Should be legal to hit them.

Discuss.

My pops just called me complaining about some flufftards blocking his route home because of the Charlotte case.

If they're on the freeway I'm all for going death race 2000 on them

Seems like pissing off thousands of motorists isn't the best way to draw support for your cause.

The mistrial was announced right before rush hour and the roads were shut down minutes later.

That fluff is illegal. It isn't a legal protest, and they should be speedbumps if not atleast arrested.

Protesting pays good. How are the prisons gonna stay full if people aren't at least pissed off . its the same group of fluff suckers that get bussed in to every protest or civil disobedience black lives matter business adventure.

If i feel threatened i am going through!

four plus seven equals nine !! four plus seven equals nine !!

.. i figure if i say enough people will agree.. ?

hashtag doblacklivesreallymatterquestionmark

i've seen many roadblockers get run over lol idiots just protest on the sidewalk and use bigger signs

/me passes braden the wiskey and a joint.

ill take the rye, but i prefer twenty year old waitresses to pass it to me..

http://growabrain.typepad.com/...gorized/cute_waitress.jpg

you have no clue how much i like this idea !

https://youtu.be/JW9lICz0QLE

I feel threatened anytime some jackass is trying to block traffic...never know what they got

Run em down like bunnies and squirrels!! If you're stupid enough to stand on the road you deserve to be run down....also bring the family with you so we can end the line of stupidity there!!

They should be arrested, not killed.

that is an intersting half logic.

i never said they should be killed, i said it should be legal to hit them

play stupid games, win stupid prizes. you are dumb enough to lie in the middle of a road to prove a point then you should expect a point to arrive on you.

not to mention i said they should be arrested.

If they're blocking the road for an unauthorized protest, I'm calling the cops.

If the cops don't do anything, I'm calling my elected officials.

If the elected officials don't fire someone in the police department, I'm voting to fire my elected official.

If the protesters start beating on my car, I'm driving through the protest, calling an attorney, and calling the police.


If the police, like Metro Nashville Police Department, get out with the protesters to make sure they stay peaceful, moving, and safe, then I'm going to be very impressed. Letting protesters block I-65 for just twenty minutes or so before getting them to move on provides the net best public service for some of these protests.

and while you are making all those phone calls, people die trying to get to the hospital.

i would rather a flufftard blocking the road die than someone trying to get medical attention.

Sorry, I was responding to your prompt to discuss, but my answer was responding to multiple posters and I didn't want to quote everyone. Folks have talked about death to them (right above this, "end the line of stupidity..." etc.)

I think we agree on arrested.

I'm not opposed to civil disobedience as a form of protest. And those practicing it should be risking jail time. But just because they are breaking the law doesn't mean other people get to run them over. Otherwise running down any jaywalker is ok too, right? Vehicular manslaughter is not an appropriate response to someone blocking traffic.

a jaywalker doesnt have intent to block traffic. that is a poor analogy. frogger =/= lying in the street for an hour.

people die because of these protests. it has happens before, and it will happen again.

if you are willing to block traffic and endanger peoples lives, i believe you just gave up all your rights. charging a motorist for trying to get around some protesting assholes is not acceptable.

this is all pointless, because the police wait too long to break up these die-ins anyways. it is not a lawful protest, and should be IMMEDIATELY be broken up.

This is why the police should be trained to handle the situation like Metro Nashville PD has. Take bottles of water out to these protests to keep people hydrated allowed them to become part of the group moving on the streets (protesting Michael Brown) and allowed them to provide the best outcome for the people of Nashville. It doesn't mean that blocking major interstate highways isn't completely dumb. However, it takes less time to get protesters to move if they're willing to listen to the police, then it does for the police to arrest people or respond to a protester hit by a car.

your view of protests is incredibly naive. especially protests against police.

naive? It worked more or less just like I described for Nashville. If comes to a situation where giving a little doesn't allow police to take a heated situation to calmer state, then they have to be prepared to do mass arrests and let the courts sort it out in the morning. However, Nashville police gave a little and they took control without having to arrest many people.

comparing your protests in nashville to the real protests in cities where trials have gone down is silly.

i understand what you are saying, but it is idealistic to think that it is that easy everywhere.

In those cities, it would be that easy for most protests if they responded with mass arrests when people started getting unruly. Someone throws a rock at the police, they'd better get arrested. When the consequences are made crystal clear, suddenly protesters' decision making processes become a lot simpler. Maybe Nashville didn't have to put up with some of the BS from outside influences because some of these small businesses are likely to have armed owners ready to respond with deadly force to looters, because the city went out early to the protests to make the rules clear, and because the city in general took a no nonsense stand on the protesting. I'll say one more thing, maybe the protests in Nashville were more subdued because the liberal politicians were all too aware of how easy it would be for them to be put on the unemployment line if unrestrained chaos took place anywhere in the city, so they didn't get in the way of the police.

you really dont see how idealistic that entire post was?

respond with mass arrests and the protesters will back down? lol.

they will stop because they know the consequences of throwing rocks at cops?

nashville didnt have violence because everyone had guns?

liberal politicians had an effect on the protests? you really think politics work that fast? you think they are that clever?



i agree letting the protesters protest is the best thing as it is literally their right, but not in the damn road. period.

If the rock is big enough, then that's probably assault of a police officer with a deadly weapon. People might take notice of a major felony conviction stemming from someone being stupid in a protest.

If you arrest the first person to step out of line and do more than just protest down the street, then you've probably just arrested one of the instigators of violent confrontations. A few loud mouthed hooligans going to jail and off the streets allows calmer voices to prevail. Even in the cities hit by violent protests, most of the protests were peaceful. You don't have to imagine the calming effect of removing the instigators...some big cities (Nashville included) have already shown that. Of course, the police would be allowed to do this because the liberal politicians are all to aware of the likely consequences on election day if they tell the police to stand down. Doing what's in a politician's own best interests is not what I would call "clever".

Yes, Mr. Ford, the very real possibility of getting shot dead for your attempt to loot probably plays some part in preventing the looting in the first place. You send some of the fools to jail early, then the calmer, more rational protesters make better decisions. Maybe guns in the hands of law abiding citizens is only 10% of the equation that leads to peaceful protests, but it's there. 90% is simply good police work and all the factors that go into the police doing their job in the best possible way.

As far as protesting in the streets is concerned: if the protest is taking place in the evening/at night, there are not at many people out driving. If the police keep the crowds moving, then no one particular area gets effected for too long and people can find alternative ways around. Getting police into the crowds in a friendlier demeanor allows them to direct protests through parks, down less traveled roads, and to provide an overall better service to their communities.

It's not ideal, it's the real results of early, friendly, and professional police interventions.

Every statement you made there was conditional and idealistic. None of what you are saying is what actually happens even if it is what should. I don't think I conveyed my point well enough, but I'm on a cell phone so I'll have to get back to you later.

The condition is that cities respond the correct way. Simply saying that some cities are incapable of responding the correct way just doesn't fly with me. All cities have the ability to get out ahead of protests to keep them orderly and peaceful.

My point is every protest is different and there isn't a right way to respond to every one of them. Some have a more violent undercurrent from the jump, and if the police are unprepared that is when riots break out.

Blaming that on not passing out water bottles and making the right arrests at the right time is idealistic.

If it's violent from the beginning, then it's not a protest and you go in to arrest everyone involved. That's the correct answer to a violent mob. I don't blame the police if they have to arrest a bunch of people, but I support active police involvement which can keep situations calm. This leads to a more general benefit of the doubt when police have to arrest violent mobs to keep the peace. Even bad situations can be opportunities for the community to gain trust in the police.


It's not for protests, but this is the right mentality: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H9-WlXOeaBo

That's pretty idiotic mrford.

Your argument that protestors should be run over all the time, whether or not anyone's life is in danger, just becuause the possibility exists that someone might need to get to a hospital is ludicrous.

It come down to this - someone is lying in the road in front of your car and you think running them over should be legal because you are inconvenienced and impatient and unwilling to let law enforcement handle it.

Congrats on your vigilantism. I hope you feel well served when everyone else gets to decide your fate based on their personal level of frustration.

If you don't like how your police handle things, take it up with them or your elected officials, as Angel1 said. Stop campaigning for your right to shoot anyone you disagree with.

That isn't what I said. Stop with the sensationalism. It weakens your point.

we need robocop back

Doodie wieners...

"It isn't a legal protest, and they should be speedbumps"
"i never said they should be killed, i said it should be legal to hit them"
"i would rather a flufftard blocking the road die"

Those are all quotes, in order, from your posts in this thread. How am I overstating it that you appear to want to bypass due process and go straight to "I conclude you broke the law and are blocking the road, now I conclude that I shoudl run you over and have immunity for doing so". That is vigilantism. You are being judge, jury and executioner.

While you (mrford) aren't the most guilty by any means, I see several types of crap in these threads all the time. Usually a lack of respect/belief in one of the following:

- Due Process
- Presumption of Innocence
- Rule of Law
- Respect for duly elected/appointed authority
- Proportionality (i.e. let the punishment fit the crime)
- The dangers of ochlocracy (tyranny of the majority, mob rule, etc.) and thus civil rights

Which generally begs the question.... why do ya'll live here?!?!?!?

Jaywalking is a crime in TEXAS and as such people who are in the roadway and not in a marked cross walk and get run over and killed do not have a leg to stand on LITERALLY. They have killed about a dozen so far in the last year and they always say the same thing. Why was that person trying to cross the road? Oh well

And NO ONE has ever been charged with a crime of any kind>

This is the BS approved method of removing the protesters from the midle of the street....

https://youtu.be/JW9lICz0QLE

Also, this...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection

Only if youre excuse is being drunk and someone dies cause of it. Then you can feel some pride about who you are and not be ashamed....

you need to google context and learn about it. you didnt even finish my statements. you cut off the conditional aspects. you are entertaining. you twisted what i said into something not even remotely close to the point i was making.

i like the idea of encouraging bastard kids to take up running as a sport , we have some kids in this town , who look at you driving when they cross the road then saunter out into it expecting you to stop , a friend doesnt and its amazing how quickly they move