BLM - the narrative is simply false

popper · Jun 4, 2020

Rights to free speech, peaceably assemble, etc... like what happened on the Margaret Hunt Bridge here in Dallas. It’s a problem.
Yes, it's a problem. That the Judge required letting them go vs the nite in jail!
Purposely impeding the flow of traffic on a public road is illegal as well as dangerous. Peaceably assemble while putting yourself or OTHERS in danger is STUPID!! Telling your children to go protest on a matter they know nothing about is STUPID.
Kinda cowardly also! It's all about 'black power' as the 50s and 60s groups stated. Politicians using it for their own purposes. Yes, When the King says you're on his property he gets you arrested, maybe even killed. But we don't (supposedly) have a King. And it seems like most media and politicians WANT one.

General Zod · Jun 4, 2020

Younggun said:
You have no right to stop someone’s travel and force them to listen to you. Your right is to speak, not to be heard by me.

This, right here.

Rhino, you dismiss a mob impeding others' right to travel freely as an "inconvenience". That's the same argument the anti-2A crowd makes about bans on scary looking guns, magazine capacity restrictions, "universal" background checks...

Younggun · Jun 4, 2020

Rhino said:
I think protests can take varying forms, including disruptive measures as long as they don't harm your property or intentionally impede the path of a medical emergency. In the case of the recent Dallas County "orders" the ONLY way to assemble for redress of grievances was to presumably "break" the "orders" which forbade gathering. So would you say that exercising the freedom of assembly is civil disobedience in that case, too? I say no, that the "order" used to make it illegal contradicts the higher law of the land and is only "color" of law.

Being that we have a right to *peaceably* assemble, lockdowns banning such and activity are obviously unconstitutional.

You’re attempting to limit the definition of “harm” though. A contractor that can’t reach his job site is harmed. Someone from the power company that can’t get to an outage causes harm. Someone who has to pay extra to the daycare because they couldn’t pick up their kid on time is harmed.

You say the impedance of emergent vehicles only count if it’s intentional. So does that mean it’s not harmful if it results in someone’s death?

Forgotten already? https://www.businessinsider.com/ang...e-traffic-jam-to-protest-whitmer-order-2020-4

Those people were wrong. But the fact you have only one example and only under extremely specific circumstances is very telling. It almost makes my point for me.

There are a lot of underlying presumptions in your reply.

Issues:
1. Are we presuming public roads are a "right"? What about private roads?

Yes. Everyone operating under the rules specified has the right to use public roads.

Private roads are just that. They operate under the rules of those who own them.

2. What about a situation where there is no "public" space, only private property? Does the king get to arrest you for protest simply because you are on one of his noble's property

So property owners who don’t want trespassers standing and yelling on their property are “nobles” of the king now?

Go protest somewhere else. You have no right to stand on my land. And yes, you should be arrested if you refuse to leave. Go protest at the park or something.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Mowingmaniac 24/7 · Jun 4, 2020

Rhino,

Justifying rioting and looting as legitimate protesting is not logical.

I'm so glad we have an 'ignore' option here.

Rhino · Jun 4, 2020

Sigh. Take the high “road” folks.

Rhino · Jun 4, 2020

Mowingmaniac 24/7 said:
Rhino,

Justifying rioting and looting as legitimate protesting is not logical.

I'm so glad we have an 'ignore' option here.

Where did I justify rioting and looting? That’s pretty offensive.

I even said I think it’s imprudent to block a highway, but on principle I don’t believe it should be actually illegal.

jrbfishn · Jun 4, 2020

Rhino said:
Where did I justify rioting and looting? That’s pretty offensive.

I even said I think it’s imprudent to block a highway, but on principle I don’t believe it should be actually illegal.

Show me where anyone has the right to forcibly restrain or detain others and force them to listen to a message.
When they are gathered on the side of the road with a sign or megaphone, they are protesting. When they force traffic to stop where they have no escape, especially if they attack when you try or don't like their message, they are forcibly retraining and/or detaining.
That is, and should be, illegal.

Sent by an idjit coffeeholic from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk

Whistler · Jun 4, 2020

Well just so we're clear - if you exercising your right infringes on mine or creates a dangerous situation for me or mine, my response will be somewhat less than peaceful. Fair warned.
:torched:

Rhino · Jun 4, 2020

Whistler said:
Well just so we're clear - if you exercising your right infringes on mine or creates a dangerous situation for me or mine, my response will be somewhat less than peaceful. Fair warned.

You sound like the people that try to shut down gun ranges and run HOAs.

Whistler · Jun 4, 2020

No I sound like people that don't think you have the right to conduct your 'peaceful' protest in the middle of the freeway.

One of the primary criteria of every home I've purchased was No HOA.

Those people that move in next to a gun range then complain about it are idiots. If you don't want to live next to a gun range don't buy a house next to a gun range.

I get you think people should be able to peaceably assemble anywhere they want, in intersections, overpasses or my front yard but its not a valid comparison and all the hyperbole in the world won't save your argument.

Rhino · Jun 4, 2020

You have to understand that people in neighborhoods like mine believe that the roads (often taken by force / eminent domain) are part of the problem...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ve-become-the-center-of-civil-rights-protest/

...and thus are also fair game in the solution.

DoubleDuty · Jun 4, 2020

Sorry, but they aren't

Whistler · Jun 4, 2020

LOL the Washington Post but I extended the courtesy of reading that 'story'. So its valid because it brings commerce to a halt and immediately garners signficant attention. I see... (we'll ignore the fallacies for purposes of this discussion)

So does that make other infrastructure valid 'targets' as well? Water plants? Electric power plants? Airports and air traffic control? Navigable waterways? Trains, trucking? How about schools or bus yards? All things innocent bystanders require and fund.

So in your mind its okay to disrupt and arguably harm tens or even hundreds of thousands of lives in order to gain the attention of polititians over some completely unrelated grievance?

Why stop there? Take some hostages, blow up a building, really get some attention! Reasonable rational people do not harm others to get attention or get their way. While it may be effective it is no less wrong for being so.

I'm sure that for the group that forces redress of their grievance the end justifies the means, for the rest of us, especially those who suffer harm, not so much.

We'll just have to agree to disagree on this one as I can't more clearly communicate harming others for personal benefit is wrong regardless of your perception of rights. Callous disregard for the unalienable rights of others in exercise of your own is wrong as well.

Rhino · Jun 4, 2020

Whistler said:
LOL the Washington Post but I extended the courtesy of reading that 'story'. So its valid because it brings commerce to a halt and immediately garners signficant attention. I see... (we'll ignore the fallacies for purposes of this discussion)

We'll just have to agree to disagree on this one as I can't more clearly communicate harming others for personal benefit is wrong regardless of your perception of rights. Callous disregard for the unalienable rights of others in exercise of your own is wrong as well.

A week long protest in front of the county courthouse could make a speedy trial difficult, could cost you thousands of dollars in legal fees and delays, too. There's ALWAYS a reason why something shouldn't be allowed, that's my concern. That's not good enough.

Whistler · Jun 4, 2020

Protest in front of the courthouse, more power to you. Don't prevent other people from availing the facilities to conduct their unrelated business.

Peaceful protest just doesn't extend to violating the rights of or harming others. Everyone is free to agree, disagree, support, join or ignore. You have the right to protest, that doesn't come with any guarantee you will be successful and it certainly does not justify harming others.

A protest is simply a group attempting to convince others of their case with the hope of gaining enough support to effect change. If your case is compelling enough perhaps you'll win.

Younggun · Jun 4, 2020

Rhino said:
A week long protest in front of the county courthouse could make a speedy trial difficult, could cost you thousands of dollars in legal fees and delays, too.

Why?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Whistler · Jun 4, 2020

I'm out boys! Cash my chips!
:deadhorse:

Mowingmaniac 24/7 · Jun 4, 2020

Protestors remind me of 'activists' - those who want to bother others to 'their' cause.

Me, I've got things to do that don't include being a giant pain in the ass of others...

Now, if you decide to cause me pain by being a violent protestor I'll get very interested, but you won't like my interest...a-hole...

innominate · Jun 4, 2020

Rhino said:
I think that penal code is wrong (like it is when it infringes on weapons, too), and counter to the spirit of the right of assembly, and counter to what I suspect would have been true in earlier times. If the town square was the center of town and the main road, you can't clear a protest in a violent manner to travel through. Also forcing people onto tiny sidewalks is a disgusting tactic.

Sec. 27. RIGHT OF ASSEMBLY; PETITION FOR REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES. The citizens shall have the right, in a peaceable manner, to assemble together for their common good; and apply to those invested with the powers of government for redress of grievances or other purposes, by petition, address or remonstrance.

I know I'm late to the game on this. And I'm a few old fashioned's in. But has no one posted this? Does freedom of speech give you legal privilege to obstruct a passageway?

Texas 42.03
(a) A person commits an offense if, without legal privilege or authority, he intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly:

(1) obstructs a highway, street, sidewalk, railway, waterway, elevator, aisle, hallway, entrance, or exit to which the public or a substantial group of the public has access, or any other place used for the passage of persons, vehicles, or conveyances, regardless of the means of creating the obstruction and whether the obstruction arises from his acts alone or from his acts and the acts of others; or

(2) disobeys a reasonable request or order to move issued by a person the actor knows to be or is informed is a peace officer, a fireman, or a person with authority to control the use of the premises:

(A) to prevent obstruction of a highway or any of those areas mentioned in Subdivision (1); or

(B) to maintain public safety by dispersing those gathered in dangerous proximity to a fire, riot, or other hazard.

(b) For purposes of this section, “obstruct” means to render impassable or to render passage unreasonably inconvenient or hazardous.

(c) An offense under this section is a Class B misdemeanor.

Rhino · Jun 4, 2020

innominate said:
I know I'm late to the game on this. And I'm a few old fashioned's in. But has no one posted this? Does freedom of speech give you legal privilege to obstruct a passageway?

Texas 42.03
(a) A person commits an offense if, without legal privilege or authority, he intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly:

(1) obstructs a highway, street, sidewalk, railway, waterway, elevator, aisle, hallway, entrance, or exit to which the public or a substantial group of the public has access, or any other place used for the passage of persons, vehicles, or conveyances, regardless of the means of creating the obstruction and whether the obstruction arises from his acts alone or from his acts and the acts of others; or

(2) disobeys a reasonable request or order to move issued by a person the actor knows to be or is informed is a peace officer, a fireman, or a person with authority to control the use of the premises:

(A) to prevent obstruction of a highway or any of those areas mentioned in Subdivision (1); or

(B) to maintain public safety by dispersing those gathered in dangerous proximity to a fire, riot, or other hazard.

(b) For purposes of this section, “obstruct” means to render impassable or to render passage unreasonably inconvenient or hazardous.

(c) An offense under this section is a Class B misdemeanor.

It is my personal view that this is a generally reasonable concern and position, but it is rather prone to be abused to quash protests that should be allowed to happen. For instance, if we all gathered together to PEACEFULLY protest related to our weapons, and some antifa type infiltrated and actually started shooting, then a bad governor could use (2)(B) of this section to harass good protestors who just happened to be in the vicinity of some provocateur.

The other situation is where a crowd gets pushed into this area - as the Dallas protestors say they were actually directed by cops onto the bridge.

This is also true of the Penal code with regards to weapons in section 46. It's too easy to justify more infringements because somebody isn't happy.

BLM - the narrative is simply false

The #1 community for Gun Owners in Texas

Member Benefits:

TGT Addict

TGT Addict

Certified Jackass

TGT Addict

TGT Addict

TGT Addict

TGT Addict

TGT Addict

TGT Addict

TGT Addict

TGT Addict

TGT Addict

TGT Addict

TGT Addict

TGT Addict

Certified Jackass

TGT Addict

TGT Addict

Asian Cajun

TGT Addict

Forum statistics