• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Terrorists take over Bay Bridge, falsely imprison commuters

dismal said:
Ford said:
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.
Click to expand...

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

The real question is, can they use it to launch a successful morning show?
 
Derec said:
Armed and dangerous criminals getting shot is not a violation of civil rights.
Nice Squirrel said:
Actually it depends on what they are doing.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...

If you are referencing specific individuals, you should make that more clear in your posts.

This was your statement: Armed and dangerous criminals getting shot is not a violation of civil rights.

Now it appears you were referring to ONE specific person. Is this correct?
 
You are free to let your imagination run wild, and come up with as many improbable situations as you care to that you think bolster your argument. As if some trivial, imaginary scenerio somehow blots out reality. But your argument ultimately remains that your rights are inviolable, but you do not care about the rights of others. I do a great deal of reading about the American Civil War, and find a great many similarities between the 'impossibilist' slave-owners of the south, who would make absolutely no concession to their perceived rights to either democracy or practicality, and modern conservatives, who think they can make up rights for themselves, use violence against anyone who doesn't go along with it, without any idea of proportion or compromise and at the same time be utterly indifferent to more serious violations of other people's rights. And, of course, in both cases, 'other people' means 'black people.'
 
Derec said:
funinspace said:
Again, so you aren't really calling the SF bridge protesters "terrorists"? It was just a headline grabber??? Or?
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
I'm ok with neither being terrorism. However, if the Malheur occupiers end up trying to resist arrest (assuming the government ever bothers) with their arsenal of weapons, as they have threatened to do, then I would think it fair enough to call them terrorists. Though even without that label, they would then at least be committing some very damn serious felonies.
 
Derec said:
laughing dog said:
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.
Click to expand...
And nobody is imprisoned in prison because with "lots of coordination and effort" they can escape. :rolleyes: :banghead:
Click to expand...
Escaping is against the law, rerouting is not. If you cannot parse the difference between imprisonment and delay/unofficial detention, you need to take a course in basic reasoning.
 
If they look at the bigger picture and stop playing word games, their argument vanishes.
 
I'll take Moore-Coulter for $1600 Alex.

Armed insurrection on Federal property is just as bad as slowing traffic to a crawl on a bridge.

The only reason the militants in Oregon are not dead yet is because the Federal Government doesn't want a repeat of Waco or Ruby Ridge. In those two cases the Feds learned just how stupid people like that can be. Meanwhile, the bridge protest ended without any bullets because there was no fear the protesters were a bunch of "thugs".
 
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/01/20/oregon-standoff-leader-attends-meeting-hears-chants-go.html

The leader of an armed group who took over a national wildlife refuge in southeastern Oregon weeks ago joined hundreds of area residents at a tense community meeting -- listening quietly as many loudly chanted at him to "go."

Ammon Bundy, who has been trying to drum up support for his cause, didn't speak at Tuesday night's meeting in Burns where residents discussed the armed occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge which began earlier this month.
Click to expand...

Hold on, so Ammon Bundy left the refuge and attended a community meeting in Burns . . . and wasn't arrested as soon as he set foot out of the wildlife refuge?

jesus christ
 
ksen said:
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/01/20/oregon-standoff-leader-attends-meeting-hears-chants-go.html

The leader of an armed group who took over a national wildlife refuge in southeastern Oregon weeks ago joined hundreds of area residents at a tense community meeting -- listening quietly as many loudly chanted at him to "go."

Ammon Bundy, who has been trying to drum up support for his cause, didn't speak at Tuesday night's meeting in Burns where residents discussed the armed occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge which began earlier this month.
Click to expand...

Hold on, so Ammon Bundy left the refuge and attended a community meeting in Burns . . . and wasn't arrested as soon as he set foot out of the wildlife refuge?

jesus christ
Click to expand...
Worse yet, he attended and didn't bother to make a case for his grievance. Probably certain that everyone at the meeting was a Government plant and there to dissuade him from continuing to help the actual people, in whatever prison the Government now had the citizens of Burns, Oregon in.
 
Who here writes for Wonkette or is this a full internet phenomenon?
But what are the feds supposed to do, go in there and arrest these thugs and toss their thuggy thug asses in jail? Come on, other than breaking the law and costing the state lots of money and threatening to shoot The Government if necessary, it’s not like they’re hurting anyone. Not like those real outlaws who march through the streets carrying signs and chanting slogans about “Hey, police, please don’t kill our kids anymore, please and thank you,” and shutting down bridges. It’s not as if those militia dudes are a threat to anyone.
Read more at http://wonkette.com/598069/charming...pt-for-the-murderer-maybe#6zOlISkVB1mOiEET.99
Click to expand...
 
Sarpedon said:
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)
Click to expand...

Yeah--they had no legal way to leave. Not quite kidnapping but close.
 
Jimmy Higgins said:
ksen said:
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/01/20/oregon-standoff-leader-attends-meeting-hears-chants-go.html



Hold on, so Ammon Bundy left the refuge and attended a community meeting in Burns . . . and wasn't arrested as soon as he set foot out of the wildlife refuge?

jesus christ
Click to expand...
Worse yet, he attended and didn't bother to make a case for his grievance. Probably certain that everyone at the meeting was a Government plant and there to dissuade him from continuing to help the actual people, in whatever prison the Government now had the citizens of Burns, Oregon in.
Click to expand...

Where is Janet Reno when you need her? The guys army holds down the fort while the terrorist leader goes to a community meeting where even unarmed citizens look him in the face and say "Get out of here now!" Where is the FBI? They should have nabbed Ammon at that meeting.:picardfacepalm:
 
Nice Squirrel said:
If you trap somebody on a bridge for two hours that's false imprisonment.
Click to expand...

No it isn't. The people were free to leave.
Click to expand...

Think of it this way. Let's say its a Saturday afternoon and you're driving around town doing errands. You're parked at the local Walmart buying a few things. You're in your car ready to leave, then three people pull behind you with their car and block you from backing out of your space. You can't go forward because there is a light pole in front of you. Then they bring out some protest signs, and start chanting. They won't move, but they're not prohibiting you from getting out of your car. Do you see this as different from what happened to hundreds of people that day on the Bay Bridge? Do you feel those people broke some sort of law and should pay a price for their actions? What if you had to go to your kids' dance recital, or go on a job interview later that day? Or get home and take your insulin injection?
 
thebeave said:
Nice Squirrel said:
No it isn't. The people were free to leave.
Click to expand...

Think of it this way. Let's say its a Saturday afternoon and you're driving around town doing errands. You're parked at the local Walmart buying a few things. You're in your car ready to leave, then three people pull behind you with their car and block you from backing out of your space. You can't go forward because there is a light pole in front of you. Then they bring out some protest signs, and start chanting. They won't move, but they're not prohibiting you from getting out of your car. Do you see this as different from what happened to hundreds of people that day on the Bay Bridge? Do you feel those people broke some sort of law and should pay a price for their actions? What if you had to go to your kids' dance recital, or go on a job interview later that day? Or get home and take your insulin injection?
Click to expand...

The did not falsely imprison me.
 
thebeave said:
Nice Squirrel said:
No it isn't. The people were free to leave.
Click to expand...

Think of it this way. Let's say its a Saturday afternoon and you're driving around town doing errands. You're parked at the local Walmart buying a few things. You're in your car ready to leave, then three people pull behind you with their car and block you from backing out of your space. You can't go forward because there is a light pole in front of you. Then they bring out some protest signs, and start chanting. They won't move, but they're not prohibiting you from getting out of your car. Do you see this as different from what happened to hundreds of people that day on the Bay Bridge? Do you feel those people broke some sort of law and should pay a price for their actions? What if you had to go to your kids' dance recital, or go on a job interview later that day? Or get home and take your insulin injection?
Click to expand...
There are legal standards to meet particular crimes. Nice Squirrel is arguing against saying there is "false imprisonment". You are now just making up hypotheticals to try and ... who the heck knows. We agree this was Civil Disobedience, that laws were broken. We've moved on.
 
Jimmy Higgins said:
There are legal standards to meet particular crimes.
Click to expand...
Yes.
KTVU said:
CHP tweeted in all, that 25 protesters were taken into custody and would be booked into the San Francisco County Jail on the following charges; false imprisonment, public nuisance, unlawful assembly, and obstructing free passage.
Click to expand...

Unlikely to stick given prosecutorial spinelessness but nevertheless not something we are making up here on this board.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom