Jump to content
clapclapclap

Summer riots/protests damage & tactics documentation thread (no politics, please)

Recommended Posts

Get out the firehoses and dogs, they're trying to march without our permission again 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, elfenix said:

which are all just thoughtcrime.

If you are making the assertion that any efforts to disburse a crown is likened to an obstruction of their right to free speech.  I disagree with such an assertion.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

If you are making the assertion that any efforts to disburse a crown is likened to an obstruction of their right to free speech.  I disagree with such an assertion.  

No idea where the idea of forcefully disbursing a crowd to stifle their peaceful demonstrations could come from...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Brisketexan said:

Do you feel that way when the "person infringing on the rights of another person" is a police officer/government paramilitary trooper, say, one of those folks using a nightstick or teargas against an individual protester who hasn't committed or openly threatened to commit a single violent act?  Because if you get on board the train with that logical consistency, you might be surprised that most of the people here who you think oppose your take actually agree with it.

In these instances I try to think logically and imagine the whole world is just 2 guys in a room (as much as possible), and from there I play out the scenario. 

So in this example if there is one person chanting, yelling, singing, etc. and causing no harm, then it is wrong for person 2 to actively force person 1 to stop, through physical violence or force to person 1. I would include teargas as a physical deterrent. However, another person can actively discourage person 1 and has every right to do so non-physically if they feel they want to for whatever reason, since no person's rights are more or less than anyone else's. We're all equal. 

If Person 1 or Person 2 ever physically violates the other unbidden and unprovoked, then the "victim" has the right to retaliate to prevent further infringement against the initial perpetrator, up to the point where the first perpetrator is stopped for that FIRST action (i.e. this doesn't give them license from that point further to infringe on person 2 in perpetuity). If Person 1 damages or inconveniences Person 2's property (or property they are given charge over, see next paragraph), then Person 2 has the right to prevent further infringement and to prevent being inconvenienced by having to repair/clean/replace/etc their property. This includes the trespassing on Person 2's property uninvited and/or unwelcome. So Person 2 is in the right to prevent further infringement.

The nuance to this scenario is in the fact that person 2 can be agents for somebody else, as in they are law enforcement or agents of the local, state, or federal government. For this "somebody else" we can call them Person 3. Person 3 has deferred to Person 2 to represent them and given them charge over person 3's rights and property by proxy. So Person 1 is still in the wrong to damage or inconvenience Person 3's property, and person 2 is still within their right as person 3's representative to protect that property from infringement. 

As to the tactics used by person 2 to prevent infringement it should be limited to only stopping the initial offense. They shouldn't use teargas on people not infringing anybody and peacefully going about their business. The nuances there are either a) there are bad actors hiding among the peaceful actors or b) the lawful assembly is now declared an unlawful assembly.

In scenario a) Person 2 should endeavor to use tactics to not infringe on the peaceful actors if at all possible. However that doesn't mean they are not allowed to defend themselves or actively seek to prevent Person 1 from further infringement. They should try to be smart about it and try to not involve any innocents as much as possible. However the good actors become complicit in the infringement the moment they knowingly aid or abet the infringement of person 2 by person 1. In a perfect world they would aid person 2 in stopping any infringement of person 2 or 3's property by person 1 wherever possible, although they are under obligation to do so. In scenario b) once declared unlawful by person 3 and/or their proxy person 2, then now everybody is infringing on the rights of person 3, and teargas and other deterrents are allowed.

So like I said it's all situational. The too long didn't read answer to your specific question is "No, Person 2 has no right to infringe on Person 1's rights if they were there peacefully, lawfully, and not infringing on the rights or property of anyone else."

 

Edited by MillerEP

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Spankytoes said:

Yet you condemn all police based on the actions of individuals...

I don't have the power to "condemn" anyone.

I think most police officers are, overall, good individual humans. I reject the good cop/bad cop labels because the structure of policing (blue wall of silence, etc...) makes being a "good cop" functionally impossible. My evidence for this is the rarity of officers being held accountable for their actions and how common it is for officers to just watch as their co-workers abuse and kill.

3 hours ago, Hate said:

Bad a teammate asserted that there can be no violence against inanimate objects...ie the burning of cars, graffiti, and destruction of buildings is not violence. I’m paraphrasing of course, but the post is out there somewhere.

Property crime isn't violence. The law agrees with me.

It's just not.

It's bad. It shouldn't happen. But it's not violence.

2 hours ago, MillerEP said:

I am for some civic disobedience, but against law breaking.

If you're against ALL law-breaking then you're against civic disobedience, since civic disobedience involves breaking laws. Otherwise it's not "disobedience".

You're just against civil disobedience as a protest tactic, embrace it. Be free.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, has anyone found an example of a driver injured by protesters while sitting and waiting passively for traffic to clear up?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, BabaYaga said:

If you are making the assertion that any efforts to disburse a crown is likened to an obstruction of their right to free speech.  I disagree with such an assertion.  

it's bullshit crime used to selectively target people who aren't actually doing anything wrong, just like jaywalking and loitering.  actual wrongs: murder, rape, assault, mayhem, theft, arson, vandalism. not actual wrongs: walking around without a permit, crossing the street, smoking a joint. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, elfenix said:

it's bullshit crime used to selectively target people who aren't actually doing anything wrong, just like jaywalking and loitering.  actual wrongs: murder, rape, assault, mayhem, theft, arson, vandalism. not actual wrongs: walking around without a permit, crossing the street, smoking a joint. 

Your selective enforcement of certain laws doesn't really matter then as it compares to the Omaha leaders and how they view the current landscape.  Considering so many protests have escalated to include acts in bold above are probably the reason.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, elfenix said:

it's bullshit crime used to selectively target people who aren't actually doing anything wrong, just like jaywalking and loitering.  actual wrongs: murder, rape, assault, mayhem, theft, arson, vandalism. not actual wrongs: walking around without a permit, crossing the street, smoking a joint. 

Anytime a gathering is "declared" illegal there should be a public inquiry requiring evidence and the person responsible's job should be on the line for whether or not that declaration was justified as determined by an independent panel with law enforcement/prosecutors representing no more than half the panel.

There need to be standards and accountability for the government having the power to decide to suspend rights.

5 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

Your selective enforcement of certain laws doesn't really matter then as it compares to the Omaha leaders and how they view the current landscape.  Considering so many protests have escalated to include acts in bold above are probably the reason.  

A person who gets mad and drives through a crowd of people isn't doing so to enforce the law, not that it's his purview anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, bad_teammate said:

Also, has anyone found an example of a driver injured by protesters while sitting and waiting passively for traffic to clear up?

Did you not bother to look at the half-dozen or so videos already posted?  The guy with the american flag.  Cattle truck  in Tulsa.  Tanker in Minneapolis.  Shooting in Provo.  These drivers didn't attack and try and strike anyone protesting.  They were mobbed.  Some drug from their vehicles.  Other protesters hot when the drivers accelerated and tried to get away.  The protesters are blocking major roads.  There are no cones or signs giving warning.  You might crest a hill and have no recourse but to enter a massive crowd of people.  Some drivers have been assholes.  Some have don't little.  Some drivers made it through.  Some were torn from their vehicles.  It's a massive potential shit storm the city of Omaha obviously wants to avoid.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

Did you not bother to look at the half-dozen or so videos already posted?

Yes, and each one of those is a case of someone either driving into protesters (tanker, Provo) or otherwise starting a fight by getting out of their cars.

30 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

These drivers didn't attack and try and strike anyone protesting. 

Lying isn't going to help your case. It just makes people distrust your overall point because you're being extremely dishonest in getting there.

Be honest so we can have a productive conversation. Lying is unproductive.

 

Also, I don't know if you're a man of faith, but lying is a sin. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Yes, and each one of those is a case of someone either driving into protesters (tanker, Provo) or otherwise starting a fight by getting out of their cars.

Lying isn't going to help your case. It just makes people distrust your overall point because you're being extremely dishonest in getting there.

Be honest so we can have a productive conversation. Lying is unproductive.

 

Also, I don't know if you're a man of faith, but lying is a sin. 

Lying.  LOL  The irony here is remarkable.  Watch the entire incident.  The truck stopped.  He was returning from a fuel run.  There were no warnings up the road that the road was blocked.  Was mobbed, the driver panicked and accelerated out (and over) some of the crowd.  He was just released.  NO charges for any in the crowd.  Also no charges for the driver.  There is no way you are proving intent here.  The state may well try to drag this out and try and pin something on him, their only recourse that he veered right (as many drivers do when stopping to get out of the road).  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

edit: apparently MN DoT doesn't do a particularly good job of closing freeways

Edited by elfenix

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, elfenix said:

minneapolis tanker drove onto a closed freeway. not sure why you choose to lie about that.

Quote

State Public Safety Commissioner John Harrington said Monday that the driver was speeding and "panicked, and he just kept barreling forward" but did not breach any barriers put up to protect the protesters and was not aiming for anyone.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

Lying.  LOL  The irony here is remarkable.  Watch the entire incident.  The truck stopped.  He was returning from a fuel run.  There were no warnings up the road that the road was blocked.  Was mobbed, the driver panicked and accelerated out (and over) some of the crowd.  He was just released.  NO charges for any in the crowd.  Also no charges for the driver.  There is no way you are proving intent here.  The state may well try to drag this out and try and pin something on him, their only recourse that he veered right (as many drivers do when stopping to get out of the road). 

Who said anything about "intent"? The truck did not see the crowd and stop and wait, it drove towards/into the crowd. Your attempt to go into "intent" is an attempt to avoid the obvious reality of your dishonesty by reframing it.

So again, who has been injured by protesters while sitting and waiting passively for the traffic to clear?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, BabaYaga said:

 

sorry, the freeway was closed at 5 pm and i thought that meant, well, closed.  like, cop cars across entryways and directing traffic off the highway.  that was not the case.  i apologize for calling you a liar.

 

you'd yell at your wife if she drove like this, regardless of what was coming up:

(half a mile to go)

ezgif-com-video-to-gif-1.gif

(quarter mile to go)

ezgif-com-video-to-gif.gif

 

maybe it's the camera angle but it really looks like he sped up in the second gif

Edited by elfenix

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The dude either wanted to teach the protesters a lesson or is a complete fucking moron who shouldn't be allowed to drive. Either way, speeding a giant truck towards a ton of protesters on a closed highway is not sitting passively in traffic.

And if you're a protester on a closed highway with a giant truck coming at you and your friends, the difference between a moron and a psycho with murderous intent is 0.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
18 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

The dude either wanted to teach the protesters a lesson or is a complete fucking moron who shouldn't be allowed to drive. Either way, speeding a giant truck towards a ton of protesters on a closed highway is not sitting passively in traffic.

And if you're a protester on a closed highway with a giant truck coming at you and your friends, the difference between a moron and a psycho with murderous intent is 0.

 

Agree. But what exactly is the point of view you've tried to take her the last couple of pages? Tell me if I've summed it up right,

"Because nobody can link a youtube video of someone being beaten up by protesters and rioters while they sat in their car, that means it's actually never happened and sitting in a car amongst protesters and rioters, whether they are damaging property or not, whether they are totting semi-automatic weapons at the ready position or not, does not mean you are in a reasonable state of threat or danger and you should feel like a coward or a wuss for not only panicking, but also if you have a heightened sense of stress or fear or confusion."

Edited by Rougarou

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Rougarou said:

Agree. But what exactly is the point of view you've tried to take her the last couple of pages? Tell me if I've summed it up right,

"Because nobody can link a youtube video of someone being beaten up by protesters and rioters while they sat in their car, that means it's actually never happened and sitting in a car amongst protesters and rioters, whether they are damaging property or not, whether they are totting semi-automatic weapons at the ready position or not, does not mean you are in a reasonable state of threat or danger and you should feel like a coward or a wuss for not only panicking, but also if you have a heightened sense of stress or fear or confusion."

If you decide to carry a weapon to protect yourself against something happening that you cannot name an instance of, you are doing so out of irrational fear. And it is your right to act out of irrational fear, but be an honest person and own the fact that your decision-making is fear-based and irrational.

"Coward" and "wuss" are emotional terms you are putting in my mouth to create an argument/fight on the Internet. A huge problem with using emotional words like that is that they deactivate reasonable thinking and discussion.

I think it's dangerous for people to own, carry, and brandish weapons based on fears in general, and it's ESPECIALLY dangerous when those fears are irrational.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, bad_teammate said:

If you decide to carry a weapon to protect yourself against something happening that you cannot name an instance of, you are doing so out of irrational fear. And it is your right to act out of irrational fear, but be an honest person and own the fact that your decision-making is fear-based and irrational.

"Coward" and "wuss" are emotional terms you are putting in my mouth to create an argument/fight on the Internet. A huge problem with using emotional words like that is that they deactivate reasonable thinking and discussion.

I think it's dangerous for people to own, carry, and brandish weapons based on fears in general, and it's ESPECIALLY dangerous when those fears are irrational.

Fair enough; I redact the words "coward" and "wuss" and let the record reflect that accordingly.

I also will concede you have a strong point that if you cannot name an instance, you are doing so out of an irrational fear.

But, I think there could be some nuance there. I think one could be prescient or forecasting or hypothesizing or hazarding a guess at what, previously undocumented or untried, a new flavor or brand of threat could be, based on a new set of variables and stimuli coexisting in a specific beaker that's never been mixed before, and I don't necessarily think that is irrational.

Or, if it is technically irrational, it's only irrational until the first time it happens and you are ready for it. After that you are a genius or visionary and everyone gets 20/20 Monday Morning Quarterback hindsight and crows about "why did we not see this was the inevitability when you mix A with B and C in Z?!?"

Edited by Rougarou

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, bad_teammate said:

Yes, and each one of those is a case of someone either driving into protesters (tanker, Provo) or otherwise starting a fight by getting out of their cars.

Lying isn't going to help your case. It just makes people distrust your overall point because you're being extremely dishonest in getting there.

Be honest so we can have a productive conversation. Lying is unproductive.

 

Also, I don't know if you're a man of faith, but lying is a sin. 

You lied about the amount of violence in the Portland riots. You were dishonest and I distrust your points.

Also, blocking the street and trapping drivers and cars is a-ok, but getting out of your car when blocked by said protest is grounds for a fight?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

M4v6SvM.gif

1 minute ago, Rougarou said:

But, I think there could be some nuance there. I think one could be prescient or forecasting or hypothesizing or hazarding a guess at what, previously undocumented or untried, a new flavor or brand of threat could be, based on a new set of variables and stimuli coexisting in a specific beaker that's never been mixed before, and I don't necessarily think that is irrational.

On what would we base the idea of anti-racist protesters pulling people out of their cars to assault them when the people were just sitting there waiting passively? That has to come from somewhere to be a rational deduction.

I can use my imagination to get there, sure, but I can use my imagination to get anywhere.

A rational deduction would be, "since anti-racist protesters have been violent towards bystanders in X, Y, and Z circumstances, then it's logical to presume that they will eventually be violent in V(ehicle) circumstance."

The problem there is that anti-racist protesters have NOT been violent towards bystanders. So we're left with where we were, which is irrational fear.

1 minute ago, Enchubben said:

You lied about the amount of violence in the Portland riots.

I said the Portland protests were non-violent; which is true, they are non-violent and they have been non-violent. I specifically said that the existence of ANY violence in a protest doesn't make the entire thing "violent". If I punch somebody in church that doesn't make my church's services "violent", it means a rare act of violence happened in an overall-non-violent place.

To call a demonstration "violent" dispassionately there needs to be a critical mass of violence. Since property destruction doesn't count as violence, then the tiny handful of violent acts by protesters in Portland doesn't outweigh the overall non-violent nature of the protests.

I hope this helps. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
15 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

M4v6SvM.gif

On what would we base the idea of anti-racist protesters pulling people out of their cars to assault them when the people were just sitting there waiting passively? That has to come from somewhere to be a rational deduction.

I can use my imagination to get there, sure, but I can use my imagination to get anywhere.

A rational deduction would be, "since anti-racist protesters have been violent towards bystanders in X, Y, and Z circumstances, then it's logical to presume that they will eventually be violent in V(ehicle) circumstance."

The problem there is that anti-racist protesters have NOT been violent towards bystanders. So we're left with where we were, which is irrational fear.

I think it helps to classify the data into two sets. Let's call Set 1: anti-racist protesters and lets call Set 2: destructive rioters.

Next let's try and cluster these two data sets around time/place/event so we know which data set to avoid because of rational deduction of violence (i.e. destructive rioters) and which we can engage around without irrational fear (i.e. anti-racist protesters). Oh? We can't make a clear distinction? I guess then, in an abundance of caution (because we are dealing with human lives and property) we should treat all these as unknowns with similar nominal characteristics and default to potentially dangerous. Call it the Law of the Poisoned Well, if you will.

So there, you see how one could rationally deduce where you couldn't see a natural pattern or logistical flow-- because you were working under the faulty premise that there is only persona participating in these affairs, after-hours, and with semi-automatic rifle openly carried.

Now, add in a flavor of competing ideologies (e.g. John from Finance is a MAGA guy who drives a car with a Trump2020 or Thin Blue Line sticker on his car, but otherwise wants no trouble and happens to find himself in the middle of a protest, legally sanctioned or otherwise) and you have more cause for the rational deduction you are denying exists. 

Edited by Rougarou

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"What could possibly go wrong with letting protesters stop vehicles?" - Reginald Denny. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So...that first horribly incriminating video of the jacked up truck with multiple flags driving right through the middle of a BLM protest....you really think that helps your argument here?  You don't think that it's maybe, kinda sorta, POSSIBLE, that Ricky Redneck was driving right through the protest to taunt people and start some shit?
No, that doesn't justify a violent response.....but it was damned sure intended to provoke a response.  The bear shouldn't bite you.  But if you poke the bear, you're a fucking asshole.
When you go out looking for trouble, you shouldn't feign shock, surprise, and anger when you find it.


Sorta like attacking federal buildings provokes a federal response. #bothsides

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Also, has anyone found an example of a driver injured by protesters while sitting and waiting passively for traffic to clear up?


Damage to mental health. Micro-aggressions brah.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, bad_teammate said:

Have even "destructive rioters" been assaulting bystanders?

I don't think there is a lot of data there. I don't think we have seen a lot of situations involving what I would call bystanders. People engaged and involved where those folks are engaging in their destruction are onboard and agreeable to being there and with what is going on, right?

I do think that bystanders property have been the victim of destruction, from what I've seen. Burned up cars or graffiti'ed vehicles that were parked in the streets, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Any human in physical proximity to a demonstration where they can sense it (hearing or seeing or feeling) is a bystander, a person who is present at an event or incident but does not take part.

There are a lot of situations with demonstrators blocking the streets and people just sitting in the traffic and waiting patiently for it to clear up. And demonstrators marching through an area where people live/shop/eat/work and people stand by while the demonstration happens. These are all bystanders.

My take, which I do not think is unreasonable, is that if a significant portion of BLM/anti-racist demonstrators were "violent" we would have a lot of dead and injured bystanders. We don't, so either they are trying to hurt people and failing (ANTIFA chasing innocent people but ending up entangled in the street in a cartoon cloud of limbs and dust) or they aren't actually trying to hurt people.

A co-worker said that the media is at fault for Corona panic because if it wasn't for mass media peddling the story most of us would just think this is a particularly nasty flu based on what we would be observing. His logic is sound (though his takeaways were not), and it applies here. If it weren't for a fear-product media, why would anyone living in basically any suburb anywhere feel threatened by this? There are probably 50 total city blocks in America that have been torn up even with property damage from this, much less actual violence. 3 of those are in Portland, which has been the subject of breathless media fear-mongering for weeks (and really it's like 1 or 2 in Portland).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Any human in physical proximity to a demonstration where they can sense it (hearing or seeing or feeling) is a bystander, a person who is present at an event or incident but does not take part.

There are a lot of situations with demonstrators blocking the streets and people just sitting in the traffic and waiting patiently for it to clear up. And demonstrators marching through an area where people live/shop/eat/work and people stand by while the demonstration happens. These are all bystanders.

My take, which I do not think is unreasonable, is that if a significant portion of BLM/anti-racist demonstrators were "violent" we would have a lot of dead and injured bystanders. We don't, so either they are trying to hurt people and failing (ANTIFA chasing innocent people but ending up entangled in the street in a cartoon cloud of limbs and dust) or they aren't actually trying to hurt people.

A co-worker said that the media is at fault for Corona panic because if it wasn't for mass media peddling the story most of us would just think this is a particularly nasty flu based on what we would be observing. His logic is sound (though his takeaways were not), and it applies here. If it weren't for a fear-product media, why would anyone living in basically any suburb anywhere feel threatened by this? There are probably 50 total city blocks in America that have been torn up even with property damage from this, much less actual violence. 3 of those are in Portland, which has been the subject of breathless media fear-mongering for weeks (and really it's like 1 or 2 in Portland).

The media coverage is a 3X relationship of “breathless fear-mongering” and “mostly peaceful escalated” excuse making.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Rumor mill is there is going to be large protests at the UT tower and Austin PD downtown tonight, and that a few buses full of protesters arrived last night and they're staging across I-35. Rumor is they're going after APD HQ. Word got out so they've been increasing police presence and the Guard in case it gets out of hand. But either way if true (not sure it is) then you may want to avoid downtown traffic-wise.

Edited by MillerEP

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Funding protests in capitol cities isn't an unprecedented tactic, though. A recent NYT article discussed the funding behind a recent protest movement.

Seems weird that these buses and protesters haven't been photographed yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, MillerEP said:

 few buses full of protesters arrived last night 

every town in texas has had 'bus loads' protesters show up, allegedly. i need to see proof

several weeks back and guy in silsbee told me the locals were ready patrol the streets because 'bus loads' of protesters were showing up  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought the Portland protests were about the Fed occupation, and would stop once the Feds left..LOL

Even though they had been going on for over month before the FEDs showed up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/31/2020 at 1:09 PM, bad_teammate said:

I don't have the power to "condemn" anyone.

I think most police officers are, overall, good individual humans. I reject the good cop/bad cop labels because the structure of policing (blue wall of silence, etc...) makes being a "good cop" functionally impossible. My evidence for this is the rarity of officers being held accountable for their actions and how common it is for officers to just watch as their co-workers abuse and kill.

Property crime isn't violence. The law agrees with me.

It's just not.

It's bad. It shouldn't happen. But it's not violence.

If you're against ALL law-breaking then you're against civic disobedience, since civic disobedience involves breaking laws. Otherwise it's not "disobedience".

You're just against civil disobedience as a protest tactic, embrace it. Be free.

Not entirely...

Quote

Property Crimes

Although property crimes are generally considered to be a separate category of offenses, criminal laws have designated the crime of arson as one type of property crime that is so harmful as to constitute a violent crime. Arson involves the intentional burning of the building of another, often a personal home or property. Since arson is such a destructive crime, it is punished harshly under criminal laws.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

there's violent crime, there's property crime, and then there's arson. which gets a tick mark under the arson column and also a tick mark under whatever the more important of the other two categories is.  so, if you intentionally set fire to someone's house with the requisite intent for murder, and end up killing someone, that's counted as both a violent crime and arson.  if you set someone else's house on fire with the requisite intent to murder but no one is home so no one dies, then it's counted as both arson and a property crime.  i literally posted the link at the top of this page.

Edited by elfenix

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/31/2020 at 3:26 PM, bad_teammate said:

Yes, and each one of those is a case of someone either driving into protesters (tanker, Provo) or otherwise starting a fight by getting out of their cars.

Lying isn't going to help your case. It just makes people distrust your overall point because you're being extremely dishonest in getting there.

Be honest so we can have a productive conversation. Lying is unproductive.

 

Also, I don't know if you're a man of faith, but lying is a sin. 

Serious question.

Is there ANYONE on this board that would have let those protesters completely stop your vehicle in either of these situations?  Best case, it's just a beating you get. More likely, life changing injuries or death. 

Down thread it show a freeway-cam of the big rig a 1/2 mile back and there are NO Cops, NO cones, No DOT signs warning that the road is closed, nothing.  I'm really surprised the truck was the only vehicle to keep driving straight.  

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Brothahorn said:

I thought the Portland protests were about the Fed occupation, and would stop once the Feds left.

No, you didn't think this. Literally no one thought this.

What the fuck are you talking about?

36 minutes ago, 0xdeadbeef said:

Is there ANYONE on this board that would have let those protesters completely stop your vehicle in either of these situations?  Best case, it's just a beating you get. More likely, life changing injuries or death. 

 

"in either of these situations" is doing quite a bit of work here.

I can't answer because I'd never drive into a crowd of people. I would stop and wait for them to disperse because I'm not a complete fucking lunatic.

Quote

Down thread it show a freeway-cam of the big rig a 1/2 mile back and there are NO Cops, NO cones, No DOT signs warning that the road is closed, nothing.  I'm really surprised the truck was the only vehicle to keep driving straight.  

Everyone was exiting, there were people standing there directing traffic to the exit, and there were cars parked perpendicular to the roadway in front of him and a MASSIVE crowd that, if you couldn't see from 200 yards away, you shouldn't be operating a vehicle. He had to leave the lanes of traffic to continue forward.

Come on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Message Board User said:

 

I remember you complaining about today’s discourse having no substance the other day as you post tweets. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


mpu


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Recruiting ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Help ... For Sale ... Politics ... Board Discussion
×
×
  • Create New...