stand on the highway, get run over...period...i have a job to get to or other responsibilities..they are other ways to get your voice heard...disrupting people getting to work or for other emergency services you immediately lose any apathy to your cause...even if it is a legit one
So it's justified to kill people who block traffic? Makes sense. Being on time is important!
Running through an illegal blockade is perfectly justified if your passenger is having a heart attack or if you feel your life or property are in jeopardy. Are you saying that it is justified to block access to hospitals and cause property damage because you are angry?
You can't kill people because you're property is at risk. Not sure about the heart attack one.
If they are smashing your car windows in you'd better believe you can defend yourself.
PJ said "property at risk" separate from life at risk. If people are banging on cars and break your window in the process, and then you decide to shoot one dead, good luck with convincing the jury your life was at risk.
And good luck convincing them that it was not in that situation. I've seen that scenario play out more often. If you are in your car and someone starts breaking out your window, I guarantee the castle doctrine would apply. Besides, do they have a conversation before hand as to what their intent is? All you know is that they are behaving violently and you can legally defend yourself and stop an aggressor from breaking into your home (in which the castle doctrine pretty much recognizes your vehicle as a home on wheels). And there are even laws from state to state that are different when it comes to when you can use deadly force to stop someone from committing a crime which includes property damage. I, personally, would not shoot someone if they were stealing my TV due to personal moral choices, but in some states, that is actually perfectly legal.
stand on the highway, get run over...period...i have a job to get to or other responsibilities..they are other ways to get your voice heard...disrupting people getting to work or for other emergency services you immediately lose any apathy to your cause...even if it is a legit one
So it's justified to kill people who block traffic? Makes sense. Being on time is important!
Running through an illegal blockade is perfectly justified if your passenger is having a heart attack or if you feel your life or property are in jeopardy. Are you saying that it is justified to block access to hospitals and cause property damage because you are angry?
You can't kill people because you're property is at risk. Not sure about the heart attack one.
If they are smashing your car windows in you'd better believe you can defend yourself.
PJ said "property at risk" separate from life at risk. If people are banging on cars and break your window in the process, and then you decide to shoot one dead, good luck with convincing the jury your life was at risk.
stand on the highway, get run over...period...i have a job to get to or other responsibilities..they are other ways to get your voice heard...disrupting people getting to work or for other emergency services you immediately lose any apathy to your cause...even if it is a legit one
So it's justified to kill people who block traffic? Makes sense. Being on time is important!
Running through an illegal blockade is perfectly justified if your passenger is having a heart attack or if you feel your life or property are in jeopardy. Are you saying that it is justified to block access to hospitals and cause property damage because you are angry?
You can't kill people because you're property is at risk. Not sure about the heart attack one.
If they are smashing your car windows in you'd better believe you can defend yourself.
PJ said "property at risk" separate from life at risk. If people are banging on cars and break your window in the process, and then you decide to shoot one dead, good luck with convincing the jury your life was at risk.
And good luck convincing them that it was not in that situation. I've seen that scenario play out more often. If you are in your car and someone starts breaking out your window, I guarantee the castle doctrine would apply. Besides, do they have a conversation before hand as to what their intent is? All you know is that they are behaving violently and you can legally defend yourself and stop an aggressor from breaking into your home (in which the castle doctrine pretty much recognizes your vehicle as a home on wheels). And there are even laws from state to state that are different when it comes to when you can use deadly force to stop someone from committing a crime which includes property damage.
That's just fucked up. It's one thing if you fear for your safety, but if the law doesn't even require you to make that claim...what a sad, fucked up side effect capitalism has on society.
stand on the highway, get run over...period...i have a job to get to or other responsibilities..they are other ways to get your voice heard...disrupting people getting to work or for other emergency services you immediately lose any apathy to your cause...even if it is a legit one
So it's justified to kill people who block traffic? Makes sense. Being on time is important!
Running through an illegal blockade is perfectly justified if your passenger is having a heart attack or if you feel your life or property are in jeopardy. Are you saying that it is justified to block access to hospitals and cause property damage because you are angry?
You can't kill people because you're property is at risk. Not sure about the heart attack one.
If they are smashing your car windows in you'd better believe you can defend yourself.
PJ said "property at risk" separate from life at risk. If people are banging on cars and break your window in the process, and then you decide to shoot one dead, good luck with convincing the jury your life was at risk.
And good luck convincing them that it was not in that situation. I've seen that scenario play out more often. If you are in your car and someone starts breaking out your window, I guarantee the castle doctrine would apply. Besides, do they have a conversation before hand as to what their intent is? All you know is that they are behaving violently and you can legally defend yourself and stop an aggressor from breaking into your home (in which the castle doctrine pretty much recognizes your vehicle as a home on wheels). And there are even laws from state to state that are different when it comes to when you can use deadly force to stop someone from committing a crime which includes property damage.
That's just fucked up. It's one thing if you fear for your safety, but if the law doesn't even require you to make that claim...what a sad, fucked up side effect capitalism has on society.
I like how you rock in the free world. rgambs for potus!
stand on the highway, get run over...period...i have a job to get to or other responsibilities..they are other ways to get your voice heard...disrupting people getting to work or for other emergency services you immediately lose any apathy to your cause...even if it is a legit one
So it's justified to kill people who block traffic? Makes sense. Being on time is important!
Running through an illegal blockade is perfectly justified if your passenger is having a heart attack or if you feel your life or property are in jeopardy. Are you saying that it is justified to block access to hospitals and cause property damage because you are angry?
You can't kill people because you're property is at risk. Not sure about the heart attack one.
If they are smashing your car windows in you'd better believe you can defend yourself.
PJ said "property at risk" separate from life at risk. If people are banging on cars and break your window in the process, and then you decide to shoot one dead, good luck with convincing the jury your life was at risk.
And good luck convincing them that it was not in that situation. I've seen that scenario play out more often. If you are in your car and someone starts breaking out your window, I guarantee the castle doctrine would apply. Besides, do they have a conversation before hand as to what their intent is? All you know is that they are behaving violently and you can legally defend yourself and stop an aggressor from breaking into your home (in which the castle doctrine pretty much recognizes your vehicle as a home on wheels). And there are even laws from state to state that are different when it comes to when you can use deadly force to stop someone from committing a crime which includes property damage.
That's just fucked up. It's one thing if you fear for your safety, but if the law doesn't even require you to make that claim...what a sad, fucked up side effect capitalism has on society.
Why, because you believe you should stand back and watch if someone tries burning your house or business down? That's perfectly fine too, no one is forcing you to stop them...
I've lost track of how many times I've posted this here: Love the quote.
It's amazing to me that so many rail against protesting government actions by means of civil disobedience. Especially people who will openly admit the system is broken, or that the government is chipping away at our rights. Does it really matter all that much if you're an hour late for work with a 100% legit excuse? No thought given to the greater good? So called patriot freedom fighters supporting the state (or worse: violence against protestors)because they are late for work, give me a break. We sit here wondering why the bankers have been allowed to cash 8 figure bonuses on the tax payers backs. Why no oil company execs are jailed for negligence when they destroy an entire ecosystem. Why militarized police are allowed to arrest senior citizens and confiscate their belongings for a single plant. Why we have no say in regards to our militaries bombing far off lands and putting our security at risk. We state our admiration for countries like Iceland that have successfully done something about it. Yet every single fucking time anyone protests anything that delays our rat race objectives, we condemn the people fighting for what they believe in. Every time workers organize, we talk about the detriment of unions on our economy. We bitch about our eroding rights and freedoms; mourn the loss of freedom to assemble, but bitch and complain about every unauthorized protest. We bitch about the surveillance state, but turn around and say 'if you're doing nothing wrong, it doesn't matter'. We bitch about rigged elections and the quality of leadership, yet take sides and fight for the lesser evil. We should all stand against injustice and with the oppressed, even if the injustice or cause has no bearing on our daily lives.
My problem with this is the people sitting here telling me all of the above (I'm inclined to agree with most of it) will also tell me how one protest is just and another isn't even when they share the common enemy.
The Indian protesters in ND have a valid cause, but so did the guys in the wildlife refuge.
Eric Garner was murdered by government agents.
Lavoy Finicum was murdered by government agents.
There's NO difference, even if someone's brain can't grasp that.
And it'll never change until we stick together. But we are divided, and we are playing right in their plan of divert and distract.
stand on the highway, get run over...period...i have a job to get to or other responsibilities..they are other ways to get your voice heard...disrupting people getting to work or for other emergency services you immediately lose any apathy to your cause...even if it is a legit one
So it's justified to kill people who block traffic? Makes sense. Being on time is important!
Running through an illegal blockade is perfectly justified if your passenger is having a heart attack or if you feel your life or property are in jeopardy. Are you saying that it is justified to block access to hospitals and cause property damage because you are angry?
You can't kill people because you're property is at risk. Not sure about the heart attack one.
If they are smashing your car windows in you'd better believe you can defend yourself.
PJ said "property at risk" separate from life at risk. If people are banging on cars and break your window in the process, and then you decide to shoot one dead, good luck with convincing the jury your life was at risk.
How old are you?
46. Please tell me how that's relevant. I've seen protests that disrupted traffic and people were jumping and beating on cars with no intention of hurting the people inside the cars. But convince me that I don't know what I'm talking about because of my age.
Illinois State law... one can use a firearm to stop a forcible felony.
Maybe you should look up what a forcible felony in Illinois is. Wait, here you go: (720 ILCS 5/2-8) (from Ch. 38, par. 2-8) Sec. 2-8. "Forcible felony". "Forcible felony" means treason, first degree murder, second degree murder, predatory criminal sexual assault of a child, aggravated criminal sexual assault, criminal sexual assault, robbery, burglary, residential burglary, aggravated arson, arson, aggravated kidnaping, kidnaping, aggravated battery resulting in great bodily harm or permanent disability or disfigurement and any other felony which involves the use or threat of physical force or violence against any individual. (Source: P.A. 88-277; 89-428, eff. 12-13-95; 89-462, eff. 5-29-96.)
stand on the highway, get run over...period...i have a job to get to or other responsibilities..they are other ways to get your voice heard...disrupting people getting to work or for other emergency services you immediately lose any apathy to your cause...even if it is a legit one
So it's justified to kill people who block traffic? Makes sense. Being on time is important!
Running through an illegal blockade is perfectly justified if your passenger is having a heart attack or if you feel your life or property are in jeopardy. Are you saying that it is justified to block access to hospitals and cause property damage because you are angry?
You can't kill people because you're property is at risk. Not sure about the heart attack one.
If they are smashing your car windows in you'd better believe you can defend yourself.
PJ said "property at risk" separate from life at risk. If people are banging on cars and break your window in the process, and then you decide to shoot one dead, good luck with convincing the jury your life was at risk.
How old are you?
46. Please tell me how that's relevant. I've seen protests that disrupted traffic and people were jumping and beating on cars with no intention of hurting the people inside the cars. But convince me that I don't know what I'm talking about because of my age.
stand on the highway, get run over...period...i have a job to get to or other responsibilities..they are other ways to get your voice heard...disrupting people getting to work or for other emergency services you immediately lose any apathy to your cause...even if it is a legit one
So it's justified to kill people who block traffic? Makes sense. Being on time is important!
Running through an illegal blockade is perfectly justified if your passenger is having a heart attack or if you feel your life or property are in jeopardy. Are you saying that it is justified to block access to hospitals and cause property damage because you are angry?
You can't kill people because you're property is at risk. Not sure about the heart attack one.
If they are smashing your car windows in you'd better believe you can defend yourself.
PJ said "property at risk" separate from life at risk. If people are banging on cars and break your window in the process, and then you decide to shoot one dead, good luck with convincing the jury your life was at risk.
How old are you?
46. Please tell me how that's relevant. I've seen protests that disrupted traffic and people were jumping and beating on cars with no intention of hurting the people inside the cars. But convince me that I don't know what I'm talking about because of my age.
You're cute.
That's your usual non answer. You're in over your head.
stand on the highway, get run over...period...i have a job to get to or other responsibilities..they are other ways to get your voice heard...disrupting people getting to work or for other emergency services you immediately lose any apathy to your cause...even if it is a legit one
So it's justified to kill people who block traffic? Makes sense. Being on time is important!
Running through an illegal blockade is perfectly justified if your passenger is having a heart attack or if you feel your life or property are in jeopardy. Are you saying that it is justified to block access to hospitals and cause property damage because you are angry?
You can't kill people because you're property is at risk. Not sure about the heart attack one.
If they are smashing your car windows in you'd better believe you can defend yourself.
PJ said "property at risk" separate from life at risk. If people are banging on cars and break your window in the process, and then you decide to shoot one dead, good luck with convincing the jury your life was at risk.
How old are you?
46. Please tell me how that's relevant. I've seen protests that disrupted traffic and people were jumping and beating on cars with no intention of hurting the people inside the cars. But convince me that I don't know what I'm talking about because of my age.
You're cute.
That's your usual non answer. You're in over your head.
Non answer? I gave you my reply. You said non answer.
stand on the highway, get run over...period...i have a job to get to or other responsibilities..they are other ways to get your voice heard...disrupting people getting to work or for other emergency services you immediately lose any apathy to your cause...even if it is a legit one
So it's justified to kill people who block traffic? Makes sense. Being on time is important!
Running through an illegal blockade is perfectly justified if your passenger is having a heart attack or if you feel your life or property are in jeopardy. Are you saying that it is justified to block access to hospitals and cause property damage because you are angry?
You can't kill people because you're property is at risk. Not sure about the heart attack one.
If they are smashing your car windows in you'd better believe you can defend yourself.
PJ said "property at risk" separate from life at risk. If people are banging on cars and break your window in the process, and then you decide to shoot one dead, good luck with convincing the jury your life was at risk.
How old are you?
46. Please tell me how that's relevant. I've seen protests that disrupted traffic and people were jumping and beating on cars with no intention of hurting the people inside the cars. But convince me that I don't know what I'm talking about because of my age.
You're cute.
That's your usual non answer. You're in over your head.
Non answer? I gave you my reply. You said non answer.
You said "you're cute". That's a non answer (now I'm asking myself again why I bother replying to your posts). That means what you wrote in reply has no substance. Your pattern is to reply with deflections, goal post shifts, and subject changes. Maybe try the Yahoo comments section.
I ask people questions because I'm curious about how people think. Sometimes that's called a discussion. You ask questions then you don't follow up. Why did you ask my age?
I ask people questions because I'm curious about how people think. Sometimes that's called a discussion. You ask questions then you don't follow up. Why did you ask my age?
I've lost track of how many times I've posted this here: Love the quote.
It's amazing to me that so many rail against protesting government actions by means of civil disobedience. Especially people who will openly admit the system is broken, or that the government is chipping away at our rights. Does it really matter all that much if you're an hour late for work with a 100% legit excuse? No thought given to the greater good? So called patriot freedom fighters supporting the state (or worse: violence against protestors)because they are late for work, give me a break. We sit here wondering why the bankers have been allowed to cash 8 figure bonuses on the tax payers backs. Why no oil company execs are jailed for negligence when they destroy an entire ecosystem. Why militarized police are allowed to arrest senior citizens and confiscate their belongings for a single plant. Why we have no say in regards to our militaries bombing far off lands and putting our security at risk. We state our admiration for countries like Iceland that have successfully done something about it. Yet every single fucking time anyone protests anything that delays our rat race objectives, we condemn the people fighting for what they believe in. Every time workers organize, we talk about the detriment of unions on our economy. We bitch about our eroding rights and freedoms; mourn the loss of freedom to assemble, but bitch and complain about every unauthorized protest. We bitch about the surveillance state, but turn around and say 'if you're doing nothing wrong, it doesn't matter'. We bitch about rigged elections and the quality of leadership, yet take sides and fight for the lesser evil. We should all stand against injustice and with the oppressed, even if the injustice or cause has no bearing on our daily lives.
My problem with this is the people sitting here telling me all of the above (I'm inclined to agree with most of it) will also tell me how one protest is just and another isn't even when they share the common enemy.
The Indian protesters in ND have a valid cause, but so did the guys in the wildlife refuge.
Eric Garner was murdered by government agents.
Lavoy Finicum was murdered by government agents.
There's NO difference, even if someone's brain can't grasp that.
And it'll never change until we stick together. But we are divided, and we are playing right in their plan of divert and distract.
Left wing, right wing, same bird.
I agree with a lot of your basic premise here, unsung, but the comparison of ND Native Americans and the Occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife (and the Bundy standoff in NV) is way too weak. Historically and for 500 years, the Native Americans have been divided, driven off their land, corralled into the life the Europeans forced them into and all but completely exterminated. And yet they still have to fight for their land.
The Oregon militants tried to occupy public lands that was never theirs. If they want to fight to give it to the rightful owners- give it to the Native Americans!
Same enemy? Maybe. But first of all, like I said- two different issues. And secondly, the USFS and BLM are here to stay until the whole thing collapses. If you're still around here for that, you will not like it as much as you think you might. In the meantime, your energies would be much better spent working to make those agencies more responsible.
Question, unsung: How close have you ever gotten to USFS folks? I don't mean to sound arrogant here, but I'm close to some very conscientious people who have work at high levels in those agencies. They admit there are problems with the system and I'm sure there are those with in it that I would not want to associate with. But the ones I do or have known are very aware, educated, concerned, hard working people who want the system to work well. Some of them work to preserve history. Some study tree genetics to understand what makes a forest healthy (my brother in law did that and lectured on that subject around the world and made a positive difference while he was with us). Some maintain the parks we enjoy. A lot of them do great work.
Until things really go to hell, I'm more for encouraging those good folks to keep pushing to make the system useful.
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
Illinois State law... one can use a firearm to stop a forcible felony.
Maybe you should look up what a forcible felony in Illinois is. Wait, here you go: (720 ILCS 5/2-8) (from Ch. 38, par. 2-8) Sec. 2-8. "Forcible felony". "Forcible felony" means treason, first degree murder, second degree murder, predatory criminal sexual assault of a child, aggravated criminal sexual assault, criminal sexual assault, robbery, burglary, residential burglary, aggravated arson, arson, aggravated kidnaping, kidnaping, aggravated battery resulting in great bodily harm or permanent disability or disfigurement and any other felony which involves the use or threat of physical force or violence against any individual. (Source: P.A. 88-277; 89-428, eff. 12-13-95; 89-462, eff. 5-29-96.)
I know what a forcible felony is, thanks.
What obsessive critique do you have of me this time because of what I said?
stand on the highway, get run over...period...i have a job to get to or other responsibilities..they are other ways to get your voice heard...disrupting people getting to work or for other emergency services you immediately lose any apathy to your cause...even if it is a legit one
So it's justified to kill people who block traffic? Makes sense. Being on time is important!
Running through an illegal blockade is perfectly justified if your passenger is having a heart attack or if you feel your life or property are in jeopardy. Are you saying that it is justified to block access to hospitals and cause property damage because you are angry?
You can't kill people because you're property is at risk. Not sure about the heart attack one.
If they are smashing your car windows in you'd better believe you can defend yourself.
PJ said "property at risk" separate from life at risk. If people are banging on cars and break your window in the process, and then you decide to shoot one dead, good luck with convincing the jury your life was at risk.
And good luck convincing them that it was not in that situation. I've seen that scenario play out more often. If you are in your car and someone starts breaking out your window, I guarantee the castle doctrine would apply. Besides, do they have a conversation before hand as to what their intent is? All you know is that they are behaving violently and you can legally defend yourself and stop an aggressor from breaking into your home (in which the castle doctrine pretty much recognizes your vehicle as a home on wheels). And there are even laws from state to state that are different when it comes to when you can use deadly force to stop someone from committing a crime which includes property damage.
That's just fucked up. It's one thing if you fear for your safety, but if the law doesn't even require you to make that claim...what a sad, fucked up side effect capitalism has on society.
Why, because you believe you should stand back and watch if someone tries burning your house or business down? That's perfectly fine too, no one is forcing you to stop them...
And I guess it's fine too for you to shoot them dead according to the law, but that doesn't make it right. I won't be killing anybody over stuff.
So if you come home and see someone running out your door with whatever stuff you value, are you going to shoot 'em dead? Do you think you should be permitted to?
stand on the highway, get run over...period...i have a job to get to or other responsibilities..they are other ways to get your voice heard...disrupting people getting to work or for other emergency services you immediately lose any apathy to your cause...even if it is a legit one
So it's justified to kill people who block traffic? Makes sense. Being on time is important!
Running through an illegal blockade is perfectly justified if your passenger is having a heart attack or if you feel your life or property are in jeopardy. Are you saying that it is justified to block access to hospitals and cause property damage because you are angry?
You can't kill people because you're property is at risk. Not sure about the heart attack one.
If they are smashing your car windows in you'd better believe you can defend yourself.
PJ said "property at risk" separate from life at risk. If people are banging on cars and break your window in the process, and then you decide to shoot one dead, good luck with convincing the jury your life was at risk.
And good luck convincing them that it was not in that situation. I've seen that scenario play out more often. If you are in your car and someone starts breaking out your window, I guarantee the castle doctrine would apply. Besides, do they have a conversation before hand as to what their intent is? All you know is that they are behaving violently and you can legally defend yourself and stop an aggressor from breaking into your home (in which the castle doctrine pretty much recognizes your vehicle as a home on wheels). And there are even laws from state to state that are different when it comes to when you can use deadly force to stop someone from committing a crime which includes property damage.
That's just fucked up. It's one thing if you fear for your safety, but if the law doesn't even require you to make that claim...what a sad, fucked up side effect capitalism has on society.
Why, because you believe you should stand back and watch if someone tries burning your house or business down? That's perfectly fine too, no one is forcing you to stop them...
And I guess it's fine too for you to shoot them dead according to the law, but that doesn't make it right. I won't be killing anybody over stuff.
So if you come home and see someone running out your door with whatever stuff you value, are you going to shoot 'em dead? Do you think you should be permitted to?
Are you hungover trying to post this? No one is saying this nor wants this to be permitted. Let us talk about prior to that person running out your door with your valued stuff...
I've lost track of how many times I've posted this here: Love the quote.
It's amazing to me that so many rail against protesting government actions by means of civil disobedience. Especially people who will openly admit the system is broken, or that the government is chipping away at our rights. Does it really matter all that much if you're an hour late for work with a 100% legit excuse? No thought given to the greater good? So called patriot freedom fighters supporting the state (or worse: violence against protestors)because they are late for work, give me a break. We sit here wondering why the bankers have been allowed to cash 8 figure bonuses on the tax payers backs. Why no oil company execs are jailed for negligence when they destroy an entire ecosystem. Why militarized police are allowed to arrest senior citizens and confiscate their belongings for a single plant. Why we have no say in regards to our militaries bombing far off lands and putting our security at risk. We state our admiration for countries like Iceland that have successfully done something about it. Yet every single fucking time anyone protests anything that delays our rat race objectives, we condemn the people fighting for what they believe in. Every time workers organize, we talk about the detriment of unions on our economy. We bitch about our eroding rights and freedoms; mourn the loss of freedom to assemble, but bitch and complain about every unauthorized protest. We bitch about the surveillance state, but turn around and say 'if you're doing nothing wrong, it doesn't matter'. We bitch about rigged elections and the quality of leadership, yet take sides and fight for the lesser evil. We should all stand against injustice and with the oppressed, even if the injustice or cause has no bearing on our daily lives.
I've lost track of how many times I've posted this here: Love the quote.
It's amazing to me that so many rail against protesting government actions by means of civil disobedience. Especially people who will openly admit the system is broken, or that the government is chipping away at our rights. Does it really matter all that much if you're an hour late for work with a 100% legit excuse? No thought given to the greater good? So called patriot freedom fighters supporting the state (or worse: violence against protestors)because they are late for work, give me a break. We sit here wondering why the bankers have been allowed to cash 8 figure bonuses on the tax payers backs. Why no oil company execs are jailed for negligence when they destroy an entire ecosystem. Why militarized police are allowed to arrest senior citizens and confiscate their belongings for a single plant. Why we have no say in regards to our militaries bombing far off lands and putting our security at risk. We state our admiration for countries like Iceland that have successfully done something about it. Yet every single fucking time anyone protests anything that delays our rat race objectives, we condemn the people fighting for what they believe in. Every time workers organize, we talk about the detriment of unions on our economy. We bitch about our eroding rights and freedoms; mourn the loss of freedom to assemble, but bitch and complain about every unauthorized protest. We bitch about the surveillance state, but turn around and say 'if you're doing nothing wrong, it doesn't matter'. We bitch about rigged elections and the quality of leadership, yet take sides and fight for the lesser evil. We should all stand against injustice and with the oppressed, even if the injustice or cause has no bearing on our daily lives.
stand on the highway, get run over...period...i have a job to get to or other responsibilities..they are other ways to get your voice heard...disrupting people getting to work or for other emergency services you immediately lose any apathy to your cause...even if it is a legit one
So it's justified to kill people who block traffic? Makes sense. Being on time is important!
Running through an illegal blockade is perfectly justified if your passenger is having a heart attack or if you feel your life or property are in jeopardy. Are you saying that it is justified to block access to hospitals and cause property damage because you are angry?
You can't kill people because you're property is at risk. Not sure about the heart attack one.
If they are smashing your car windows in you'd better believe you can defend yourself.
PJ said "property at risk" separate from life at risk. If people are banging on cars and break your window in the process, and then you decide to shoot one dead, good luck with convincing the jury your life was at risk.
And good luck convincing them that it was not in that situation. I've seen that scenario play out more often. If you are in your car and someone starts breaking out your window, I guarantee the castle doctrine would apply. Besides, do they have a conversation before hand as to what their intent is? All you know is that they are behaving violently and you can legally defend yourself and stop an aggressor from breaking into your home (in which the castle doctrine pretty much recognizes your vehicle as a home on wheels). And there are even laws from state to state that are different when it comes to when you can use deadly force to stop someone from committing a crime which includes property damage.
That's just fucked up. It's one thing if you fear for your safety, but if the law doesn't even require you to make that claim...what a sad, fucked up side effect capitalism has on society.
Why, because you believe you should stand back and watch if someone tries burning your house or business down? That's perfectly fine too, no one is forcing you to stop them...
And I guess it's fine too for you to shoot them dead according to the law, but that doesn't make it right. I won't be killing anybody over stuff.
So if you come home and see someone running out your door with whatever stuff you value, are you going to shoot 'em dead? Do you think you should be permitted to?
I'm not sure about you're "shoot them dead" statement, but I do believe you should be permitted to try and stop them if you choose to do so, by whatever force necessary. Also, who is someone else to say how much you value something? If they were running out with someone's safe with their life savings, or a gun safe, or their dog for that matter, I'm not going to question the property owner's choice to legally stop that person with force (which could turn out to be deadly). Again, I personally would probably just call the cops if it were something as invaluable as my TV, but a safe with my identity or something with more personal value...I would probably not just sit back and say "oh well".
No worries, Jose. Drowned Outs words are worth reading twice! And again...
"I've lost track of how many times I've posted this here: image Love the quote.
It's amazing to me that so many rail against protesting government actions by means of civil disobedience. Especially people who will openly admit the system is broken, or that the government is chipping away at our rights. Does it really matter all that much if you're an hour late for work with a 100% legit excuse? No thought given to the greater good? So called patriot freedom fighters supporting the state (or worse: violence against protestors)because they are late for work, give me a break. We sit here wondering why the bankers have been allowed to cash 8 figure bonuses on the tax payers backs. Why no oil company execs are jailed for negligence when they destroy an entire ecosystem. Why militarized police are allowed to arrest senior citizens and confiscate their belongings for a single plant. Why we have no say in regards to our militaries bombing far off lands and putting our security at risk. We state our admiration for countries like Iceland that have successfully done something about it. Yet every single fucking time anyone protests anything that delays our rat race objectives, we condemn the people fighting for what they believe in. Every time workers organize, we talk about the detriment of unions on our economy. We bitch about our eroding rights and freedoms; mourn the loss of freedom to assemble, but bitch and complain about every unauthorized protest. We bitch about the surveillance state, but turn around and say 'if you're doing nothing wrong, it doesn't matter'. We bitch about rigged elections and the quality of leadership, yet take sides and fight for the lesser evil. We should all stand against injustice and with the oppressed, even if the injustice or cause has no bearing on our daily lives."
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
Illinois State law... one can use a firearm to stop a forcible felony.
Maybe you should look up what a forcible felony in Illinois is. Wait, here you go: (720 ILCS 5/2-8) (from Ch. 38, par. 2-8) Sec. 2-8. "Forcible felony". "Forcible felony" means treason, first degree murder, second degree murder, predatory criminal sexual assault of a child, aggravated criminal sexual assault, criminal sexual assault, robbery, burglary, residential burglary, aggravated arson, arson, aggravated kidnaping, kidnaping, aggravated battery resulting in great bodily harm or permanent disability or disfigurement and any other felony which involves the use or threat of physical force or violence against any individual. (Source: P.A. 88-277; 89-428, eff. 12-13-95; 89-462, eff. 5-29-96.)
I know what a forcible felony is, thanks.
What obsessive critique do you have of me this time because of what I said?
You even quoted what I said, where is it wrong?
I comment on many of your posts because you're often wrong or your logic is flawed. Plus, you reply often so there's that reward!
The above is an example. You used "forcible felony" in your post when the topic was what's justified if someone is breaking your car windows. Breaking car windows isn't a forcible felony.
For me, it's not about being late to work or another minor (and defensible to the boss, etc.) inconvenience. That, I can't or wouldn't bitch about...small potatoes.
Yet, we don't know what others are getting through. Trying to get home to take care of someone. Dealing with an IBS situation. Worked an 18 hour day. Need to get to chemo, or deal with its aftermath. In labor. Loved one dying. Being driven to the ER for something ER-worthy.
Just saying, so many different situations where intentional blocking of passing through can have direct and horrific repercussions.
Honestly? Not sure how I'd react in the face of that, in that moment.
Comments
It's one thing if you fear for your safety, but if the law doesn't even require you to make that claim...what a sad, fucked up side effect capitalism has on society.
rgambs for potus!
The Indian protesters in ND have a valid cause, but so did the guys in the wildlife refuge.
Eric Garner was murdered by government agents.
Lavoy Finicum was murdered by government agents.
There's NO difference, even if someone's brain can't grasp that.
And it'll never change until we stick together. But we are divided, and we are playing right in their plan of divert and distract.
Left wing, right wing, same bird.
Sec. 2-8. "Forcible felony". "Forcible felony" means treason, first degree murder, second degree murder, predatory criminal sexual assault of a child, aggravated criminal sexual assault, criminal sexual assault, robbery, burglary, residential burglary, aggravated arson, arson, aggravated kidnaping, kidnaping, aggravated battery resulting in great bodily harm or permanent disability or disfigurement and any other felony which involves the use or threat of physical force or violence against any individual.
(Source: P.A. 88-277; 89-428, eff. 12-13-95; 89-462, eff. 5-29-96.)
I gave you my reply.
You said non answer.
Your pattern of reply has been to wonder how a perceived republican like me can type such things
The Oregon militants tried to occupy public lands that was never theirs. If they want to fight to give it to the rightful owners- give it to the Native Americans!
Same enemy? Maybe. But first of all, like I said- two different issues. And secondly, the USFS and BLM are here to stay until the whole thing collapses. If you're still around here for that, you will not like it as much as you think you might. In the meantime, your energies would be much better spent working to make those agencies more responsible.
Question, unsung: How close have you ever gotten to USFS folks? I don't mean to sound arrogant here, but I'm close to some very conscientious people who have work at high levels in those agencies. They admit there are problems with the system and I'm sure there are those with in it that I would not want to associate with. But the ones I do or have known are very aware, educated, concerned, hard working people who want the system to work well. Some of them work to preserve history. Some study tree genetics to understand what makes a forest healthy (my brother in law did that and lectured on that subject around the world and made a positive difference while he was with us). Some maintain the parks we enjoy. A lot of them do great work.
Until things really go to hell, I'm more for encouraging those good folks to keep pushing to make the system useful.
He was a poster that no longer posts due to frustration.
What obsessive critique do you have of me this time because of what I said?
You even quoted what I said, where is it wrong?
So if you come home and see someone running out your door with whatever stuff you value, are you going to shoot 'em dead? Do you think you should be permitted to?
No one is saying this nor wants this to be permitted.
Let us talk about prior to that person running out your door with your valued stuff...
"I've lost track of how many times I've posted this here: image
Love the quote.
It's amazing to me that so many rail against protesting government actions by means of civil disobedience. Especially people who will openly admit the system is broken, or that the government is chipping away at our rights. Does it really matter all that much if you're an hour late for work with a 100% legit excuse? No thought given to the greater good? So called patriot freedom fighters supporting the state (or worse: violence against protestors)because they are late for work, give me a break.
We sit here wondering why the bankers have been allowed to cash 8 figure bonuses on the tax payers backs. Why no oil company execs are jailed for negligence when they destroy an entire ecosystem. Why militarized police are allowed to arrest senior citizens and confiscate their belongings for a single plant. Why we have no say in regards to our militaries bombing far off lands and putting our security at risk. We state our admiration for countries like Iceland that have successfully done something about it. Yet every single fucking time anyone protests anything that delays our rat race objectives, we condemn the people fighting for what they believe in. Every time workers organize, we talk about the detriment of unions on our economy. We bitch about our eroding rights and freedoms; mourn the loss of freedom to assemble, but bitch and complain about every unauthorized protest. We bitch about the surveillance state, but turn around and say 'if you're doing nothing wrong, it doesn't matter'.
We bitch about rigged elections and the quality of leadership, yet take sides and fight for the lesser evil.
We should all stand against injustice and with the oppressed, even if the injustice or cause has no bearing on our daily lives."
The above is an example. You used "forcible felony" in your post when the topic was what's justified if someone is breaking your car windows. Breaking car windows isn't a forcible felony.
Yet, we don't know what others are getting through. Trying to get home to take care of someone. Dealing with an IBS situation. Worked an 18 hour day. Need to get to chemo, or deal with its aftermath. In labor. Loved one dying. Being driven to the ER for something ER-worthy.
Just saying, so many different situations where intentional blocking of passing through can have direct and horrific repercussions.
Honestly? Not sure how I'd react in the face of that, in that moment.
Oh, and Beavers.........you're cute as a button