Terrorists take over Bay Bridge, falsely imprison commuters

[thebeave]

misdemeanor charges of false imprisonment

California must have a low bar on what it considers false imprisonment. Here it is a felony.

We had a case here in San Fran where the Sheriff had an altercation with his wife just before he was to take office. To make a long story short, he ended up pleading guilty to "false imprisonment". As I remember the story, he was driving around with his wife while they were fighting. She was in the backseat and getting hysterical and threatened to jump out of the car. He reached around and grabbed her arm to restrain her from getting out, and bruised her arm in the process. Restraining her just momentarily and thus preventing her from leaving the car was enough to charge him with "false imprisonment".

http://www.sfgate.com/crime/article/SF-Sheriff-Mirkarimi-pleads-guilty-to-misdemeanor-3406888.php

From the article:

Guilty plea: Misdemeanor false imprisonment is defined by law as "the unlawful violation of the personal liberty of another." The state Supreme Court has defined it as the "nonconsensual, intentional confinement of a person, without lawful privilege, for an appreciable length of time, however short." It can be prosecuted as a felony if it involves violence, threats or fraud.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

And there was nobody on the bridge not physically capable of walking off it?

- - - Updated - - -

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.

Caltrops. Use the hollow kind, you'll blow a bunch of tires. People carry spares--but only one. Blow two tires and they're basically stranded until help comes unless they want to tear things up.

- - - Updated - - -

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.

There's an implied threat of shooting with the Oregon loons. No threat on the bridge.