Off Topic > Off Topic
NEWS - Republicans are attempting to pass a bill an extreme anti-protest bill
Space1255:
So from what I understand, this proposition is talking about protestors blocking highways. I personally believe the people who are in the traffic should have the right to trample the protestors if the blockage lasts more than a predetermined time, mainly because nobody wants to be sitting in a traffic that lasts for 3+ hours because some little bitches are throwing a hissy fit.
Ragequit:
if someone blocks off a highway and gets plowed by a 2000+ pound chunk of metal thats their own fault. but this bill would be stupid as forget to pass
Perry:
--- Quote from: Tactical Nuke on January 23, 2017, 02:15:26 AM ---unarmed does not mean safe
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Michael_Brown
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Trayvon_Martin
and more
is it cruel and unusual punishment to kill someone for blocking traffic, remembering that they also could be blocking emergency services and halting commerce, putting people's lives and livelihoods at stake, after everything else they've tried doesn't work?
the notion that cops are cruel, cold-blooded killers that shoot people for looking at them funny is something I don't think even you believe
any sane cop would try several other methods of dispersing the crowd, but it's really easy for these things to go violent
you're also forgetting that the term "protester" is just thrown onto anyone today, even onto violent people to cover up how dangerous they really are and to remove all accountability for their actions
http://www.theamericanmirror.com/video-charlotte-agitators-throw-rocks-off-highway-overpass-strike-motorists/
http://therightscoop.com/breaking-baton-rouge-flares-up-protesters-throw-bottles-at-police-several-arrests-made/
notice how the term "protester" is used there
--- End quote ---
What you probably don't understand is that there's always a certain amount of force required to solve a problem. In the case of Trayvon martin and others, that amount of force should've been non-lethal with an aim to incapacitate rather than lethal force. This is the very definition of excessive force.
Making it legal to respond with lethal force in a non-life threatening situation, i.e. Bottles being thrown, glass being broken etc. is just legalizing excessive force where it isn't required. For perspective, the syrian civil war started when the government began shooting at protesters who were unarmed or not a threat. It's not about blocking highways or someone not being able to get to work because their business is being looted. Saying it's better to take human lives than have someone lose a thousand dollars in property damage, which will later be compensated by the government & the culprits arrested, is horrible.
If this law passes, and say, one day the government becomes too authoritarian and everybody begins to protest it, law enforcement will have the ability to legally shoot protesters. Just think about that a little bit, forget all the BLM and anti-Annoying Orange protests and think about the big picture
Zloff:
i have no sympathy for road-blocking protesters who get hit by moving vehicles
--- Quote from: TableSalt on January 23, 2017, 02:41:54 AM ---wh
--- End quote ---
Decepticon:
if you want to clot up one of the many veins of working america and disrupt traffic and forget up the days of honest americans because you're too much of a bitch and wanna feel ~important~ and more ~special~ than people who have the decency to at least stay the forget out of the way then you deserve whatever happens to you really