Board 8 > man slowly bumps into protesters blocking intersection, injuring nobody [video]

(+) Yeah! (+)

SmartMuffin posted...

Shooting into a crowd is illegal.

Driving on a road is not.

In fact, blocking a road is illegal.

Morality = legality, what an incredibly novel and nuanced and libertarian position you have there. If you're doing the whole "be dumb in a dumb topic for fun" thing then do it better cuz there's lots of people (see: OP) who legitimately believe this shit.

Shooting into a crowd is illegal
Driving into people is illegal

If there was a crowd of people in a shooting range you can't shoot them up and be like "but it's legal to shoot at a shooting range!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"
---

WhoopsyDaisy posted...

not the same

you're a fucking idiot

How is it not the same (you fucking idiot)
---

WhoopsyDaisy posted...

he accelerated when his car started being attacked

it's reasonable to have fear in that situation and react defensively

If you shoot around a crowd and someone comes up and tries to take you down, is it reasonable to shoot them in defense?

Again, explain to me in a simple sentence how this is different from the car example. Don't just say "it's not the same!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" because that is not an explanation.
---

WhoopsyDaisy posted...

LapisLazuli posted...

It says everything in.the world that the couple of people defending this are completely refusing to acknowledge thatcher accelerated, literally not even one peep about it.

Just plug your ears and pretens that detail goes away, eh?

he accelerated when his car started being attacked

it's reasonable to have fear in that situation and react defensively

i'm pretty sure I acknowledged that at some point? I'm not like hiding it or anything

His car started being attacked after he initiated the drive-thru. Like if he hadn't put his foot on the gas pedal in the first place then he wouldn't have been attacked.
---

So having your windows smacked is the go ahead to accelerate into a crowd of people, got ya.
---

SmartMuffin posted...

The model of society wherein the police are only authorized to act on behalf of the citizenry (i.e. libertarianism) suggests that if it's acceptable for the police to physically remove people from illegally occupying roads, then it's acceptable for private citizens to do so as well.

This is such a crappy argument by the way. One of the reasons for a police force to exist is that they can employ means and methods in a structured and controlled way which would be disruptive if performed by the average citizen.

For instance, if police bust into a drug trafficking site with guns ready, it's a sting. If private citizens do it, it's basically gang warfare.

What you're talking about is essentially vigilantism. That's definitely not permissable.
---

Emeraldegg posted...

WhoopsyDaisy posted...

LapisLazuli posted...

It says everything in.the world that the couple of people defending this are completely refusing to acknowledge thatcher accelerated, literally not even one peep about it.

Just plug your ears and pretens that detail goes away, eh?

he accelerated when his car started being attacked

it's reasonable to have fear in that situation and react defensively

i'm pretty sure I acknowledged that at some point? I'm not like hiding it or anything

His car started being attacked after he initiated the drive-thru. Like if he hadn't put his foot on the gas pedal in the first place then he wouldn't have been attacked.

Right. But he wasn't communicating any intent to harm their person, but they were.
---

What you're talking about is essentially vigilantism. That's definitely not permissable.

No, it's the police who are vigilantes.

Anything that is illegal for an average citizen to do should be illegal for the police to do. As was the case essentially everywhere in the civilized world prior to like 100 years ago when we decided to militarize the police force and grant government agents special rights beyond the scope of what the overlords allow to us normies.
---

Sceptilesolar posted...

For instance, if police bust into a drug trafficking site with guns ready, it's a sting. If private citizens do it, it's basically gang warfare.

I like how the natural analog to the protesters here is drug traffickers
---

WhoopsyDaisy posted...

Like what are you supposed to do, just wait? How long are you supposed to wait for people to stop blocking the intersection? How long was that guy waiting? I feel like you're not really thinking this through

man imagine if you applied this sort of thinking to, like, actual cases of discrimination and not just minor inconveniences
---

I like how the natural analog to the protesters here is drug traffickers

Yeah it's a pretty bad analogy because drug traffickers are peaceful people engaging in a voluntary and socially useful function, while protesters are unproductive wastes of space engaging in illegal and immoral trespassing for the benefit of nothing other than their own egos.
---

WhoopsyDaisy posted...

Right. But he wasn't communicating any intent to harm their person, but they were.

Somebody continuing to drive their car into you even as you stand in front of it is definitely communicating an intent to harm their person.
---

SmartMuffin posted...

I like how the natural analog to the protesters here is drug traffickers

Yeah it's a pretty bad analogy because drug traffickers are peaceful people engaging in a voluntary and socially useful function, while protesters are unproductive wastes of space engaging in illegal and immoral trespassing for the benefit of nothing other than their own egos.

..................
---

SmartMuffin posted...

No, it's the police who are vigilantes.

Oh, right, this is why I stopped getting into arguments with you. You don't know what words mean.
---

LapisLazuli posted...

So having your windows smacked is the go ahead to accelerate into a crowd of people, got ya.

You think they'd stop at hitting his car? You don't think they would've beat the guy up? Someone hitting your car with you in it is threatening your body. Someone driving 3 mph is not.

He was in a situation where his body was in danger and theirs were not. When they started hitting his car, it ceased to be ethically necessary to avoid harming them in about effort to avoid harm to his own body. This is called "self-defense"
---

HashtagSEP posted...

Somebody continuing to drive their car into you even as you stand in front of it is definitely communicating an intent to harm their person.

No, they are communicating their intent to drive in a location that is designated for driving. His intent is not to harm you, because he wouldn't continue to follow you and run you down if you removed yourself from the road.
---

Sceptilesolar posted...

For instance, if police bust into a drug trafficking site with guns ready, it's a sting. If private citizens do it, it's basically gang warfare.

Both of these are gang warfare
---

WhoopsyDaisy posted...

Right. But he wasn't communicating any intent to harm their person, but they were.

You go stand in front of a car with an angry person driving towards you making no attempt to stop, and then claim you feel like they have no ill intentions towards you.
---

WhoopsyDaisy posted...

LapisLazuli posted...

So having your windows smacked is the go ahead to accelerate into a crowd of people, got ya.

You think they'd stop at hitting his car? You don't think they would've beat the guy up? Someone hitting your car with you in it is threatening your body. Someone driving 3 mph is not.

He was in a situation where his body was in danger and theirs were not. When they started hitting his car, it ceased to be ethically necessary to avoid harming them in about effort to avoid harm to his own body. This is called "self-defense"

So, wait.

Somebody literally hitting your body with their car is not threatening to your body, but you hitting their car with your body is... threatening to THEIR body?
---

HashtagSEP posted...

WhoopsyDaisy posted...

Right. But he wasn't communicating any intent to harm their person, but they were.

Somebody continuing to drive their car into you even as you stand in front of it is definitely communicating an intent to harm their person.

No. It would have actually been easier to hurt them then to avoid hurting them. The fact that no one got hurt is proof positive that he was not acting with the intent to hurt anybody.
---

WhoopsyDaisy posted...

Emeraldegg posted...

WhoopsyDaisy posted...

LapisLazuli posted...

It says everything in.the world that the couple of people defending this are completely refusing to acknowledge thatcher accelerated, literally not even one peep about it.

Just plug your ears and pretens that detail goes away, eh?

he accelerated when his car started being attacked

it's reasonable to have fear in that situation and react defensively

i'm pretty sure I acknowledged that at some point? I'm not like hiding it or anything

His car started being attacked after he initiated the drive-thru. Like if he hadn't put his foot on the gas pedal in the first place then he wouldn't have been attacked.

Right. But he wasn't communicating any intent to harm their person, but they were.

Again, I refer you to your article, posted by me already btw:
"Video of the incident shows a small group of protesters in front of a blue sedan stopped at the intersection. When the car begins to move slowly forward, some protesters placed their hands on the car and tried to stop it. At that point, the car began to move faster and at least one protester jumped on the cars hood."
Standing in front of a vehicle does not convey intent to harm, unless you take "harm" to mean "Inconvenience." They did not start physically assaulting the vehicle until he had conveyed what the crowd considered his "intent to harm" to them by starting to move the vehicle.
Edit: By "intent to harm" here I mean that the crowd considered him as intending to harm them, even if he didn't mean for it to be that way. Driving through a crowd, no matter how slow, in my mind can be reasonably conveyed to mean "This guy might drive through us" whereas I don't really see how you take standing in front of a car to mean "These guys might attack me and my car"
---

foolm0r0n posted...

Again, explain to me in a simple sentence how this is different from the car example. Don't just say "it's not the same!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" because that is not an explanation.

See, SHM can't even give a simple answer beyond "NOPE NOPE NOPE NOPE" when faced with a difficult (but obvious and basic) question.

How does one sit there with a working brain, knowingly ignore the most basic questions to their position, and STILL feel confident in their position? I don't get it at all. Don't you think it's a bit weird that you have to completely ignore arguments instead of just proving them wrong?
---

SmartMuffin posted...

HashtagSEP posted...

Somebody continuing to drive their car into you even as you stand in front of it is definitely communicating an intent to harm their person.

No, they are communicating their intent to drive in a location that is designated for driving. His intent is not to harm you, because he wouldn't continue to follow you and run you down if you removed yourself from the road.

The second they begin to hit you with the car and keep going forward, it's definitely communicating an intent to harm.

Like, if somebody steps in front of your car and you bump them, there's no intent, no. But then if you keep going even with them in front of you, it becomes intent since you are aware of what you're doing.
---

HashtagSEP posted...

WhoopsyDaisy posted...

LapisLazuli posted...

So having your windows smacked is the go ahead to accelerate into a crowd of people, got ya.

You think they'd stop at hitting his car? You don't think they would've beat the guy up? Someone hitting your car with you in it is threatening your body. Someone driving 3 mph is not.

He was in a situation where his body was in danger and theirs were not. When they started hitting his car, it ceased to be ethically necessary to avoid harming them in about effort to avoid harm to his own body. This is called "self-defense"

So, wait.

Somebody literally hitting your body with their car is not threatening to your body, but you hitting their car with your body is... threatening to THEIR body?

Don't make him think too hard.
---

how long should i wait in a traffic jam before i just start smashing into the cars in front of me

they're stopped in a place that's meant for driving so it's okay

not to be a dick but i'm late for work so this question is kinda time sensitive
---

How long should I wait in a topic that ignores my posts before calling the TC an idiot coward?
---

WhoopsyDaisy posted...

HashtagSEP posted...

WhoopsyDaisy posted...

Right. But he wasn't communicating any intent to harm their person, but they were.

Somebody continuing to drive their car into you even as you stand in front of it is definitely communicating an intent to harm their person.

No. It would have actually been easier to hurt them then to avoid hurting them. The fact that no one got hurt is proof positive that he was not acting with the intent to hurt anybody.

Failure to stop doing something that can cause harm can also be intent, you know.

He didn't start intending to harm anybody, but the second he kept going despite having people in front of him/trying to stop him qualifies as intent
---

I'm not going to justify driving at 3 miles per hour into a dude (both of these sides are in the wrong here) but I will just say that yeah smacking a guy's windows with objects probably does have more potential for harm to the driver than driving into someone at 3mph. Like if you actually break the window the glass is going in and could cause damage. I definitely see a panic reaction as something that could happen there, especially if you're getting hit on pretty much all sides.

That's even ignoring the technicality of harm to your belongings being considered "harm" ethically.
---

Btw shm I think it should make you re-consider your stance when myself and several others are reaching the same end point of our arguments independent of each other. Like this is the 2nd or 3rd time where myself and SEP AND Lapis have all focused on the same point of your arguement at nearly the same time. Usually that means the argument in question is flawed.
---

Care to explain what similarities shooting a gun has with going "excuse me, pardon me, coming through" with a car other than the possibility of death if it goes badly? It's not even close to the same amount of danger
---

Lopen posted...

I'm not going to justify driving at 3 miles per hour into a dude (both of these sides are in the wrong here) but I will just say that yeah smacking a guy's windows with objects probably does have more potential for harm to the driver than driving into someone at 3mph. Like if you actually break the window the glass is going in and could cause damage. I definitely see a panic reaction as something that could happen there, especially if you're getting hit on pretty much all sides.

That's even ignoring the technicality of harm to your belongings being considered "harm" ethically.

I agree. However, the article lines out that such actions did not take place until the driver accelerated the first time. He was the aggressor, not the protestors, despite what those who are defending the driver would have you believe.
---

foolm0r0n posted...

How long should I wait in a topic that ignores my posts before calling the TC an idiot coward?

When he does so to you I'm pretty sure you've got the go ahead.

In this situation it was probably post 1, though.
---

WhoopsyDaisy posted...

Care to explain what similarities shooting a gun has with going "excuse me, pardon me, coming through" with a car other than the possibility of death if it goes badly? It's not even close to the same amount of danger

Why do you need more than possibility of death? Do you fully grasp what death is? Like it's a big deal. If someone points a gun at you, they have reason to believe you're going to shoot them. If someone is moving a car towards your person with no sign of stopping, they have reason to believe you're going to run them over. Why exactly do you need more than that?
---

Lopen posted...

I'm not going to justify driving at 3 miles per hour into a dude (both of these sides are in the wrong here) but I will just say that yeah smacking a guy's windows with objects probably does have more potential for harm to the driver than driving into someone at 3mph. Like if you actually break the window the glass is going in and could cause damage. I definitely see a panic reaction as something that could happen there, especially if you're getting hit on pretty much all sides.

That's even ignoring the technicality of harm to your belongings being considered "harm" ethically.

Eh, I'd say the chance of somebody falling in front of the car that you're driving into them is just as likely, if not moreso, than glass breaking and harming the guy. 3mph is slow, yeah, but if somebody's directly in front of your car and they fall, there's a very good chance you won't stop in time.

EDIT: Not to mention the high chance of running over somebody's foot
---

WhoopsyDaisy posted...

Care to explain what similarities shooting a gun has with going "excuse me, pardon me, coming through" with a car other than the possibility of death if it goes badly? It's not even close to the same amount of danger

There is 0 danger of breaking someone's legs or feet by rolling over them if you shoot above their head. You either hit someone and super hurt them, or nothing happens at all. And you can just choose not to hit anyone. There's no middle ground or accidental damage like with a car.

Ultimately it comes down to this which someone posted earlier:

Did harm come to anyone else? Not potential harm, but actual harm?

---

Making me 5 minutes late to work is actual harm, tbqh
---

WhoopsyDaisy posted...

Care to explain what similarities shooting a gun has with going "excuse me, pardon me, coming through" with a car other than the possibility of death if it goes badly? It's not even close to the same amount of danger

Like....

I think you are seriously underestimating cars here??

Have you EVER been right next to a moving car? It can be scary as fuck when you KNOW the guy and planned it.

Literally one misplaced foot next to a 3 MPH car and you never walk without a crutch again for your life.
---

SmartMuffin posted...

Making me 5 minutes late to work is actual harm, tbqh

Arguably if you had a necessary job, but you definitely don't
---

foolm0r0n posted...

SmartMuffin posted...

Making me 5 minutes late to work is actual harm, tbqh

Arguably if you had a necessary job, but you definitely don't

I make more money in 5 minutes than these protesters do in a month.

The market has spoken.
---

SmartMuffin posted...

I make more money in 5 minutes than these protesters do in a month.

Only rich people can afford to protest and if this was in LA chances are many make more than you
---

Don't you collect checks from the government you hate?
---

LapisLazuli posted...

Don't you collect checks from the government you hate?

you'd rather I take money away from people I like?

(but no, no I don't)
---

SmartMuffin posted...

I make more money in 5 minutes than these protesters do in a month.

Are you factoring in the money they get from Soros?
---

Here's another way the gun and car comparison is equivalent

How many anti-protesters have killed someone with a gun shooting around the crowd recently? ZERO
How many anti-protesters have killed someone with a car driving into the crowd recently? ZERO

It's not like there is a proven higher kill count to dispersing a crowd with a gun that would make it obviously and empirically a more dangerous and risky thing to do in a situation like this. They are both equally "safe". The comparison is totally fine.
---

Emeraldegg posted...

I agree. However, the article lines out that such actions did not take place until the driver accelerated the first time. He was the aggressor, not the protestors, despite what those who are defending the driver would have you believe.

Sure. Dude definitely started it, but I feel like his action was still in the realms of "peaceful protest" as I think his potential for harm was within the same neighborhood as the protesters were. They in turn escalated it, which caused him to escalate it in turn out of panic.

Main point is I don't double dip on faulting him by condemning him for speeding up.

And if you don't see how blocking an intersection has potential for serious harm, consider if someone being blocked had some sort of medical emergency and needed to get through. Is it likely? Not that likely, but neither is hurting someone driving at 3mph.
---

"I have this 2000 lb machine of metal, gears, flammable liquids, pulleys, and heat. I am perfectly justified in using it to 'gently push' along human beings."

Yeah in no way, shape, or form are you justified in using it as human bulldozer, slow speed or not.
---

Lopen posted...

Emeraldegg posted...

I agree. However, the article lines out that such actions did not take place until the driver accelerated the first time. He was the aggressor, not the protestors, despite what those who are defending the driver would have you believe.

Sure. Dude definitely started it, but I feel like his action was still in the realms of "peaceful protest" as I think his potential for harm was within the same neighborhood as the protesters were. They in turn escalated it, which caused him to escalate it in turn out of panic.

Main point is I don't double dip on faulting him by condemning him for speeding up.

And if you don't see how blocking an intersection has potential for serious harm, consider if someone being blocked had some sort of medical emergency and needed to get through. Is it likely? Not that likely, but neither is hurting someone driving at 3mph.

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding what you're saying, but I don't see how a driver having a medical emergency would make the crowd more likely to attack him unprovoked. It would make the driver more likely to get desperate and drive through, which would make the crowd more likely to attack him, sure. I mean if you want to make it a point that once he reached the point where they were attacking him, that it was "okay" for speeding up out of fear for his life, I think at that point, like someone else said, intent goes out the window for that.
---

I'm saying blocking someone from getting attention in a medical emergency causes actual damage, were someone desperately needing to get through

Like say someone has a massive stroke as a passenger in a car, they're a few blocks away from the hospital, and the protesters delay him from reaching for a couple of minutes and he loses use of both of his legs due to that bit of delay in getting proper treatment-- that protest directly caused paralysis from the waist down for a person.

That's a more direct example than anything that's likely to occur, but it illustrates how a protest like that one in particular can be more harmful than driving a car at 3mph could hope for. A protest like this one is very very borderline on the definition of what a peaceful protest is supposed to be-- there are ways to make a spectacle and get your message out there without literally clogging a roadway.
---

There is a 0% chance the crowd doesn't move to allow a medical emergency through if necessary. Hell the cops probably take them in their car.
---

Blocking major expressways as a form of protest is never good. You are deliberately hurting people, most of whom would probably be sympathetic to your cause otherwise. Unacceptable.

That said, you can't just run people over or try to move them with your car. I'd have gotten out of my car and screamed at them that my wife was in labor at the hospital or something. They'd have probably let me through.

And if they had stayed in my way, their cause dies right there once that gets on film.

PROTESTERS REFUSE TO MOVE FOR MAN WHOSE WIFE IS GIVING BIRTH is a pretty brutal headline.
---