy breaks into your house for the purposes of murdering, you can do whatever you want to defend yourself. If they break in to steal your jewelry and you shoot them as they’re running away, you will be liable.

You owe a duty of care to everyone who comes onto your property, invited or not. If you dig a hole in your yard and put bear traps in it, you are absolutely going to be liable for damages in civil court, and very likely criminal court when someone falls in, even if they fell in while on the way to break into your house.

It’s also likely the criminal will not be held liable for their own negligence. They’ll be charged for trespassing, but that’s a separate issue.

There’s a difference between protests and regular road conditions. Protests change the situation.

“Is it reasonably foreseeable that you might be hit by a car on a road” is a different legal question from “Is it reasonably foreseeable that you might be hit by a car on a road during a mass protest”, and the answers would likely be different. I’d argue the answer is ‘yes’ for the first, and ‘probably not/no’ for the second one.

This means that – as a protester (in a large protest), your standard of care is different from normal situations. Likewise, a driver’s standard of care would be different from normal situations. In large protests, a pedestrian likely has a lower/lesser duty/standard of care – imagine a parade, the streets are essentially blocked off and it’s reasonable to assume cars won’t hit you. In protests, the streets are also essentially closed off as soon as it gets large enough – which this one seems to be. 

In large protests a driver will have a higher standard of care. They know – or ought to know – the protests are occurring, and so if they want to use the roads at all, must do so at a more cautious pace, because there is an increased risk of possible collision.

Also, remember that to drive a car you need a license. This also means you are held to a higher standard than protesters because protesters might be dumb, but drivers are expected to not be, and know the rules. By driving a car, you are knowingly taking on a series of responsibilities – that’s what the testing is for. Failing in that responsibility – even if another person also failed – is more serious because of it. You are going “I was trained to be aware of situations like this, and despite that, fuck it” whereas protesters are in a situation of “I have no training, and this appears safe because of the large number of other people doing it”. Is that possibly silly logic, yes, absolutely. But it’s much less egregious than what the drivers are doing.

You can absolutely be both civilly and criminally prosecuted for running over protesters, and the protesters will likely not be held jointly liable (or if they are, it will be for a small percentage, such as 10%)

It is, 100% a crime (and a civil issue, and you will be held liable as a driver) to run over protesters in any situation except the following:

If you are in traffic, and a protest starts, and the protesters begin to try and break into your car/damage your car/threaten your or others life, and you cannot reverse out or drive forward without hitting individuals, then you can drive out. If you are stuck in traffic for 10 hours, but the protest is peaceful (or even just non-threatening) you have no legal right to run over protesters, no matter how stupid they may be acting otherwise.

Picking fights with people is not comparable to actively putting yourself in harms way.

In many nations if you block traffic and get run over, and take the driver to court you will lose, you were complicit in your own harm and are responsible for your own safety, endangering yourself removed all responsibility from the driver.

That’s great, you completely misread my post and showed an abject lack of understanding in legal terminology.

Picking fights with people is not comparable to actively putting yourself in harms way.

This is what I’m referring to when I say duty and standard of care. You’ve missed this completely because hey, you don’t understand legal terminology. That’s fair, you’re probably not a legal student/lawyer. let me explain:

Duty of care: Something you have to do. If you don’t do it, you will be sued, and possibly arrested. If you own a car, you have a duty not to hit people with it.

Standard of care: The level of ‘have to do’ that you have to live up to. If someone is driving safely, and some asshole jumps in front of their car, the driver has met their standard of care, and despite a breach of duty, they are not negligent or liable.

Duty of care is situational. You have no duty of care not to hit someone if you are the passenger of a car. Likewise you have no duty of care not to run people over if you’re walking.

Standard of care is also situational. This means that on a highway, you’re allowed to drive much faster than in a schoolzone. Driving at 100mph in a schoolzone and hitting a kid is an immediate and obvious breach of standard of care. Driving at 10mph and having a kid jump in front of your car is not.

When you’re a driver, you will have a higher standard, and more strict duty of care than a pedestrian, because your potential for harm, the foreseeability of that harm (only you know where you’re driving, cars hurt people) and the previously discussed licensing provisions all make it that way. I discussed this directly. I was not analogizing to breaking and entering. I was stating the law. I was just also stating the law on breaking and entering, because both use the same rule: Duty and standard of care. 

That’s what the law says. You’re not the law, I don’t give a shit if you think this is dumb, it’s the law, it’s been the law for about a hundred years now, it’s a principled and traceable approach that some nobody on the internet doesn’t get to challenge.

In many nations if you block traffic and get run over, and take the driver to court you will lose, you were complicit in your own harm and are responsible for your own safety, endangering yourself removed all responsibility from the driver.

“Many nations” also don’t use the common law, they use a civil law system. This means their laws were codified in a book, and that book is what the rules are. Most of the interpretation is done by academics and judges listen to the academics.

The US, Canada, the UK, and most other UK-colony countries use a common law system. This means judges determined the law based on what they felt their principles were, and then higher courts would either agree and cement the law into law, or disagree and change the law. Recently, much of our legal system has been codified in many of these nations through legislative action, making common law more of an interpretive exercise (e.g., this law says ‘don’t kill’, what’s defined as ‘kill’).

This means that the US, Canada, UK etc are on a completely different legal system, foundation and history than ‘many nations’. In “many nations” there are laws that:

  • make it illegal to be homosexual
  • make it illegal to protest the government at all
  • make it illegal to vote if you’re a woman
  • Make honor killings legal
  • Free speech as a legal concept doesn’t exist
  • Bribery of government officials is legal (and sometimes openly expected)
  • It’s illegal to freely and openly express your religion/certain religions

The relevance of other nations’ laws is zero, it’s irrelevant. You’re adding nothing to this conversation. It’s a tangent. “Oh if everyone else jumps off the bridge we should too!”

But even then, common law has a system in place for this idea. It’s called contributory negligence, and I directly touched on this in my discussion. It’s where I say:

“You can absolutely be both civilly and criminally prosecuted for running over protesters, and the protesters will likely not be held jointly liable (or if they are, it will be for a small percentage, such as 10%)”  

I discuss the idea of contributory negligence here. I concluded that based on the lowered standard of care for protesters, and higher standard for drivers, contributory negligence would be low.

This isn’t a matter of opinion on the internet, this is a matter of law, and it’s not even a controversial one, it’s been settled. There have been cases where people have hit protesters and they’ve been imprisoned for it.

But what the fuck do I know, right? I’m just a law student.

Here’s a forum full of lawyers laughing about how stupid this is as a question.

this (or well, the OP) isn’t about a question specifically asking about the legality of something in the US (or wherever you’re from). Yes, the system that the US/ UK etc. uses is different to many other countries. You found some examples of laws of other countries that are horrible. guess what, ethics/ morality and law are not the same thing, and this applies to the US/ UK etc. laws the same way it does for ‘other countries’ which you’ve declared the laws of as being irrelevant (when did we specify we’re only talking about common law countries again? does whether someone deserves being run over depend on where they live?).

A ‘random internet person’ doesn’t really get a say about what the law in the US or whatever is, but they do get to have a say about what they think is ethical or not ethical.

If the question is ‘can i legally run over protestors in the US’ then yes that’s an obvious and easy to answer question that’s pretty clear. If the question is ‘does this person deserve x/ do they deserve sympathy’ that’s not a matter of something that’s a settled legal matter.

that’s not to say i think they did deserve to get run over, but i’m just annoyed that a law student decided to first turn a question that’s not inherently about law but about whether someone deserves something in to whether they are legally liable, then say that THAT is a settled legal question in the country they are in and the laws of other countries are irrelevant and non-lawyers shound’t get a say about it, and act all smug about it.

Remember: You should always stop for protesters.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79BCG5dL4WM

(Note: Content Warning for violence. And I don’t mean “words spoken.”)

Remember: You should always stop for protesters.

The chaos forced Denny to stop in the middle of the street. Antoine Miller opened the truck door, giving others the chance to pull Denny out. Another man, Henry Keith Watson, then held Denny’s head down with his foot. Denny was kicked in the abdomen by an unidentified man. Two other unidentified men, who had led a liquor store break-in earlier that day, hurled a five-pound piece of medical equipment at Denny’s head and hit him three times with a claw hammer. Damian Williams then threw a cinderblock [4] at Denny’s head and knocked him unconscious.

Remember: You should… fucking run them over.

Now some idiot upthread said:

This is transparently saying “it’s okay to run people over if they are blocking the road, they deserve it.”

These same people somehow claim the moral high ground on “it’s okay to punch people if they are Nazis, they deserve it.”

Yes. Yes, that is exactly me.

And if you cannot tell the difference between

  • it is OK to use violence against immediate dangers
  • it is OK to use violence if I believe mean words will, at some point in the future, lead to somebody being harmed

then I don’t know what to tell you mate.

If a man pulls a knife at me, even if he has yet to strike, I will defend myself.

If a man tries to put me in handcuffs so I cannot defend myself against the knife he’s going to draw in a minute, I will defend myself

If a man tries to put me in handcuffs and I don’t know he doesn’t have a knife? I’m treating him as if he has a knife.

And if a man, with his twenty friends, try to slow my car down so I cannot escape later? That’s the handcuffs all over again. Fuck that man. Fuck his twenty friends. They would not have gotten run over if they hadn’t deliberately put me in a situation where immediate violence might be my only solution.

But if a man, and his twenty friends, are all shouty about how fags like me should burn in hell? I’m going to ignore him, because words aren’t actions no matter how often you fascist fucks try to confuse the two to provide cover for your violence.

Now is it sad when a burglar is shot, or a protester run over? Yeah, kind-of.

But it is super easy to avoid that: Don’t burgle, don’t block the road.

Meanwhile, it is almost impossible to avoid being punched for being a nazi, because “being a nazi” is so broad that it covers e.g. noted Jewish homosexual Milo. The only way to avoid being labelled a nazi by the fascist scum who call themselves “antifa” is to never speak. Donald “All my grandkids are Jewish because my children keep marrying Jews” Trump gets called a nazi. Richard “The KKK and the neo-nazis both hate me” Spencer gets called a Nazi.

Fuck. That. Noise.

No violent aggression, but immediate and unhesitating violence in self defense. ///

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s