Terrorists take over Bay Bridge, falsely imprison commuters

[Jimmy Higgins]

You'll note that I was not supporting Derec's screeches of imprisonment. I was disagreeing with NiceSquirrel's assertion that they were free to leave.

They were neither imprisoned nor free to leave. They were not under force, which would imply imprisonment, nor were they free to leave, as that would have meant losing property.

the belief that disagreeing with one means automatically agreeing with other comes from putting too much weight on semantics. I have no difficulty seeing that there are situations where one is neither free to leave nor imprisoned. One who is too obsessed with words and legal technicalities will have problems with this.

It is clear they were not imprisoned because with lots of coordination and effort, traffic could have been rerouted. The commuters were delayed or detained.

And as many have noted, the charges seem to fall into line with the actions they committed.

Granted, the protesters haven't been sent to Gitmo yet.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

I was disagreeing with NiceSquirrel's assertion that they were free to leave.

Which is a somewhat valid argument, but only in the sense that it would be a pain in the ass to retrieve their vehicles if other vehicles blocked their way, or their vehicles were impounded for being illegally parked.

 

[Sarpedon]

If there's a cost, it isn't free.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The people were burdened, not imprisoned. The most of us agree. End of story.

Now lets talk about how we should put the protesters in orange suits and stack them in naked pyramids in Guantanamo in order to make a few people happy.

 

[Sarpedon]

How can they be in orange suits AND be in a naked pyramid?

 

[dismal]

Hysterical screeches of dismal and derec aside, I think it is absolutely clear that the purpose was to delay traffic, and during the period of the delay, commuters were, defacto, unable to leave without abandoning their property. While of course I agree that 'delay' does not mean 'imprison' I think the facts of the case do show that the people on the bridge were not able to leave. I criticized dismal earlier for his semantic technicalities, and I have to criticize you and squirrel by the same token. You are not really 'free' to leave when doing so would mean abandoning your property. (and of course, abandoning a car on a bridge is also against the law)

So let us not mince words: a group of people, finding their rights violated, in return, deliberately violated the rights of others in order to call attention to their grievance. As long as this is done in a reasonable and nonviolent way, such demonstrations are healthy for society and a benefit to public order, and I accept the annoyance and delays so caused because the purpose of rectifying law enforcement problems and creating a more harmonious society are of greater benefit to me than the delay is against me.

It is so simple. People who want to complicate it with so many words are usually trying to slip in something that doesn't belong there.

So if someone wants to protest say, the lack of nipples on Barbie dolls or the McRib going on hiatus again, it is to the benefit of society if they shut down a major bridge?

 

[Toni]

If there's a cost, it isn't free.

So, the gas station is falsely imprisoning me? Cause while gas prices have dropped considerably (thanks Obama!), I still she'll out significant money to get to and from work every day.

Where is the justice ???

- - - Updated - - -

Hysterical screeches of dismal and derec aside, I think it is absolutely clear that the purpose was to delay traffic, and during the period of the delay, commuters were, defacto, unable to leave without abandoning their property. While of course I agree that 'delay' does not mean 'imprison' I think the facts of the case do show that the people on the bridge were not able to leave. I criticized dismal earlier for his semantic technicalities, and I have to criticize you and squirrel by the same token. You are not really 'free' to leave when doing so would mean abandoning your property. (and of course, abandoning a car on a bridge is also against the law)

So let us not mince words: a group of people, finding their rights violated, in return, deliberately violated the rights of others in order to call attention to their grievance. As long as this is done in a reasonable and nonviolent way, such demonstrations are healthy for society and a benefit to public order, and I accept the annoyance and delays so caused because the purpose of rectifying law enforcement problems and creating a more harmonious society are of greater benefit to me than the delay is against me.

It is so simple. People who want to complicate it with so many words are usually trying to slip in something that doesn't belong there.

So if someone wants to protest say, the lack of nipples on Barbie dolls or the McRib going on hiatus again, it is to the benefit of society if they shut down a major bridge?

Why not? We could all use a laugh.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

How can they be in orange suits AND be in a naked pyramid?

Oh it's always something with you.

 

[Sarpedon]

So if someone wants to protest say, the lack of nipples on Barbie dolls or the McRib going on hiatus again, it is to the benefit of society if they shut down a major bridge?

If there are enough people willing to risk prison for a protest over an issue, it is likely that the issue is important enough to be protested. There is a built in filter for important vs unimportant protests: that is getting enough people to show up. Any idiot can see that. This issue has been consistently protested against in large numbers for decades. DECADES. The movement is so large that you and your silly AM talkshow rhetoric shrink to insignificance.

Again, you show a singular lack of intellectual and moral maturity when you attempt to dismiss civil rights and fairness in law enforcement to such trivial issues. Again, technicalities, trivialities, and unquestioning acceptance of the status quo.

 

[dismal]

So if someone wants to protest say, the lack of nipples on Barbie dolls or the McRib going on hiatus again, it is to the benefit of society if they shut down a major bridge?

If there are enough people willing to risk prison for a protest over an issue, it is likely that the issue is important enough to be protested. There is a built in filter for important vs unimportant protests: that is getting enough people to show up. Any idiot can see that. This issue has been consistently protested against in large numbers for decades. DECADES. The movement is so large that you and your silly AM talkshow rhetoric shrink to insignificance.

Again, you show a singular lack of intellectual and moral maturity when you attempt to dismiss civil rights and fairness in law enforcement to such trivial issues. Again, technicalities, trivialities, and unquestioning acceptance of the status quo.

I think one person with the right tools can disrupt a freeway or a bridge pretty well. A car, maybe some steel cable and a few padlocks.

 

[thebeave]

Is there a point at which any of you would finally cry "uncle" and say, "OK, maybe this blocking the bridge is a bad idea afterall". Consider the following;

Monday: Bridge is blocked by protesters demanding government release all documents on Chemtrails.
Tuesday: Bridge is blocked by PETA protesters who demand KFC stop killing chickens.
Wednesday: Bridge is blocked by Trump supporters
Thursday: Bridge is blocked by the Westboro Baptist Church claiming the bridge leads people to San Francisco which has too many fags.
Friday: Bridge is blocked by Men's Rights Activists carrying signs saying "Women need to stop lying about rape"
Saturday: Bridge is blocked by protesters demanding the release of O.J. Simpson, claiming he's innocent
Sunday: Bridge is blocked by protesters who demand more white and Asians represented in the NBA

The Bay Bridge situation is kind of like allowing Christians to put their nativity scene in a public park. If you do that, shouldn't you allow Muslims, Atheists, Festivus, Pastafarians, etc to have their displays too? At some point, the park gets so crowded with stupid shit that no one can enjoy it for its intended use. Isn't it better that everyone stay the fuck out and take their hobby horse elsewhere?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Is there a point at which any of you would finally cry "uncle" and say, "OK, maybe this blocking the bridge is a bad idea afterall". Consider the following;

The Bay Bridge situation is kind of like allowing Christians to put their nativity scene in a public park. If you do that, shouldn't you allow Muslims, Atheists, Festivus, Pastafarians, etc to have their displays too? At some point, the park gets so crowded with stupid shit that no one can enjoy it for its intended use. Isn't it better that everyone stay the fuck out and take their hobby horse elsewhere?

Civil rights is a hobby horse?

 

[funinspace]

round and round....

That would apply to Malheur occupiers but also equally to the Bay Bridge Bunch as they want to force the local government to change their policies regarding use of force (no shooting of armed and dangerous thugs like Mario Woods!) and housing policy (no gentrification, we want crappy neighborhoods with low property values and high crime rates!). What's the difference?

The difference was pretty much covered in my first post within this thread:

I think both should be arrested and charged with felonies (the #BLMers are only charged with misdemeanors and you know Soros et al will pay for all their fines anyway).
But the big difference is that the Malheur refuge is in the middle of nowhere whereas the #BLM cretins blocked a busy highway bridge and prevented thousands of people from moving.

And as far as asking for snacks, 4th precinct shutdown people were asking for food, firewood etc.

I would say the big difference is that one group came armed for violence and threatened it if they felt 'provoked' and that one of these events was allowed to continue completely without any policing response for 2 weeks now... Surround the damn place, and expect their surrender; and wait them out for surrender for the associated crimes they have committed. The bridge protesters certainly had no expectation that they wouldn't be arrested within a few hours, nor did they threaten violence (a key component of anything remotely linked to terrorism).

Personally, I find threatening law enforcement with weapons far more serious than peacefully, but illegally, interfering with traffic on freeway.

Again, so you aren't really calling the SF bridge protesters "terrorists"? It was just a headline grabber??? Or?

 

[Derec]

Civil rights is a hobby horse?

Armed and dangerous criminals getting shot is not a violation of civil rights.
Cheap real estate is not a civil right.
Ergo, the Bay Bridge Bunch is not about civil rights.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

Civil rights is a hobby horse?

Armed and dangerous criminals getting shot is not a violation of civil rights.

Actually it depends on what they are doing.

 

[Derec]

Again, so you aren't really calling the SF bridge protesters "terrorists"? It was just a headline grabber??? Or?

They and the Malheur occupiers are both committing crimes in order to force government to change their behavior. I see no fundamental difference between the two.
If one is terrorist, then so is the other, or neither is.

 

[Ford]

If there are enough people willing to risk prison for a protest over an issue, it is likely that the issue is important enough to be protested. There is a built in filter for important vs unimportant protests: that is getting enough people to show up. Any idiot can see that. This issue has been consistently protested against in large numbers for decades. DECADES. The movement is so large that you and your silly AM talkshow rhetoric shrink to insignificance.

Again, you show a singular lack of intellectual and moral maturity when you attempt to dismiss civil rights and fairness in law enforcement to such trivial issues. Again, technicalities, trivialities, and unquestioning acceptance of the status quo.

I think one person with the right tools can disrupt a freeway or a bridge pretty well. A car, maybe some steel cable and a few padlocks.

Back in the 90s it was done as a stunt by a radio DJ. After Clinton allegedly shut down air traffic in order to get a haircut on Air Force One, this guy figured he'd get a lot of attention for his show by doing the same thing.

With a couple station vehicles, he managed to shut down a lane or two on the Bay Bridge one morning, and proceeded to get a haircut live on air.

http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/3-free-days-on-Bay-Bridge-to-atone-for-DJ-haircut-3123363.php

The result was a very expensive settlement for the radio station and their parent company, and a very lucrative offer for the DJ to move his show to Chicago.

Terrorism? Hardly.

 

[Derec]

Actually it depends on what they are doing.

Mario Woods wasn't doing anything civil when he refused to drop the knife. And police was exceedingly patient with him. Had he really wanted to live he had several minutes time to decide that perhaps he should drop that knife. I think he preferred death to going back to prison.

 

[dismal]

Is there a point at which any of you would finally cry "uncle" and say, "OK, maybe this blocking the bridge is a bad idea afterall". Consider the following;

The Bay Bridge situation is kind of like allowing Christians to put their nativity scene in a public park. If you do that, shouldn't you allow Muslims, Atheists, Festivus, Pastafarians, etc to have their displays too? At some point, the park gets so crowded with stupid shit that no one can enjoy it for its intended use. Isn't it better that everyone stay the fuck out and take their hobby horse elsewhere?

Civil rights is a hobby horse?

What does this have to do with civil rights? There is no civil right to block a bridge.

 

[dismal]

I think one person with the right tools can disrupt a freeway or a bridge pretty well. A car, maybe some steel cable and a few padlocks.

Back in the 90s it was done as a stunt by a radio DJ. After Clinton allegedly shut down air traffic in order to get a haircut on Air Force One, this guy figured he'd get a lot of attention for his show by doing the same thing.

With a couple station vehicles, he managed to shut down a lane or two on the Bay Bridge one morning, and proceeded to get a haircut live on air.

http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/3-free-days-on-Bay-Bridge-to-atone-for-DJ-haircut-3123363.php

The result was a very expensive settlement for the radio station and their parent company, and a very lucrative offer for the DJ to move his show to Chicago.

Terrorism? Hardly.

OK, so how big a fine do these BLM people get? Maybe $10 million?