Terrorists take over Bay Bridge, falsely imprison commuters

[Derec]

Black Lives Matters Demonstrators Block Bay Bridge; Dozens Arrested

These idiots claim the legacy of Martin Luther King. I do not recall MLK Jr. ever blocking any interstate highways.

Oh and by the way, it is not OT in this thread to discuss similarities between #BLM idiots and Occupy Oregon idiots.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Hmm.

Twenty-five people were arrested Monday as authorities ended a protest on the Bay Bridge that brought rush hour traffic to a standstill.

Arrested. Last less than a couple hours. No plea for snacks. No fences were harmed. Unarmed.

I'm not certain, but I think one of the things above is what differentiates civil disobedience with terrorism. Might be the snack part.

 

[Toni]

Black Lives Matters Demonstrators Block Bay Bridge; Dozens Arrested

These idiots claim the legacy of Martin Luther King. I do not recall MLK Jr. ever blocking any interstate highways.

Oh and by the way, it is not OT in this thread to discuss similarities between #BLM idiots and Occupy Oregon idiots.

I thought you were a young fella? You surely don't remember Dr. King at all. Your history does seem confused. Eisenhower signed legislation which began the interstate system in 1956 but there weren't many interstate highways in existence in 1965.

In any case:

Selma, 1965:

 

[Derec]

Hmm.

Twenty-five people were arrested Monday as authorities ended a protest on the Bay Bridge that brought rush hour traffic to a standstill.

Arrested. Last less than a couple hours. No plea for snacks. No fences were harmed. Unarmed.

I'm not certain, but I think one of the things above is what differentiates civil disobedience with terrorism. Might be the snack part.

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.

 

[Valjean]

Who was "terrified" by this demonstration?

 

[Derec]

I thought you were a young fella? You surely don't remember Dr. King at all.

Not that young but I did miss him by a decade.

Your history does seem confused. Eisenhower signed legislation which began the interstate system in 1956 but there weren't many interstate highways in existence in 1965.

But there were some. And Bay Bridge was certainly there then. Did they block it, trapping thousands of commuters?

Selma, 1965:

Hell, Selma doesn't have any interstate highways nearby even today. Did he block any busy roads? Were there even many cars in Selma in that day?

 

[Derec]

Who was "terrified" by this demonstration?

It's a response to the thread calling Occupy Oregon-ers "terrorists".

But in any case, I am sure some of the people trapped on a bridge for an hour were at least uneasy about the whole thing.

 

[Toni]

Not that young but I did miss him by a decade.

Your history does seem confused. Eisenhower signed legislation which began the interstate system in 1956 but there weren't many interstate highways in existence in 1965.

But there were some. And Bay Bridge was certainly there then. Did they block it, trapping thousands of commuters?

Selma, 1965:

Hell, Selma doesn't have any interstate highways nearby even today. Did he block any busy roads? Were there even many cars in Selma in that day?

FFS, yes: Selma had cars. It's not a big place so the influx of 25000 marchers was a big deal.

US citizens have the right to petition one's government for the redress of grievances and that right may be exercised in large groups. Even if it is inconvenient.

I love the way that you always want to escalate a peaceful demonstration into mass felony arrests.

 

[funinspace]

Hmm.


Arrested. Last less than a couple hours. No plea for snacks. No fences were harmed. Unarmed.

I'm not certain, but I think one of the things above is what differentiates civil disobedience with terrorism. Might be the snack part.

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.

 

[dismal]

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

Which one has harmed more people?

 

[Derec]

US citizens have the right to petition one's government for the redress of grievances and that right may be exercised in large groups. Even if it is inconvenient.

US citizens do not have the right to deliberately block highway traffic. These creeps chained their cars together across the bridge.
There is a big difference between inadvertent inconvenience and planning to trap and falsely imprison a large number of commuters on a bridge.

I love the way that you always want to escalate a peaceful demonstration into mass felony arrests.

This was not a peaceful demonstration.
But at least I do not want the military to just kill them all, like some want to do with the Malheur occupiers.

 

[funinspace]

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

Which one has harmed more people?

Neither. But then again, one group didn't have law enforcement walking up to them to arrest them within hours. If law enforcement did go into the refuge compound to arrest these idiots with lots of weapons, they would have needed to go in SWAT style simply to ensure their own safety. This alone makes it pretty clear which group of law breakers is the bigger problem. FWIW, I have no problem with the bridge protesters being arrested.

 

[Toni]

US citizens do not have the right to deliberately block highway traffic. These creeps chained their cars together across the bridge.
There is a big difference between inadvertent inconvenience and planning to trap and falsely imprison a large number of commuters on a bridge.

I love the way that you always want to escalate a peaceful demonstration into mass felony arrests.

This was not a peaceful demonstration.
But at least I do not want the military to just kill them all, like some want to do with the Malheur occupiers.

What makes you think that the marchers in Selma were 'inadvertently' inconveniencing anybody?

The point of a demonstration is to garner attention for a cause. Even if it is inconvenient.

 

[Derec]

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...

Well the cretins who shut down a police precinct in Minneapolis lasted three weeks before being removed (and only 8 were arrested). And they were asking for food and firewood but people on here were not ridiculing them for their lack of preparation.

 

[Sarpedon]

I just love how interfering with traffic is called 'harm.' There are occasional traffic jambs, from various causes. They are a fact of life, not harm.

A road I like to take has been closed for a year, and will remain closed for another year. Can I sue my city for 'harming' me? I'd get laughed our of court, just like you should get laughed out of this forum.

 

[Derec]

What makes you think that the marchers in Selma were 'inadvertently' inconveniencing anybody?

Are you saying they were blocking people deliberately like these bridge occupiers did? Or what is your point?

 

[Derec]

I just love how interfering with traffic is called 'harm.'

Of course it is harm. People were trapped for an hour and all of them were harmed to one extent or another. Of course, had there been an ambulance in an emergency the harm could have been much worse. But even without it there is harm.

There are occasional traffic jambs, from various causes. They are a fact of life, not harm.

Wildfires are also a fact of life, and they are caused by various things. That does not mean that wild fires that occur due to a deliberate act should be dismissed as not a big deal. No, they are arson and they should be handled that way. This is several thousand counts of false imprisonment and should not be handled with a slap on the wrist.

A road I like to take has been closed for a year, and will remain closed for another year. Can I sue my city for 'harming' me? I'd get laughed our of court, just like you should get laughed out of this forum.

If somebody deliberately damaged the road in order for it to be impassable then they should be subject to lawsuits. Why is that so difficult to comprehend? This was not an accident or a natural disaster. This was a bunch of idiots with too much time on their hands and too much funding chaining themselves across a busy interstate bridge. It is you who should be laughed out of this forum for this comparison.

 

[funinspace]

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...

Well the cretins who shut down a police precinct in Minneapolis lasted three weeks before being removed (and only 8 were arrested). And they were asking for food and firewood but people on here were not ridiculing them for their lack of preparation.

Seriously? People on this bored ridiculed something....

 

[dismal]

Which one has harmed more people?

Neither. But then again, one group didn't have law enforcement walking up to them to arrest them within hours. If law enforcement did go into the refuge compound to arrest these idiots with lots of weapons, they would have needed to go in SWAT style simply to ensure their own safety. This alone makes it pretty clear which group of law breakers is the bigger problem. FWIW, I have no problem with the bridge protesters being arrested.

It doesn't harm people to shut down a bridge (or a government office)? Why did they build the bridge (or the government office)?

- - - Updated - - -

I just love how interfering with traffic is called 'harm.' There are occasional traffic jambs, from various causes. They are a fact of life, not harm.

A road I like to take has been closed for a year, and will remain closed for another year. Can I sue my city for 'harming' me? I'd get laughed our of court, just like you should get laughed out of this forum.

Of course it's harm.

Denying this indicates sociopathic tendencies.

 

[Sarpedon]

And offering a diagnosis without having examined the patient indicates quack tendencies.