Terrorists take over Bay Bridge, falsely imprison commuters

[Nice Squirrel]

Who was falsely imprisoned? And I am not talking in a weird "oh they had to lock their car doors" way. I mean in the legal, prosecutable way.

If you trap somebody on a bridge for two hours that's false imprisonment.

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

 

[Derec]

This can be best seen in the example given of "what if it was a rescue crew who caused the delay? would you complain then?

I am really flabbergasted at this apparent inability to grasp the difference between a natural disaster, an accident etc. and harm caused by a deliberate criminal act.

- - - Updated - - -

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

They could not leave. They were trapped on a fucking bridge.
Why do you have such a need to minimize and justify what these criminals have done? Because they are black? Because they are on the Left? Why?

- - - Updated - - -

I don't think the BLM garbage rises to the level of a felony.

Writing a bad check above a certain amount is a felony. So why not falsely imprisoning 1000s of people by blocking a bridge?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Did they block both sides of the bridge?

 

[Derec]

I see part of problem as a vulnerable transpiration system.A good mass trans system would be less vulnerable.

It's still very much possible to disrupt it. San Francisco's BART is frequently the victim of such actions.
#Blackout Black Friday Protest Shuts Down BART
Although, if they chose to disrupt the subway like this I might even support them doing it.

What is the average speed of a commute in Atlanta?

Not good but that's quite a non sequitur. It would be much much worse if some idiots decided to block the downtown connector to protest a local thug like Nicholas Thomas or Jayvis Benjamin getting themselves shot.

- - - Updated - - -

Did they block both sides of the bridge?

Do you know how Interstates work?

 

[Sarpedon]

In fairness, it probably wouldn't have been possible to get everyone who was on the bridge off of it within the two hours. Bridges are notoriously difficult to turn around and go back on, which is probably why they picked it. Commuters were, defacto, trapped there; while they were nominally able to get out of their car and leave, that would have meant abandoning their car. I carry a book in my car for such occasions.

 

[Derec]

I'd be pissed off. Doesn't mean I'd want the government to force the protesters their rights to publically express themselves in order to avoid my being pissed off, though. My experiencing these negative feelings would be the lesser of the two evils in that case.

They do not have a right to "publicly express" themselves by blocking a bridge.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

In fairness, it probably wouldn't have been possible to get everyone who was on the bridge off of it within the two hours. Bridges are notoriously difficult to turn around and go back on, which is probably why they picked it. Commuters were, defacto, trapped there; while they were nominally able to get out of their car and leave, that would have meant abandoning their car. I carry a book in my car for such occasions.

Certainly, but imprisonment? Seems like a stretch. Prosecution would need to demonstrate that the protesters willfully performed the protest to trap these people.

Wonder if Derec was watching Lord of the Rings and cried out "that's imprisonment" when Gandalf did the 'None shall pass' bit with the Balrog.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

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

They could not leave. They were trapped on a fucking bridge.

Who told them they couldn't leave? They could get out of their cars and walk away. I asked for you to give me the actual legal, prosecutable reason.

So in your reasoning please explain the following:

If an old woman and some children are crossing the street and hold up traffic, are they falsely imprisoning drivers as well? Can auto traffic gridlock be called false imprisonment? If a car commits an illegal act and causes other drivers to crash blocking a freeway who is guilty of false imprisonment the driver that committed the illegal act, or the drivers that crashed?

What about the tasty Buffalo at Yellowstone? If they hold up traffic can they be shot for false imprisonment?

So many new things to consider with this absurd definition of "false imprisonment".

Why do you have such a need to minimize and justify what these criminals have done?

Because I have respect for the Freedom of Speech and the right to protest. Yes, they could be arrested for blocking the bridge, but not on false imprisonment charges.

Because they are black?

Why would that matter?

Because they are on the Left?

They are only on the left because that is the only group that is listening to them and not calling them names.

 

[Derec]

Police gun down 12 year old playing in the street: Both sides were to blame

And they were.

People protesting human beings being killed by rogue police: OMG! The protesters are illegally blocking traffic. The horror! The outrage!

The local #BLM cause celebre is a known gangbanger who was just released on parole after a robbery conviction who stabbed somebody and refused to drop his knife even as police attempted non-lethal methods like bean bags.
How is that "being killed by rogue police"?

Tells us a lot about Derec's humanity and sense of priorities.

Protesting the death of thugs who had it coming is not very high on my list of priorities. I feel much more for the commuter who got to their appointment late or who missed their flight than I do for pieces of shit like Mario Woods.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

They could not leave. They were trapped on a fucking bridge.

Who told them they couldn't leave?

The protesters with the guns. They had guns right? That is why Derec is making such a big deal about this. People tried to leave the bridge, but had guns pointed at them and the people on the bridge were scared for their lives.

 

[Derec]

Really? You are more dead if you die in a fire caused by arson than by lightening strike? Your house is more burned up?

The harm is the same but we as a society treat harm very differently based on whether it happened due to natural causes, . Whether you have a fatal heart attack, are accidentally killed or are murdered you are still just as dead but that does not mean these three things are equivalent. Not by a long shot. And neither is a deliberately (and criminally) blocking a highway bridge the same as a traffic jam that is not caused deliberately.

Please tell me which and support your assertion with quotes.

I posted it already.

 

[Sarpedon]

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.

 

[Derec]

So let us not mince words: a group of people, finding their rights violated,

Which of their rights were violated and by whom? Please be specific.

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.

I disagree that this is healthy. Do you think the Malheur occupation is healthy too? What about if the Bay Bridge was blocked by pro-lifers or those opposed to gay marriage?

The problem is that the namby-pamby response by the local authorities is doing nothing to deter these criminals. For example the left-wing local prosecutor dropped all charges against thugs who chained themselves at a BART station recently.
Alameda County DA drops charges against Black Friday 14, who stopped BART trains
I'd doubt she'd have dropped the charges is Operation Rescue was behind the action.

Had the DA vigorously prosecuted these idiots the Bay Bridge Bunch would possibly have been deterred. After all, the appeasement by local authorities is why these kinds of actions happen so frequently in "liberal" places like the Bay Area.

 

[funinspace]

If they have grievances they need to air them on December 23rd like the rest of us, not block highway/bridge traffic. It is not a police state to aggressively go after idiots like that, no matter their political motivation. Would you be as understanding if you were trapped on a bridge because some pro-lifers or anti-gay-marriage activists decided to have themselves a little "protest"?

Yes, I would be as understanding, as I have been delayed by protests.

I'm not sure if it was moral, as I would need to know much more about the situation. But it certainly isn't a horrible thing in the grand scheme of things.

Tell that to the people who were trapped there.

No thanks. I'll let you pass it along.

And calling the #BLM protesters "terrorists" isn't misleading? ROTFLMAO

It was a direct reference to the thread about the Oregon occupiers.

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

No, Derec this #BLM event is/was clearly within the normative of what most all people would call protesting, and little else beside being a public nuisance, unlawful assembly and obstructing free passage.

You forgot to mention false imprisonment.

If the SF bridge protesters committed "false imprisonment", then the Malheur refuge occupiers could be said to be "terrorists" (For clarity: I am not making this argument, I am pointing out the absurdity of yours).

“The term ‘Federal crime of terrorism’ means an offense that is calculated to influence or affect the conduct of government by intimidation or coercion, or to retaliate against government conduct,” per federal law, Section 2332B of Title 18 United States Code.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

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)

Imprisonment requires willful detention. While the people may have been stuck, I have a hard time thinking a prosecutor could convince a jury not consisting of several Derecs that the protestors were detaining the people on the bridge.

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.

Yes, they broke the law. No disagreement there. That is what Civil Disobedience is.

 

[Derec]

“The term ‘Federal crime of terrorism’ means an offense that is calculated to influence or affect the conduct of government by intimidation or coercion, or to retaliate against government conduct,” per federal law, Section 2332B of Title 18 United States Code.

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?

- - - Updated - - -

Imprisonment requires willful detention. While the people may have been stuck, I have a hard time thinking a prosecutor could convince a jury not consisting of several Derecs that the protestors were detaining the people on the bridge.

That was clearly their intent. That's why they chose an interstate bridge - to make their victims as trapped as possible.

Yes, they broke the law. No disagreement there. That is what Civil Disobedience is.

And they should be punished for it. Not have their charges dropped because they are on the same side of the political spectrum as the spineless DA.

 

[Sarpedon]

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.

 

[laughing dog]

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.

 

[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.

Dude... this means war!

 

[Derec]

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 nobody is imprisoned in prison because with "lots of coordination and effort" they can escape.