that is irrelevant, you cannot legally block roads or highways. The reason is clear.Rhino, are protestors blocking a public highway, peacefully protesting? (Assuming no other acts of violence or aggressiveness takes place).
that is irrelevant, you cannot legally block roads or highways. The reason is clear.Rhino, are protestors blocking a public highway, peacefully protesting? (Assuming no other acts of violence or aggressiveness takes place).
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.that is irrelevant, you cannot legally block roads or highways. The reason is clear.
Yeah, but I hope you give way to fire trucks and ambulances, and have some consideration when your fellow citizens believe that their Constitutionally protected enumerated rights are being violated, just like I hope the protesters will grow in wisdom.The Bill of Rights applies to government infringement not other citizens. Society functions under social contract that assures reasonable exercise of everyone's rights. Yours are not more important than mine.
See, I think that blocking the highway is not good PR, but it's not fundamentally significantly different than a large group of people surrounding a county courthouse in a small town, either, and getting petty on where the protest takes place starts to be an issue IMO. It'd be too easy for some government to build a building where there is no public grounds around it and force a situation where only a small number of people could gather and make sure there was no private property free for use, either. That's a dangerous path to go down using technicalities to prevent the exercise of the Bill of Rights.I have no problem with protesters unless they block the road or otherwise interfere with peaceful exercise of my rights.
I do NOT care for looters or rioters as those are not lawful activities and are not within individual rights.
That said I don't agree with the basis of this protest because it is a false narrative. That doesn't mean I would interfere with their protest or that I think they don't have the right. Its not illegal to be stupid or wrong.
Derek Chauvin was wrong, was arrested and charged. He will be dealt with by our legal system imperfect as it may be.
If they were to protest the militarization of police or the overly zealous enforcement of petty ordinances I might even join them.
It'd be too easy for some government to build a building where there is no public grounds around it and force a situation where only a small number of people could gather and make sure there was no private property free for use, either. That's a dangerous path to go down using technicalities to prevent the exercise of the Bill of Rights.
I think that penal code is wrong...
What we think the penal code should be and what it is are two different things entirely.
I think 30.6/.07 allows unconstitutional discrimination; that does not mean I can ignore the prohibition against exercising my 2d Amendment right.
Understood, but if there is a movement seeking redress, there should be consideration of this kind of thing.I don't necessarily disagree but that horse is already out of the barn
I do, too, but this should be part of the consideration when people are discussing their rights, as it should be in our 2A discussions.Exactly. Just because i disagree with a law, that I may think is unfair, or unjust, doesn't necessarily mean I can ignore or disobey that law. Personally, I think all seatbelt and helmet laws are unjust and nothing more than revenue generators, but I still abide by them.
Understood, but if there is a movement seeking redress, there should be consideration of this kind of thing.
I see you are still idealistic, life will beat that out of you soon enough.
A highway and surface streets around a government building are 2 different things.See, I think that blocking the highway is not good PR, but it's not fundamentally significantly different than a large group of people surrounding a county courthouse in a small town, either, and getting petty on where the protest takes place starts to be an issue IMO. It'd be too easy for some government to build a building where there is no public grounds around it and force a situation where only a small number of people could gather and make sure there was no private property free for use, either. That's a dangerous path to go down using technicalities to prevent the exercise of the Bill of Rights.
Thats the PR part, and I fully agree with that conclusion.As for feeling a protestors pain, if I don't agree with them in the first place then blocking a highway isn't going to improve their chances that I will agree with them.
The point of the protest is to get the leaders and the people’s attention. It *should* make you uncomfortable and if your comfort and peace is more important than their right to assemble in a manner that gets their voice heard for redress of their grievances then I won’t cry when your 2A rights aren’t defended by others, either. We need to hold all of the articles of the US and Texas Bill of Rights on equal footing. If you don’t want “infringement” on the 2A, don’t limit “where” a peaceful protest can take place on public property.
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.You are making a huge leap from saying time no defending their violation of my right to travel freely is equal to someone not defending my right to do something that has no effect on others.
Secondly, I’m not going to think about their situation and feel uncomfortable because the justice they are protesting about is already happening. People are charged with murder. These protests are based on a false narrative. Why would I feel bad for their fictional story?
What you are talking about is civil disobedience, not peaceful redress. Civil disobedience has a place, and consequences if you choose to take part.
If a road will be blocked then you can get permits to block roads so that cities can make arrangements to keep everyone safe. It’s not a permit to exercise the 1A. It’s a permit to insure your choice to do so in a play where several tons of steel are moving at 70mph doesn’t use you for a speed bump.
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.
Forgotten already? https://www.businessinsider.com/ang...e-traffic-jam-to-protest-whitmer-order-2020-4How many large conservative protests have blocked anything? Pretty sure the answer is zero and we clean up the place on the way out.