http://www.mypalmbeachpost.com...DVnZTuvk77w9lm16DFWnL/

-------------------------

"One of the reasons why propaganda tries to get you to hate government is because it's the one existing institution in which people can participate to some extent and constrain tyrannical unaccountable power." Noam Chomsky.

The obvious answer is to stay the fuck off the street and not intentionally block traffic. When you run into the middle of busy traffic to make a human chain, you aren't protesting... you are just being an asshole. People are trying to go home, pick up children, get to work, go grocery shopping, visit someone in the hospital, etc.

Doesn't the basis of the stand your ground law include your presence in a place you are legally allowed to be?
And does blocking traffic meet that criteria?

Except you aren't allowed to legally be in the middle of the street blocking traffic. As someone that has been on the receiving end of a charge for doing exactly when I was young, I know.

This is the Florida statute covering it.

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Sta...ections/0316.2045.html

Even the liberal application of "stand your ground" as a justification for the application of lethal force against another requires that they have posed a mortal threat.

As "stand your ground" is written now it does not give cover to kill people that are inconveniencing you or making you angry by their law breaking.

So there is a paradox. If somebody is breaking the law by blocking traffic, parking on a sidewalk, watering their lawn every day, playing music too loudly at 2AM, and you Joe Public go after them in a threatening manner, what happens if they defend themselves from your threat?

They may have been breaking a law but they were not threatening you. You are not a law man, you have no legal ground to bother them beyond asking them to stop. If you forcefully intervene then you are also breaking the law and a conflict arises in which both parties are breaking the law in a prelude to lethal force.

-------------------------
...

But a person that is not a law officer is not legally authorized to forcefully remove you from the street.

Are you not allowed to defend yourself if someone that is not legally authorized to do so threatens you with grave bodily harm?

-------------------------
...

If you run out into the middle of busy traffic like you see these idiots doing, aren't you also endangering the lives of the drivers who may get in an accident trying to avoid you? Is it on me as a driver on a busy street to swerve to avoid you and risk my life because you are a fucking idiot and ran out in front of me?

Let's say you roll up to one of these moron chains that is mostly establish and inform them that you don't want to hurt anyone, but they are impeding the roadway and that you are going to creep through them with you car and that they should get out of the way... then they don't and slowly get ran over like that Austin Powers scene with the steam roller.


Like I said, the answer is simple. Stay the fuck off the busy streets, you aren't protesting... you are being an asshole. You aren't advancing any causes by doing this shit and in fact you are hurting the very cause you are trying to champion. You won't be taken seriously and your cause will just get lumped in with idiocy.

Depending on your circumstances, if you have a true urgency that requires you to continue, the "defense of necessity" would likely apply.
http://www.jeffweiner.com/necessity-defense-in-florida/

The issue with protesters blocking traffic is that they don't know (or care) if the vehicles confronting them are just trying to get out the way of a true emergency behind them.

For that reason, I believe the punishment for doing so should be extremely severe.

As a side note, a friend of mine pulled a gun when a truck was driving behind him in a threatening manner, as if he were about to run my friend's car off the road.

This happened in NJ. Truck driver immediately backed off and called police. My friend was charged, and then found not guilty for pulling the gun, because the 7000-lb truck presented a legitimate threat to his life (and that of his pregnant sister).

It seems like common sense to figure out who the guilty party is in such a situation.

When someone is blocking traffic, they have a very obvious option to not getting hit by a car -- get the F back out of the road.

If a protester goes into the street emboldened because he has a gun, well, then you have your basic George Zimmerman mentality.

As the law exists, if you shoot somebody during a public confrontation and claim you should have immunity from prosecution under the state’s self-defense law, you can ask for a pre-trial hearing.

In that hearing, you must present evidence to show why you acted in self-defense. But the new bill under consideration shifts the burden in these pre-trial hearings from the shooter to the prosecutor.

It would presume that shooters have acted in self-defense unless the prosecutor can “prove beyond a reasonable doubt” in a pre-trial hearing that the shooting is not protected by the state’s Stand Your Ground law.

 

 

Isn't this law a direct consequesce of the George Zimmermna lynching, where a man standing his ground was put in jail for a year because he was 'white' and the press convicted him and swayed the zombies in the court of public opinion forcing guvment officials to deny his rights and try to convict him of murder?

This law is backlash against the Liberal assumption that use of a gun denotes criminal offense. This law is in place to protect people FROM Liberal policies...

As far as the new law, again the intent of the law is to protect people from Liberal actions. If somebody chooses to perform an action that causes an accident, they and not the other party in the accident are liable.

 

-------------------------

That's clearly not the consensus on Zimmerman. But if you are going to make new laws to address new wrongs, and your basic premise is that more guns in more hands is a legislative imperative, this is what you get. It's not a good solution to a bad problem. But if the GOP house and senate of Florida want to keep immunizing armed conflicts, they will encourage them.

-------------------------

"One of the reasons why propaganda tries to get you to hate government is because it's the one existing institution in which people can participate to some extent and constrain tyrannical unaccountable power." Noam Chomsky.

No...blocking traffic meets the criteria of J walking.

-------------------------
The REAL truth is....both of the forum idiots are OWNED.
-BOTH of them have no clue who their owner is.
-They are both card carrying narcissists.
^These are PROVED facts.

Mowing down a peaceably assembled group is a forcible felony. W

-------------------------

"One of the reasons why propaganda tries to get you to hate government is because it's the one existing institution in which people can participate to some extent and constrain tyrannical unaccountable power." Noam Chomsky.

Human chains across roads are a little different than a peaceful protest. One group is exercising their rights... the other group are just assholes.

If things like this start happening you can be sure there will be fewer pink hats and more black bandanas.

But the real purpose of the law is to discourage protest. ACLU will be engaging these efforts to chill the right of assembly.

-------------------------
“It is the heart of US policy to use fascism to preserve capitalism while claiming to be saving democracy from communism “ - Michael Parenti

The question is not whether or not you approve of the form of protest. The question was whether or not the disapproval should result in a justifiable escalation of violence to lethal force.

Try calling the cops first.

Stand your ground as a valid defense of lethal self defense is meaningless if it is cover to escalate things with dumbasses that are pissing you off.

-------------------------
...

If the purpose of the law is to keep protesters off the street, then I fully support it.

If you have a legal right to pass through in traffic, and they don't have a legal right to block your car, then you are in the right.

If they won't move, and you have a legit emergency, then there is no question running them over is OK, as long as you start slow.

If they have an opportunity to move and don't, it's their own fault, their own stupidity, and their own problem.

If you try to move slowly, and they become violent to the point of breaking your windows, lifting your car to overturn it, or in some way assaulting you, then you get to run them over to save your own life from a beating.

If they are doing this to you because they think they are standing their ground, they have to go back to square 1 and remember you have a legal right to be there, and they don't.

Pretty simple in most cases. A full-speed plow-down is a whole different story.

"Peaceable" assembly is not violent. Assembly in the road without a permit is not legal.

Deliberately running into people protesting should be a last resort, not first. Shooting the driver of a vehicle ramming pedestrians will be the first and only response if this law gets passed. I would never tell someone where or how they should protest but if a large crowd of protesters decide to chain themselves across I 95, they are Darwin awards. If a large crowd of protesters spills out into a street and someone decides it's easier to go through them than around, he will probably be a Darwin Award too. These laws will produce lots of awards and each one will have a corpse and a trial. Encouraging that is not an answer.

-------------------------

"One of the reasons why propaganda tries to get you to hate government is because it's the one existing institution in which people can participate to some extent and constrain tyrannical unaccountable power." Noam Chomsky.

Rather than useless street shouting and sign waving folks: attend city, county, state, federal meetings. Be polite and focused, it's profoundly more effective.
Join like minded citizens groups. Write letters, emails, make phone calls. VOTE! Join political action committees, donate time and money
Leaping around shouting at chumpf as he drives by, making yourself a target for a chumpf dirt to attempt to mow you will accomplish grand total zero, and actually creates negative publicity. Time to focus and do whats effective, America.
A great songwriter wrote about the '60's protests:
"What a field day for the heat. Thousand people in the street. Singing songs and carrying signs.
Mostly say 'hooray for our side'...." S. Stills
Again, if you want to be serious about making a change y'all: focus, and participate in the system. It can, and will, actually make a difference

-------------------------
It's a democratic hoax

actually slowly running into people because they won't move is a good way to get sued and to be arrested for assault.

If somebody stands in front of your car and you slowly, knowingly drive into them, you will be sued, it is assault.

If you are in fear of your life, then this law protects you, It seems the legislators are putting the burden of proof whether you are justifiably in fear of your life on the protestors.

If you are driving at speed and a group of people run out and jump in front of your car, then you are protected by existing laws and common sense police officers.

If you are in an emergency situation and you slow but continue through, I believe you are also protected by existing laws.

What I would fear from this is if Union workers are protesting legitimately in front of a plant or factory and they get plowed over by people going to work through the picket lines. Unions have a right to protest, people have a right to go to work, people do not get to run somebody over in order to get to work AND Union workers do NOT get to assault workers or damage the vehicles of people trying to go to work.

 

 

-------------------------