|
Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today. |
27th March 2017, 03:12 PM | #1761 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 8,624
|
Bull.
Well, judging from past protests (like the one this thread is based on) I would say that the anti-Trumpers are far more likely to be violent than the Trump supporters. Masked anti-Trumpers used pepper spray and carried baseball bats to the Berkeley riot, as well as other events. Some of these people want violence so that they can show everyone how bad Trump supporters are. If others out there feel the same way you do about violence then it's really not surprising is it? |
__________________
Why bother? |
|
27th March 2017, 07:43 PM | #1762 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Where the Arrantly Roam
Posts: 26,169
|
Getting a little slippery with the quoting. I wrote 'the protesters claimed they were forming a human wall.' The full quote from varwoche's link:
Quote:
|
27th March 2017, 08:47 PM | #1763 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Where the Arrantly Roam
Posts: 26,169
|
I would disagree that the masked crew was specifically anti-Trumpers. From your OP article:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/l...201-story.html |
27th March 2017, 09:15 PM | #1764 |
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 3,726
|
If you purposevely contribute to violence through words, the you can not wholly claim self defense.
For example, if some guy where I live walks up to a huge bike and starts bad-mouthing his mother, and then a fight begins where Biker is "shot in self defense", then guy who shot the Biker can't really claim "self defense" and hope to get away with it. I mean, if you let this kind of baloney slide (i.e, read above), then you set up situations where someone can provoke another attack with the sole purpose of killing them in self defense. For this reason, I was very upset at the charges that were pressed against George Zimmerman, considering he did everything he could to provoke Trayvon to attack....and then killed Trayvon in "self defense". |
27th March 2017, 09:23 PM | #1765 |
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 29,033
|
Legitimate? What an interesting question. As if some sorts of protest could be legitimate, while others not.
On the other hand, there's the question of legality. Generally, forming a barrier and preventing people from using public space would be illegal. The right to peaceably assemble is guaranteed in the constitution, but by forming a human chain to restrict movement, they've moved beyond peaceable, into the realm of physical force. The Trump supporters themselves would probably need a permit, or they would be, at the very least, required to allow free access to the areas on which they were assembling. I'm sure there is a lot of case law deciding when a group can or cannot get together in public spaces, but my guess is that any action which deliberately blocks either vehicle or foot traffic would be illegal. Any action where such restriction would be an inevitable consequence, i.e. because you are having a horde of marchers in the street and they will block traffic due to the sheer number of people, will require a permit.
Quote:
|
27th March 2017, 10:58 PM | #1766 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 8,143
|
If the anti-fascist protesters wouldn't be there, would that stop the fascists from being violent? No. If the fascists wouldn't be there, would that stop the anti-fascists from being violent? Yes. Heck, would that stop the anti-fascists from even showing up in the first place? Yes.
You presenting this as a brawl likely whenever the "two sides meet" ignores that the presence of the other side is only a decisive factor for one side.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
27th March 2017, 11:53 PM | #1767 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Where the Arrantly Roam
Posts: 26,169
|
Of course some could be legitimate and others not. Why does this seem odd? For example, if someone robbed a marijuana dispensary claiming that they were protesting a gasoline tax, I would opine that that was not a legitimate form of protest.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/legitimate http://reason.com/blog/2016/10/26/vi...rs-built-a-hum |
28th March 2017, 12:20 AM | #1768 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Where the Arrantly Roam
Posts: 26,169
|
I disagree that those who you call the anti-fascists would stop being violent. I think they would develop a more serious concern with the corporatist Left. Or the apathetic Center. Or the paperboy.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
28th March 2017, 12:41 AM | #1769 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 8,143
|
Your disagreement is meaningless. If, on the other hand, you have evidence then feel free to share it.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
28th March 2017, 03:05 AM | #1770 |
Orthogonal Vector
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 53,184
|
At least berkeley is better than University of Kentucky. More violence after the poor performance of their team
http://www.kentucky.com/news/local/c...140926328.html http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/co...icle-1.3009991 When will colleges crack down on these violent sportspeople? When will the violence of these sportsers be address and ruthlessly suppressed as it should be? |
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody "There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin |
|
28th March 2017, 03:30 AM | #1771 |
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 20,145
|
|
28th March 2017, 06:21 AM | #1772 |
Guest
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 29,742
|
|
28th March 2017, 08:22 AM | #1773 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 5,449
|
|
28th March 2017, 08:32 AM | #1774 |
Rarely prone to hissy-fits
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: The Wettest Desert on Earth
Posts: 21,505
|
See, ya' punch a loud-mouthed woman in the mouth and she goes home, and stays home. She quits talking and she doesn't vote. Because she intimidated by being whipped. That's why Men punch women in the mouth.
And it's going to happen more and more as Men figure out that they can not reason with women. If ya' don't like it...if ya' find it shocking...then, what can I say, It's just the way things are going to happen. Yeah, there are a lot of derogatory terms women uses: Patriarchal society, male-dominated, mansplaining...but those days are coming to a close, with a punch-in-the-mouth. Way to argue zealously for conformity through intimidation! You'd have made an excellent inquisitor. |
__________________
The distance between the linguistic dehumanization of a people and their actual suppression and extermination is not great; it is but a small step. - Haig Bosmajian |
|
28th March 2017, 08:33 AM | #1775 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Puget Sound
Posts: 17,528
|
|
__________________
To survive election season on a skeptics forum, one must understand Hymie-the-Robot.
|
|
28th March 2017, 08:43 AM | #1776 |
Fiend God
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In a post-fact world
Posts: 96,875
|
The biker example you give is easy, and I've used it myself, but how about more subtle things? How about a situation where someone argues in favour of economic protectionism, and it really, really offends a second person. The first person knew that, and talked about it anyway. Would that purposely contribute to violence if person #2 were to punch person #1?
|
28th March 2017, 08:46 AM | #1777 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Where the Arrantly Roam
Posts: 26,169
|
Shifting the burden of proof, I see. Ok: I have no reason to think that all those who claim to be anti-fascist have identical goals and motivations, nor do I have any reason to believe that they are solely motivated to action based on marches, nor do I have reason to believe that they act in worldwide unison. Your comments suggest that this is the case. 'Feel free to present your evidence' to support your claim.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
28th March 2017, 08:56 AM | #1778 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Where the Arrantly Roam
Posts: 26,169
|
I'm not so sure. Did you note the link to the Berkeley human wall posted above in post #1767? The police were even on site throughout to make sure there was no violence, which would be odd if the protest method was illegal, as you say.
But all a red herring anyway. The Orange County counter-protestors only claimed that they were going to form a wall to a journalist. They evidently did not, so going back to your original comment: the protestors certainly could claim self-defense, as they had not assaulted the marchers, contrary to your claim. |
28th March 2017, 08:58 AM | #1779 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Where the Arrantly Roam
Posts: 26,169
|
|
28th March 2017, 09:01 AM | #1780 |
Guest
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 29,742
|
|
28th March 2017, 09:20 AM | #1781 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 5,449
|
Here's a news article that says the protesters actually did block the march.
Originally Posted by Reuters
|
28th March 2017, 09:32 AM | #1782 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Where the Arrantly Roam
Posts: 26,169
|
I think this part is the confusion. The Orange Co article reports that 'the protestors claimed that they were forming a human wall'. I shortened this to 'the protesters were going to form a human wall'. I am not claiming they did so one way or the other, but that the on-site reporting suggested they did not.
A small counter protest would be legit one way or the other though, wouldn't it? Why would the counter-protestors not be able to claim self-defense against an assault by the marchers, as you originally claimed? |
28th March 2017, 09:43 AM | #1783 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Where the Arrantly Roam
Posts: 26,169
|
Fair enough, I had seen the Reuters article too. But I cited the LA Times article because it had first hand reporting from eyewitness journalists on the scene. Reuters makes no such claim, and is worded as if it is second-hand reporting. Is it reasonable to give more weight to the on-site journalists?
|
28th March 2017, 09:46 AM | #1784 |
Guest
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 29,742
|
|
28th March 2017, 09:50 AM | #1785 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Where the Arrantly Roam
Posts: 26,169
|
|
28th March 2017, 09:55 AM | #1786 |
Guest
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 29,742
|
|
28th March 2017, 09:56 AM | #1787 |
Guest
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 29,742
|
|
28th March 2017, 10:00 AM | #1788 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 5,449
|
Yea, maybe. Like I said the quote reads weird and that would be a very generous interpretation.
We could also look at one of the antifa's claims for the reason behind their being there, which was to crush the conservative "revolution"
Quote:
|
28th March 2017, 10:05 AM | #1789 |
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 29,033
|
Interesting. I tend to think of that definition as somewhat archaic, except in specific contexts. However, I will gladly defer to dictionary.com on this matter.
In which case, forming a "human wall" is not a legitimate form of protest, because it prevents people from accessing public property which they have a right to access. If I don't want you to use a park, I do not have the right to stop you from using a park. The same goes for a bike path, a road, whatever.
Quote:
Quote:
Got it. You are correct. The "he was asking for it" defense against an assault charge pretty much never works anymore. It might convince a prosecutor or the police to ignore you, but if it gets to court, the assaulter will lose. Applying this to sit ins, if you assault some sitters, you will lose. On the other hand, if you call the police, and the police arrest the sitters, possibly using violent force against resisting sitters, the sitters will lose. If there are enough sitters, though, and they aren't causing too much trouble, the police and prosecutors will probably just let you hang out for a while to make your point, as long as no one gets hurt. Where it gets really tricky is when people have a right to be where they are, but then a fight breaks out. Now exactly who do you blame, and possibly arrest, for the violence? In this case, I have insufficient data to say who ought to be charged. However, if one side has a parade permit, and the other side has masks and pepper spray, I'm going to be immediately suspicious of the masked folks. |
28th March 2017, 10:08 AM | #1790 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Where the Arrantly Roam
Posts: 26,169
|
Good catch, I stand corrected. What is not clear is whether the bike path was blocked by 'a dozen or so' protestors first (it would seem that there would be photos of this), or if the Times is correct in reporting that the pro-Trump supporters were the aggressors. If the marchers were the aggressors, as reported, then you suggest that non-violent standing in a bike path warrants assault?
|
28th March 2017, 10:11 AM | #1791 |
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 29,033
|
I think the point about the threat is all about the idea of preemptive self defense.
In colloquial terms, there are times when you can throw the fist punch, but claim it was self defense. If you can convince the jury that you had reasonable fear of a pending assault, the fact that the assault has not yet occurred does not prevent you from claiming you were defending yourself. If your claim is that you felt threatened because you were surrounded by scary people, and therefore had a right to whip out the pepper spray in self defense, you will likely lose if you deliberately surrounded yourself with scary people. In order to win the case of preemptive self defense, you would have to say that you were present and conducting yourself in a civilized manner, when a mob started threatening you. If you were engaging in any sort of aggression yourself, you are not likely to be able to claim the right of preemptive self defense. |
28th March 2017, 10:15 AM | #1792 |
Guest
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 29,742
|
Non-violent standing in the bike path?
You know, there comes a point where spinning the facts to make one side seem innocent really becomes a waste of time, doesn't it? They were not non-violently standing in the path, they were, as the organizer said they intended to do, physically blocking the path and as such, asserting that they could reasonably claim self defense where they intentionally initiated the physical confrontation is specious. |
28th March 2017, 10:48 AM | #1793 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 5,449
|
Maybe you would prefer something first hand then, OK, how about something from the 21 year old intern at the OC weekly , someone who was actually there.
Quote:
ETA....Forgot the funniest part of that article, the one where the antifa chant "All the walls have to go, Palestine to Mexico." and then they go and build their own wall. |
28th March 2017, 11:13 AM | #1794 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 8,143
|
|
28th March 2017, 11:15 AM | #1795 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 56,425
|
|
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law |
|
28th March 2017, 11:19 AM | #1796 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 8,694
|
|
28th March 2017, 11:22 AM | #1797 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 8,143
|
It's not shifted, it was your burden all along.
Quote:
Want to have your privacy, and not have your information compiled and made publically available? Don't be a nazi who goes around assaulting and stabbing people.
Quote:
|
28th March 2017, 11:27 AM | #1798 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 8,694
|
|
28th March 2017, 11:36 AM | #1799 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 8,143
|
Good to know then, if you stand somewhere on a sidewalk you think it's pretty Ace for people to assault you because you are blocking their access to the bit of sidewalk under your feet. After all, it's not like the counter-protesters were blocking more than the bit of sidewalk under their feet, the marchers could've easily just gone around them to wherever they were heading.
|
28th March 2017, 11:46 AM | #1800 |
Guest
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 29,742
|
|
Thread Tools | |
|
|