Kick them in the head [Archive]

trumptman

02-18-2005, 03:31 PM

Originally posted by sammi jo
Having read the article, I noticed that the actions of the police were very telling, and predictable: 27 protesters were arrested, although according to eyewitnesses they didnt fight back or commit any violence, but the behavior of the thugs who committed assault and battery, causing injuries was either ignored, or considered just fine by the police.

What is very telling is that when 30 parties engage in criminal trespass, you consider it fine because they didn't add assault and battery to their list of crimes.

Self defense is a well defined legal right. Perhaps you should make yourself familiar with it.

It reminds me of two nasty poltically motivated incidents in the LA area in the run up to the Iraq war, where one anti-war protest organizer had his house deliberately set on fire, a rock put through his car windshield and a 2 foot long pipebomb placed under his car over a 2 week period. Luckily the fire was extinguished before it took hold, and the bomb failed to explode when he drove away. The LAPD and local FBI field office refused to even investigate the cases (the only reason one can imagine is because of the politics involved).

Well why would they do anything? By your own twisted reasoning, these actions are just protected forms of political speech. How dare your friend deny these people their speech by doing little things like putting the fire out or not actually blowing up.:no: :rolleyes:

Nick

trumptman

02-18-2005, 03:33 PM

Originally posted by midwinter
As Nick rightly points out, yes, you can protect your property. But you must do so in a manner that is unreasonable. I cannot shoot someone in the head simply because they refuse to get off my lawn.

I wouldn't be so sure of that. I mean you do live in Utah.

:devil:
Nick

addabox

02-18-2005, 03:33 PM

Civil disobedience must be met with a beating. It's one of the founding principals of the American Experiment, which is why über patriot trumpy gets all warm and fuzzy when he comes across an account, and can't wait to share it with us.

See, beating up protesters in an office building is much like defending ones wilderness home against Injuns or Revenuers or such.

midwinter

02-18-2005, 03:35 PM

Originally posted by trumptman
I wouldn't be so sure of that. I mean you do live in Utah.

Fair point. Let me qualify: in the civilized world I cannot shoot someone in the head simply because they won't get off my lawn.

stupider...likeafox

02-18-2005, 03:41 PM

Originally posted by trumptman
Is that a threat against another forum member?

I think his point was that beating up non-violent protesters obviously seems like a hoot to you, and you claim you would follow the example of those in the story that attacked men and women that were staging a protest at their place of work, hospitalising at least two people.

However, we are unaware of what you would do if these protesters were actually intent on causing you physical harm rather than simply non-violent occupation of your 'private property' and interruption of your 'function' (hence the question).

groverat

02-18-2005, 03:49 PM

trumpt:

Obviously you've never heard of the concept of self-defense on private property and the right to keep out intruders. Perhaps you will become aware of it in law school.

Mr. Condescension, do the people who were assaulting the protesters own the property in question?

You might want to save that tone of voice for when you aren't completely and totally off-base.

Self defense is absolutely acceptable to counter unlawful force and entry.

Where the traders being attacked?
Since the answer to that question is "no", how does one rationalize this as "self-defense"?

trumptman

02-18-2005, 03:50 PM

Originally posted by addabox
Civil disobedience must be met with a beating. It's one of the founding principals of the American Experiment, which is why über patriot trumpy gets all warm and fuzzy when he comes across an account, and can't wait to share it with us.

See, beating up protesters in an office building is much like defending ones wilderness home against Injuns or Revenuers or such.

I especially love sharing with you Adda. You are so much fun. Now go put on your injun costume, get me the paddle and come back to bed.

Nick

giant

02-18-2005, 03:55 PM

I can't tell if this thread is supposed to be about protestors or about some elementary school teacher fantasizing about violence and being the tough guy he never was nor ever will be.

Maybe my friend should have beat the shit out of those abortion protestors with the posters who harrassed her when she was going to get the dead fetus removed at the clinic after she had a miscarriage. That would have been halarious.

You know what was really funny? When the young girl and her mom shopping at watertower in downtown chicago got attacked by the police and thrown in jail because the cops were high on adrenaline didn't believe they weren't protestors.

trumptman

02-18-2005, 03:56 PM

Originally posted by ShawnJ
Yeah. You're just itching for a fight though. A bunch of non-violent protesters somehow threaten your physical well-being? Cry me a river.

:lol:

Somehow, the thought of a thread starter (advancing one of the most boneheaded points of views I've encountered in my time here) crying at the mere suggestion of being a target of the very violence he encourages strikes me as hypocritical.

You have a very strange understanding of self-defense. The force does not already be applied to your physical body before you defend yourself, especially on your own private property.

Think about what you are saying here Shawn. You are saying that your girlfriend for example, wouldn't be able to defend herself against a rapist that had entered her house until the rapist actually initiated physical harm against her.

Talk about a boneheaded view! I can just see the defense now. "But your honor, my client was only there to protest their cause, they had not inflicted any violence on the girl."

:no: :rolleyes:
Nick

trumptman

02-18-2005, 04:03 PM

Originally posted by groverat
trumpt:Mr. Condescension, do the people who were assaulting the protesters own the property in question?

You might want to save that tone of voice for when you aren't completely and totally off-base.

Where the traders being attacked?
Since the answer to that question is "no", how does one rationalize this as "self-defense"?

Being an employee on your employer's private property doesn't mean you forgo your right to self-defense. Self-defense is a basic human right.

The traders had already endured the protesters overcoming the security door out front, pushing past the security guards ont their way to the trading floor, they are under no obligation to have violence actually performed on them before they defend themselves.

Hey Grove, if you were a klansman and I were a black man, would I have to wait until you have the noose around my neck before I fight back? Would I have to wait until you strike me in some fashion or could I just start stopping you at the front door?

Nick

e1618978

02-18-2005, 04:05 PM

These were not non-violent protestors. Non-violent protestors do not attach helium baloons to rape whistles and shoot them through your office building. Non-violent protestors do not force their way into a building at all.

If one of them was killed, I would object, but besides that they got what they deserved. Not only will they probably not try that again, but it is an example to others.

Protest outside the building, fine, but don't force your way in and blast everyone with fog horns.

trumptman

02-18-2005, 04:06 PM

Originally posted by ShawnJ
You're comparing protesters to rapists now? By all means, beat the shit out of them. :rolleyes:

No I am comparing self-defense with self-defense. The reality of the matter is that you do not need to wait for the party to fully reveal their intent against you on private property before you begin defending yourself. You don't have to wait for my rights to end at your nose in your own livingroom.

Nick

giant

02-18-2005, 04:07 PM

Originally posted by trumptman
Hey Grove, if you were a klansman and I were a black man, would I have to wait until you have the noose around my neck before I fight back?
uhhh...

midwinter

02-18-2005, 04:10 PM

What if you were an elephant and I were an asparagus stalk? How about if I were a bucket of water and you were a purple gorilla? A chain link fence and a stack of 300 post it notes?

Can we PLEASE stop with the analogies?

e1618978

02-18-2005, 04:14 PM

Originally posted by midwinter
What if you were an elephant and I were an asparagus stalk? How about if I were a bucket of water and you were a purple gorilla? A chain link fence and a stack of 300 post it notes?

Can we PLEASE stop with the analogies?

Just because your analogies suck does not mean that everyone's do. If your logic is so weak as to be blown to pieces by an apt analogy, then so be it.

If you don't think that the analogy is correct, point out the flaws.

groverat

02-18-2005, 04:16 PM

Being an employee on your employer's private property doesn't mean you forgo your right to self-defense. Self-defense is a basic human right.

Ok, so the "private property" argument is dead, let's kill the "self-defense" one next.

The traders had already endured the protesters overcoming the security door out front, pushing past the security guards ont their way to the trading floor, they are under no obligation to have violence actually performed on them before they defend themselves.

"Overcoming"? "Pushing"? Did you read the article you posted?
I'll quote it for you:
They made their way to the trading floor, blowing whistles and sounding fog horns, encountering little resistance from security guards.

Oh wait... hmm... I guess you don't have any point at all, so it's time to reach into the Absurdity Hat for a straw man to salvage this abortion of a thread...
Hey Grove, if you were a klansman and I were a black man, would I have to wait until you have the noose around my neck before I fight back? Would I have to wait until you strike me in some fashion or could I just start stopping you at the front door?

And you knock it clean out of the park!

At some point in a debate you should catch yourself and think, "Wow, I'm lying and misleading the entire time... maybe instead of digging my way out of a hole I should try and climb out."

Let's see how this plays out! *popcorn munching*

giant

02-18-2005, 04:18 PM

sammi jo

02-18-2005, 04:29 PM

Self defense against nonviolent protesters? :lol: :rolleyes:

What trumpt is really saying here is that he is disapproves of anyone who protests, argues against, or even questions any aspect of the religion of his choice, namely jungle law style capitalism.

e1618978

02-18-2005, 04:30 PM

Originally posted by sammi jo
Self defense against nonviolent protesters? :lol: :rolleyes:

What trumpt is really saying here is that he is disapproves of anyone who protests, argues against, or even questions any aspect of the religion of his choice, namely jungle law style capitalism.

So you are OK with yahoos breaking into your place of work and harassing you? Just free expression?

midwinter

02-18-2005, 04:33 PM

Originally posted by e1618978
Just because your analogies suck does not mean that everyone's do.

Are you joking? Because I was.

If your logic is so weak as to be blown to pieces by an apt analogy, then so be it.

Here's my logic. Reasoning by analogy means that you are not talking about the thing want to be talking about. Instead, you are talking about a thing that may or may not be like the thing you are discussing. All analogies are inherently imperfect because they are not what you are discussing. They are something similar to, but, in the end, NOT, it. In a forum such as this one, you wind up haggling over the merits of the analogy rather than treating the issue directly.

If you don't think that the analogy is correct, point out the flaws.

1) It is an analogy. All analogies are inherently flawed.
2) We are discussing protesters who stormed a building and got the crap beaten out of them. Apparently excessively.
3) We are not discussing whether or not someone is black, a klansman, wielding a bat, threatening violence against another forum member, or about to take the shape of...a bucket of water.

groverat

02-18-2005, 04:33 PM

Oh and let's destroy those analogies to make e#s happy:

1 - THE KLAN WILL KILL YOU BLACK HIPPIES!
- Lynching was a direct act of violence. Running around with whistles is not.
- The KKK was an organization founded on violence who killed thousands of blacks by hanging and other means. Greenpeace can be irritating and disruptive but they haven't killed anyone ever (or even hurt anyone as far as I know), they are hippies with whistles and signs.

2 - IT'S MAH PROPERTY AND I KIN GIT MAH GUN AND SHOOT YA!
- The traders did not own the property. The people who they work for might not even own that property. There is no civilized nation on earth that allows employees to beat the hell out of people who disrupt the workplace.

Analogies that idiotic are obviously the refuge of someone searching desperately for relevance.

e#s:

So you are OK with yahoos breaking into your place of work and harassing you? Just free expression?

That is an entirely different question than the one in this thread, which is "Is it ok to try and crush irritating people with heavy filing cabinets?"

You are going off-topic. Let's deal with the topic at hand before going off-topic.

midwinter

02-18-2005, 04:35 PM

Originally posted by e1618978
So you are OK with yahoos breaking into your place of work and harassing you? Just free expression?

No. But we're discussing whether or not it was right for a bunch of people to beat the ever-living shit out of non-violent protesters.

It was not. Their actions were excessive.

trumptman

02-18-2005, 04:38 PM

Originally posted by groverat
Ok, so the "private property" argument is dead, let's kill the "self-defense" one next.

No it doesn't kill it. You seem to think that you must be the title holder for application. That simply isn't true. Private property is not a public forum. Until you prove that it is, your own point is mute.

"Overcoming"? "Pushing"? Did you read the article you posted?
I'll quote it for you:
They made their way to the trading floor, blowing whistles and sounding fog horns, encountering little resistance from security guards.

They went past the security door that they were not authorized to use or enter. The fact that the story characterizes them as encountering little resistance doesn't mean they didn't push their way into the building. I didn't say they punched, or kicked. There seems to be a dispute as to whether they made it to the trading floor. Are you claiming they just walked uncheck onto the floor? Also the attempt to disrupt trading was a clear attempt to cause financial loss. No analogies necessary to understand that trespass with intent to cause financial harm and loss is a crime and warrants self defense.

Oh wait... hmm... I guess you don't have any point at all, so it's time to reach into the Absurdity Hat for a straw man to salvage this abortion of a thread...

I guess in the future I won't use clear examples of a concept to combat such muddleheaded thinking. I'll just let those folks enjoy their lack of understanding.

And you knock it clean out of the park!

At some point in a debate you should catch yourself and think, "Wow, I'm lying and misleading the entire time... maybe instead of digging my way out of a hole I should try and climb out."

Let's see how this plays out! *popcorn munching*

What I knocked clear out of the park was your claim that you have to actually encounter some sort of violence against your person before you can defend yourself. If you can't see that from those clear examples, they you obviously won't be able to see it period. That is your own loss.

Nick

e1618978

02-18-2005, 04:40 PM

I personally think that the whistles and fog horns were a form of violence. The protestors participated in an agressive intrusion, and got what they deserved.

It is all very well and good to think it through afterwards, but if somebody breaks in, surprises you with shockingly agressive movements and noises, fight or flight kicks in.

If this happened to you, you wouldn't moralise about it. Either you would run away, or you would kick their butt - either is acceptable, because the shocking behavior of the protestors will have left the employees with no time to think things through.

sammi jo

02-18-2005, 04:40 PM

Originally posted by e1618978
So you are OK with yahoos breaking into your place of work and harassing you? Just free expression?

It sounds like a welcome break from the monotony! Pretty entertaining....but as these humorless sh¡t-for-brains hooligans responded with fists and boots, presumably because they either lost the argument, or didn't know how to respond with the spoken word.

Sorry, but violence and aggression is not a civilized response, unless it is in self defense. Perhaps these jerkwads cant handle their testosterone.

:rolleyes:

e1618978

02-18-2005, 04:42 PM

PS - anyone siding with the protestors must be someone who has never faced an agressive intrusion. If you ever do, I think that your position on this issue will change.

giant

02-18-2005, 04:44 PM

Originally posted by e1618978
Either you would run away, or you would kick their butt
run away from what? whistles and fog horns? you sure are sensitive for someone advocating violence.

trumptman

02-18-2005, 04:45 PM

Originally posted by midwinter
Are you joking? Because I was.

Come now Mid, not everyone can get your sense of humor. It is rather dry and devoid of smilies.

Here's my logic. Reasoning by analogy means that you are not talking about the thing want to be talking about. Instead, you are talking about a thing that may or may not be like the thing you are discussing. All analogies are inherently imperfect because they are not what you are discussing. They are something similar to, but, in the end, NOT, it. In a forum such as this one, you wind up haggling over the merits of the analogy rather than treating the issue directly.

Good point.

1) It is an analogy. All analogies are inherently flawed.
2) We are discussing protesters who stormed a building and got the crap beaten out of them. Apparently excessively.
3) We are not discussing whether or not someone is black, a klansman, wielding a bat, threatening violence against another forum member, or about to take the shape of...a bucket of water.

I thought I was just speaking Southern/Texan.:p :lol: I was going to toss in some country western lyrics for good measure.

Nick

sammi jo

02-18-2005, 04:48 PM

Originally posted by e1618978
PS - anyone siding with the protestors must be someone who has never faced an agressive intrusion. If you ever do, I think that your position on this issue will change.

I think you should familiarize yourself with Greenpeace methods before casting those analogies. Colorful and loud is about as 'aggessive' as they get, but that is obviously too colorful and loud for you. The stormtrooper style response by the thug element is quite fine by you. You, like trumpt, seem highly uncomfortable with anyone who challenges the jungle law capitalist "ethic", no matter *what* method they use, be it a loud protest, or an essay in a newspaper.

e1618978

02-18-2005, 04:50 PM

Originally posted by giant
run away from what? whistles and fog horns? you sure are sensitive for someone advocating violence.

Run away from a group of unexpected individuals running into your building making tons of noise. A fog horn in an enclosed space is loud enough to damage your ears. This was a running invasion of unknown intent.

You are going to act without thinking, and your body will be full of fight or flight chemicals. It is not like these people are trained on how to react to this.

giant

02-18-2005, 04:52 PM

your argument is a joke and you know it

e1618978

02-18-2005, 04:57 PM

Originally posted by giant
your argument is a joke and you know it

It is true, that I have never seen a greenpeace protest.

However, some thugs broke into my house when I was 12 and tried to beat us up with lacrosse sticks. My father cut them with a meat cleaver and they ran away.

I am assuming that the employees felt like I did - my situation was more serious, but I think that the reactions would be similar.

trumptman

02-18-2005, 05:00 PM

Originally posted by groverat
Oh and let's destroy those analogies to make e#s happy:

1 - THE KLAN WILL KILL YOU BLACK HIPPIES!
- Lynching was a direct act of violence. Running around with whistles is not.
- The KKK was an organization founded on violence who killed thousands of blacks by hanging and other means. Greenpeace can be irritating and disruptive but they haven't killed anyone ever (or even hurt anyone as far as I know), they are hippies with whistles and signs.

Some might disagree...while Greenpeace claims to be non-violent, they easy support and share membership with organizations that advocate eco-terrorism. What you are doing is akin to claiming that the neighborhood organizations in the south that fronted for the KKK were not harmful in any manner because they let the KKK do the dirty work.

2 - IT'S MAH PROPERTY AND I KIN GIT MAH GUN AND SHOOT YA!
- The traders did not own the property. The people who they work for might not even own that property. There is no civilized nation on earth that allows employees to beat the hell out of people who disrupt the workplace.

Analogies that idiotic are obviously the refuge of someone searching desperately for relevance.

Your understanding here is horribly limited. You don't own your apartment, does that mean your right to defense is gone? The crux of the matter is that private property, no matter who owns it is not a public forum for speech. If these folks were beating them in the public streets, sidewalks, or parks you would have a very valid point. However the right to free speech doesn't give me the right to invade private property, nor even the right to cause financial or physical harm to others through my direct physical actions in their place of business.

Nick

giant

02-18-2005, 05:06 PM

Originally posted by e1618978
However, some thugs broke into my house when I was 12 and tried to beat us up with lacrosse sticks.
and that's supposed to be anything remotely like whistles?

trumptman

02-18-2005, 05:07 PM

Originally posted by sammi jo
I think you should familiarize yourself with Greenpeace methods before casting those analogies. Colorful and loud is about as 'aggessive' as they get, but that is obviously too colorful and loud for you. The stormtrooper style response by the thug element is quite fine by you. You, like trumpt, seem highly uncomfortable with anyone who challenges the jungle law capitalist "ethic", no matter *what* method they use, be it a loud protest, or an essay in a newspaper.

I like how having 30 people illegally enter a private building isn't "stormtrooper style response" or "thug element."

Of course discussing why they couldn't have just enjoyed their speech outside in the street is beyond understanding here. We would probably have to deal with the financial loss and harm they wanted to inflict in the name of their "speech."

Remember, when I take the money out of your wallet, it is just my form of speech.

Nick

trumptman

02-18-2005, 05:16 PM

Originally posted by giant
and that's supposed to be anything remotely like whistles?

You are aware that many rape whistles can give off sounds in the 120 db range? This is right on the threshold of pain and 15 minutes of exposure to such a level can cause hearing loss. 130 decibals is like standing right next to a cannon being fired while wearing no hearing protection.

150 db will rupture your ear drum.

They had multiple rape whistles according to the article and attempted to have them on balloons out of reach to stop them.

Those whistles can be harmful, but they are allowed as a self defense mechanism. Here they were clearly being used in an offensive manner and to me, it justifies the reaction.

Nick

midwinter

02-18-2005, 05:18 PM

Bloody hell. Now we're talking about whether or not the non-violent protesters who got the ever-living shit beaten out of them by non-security guards and non-property owners committed acts of violence by blowing a whistle.

trumptman

02-18-2005, 05:22 PM

Originally posted by midwinter
Bloody hell. Now we're talking about whether or not the non-violent protesters who got the ever-living shit beaten out of them by non-security guards and non-property owners committed acts of violence by blowing a whistle.

But at least the analogies are gone. You should be proud Mid.

How long would I get to blow sweet nothings into your ear with a 120 db rape whistle before you would shove it down my throat?

Also I suspect that they weren't using the lung powered variety. I don't think those could be deemed effective while being hung from balloons out of reach in an attempt to disrupt trading. I could be wrong on that, but something tells me that the lung powered ones just wouldn't work very well in that context.:lol:

I believe these were likely the electric powered variety, likely rigged to keep the button held down, that would then sound uninterrupted while hanging from a balloon.

Nick

trumptman

02-18-2005, 05:25 PM

Originally posted by midwinter
No. But we're discussing whether or not it was right for a bunch of people to beat the ever-living shit out of non-violent protesters.

It was not. Their actions were excessive.

Punches and kicks seem very appropriate. I read no reports of bats, guns, clubs or anything else being used. How much lower on the defensive chain can you go than hands and fists?

Nick

midwinter

02-18-2005, 05:27 PM

Originally posted by trumptman
But at least the analogies are gone. You should be proud Mid.

No, actually, the analogies are not done. We're talking about whether or not whistles that may or may not have been like the whistles they were using may or may not cause damage. This is not the point.

How long would I get to blow sweet nothings into your ear with a 120 db rape whistle before you would shove it down my throat?

Considering I've lived for the last 10 years with an umbrella cockatoo with a scream in the -125db range, I can safely say that I'd probably either tell you to stop or go to another room.

Also I suspect that they weren't using the lung powered variety.

I suspect that they might have had laser pistols. This is not what we're discussing. Does an employee of a place have the legal right to attack and beat a non-violent protester? If so, to what degree can those employees beat the person?

midwinter

02-18-2005, 05:28 PM

audiopollution

02-18-2005, 05:30 PM

Originally posted by trumptman
Punches and kicks seem very appropriate. I read no reports of bats, guns, clubs or anything else being used. How much lower on the defensive chain can you go than hands and fists?

Nick

Feather dusters and Nerf swords.

I'm going to pick up some bear spray.

"But, your honour, they were indistinguishable from your common Grizzly ... all that hair ... and the smell."

I'll be all set when Greenpeace show up. Tipping filing cabinets is so 1985.

:)

a_greer

02-18-2005, 05:41 PM

Originally posted by ShawnJ
...and you would wind up in jail for assault. That is a grey area, If you are on public property you are right, but if it is private property, you must be given adiquite verbal warning, which usually means three audible verbal warnings, you have the right to take appropreate physical action if you didnt get results from talking.

If it were me, I would call police and file charges of trespassing and disterbing the peace...or would I open that case of whoop-ass that I have been keeping under my desk for a while ;)

trumptman

02-18-2005, 05:57 PM

Originally posted by midwinter
No, actually, the analogies are not done. We're talking about whether or not whistles that may or may not have been like the whistles they were using may or may not cause damage. This is not the point.

I think that is being discussed because the main point, thirty people illegally entering a private building, causing the business it does to stop, and attempting to cause financial loss and harm pretty much can't be justified to me or I suspect most people.

Considering I've lived for the last 10 years with an umbrella cockatoo with a scream in the -125db range, I can safely say that I'd probably either tell you to stop or go to another room.

Yes but of course when my intent is to stop you and I entered your house illegally and won't go into another room, what then?

I suspect that they might have had laser pistols. This is not what we're discussing. Does an employee of a place have the legal right to attack and beat a non-violent protester? If so, to what degree can those employees beat the person?

You consider them non-violent because you do not consider thirty five people rushing into a place to be confrontational. I do. You do not consider an assortment of rape whistles and fog horns to be confrontational, but I do.

Now the first question in self defense is who was the aggressor? Clearly these protesters were the aggressors. They entered the building illegally with clear intent to, at a minimum stop business by making it so loud that no one would be able to hear each other.

The second question is was the belief that self defense might be necessary a reasonable one? Again I say absolutely because of the shear number of people involved and also their intent was not just speech The people working there were under no obligation to remain defenseless until the final intent was determined.

If we are talking about signs and chants, that could be one thing. This is especially true in a public place. However the intent, as admitted by the protesters themselves was to be so loud as to render communication impossible. Are you as an individual obligated to place yourself in a position where you cannot communicate with other parties and then hope the protesting party wishes you no ill will? What if they do? At that point you are already helpless.

The last question is was the force reasonable. It consisted of the lowest possible tools on the defensive chain of weapons. We are talking about hands and feet and a claim of attempting to drop a cabinet on someone. No guns, rubber bullets, pepper spray, tasers, etc. I feel the response was entirely appropriate and I believe in the end so would any jury because again the people being rushed in this instance are under no obligation to await the final intention of the protesters before acting. The protesters, using large numbers, invaded a private workspace and at a minimum attempted to render communication among the traders to be impossible.

Nick

addabox

02-18-2005, 07:14 PM

An office building is not your house. Talking about what you would do if people stormed your house is irrelevant.

Noise is not violence. Pretending it is is stupid

Causing financial loss is not grounds for assault. Thinking it is is scary/insane.

What seems to be the actual motivation for this thread is simply animosity towards what Green Peace represents. "They got what was coming to them" as in "by my lights all dirty hippies have an ass whipping due, on account of I don't care for them, especially them that fuck with shit".

Not much of a stance, but at least honest. Trying to parse the meaning of "private property" into some kind of license to mete out justice is not.

groverat

02-18-2005, 08:41 PM

Boy, my delete finger is tired!

trumpt:

First of all let me just say "bravo" for completely ignoring the fact that they tried to crush the hippies with large filing cabinets. It is truly impressive to watch someone so determined to hold onto a dead argument simply pretend that the crushing weight of logic and truth simply doesn't exist.

Private property is not a public forum. Until you prove that it is, your own point is mute.

I never said private property was public property, I said that none of the people involved owned the property so no one there was defending their property. And I'm right.

Are you claiming they just walked uncheck onto the floor?

Do I need to quote your own article again?
They made their way to the trading floor, blowing whistles and sounding fog horns, encountering little resistance from security guards.

Not security doors but security guards. Human beings who are paid to keep the place safe apparently didn't think that a bunch of whistle blowing hippies was a big threat. If anyone had the right to beat the hell out of the trespassers it would be the people tasked with actually protecting the property, not the people who work there trading stocks.

Also the attempt to disrupt trading was a clear attempt to cause financial loss. No analogies necessary to understand that trespass with intent to cause financial harm and loss is a crime and warrants self defense.

So what if it is a crime? If someone jaywalks do I suddenly have the right to bodycheck them into a building? No. The floor traders had absolutely no right or reason aside from violent anger to physically attack the dancing whistle hippies. The property was not theirs to protect and they were in absolutely no physical danger. Loud noise? Cover your ears and run away, smashing a hippie with a filing cabinet is not going to make a foghorn suspended from a balloon stop hurting your delicate ear drums.

Some might disagree...while Greenpeace claims to be non-violent, they easy support and share membership with organizations that advocate eco-terrorism.

Any proof of these accusations?

What you are doing is akin to claiming that the neighborhood organizations in the south that fronted for the KKK were not harmful in any manner because they let the KKK do the dirty work.

Only if one believes that Greenpeace is a front for organizations like ELF, which I don't believe at all.

Your understanding here is horribly limited. You don't own your apartment, does that mean your right to defense is gone?

An apartment is still your living space where you are legally entitled to privacy and an expectation of security and control. Yet another horrific analogy.

However the right to free speech doesn't give me the right to invade private property, nor even the right to cause financial or physical harm to others through my direct physical actions in their place of business.

You're right, which is why they should have called the police and let law enforcement handle the enforcement of law.

Thanks for catching up to the rest of the class.

e#s:

I personally think that the whistles and fog horns were a form of violence.

So any "form of violence" is acceptably met with any other "form of violence"?

The protestors participated in an agressive intrusion, and got what they deserved.

If Christian protestors rushed into an abortion clinic shouting Bible phrases do you think you would say "they got what they deserved" if the workers at the clinic beat the hell out of them?

PS - anyone siding with the protestors must be someone who has never faced an agressive intrusion. If you ever do, I think that your position on this issue will change.

This is a joke, right? Please tell me it is a joke.

However, some thugs broke into my house when I was 12 and tried to beat us up with lacrosse sticks. My father cut them with a meat cleaver and they ran away.

Well good to see you are able to separate events in your mind and evaluate them on their own merits. Excellent work!

midwinter

02-18-2005, 08:54 PM

Originally posted by trumptman
I think that is being discussed because the main point, thirty people illegally entering a private building, causing the business it does to stop, and attempting to cause financial loss and harm pretty much can't be justified to me or I suspect most people.

Ah! At least I see it! Check this out: I don't think anyone here said that the greenpeace folks ought to be taken out and given a parade. They broke the law. They'll be punished, certainly.

In other words, the point you seem to think is the "issue" is not under contention. What is being debated is whether or not non-deputized employeed of a place being protested have the right to just haul off and beat the shit out of the protesters.

Try to keep up, Nick. ;)

Next.

Yes but of course when my intent is to stop you and I entered your house illegally and won't go into another room, what then?

No house was involved. Next.

You consider them non-violent because you do not consider thirty five people rushing into a place to be confrontational.

You do not know what I think. Please do not presume to do so. At any rate, I don't believe I ever spoke about whether or not the protesters were confrontational. Of course they were. That is not being debated.

You do not consider an assortment of rape whistles and fog horns to be confrontational, but I do.

That's great. This is not being debated. Did the non-deputized workers have the right to beat the shit out of the protesters?

Now the first question in self defense is who was the aggressor? Clearly these protesters were the aggressors.

In a situation where a non-violent group of people act in an irritating manner and get the shit beaten out of them by a bunch of non-deputized people who were just back from lunch (read: they'd probably had a pint or two), who is the aggressor?

They entered the building illegally with clear intent to, at a minimum stop business by making it so loud that no one would be able to hear each other.

Great. This is not being debated. The protesters broke the law. They'll be punished. Do not be so quick to mete out death and judgment, Frodo.

The second question is was the belief that self defense might be necessary a reasonable one? Again I say absolutely because of the shear number of people involved and also their intent was not just speech The people working there were under no obligation to remain defenseless until the final intent was determined.

How well do you know British law? That is, after all, what you're talking about.

If we are talking about signs and chants, that could be one thing. This is especially true in a public place. However the intent, as admitted by the protesters themselves was to be so loud as to render communication impossible. Are you as an individual obligated to place yourself in a position where you cannot communicate with other parties and then hope the protesting party wishes you no ill will? What if they do? At that point you are already helpless.

How can you be helpless if you immediately beat the living shit out of the people who are annoying you? You call the cops (http://www.columbia.edu/itc/history/brinkley/3651/photos/sixties/birmingham_dogs.htm) and the cops haul them off.

trumptman

02-18-2005, 08:56 PM

Originally posted by addabox
An office building is not your house. Talking about what you would do if people stormed your house is irrelevant.

Tell that to the people in the World Trade Center, Oklahoma City or any other place where violence occurs. Your right to self-defense is not not basely only on private property. However private property is a factor that allows a lower burden of proof with regard to justifying the action.

Certainly someone could attempt to assault you even in a wide open public place and you would have the right to defend yourself.

Noise is not violence. Pretending it is is stupid

Let me blow out your ear drums and we will see if you still feel the same way. 125 db does cause physical pain. Causing pain is violence.

Causing financial loss is not grounds for assault. Thinking it is is scary/insane.

Then the many courts who let people off for self-defense while being robbed are both insane and in disagreement with you.

What seems to be the actual motivation for this thread is simply animosity towards what Green Peace represents. "They got what was coming to them" as in "by my lights all dirty hippies have an ass whipping due, on account of I don't care for them, especially them that fuck with shit".

The desire to deal with the intent of people instead of the facts of the matter is a popular action around here.

Not much of a stance, but at least honest. Trying to parse the meaning of "private property" into some kind of license to mete out justice is not.

You should do some reading on self-defense. It is a basic right and it does not need to be coupled with private property. If I assault you on a public subway, you still have the right to self-defense.

Nick

trumptman

02-18-2005, 09:32 PM

Originally posted by groverat
Boy, my delete finger is tired!

trumpt:

First of all let me just say "bravo" for completely ignoring the fact that they tried to crush the hippies with large filing cabinets. It is truly impressive to watch someone so determined to hold onto a dead argument simply pretend that the crushing weight of logic and truth simply doesn't exist.

You mean this bit?

“They grabbed us and started kicking and punching. Then when we were on the floor they tried to push huge filing cabinets on top of us to crush us.”

I give it the proper amount of weight. He simply claimed they tried. Even he doesn't claim anyone actually had a filing cabinet land on them. My suggestion is that people who don't want things pushed on them probably shouldn't enter places unlawfully.

I never said private property was public property, I said that none of the people involved owned the property so no one there was defending their property. And I'm right.

They still have the right to defend themselves. It is a basic human right.

Do I need to quote your own article again?
They made their way to the trading floor, blowing whistles and sounding fog horns, encountering little resistance from security guards.

Not security doors but security guards.

Security door as well...

When a trader left the building shortly before 2pm, using a security swipe card, a protester dropped some coins on the floor and, as he bent down to pick them up, put his boot in the door to keep it open.

Two minutes later, three Greenpeace vans pulled up and another 30 protesters leapt out and were let in by the others.

This building obviously had both a security door and guards.

Also the article states they met little resistance. What does that mean, that they weren't assaulted before that? I'm sure that no matter how they were resisted it would have been complained about by the folks here.

Human beings who are paid to keep the place safe apparently didn't think that a bunch of whistle blowing hippies was a big threat. If anyone had the right to beat the hell out of the trespassers it would be the people tasked with actually protecting the property, not the people who work there trading stocks.

Actually I'll post a couple more links after this reply, but apparently part of the group doing the punching was security guards depending upon the report you read.

So what if it is a crime? If someone jaywalks do I suddenly have the right to bodycheck them into a building? No. The floor traders had absolutely no right or reason aside from violent anger to physically attack the dancing whistle hippies. The property was not theirs to protect and they were in absolutely no physical danger. Loud noise? Cover your ears and run away, smashing a hippie with a filing cabinet is not going to make a foghorn suspended from a balloon stop hurting your delicate ear drums.

No analogies, remember?;)

The traders do not have to own the private property to have the right to defend themselves. It simply makes the burden of proof to justify the action lower to obtain when it is their own private property. As for physical danger, they do not have to wait until they are physically harmed before responding to what they believe is a threat. You can be dimissive about delicate eardrums but I assure yout that if I were standing next to you and sounding a fog horn into your face, you would probably take action against me pretty darn quick.

Any proof of these accusations?

They've solicited funds for defense of members of these groups who were arrested and also share some common members. We can start a thread on that if you like.

Only if one believes that Greenpeace is a front for organizations like ELF, which I don't believe at all.

So don't believe it.

An apartment is still your living space where you are legally entitled to privacy and an expectation of security and control. Yet another horrific analogy.

How about this one then... your right to self defense is a basic right. You have the right to defend yourself no matter where you are. The only thing that changes is the burden of proof to justify your actions. Based off the reports and the police actions, these folks were obviously justified.

You're right, which is why they should have called the police and let law enforcement handle the enforcement of law.

Thanks for catching up to the rest of the class.

The police were called, however that doesn't mean they have to stand around and be helpless until they arrive.

I have to hit one more even though it isn't directed toward me...

If Christian protestors rushed into an abortion clinic shouting Bible phrases do you think you would say "they got what they deserved" if the workers at the clinic beat the hell out of them?

Actually a number of courts have established buffer zones around abortion clinics for just this reason. They don't even allow what might be interpreted as aggressive attempts at counseling the person seeking an abortion.

Nick

midwinter

02-18-2005, 09:38 PM

Originally posted by trumptman
No analogies, remember?;)

Thank you.

BTW, Nick, your argument reminds me of the South Park hunters, who can only kill things if they are being threatened by an animal. So before they shoot, they yell out "He's coming right for us!"

trumptman

02-18-2005, 09:47 PM

A few more links showing this from all different views...

Forbes (http://www.forbes.com/home/feeds/ap/2005/02/16/ap1831099.html)

This is London (http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/business/articles/timid398114?source=)

Scotsman (http://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=4142920)

Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,12374,1416295,00.html)

The Independent (http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/environment/story.jsp?story=611828)

Some bits from all the various stories...

Outside, three climbers scaled the building, which is located near Tower Bridge, to hang a banner from the roof declaring "Climate change kills. Stop pushing oil." Several other protesters blocked the entrance to the building, sitting cross-legged holding signs while a police helicopter circled overhead.

We have people scaling the building and blocking the entrance.

Greenpeace members today accused traders of attacking peaceful protesters and behaving like 'Friday night thugs'. One said he had never seen such violence in 15 years of campaigning. But traders said they were only acting in self-defence and had feared for their safety.

We have a claim of attack and a claim of fear for safety.

The protest began just after 2pm when two smartly dressed protesters walked into the exchange, distracting security by dropping money on the floor. They then made their way to the trading floor, linking up with another group and sounding horns to drown out 'open outcry' trading.

Perhaps this explains the minimal resistance...

Trader David Collins said: 'I was scared. I thought they might pull out weapons. We didn't hurt them but we made sure they didn't hurt us.'

Good quote, you don't have to lay in harms way.

Armed with fog horns, rape alarms and whistles they tried to stall business by creating a deafening noise which made it impossible for the traders to work.

Describes the noise as deafening...

Campaigner Mark Strutt told how security guards were distracted by two protesters dressed in suits to look like traders, who dropped some money on the floor.

Another admission of deception to gain entrance...

Many of the protesters were attacked again as they were forced out of the building. One man was pulled by his hair down a corridor and kicked, another was kicked and punched in the head by a guard at the entrance. "One person was treated at the scene by paramedics and taken to hospital," a London ambulance service spokesman said.

Seems like part of this may have been done by the paid security.

On the day the Kyoto Protocol came into force, 35 eco-warriors stormed the Interna- tional Petroleum Exchange [IPE] in the City. Armed with fog horns, rape alarms and whistles they tried to stall business by creating a deafening noise that made it impossible for the traders to work. But the campaigners, who took ear plugs to hand out to traders, appear to have underestimated the hostility from their intended victims.

Maybe they couldn't hear the offer of ear plugs.:lol: Again the noise is described as deafening.

"They pulled a metal bookcase down on our heads. They were trying to use that to push us back out so that was the moment we decided to retreat."

This sounds like the file cabinet, but it also appears that it was being used in an attempt to push back and protect themselves from the protesters.

Call me crazy, but I think in this day and age, that if I were in a building with people scaling the outside, compromising the security by dressing as traders, and having at least 30 of them come in and unleash deafening noise, I don't think I would wait to see if the last surprise is a gun, bomb, or anything else.

Fully justified in my book,

Nick

trumptman

02-18-2005, 09:48 PM

Originally posted by midwinter
Thank you.

BTW, Nick, your argument reminds me of the South Park hunters, who can only kill things if they are being threatened by an animal. So before they shoot, they yell out "He's coming right for us!"

Hey, why are you coming right at me?

:devil:

Boy, if this were Utah....

Nick

midwinter

02-18-2005, 10:02 PM

Originally posted by trumptman
Hey, why are you coming right at me?

:devil:

Boy, if this were Utah....

Nick

Is that a threat? ;)

e1618978

02-18-2005, 11:01 PM

If Christian protestors rushed into an abortion clinic shouting Bible phrases do you think you would say "they got what they deserved" if the workers at the clinic beat the hell out of them?

Yes, the workers at the clinic have the right to beat the intruders. Kill them even - I would say that since anti-abortion protestors have often murdered doctors in the past, killing in self defense would be justified in this case.

Also, you can't go just on the appearence of the people rushing in - people have robbed and murdered in banks dressed in clown outfits.

If a bunch of people with deafening whistles breaks into my house and starts charging me, some of them are going to die.

groverat

02-18-2005, 11:08 PM

Good, we're making progress. Slow, but steady.

trumpt:
I give it the proper amount of weight.

Which is why your opinion is borderline worthless on this matter. You made up your mind from the outset and decide to pick a side and defend it at all costs. To you, the protesters are liars and the traders are truthful.

He simply claimed they tried. Even he doesn't claim anyone actually had a filing cabinet land on them.

Who said that it actually happened? More straw men. You must stay up all night building these things to have them ready for the daily Internet debates.

My suggestion is that people who don't want things pushed on them probably shouldn't enter places unlawfully.

What concern is lawful or unlawful entry to people who are not the police?

They still have the right to defend themselves. It is a basic human right.

Lovely. I take the "still" you have finally conceded the whole "private property" thing. Now we are left with self-defense. Wonderful.

I'm sure that no matter how they were resisted it would have been complained about by the folks here.

Hey, another straw man!
If they tried to rush in and security tackled them apprehended them it would make perfect sense.

As for physical danger, they do not have to wait until they are physically harmed before responding to what they believe is a threat.

I agree completely, but by all indications there was never any attack by any protester anywhere. That should be a pretty clear indication of what was going on.

You can be dimissive about delicate eardrums but I assure yout that if I were standing next to you and sounding a fog horn into your face, you would probably take action against me pretty darn quick.

If they were concerned about the ear drums they would have left the area, not stayed around to beat up hippies.

They've solicited funds for defense of members of these groups who were arrested and also share some common members. We can start a thread on that if you like.

This proves nothing. It means nothing.

How about this one then... your right to self defense is a basic right. You have the right to defend yourself no matter where you are. The only thing that changes is the burden of proof to justify your actions. Based off the reports and the police actions, these folks were obviously justified.

They were not under attack. They could think they were, but self-defense does not include beating people when they are on the ground and trying to crush them with furniture. You dug around in multiple articles and the best you could find was "Well maybe we thought they were kind of dangerous sort of maybe."

And after a short bit it should become fairly damned obvious that's it is just a bunch of annoying hippies. These people were not in a warzone.

Actually a number of courts have established buffer zones around abortion clinics for just this reason. They don't even allow what might be interpreted as aggressive attempts at counseling the person seeking an abortion.

Can you answer the question, please?

trumptman

02-19-2005, 12:15 AM

Originally posted by groverat
Good, we're making progress. Slow, but steady.

trumpt:

Which is why your opinion is borderline worthless on this matter. You made up your mind from the outset and decide to pick a side and defend it at all costs. To you, the protesters are liars and the traders are truthful.

Two choices, people breaking the law and having a couple members dress and deceive security to assist in that, or....people lawfully going about their actual business.

You can bet I'll pick the side of the people who are lawful and who have to suddenly attempt to interpret and handle the people unlawfully attempting to enter and protest in this building.

Also you don't appear to have carefully weighed the facts yourself. You've not conceded these protesters could have been considered a threat in any manner. Someone breaks into your secure workplace, has people scaling the building, blockading the doors and are disrupting any means of communication and you just sit back and let it come?

Perhaps you would, but I'm protecting myself.

Who said that it actually happened? More straw men. You must stay up all night building these things to have them ready for the daily Internet debates.

Actually you claimed I ignored the cabinet matter repeatedly. I found another article that gave it more context. If I'm attempting to use a shelf to blockade and push you back, you will probably think I am knocking it down on you or possibly hitting you with it. I have no sorrow for these folks who complain that the parties that they were protesting against didn't happen to buy into their little plan.

What concern is lawful or unlawful entry to people who are not the police?

A crime doesn't stop being a crime just because the police aren't there that instant to arrest someone. If a crime is being committed against you or a threatening action is being attempted against you, it justifies a response.

Lovely. I take the "still" you have finally conceded the whole "private property" thing. Now we are left with self-defense. Wonderful.

Private property isn't conceded. I just don't care to pound it into your head that people in a private workplace do not have to tolerate and feel safe around public protests. There is a reason for a difference between private and public and these protesters intentionally crossed the line and got what happens for not realizing that.

Hey, another straw man!
If they tried to rush in and security tackled them apprehended them it would make perfect sense.

Actually several articles made mention of the fact that two of the protesters helped gain access by deceiving security. So we are not talking about peaceful protesters telling the truth and being viewed as nonthreatening. We have protesters being deceptive in their intent. Several articles made mention of the fact that part of the reaction was security rushing assisting with these protesters.

But either way, the right to self-defense is basic and does not require waiting for security, or anything else. You have the right to defend yourself for goodness sake. You claim using fist and feet are not reasonably necessary, but what the hell else is left over? We aren't talking about shooting someone showing a cell phone as a pistol, pepper spray, nothing. You basically must believe there isn't a right to self-defense because the only thing you claim in these posts is that they should have let police or security handle it. They don't have to endanger themselves and leave it to the third parties. Self-defense is a right.

I agree completely, but by all indications there was never any attack by any protester anywhere. That should be a pretty clear indication of what was going on.

Again people scaling the building, rushing the trade floor, and blockading the entrace constitute a threat to me.

If they were concerned about the ear drums they would have left the area, not stayed around to beat up hippies.

The entrance was blocked. The protesters had wanted to prevent oil trades for several hours and desired to keep responses, such as the police for example, out for as long as possible. Again that constitutes a threat.

This proves nothing. It means nothing.

Again for another thread...

They were not under attack. They could think they were, but self-defense does not include beating people when they are on the ground and trying to crush them with furniture. You dug around in multiple articles and the best you could find was "Well maybe we thought they were kind of dangerous sort of maybe."

And after a short bit it should become fairly damned obvious that's it is just a bunch of annoying hippies. These people were not in a warzone.

No what I dug around and found were articles that showed it took at least three and a half hours to clear these protesters out of the building.

A Scotland Yard spokesman said 10 people were arrested for public order offences. A further 20 were still inside the building at 5.30pm and were being dealt with by the police. All those arrested are believed to have been demonstrators.

I found articles that claimed they were blockading the entrance. I found mentions of people climbing up the side of the building. Also the fact that they intentionally deceived security and gained entrace through this deception.

The most ironically funny part in this whole thing though has to be the claims of the protester to make so much noise that the traders couldn't hear each other and then also the complaint that they tried to inform the traders of their non-violent intent. Obviously the traders couldn't hear them because of the noise. But even then, they lied to get into the place so why would you take them at face value when they are already in your face. As the saying goes, full me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me.

If these protesters had actually been bombers and the traders had stood around non-responsively and ended up dead, people would have wondered why no one took action. Instead they take minimal action and are criticized for protecting themselves.

Can you answer the question, please?

Sure, attempting to change a business, such as sitting at a lunch counter and asking for service is protest. Attempting to shut down or destroy a business has moved from political speech to thuggery and warrants an appropriate response including self-defensive actions as necessary.

So lets take the abortion example. A couple dozen pro-life people enter an abortion clinic pretending they desire to have an abortion. Once inside, they chain themselves together, blockthe door, block the patrons and employees inside from leaving and begin singing protest songs in hopes of changing their wicked hearts while also preventing the place from giving abortions for the day, insuring the police will be slow to enter and handle arrest them.

I would absolutely support the employees of of that clinic cracking some skulls. They are under no obligation to tolerate or listen to the protest. They are under no obligation to have their safety threatened in any manner. They have full right to expel the protesters, to take action to insure they can leave on their own, or just to get the protesters out of their own face if they are being challenged up close or feel threatened even from a distance.

Hope that answers your question.

Nick

midwinter

02-19-2005, 02:06 AM

Originally posted by trumptman
So lets take the abortion example. A couple dozen pro-life people enter an abortion clinic pretending they desire to have an abortion. Once inside, they chain themselves together, blockthe door, block the patrons and employees inside from leaving and begin singing protest songs in hopes of changing their wicked hearts while also preventing the place from giving abortions for the day, insuring the police will be slow to enter and handle arrest them.

I would absolutely support the employees of of that clinic cracking some skulls. They are under no obligation to tolerate or listen to the protest. They are under no obligation to have their safety threatened in any manner. They have full right to expel the protesters, to take action to insure they can leave on their own, or just to get the protesters out of their own face if they are being challenged up close or feel threatened even from a distance.

Hope that answers your question.

Nick

and this is where the wheels come off the wagon.

Gene Clean

02-19-2005, 02:13 AM

Originally posted by trumptman
Is that a threat against another forum member?

Nick

That's a hypothetical situation.

Now, this is a threat:

Come protest on my private property, get in my face and attempt to stop the function I am performing and you would end up with a bruise or two on your head as well.

Nick.

midwinter

02-19-2005, 02:13 AM

Oh, and a point is "moot," not "mute." And it's the "sheer" number of something, not "shear."

:devil:

trumptman

02-19-2005, 02:23 AM

Originally posted by midwinter
Oh, and a point is "moot," not "mute." And it's the "sheer" number of something, not "shear."

:devil:

Actually I was trying to turn Groverat down with my remote... and.. uh... I was...uh...advocating cutting the protesters in half with...uh... scissors...:D

Thanks for the reminders.

Nick

e1618978

02-19-2005, 08:06 AM

If a bunch of protestors decided to storm our farm and disrupt the business, I hope that the farm employees (as our agents on the proterty) would meet them with active resistance (probably pipes and wrenches), just like these brokers.

Is it expected
--------------

That really depends on the layout of the business. My workplace is a very open, airy place. The whistles would be less bothersome there, and there are lots of escape routes.
We are also sedentary, which would decrease the resistance.

Employees at the other end of the spectrum, active people trapped by the protestors in a closed in space and assaulted with rape whistles, would probably have killed one or more of them.

Is it legal
-----------

I don't think that anyone here can answer that, unless they are a british lawyer. I bet that none of the employees are changed, and there is probably laws from the days of piracy about preserving your employers business against intruders.

Is is good
----------

Yes - the protestors got a consequence for their behavior. Jail time was obviously not enough to stop them, and neither was "Texan Swat Team" response. I doubt that these protestors will do this again, which is good for society. Just as it is good for society when people wrestle airplane hijackers to the ground.

These people crossed over the line into the active criminal element - they are not peaceful protestors.

SDW2001

02-19-2005, 09:01 AM

Originally posted by ShawnJ
Yeah. You're just itching for a fight though. A bunch of non-violent protesters somehow threaten your physical well-being? Cry me a river.

:lol:

Somehow, the thought of a thread starter (advancing one of the most boneheaded points of views I've encountered in my time here) crying at the mere suggestion of being a target of the very violence he encourages strikes me as hypocritical.

It was private property that was invaded. That had every right to forcibly remove them. As for the asault, it's hard to tell what would be necessary. My feeling is that they should have been forcibly removed, but there may have been some folks that just went over the top. Or, even a LOT of folks.

Somehow I doubt that no one fought back. I mean, you're telling me that while they were being beaten, they just sat there?

The bottom line is that it seems most of protestors got what they deserved, save one or two.

groverat

02-19-2005, 12:23 PM

trumpt:

This is an awkward situation, because right now I think you are lying about what you think because you don't want to give the argument up.

I do not believe that you believe this:
So lets take the abortion example. A couple dozen pro-life people enter an abortion clinic pretending they desire to have an abortion. Once inside, they chain themselves together, blockthe door, block the patrons and employees inside from leaving and begin singing protest songs in hopes of changing their wicked hearts while also preventing the place from giving abortions for the day, insuring the police will be slow to enter and handle arrest them.

I would absolutely support the employees of of that clinic cracking some skulls. They are under no obligation to tolerate or listen to the protest. They are under no obligation to have their safety threatened in any manner. They have full right to expel the protesters, to take action to insure they can leave on their own, or just to get the protesters out of their own face if they are being challenged up close or feel threatened even from a distance.

I'm not saying that in a "I know you believe this and you're a monster!" way, I am saying that you are saying you believe it even though I do not think you do.

I can't even imagine that you do, you are simply saying things that you do not believe. And it is impossible to talk to someone who is doing that.

e1618978

02-19-2005, 12:56 PM

trumptman

02-19-2005, 01:06 PM

Originally posted by groverat
trumpt:

This is an awkward situation, because right now I think you are lying about what you think because you don't want to give the argument up.

I do not believe that you believe this:

I'm not saying that in a "I know you believe this and you're a monster!" way, I am saying that you are saying you believe it even though I do not think you do.

I can't even imagine that you do, you are simply saying things that you do not believe. And it is impossible to talk to someone who is doing that.

Why would I not believe that?

I seriously do not understand this notion that people have of speech as being so unlimited that it involves taking over other people's property, forcing other people to be an audience, causing financial harm, etc. That isn't speech for goodness sakes and it is easy to make a distinction between the two.

I mean in these stories you actually have the Greenpeace protesters befuddled that the traders were unreceptive to their message.

He said he was shocked. "They weren't interested in our message, they just laid into us. They wereswearing at us, it wasn't very subtle. Everyone who goes on a Greenpeace action is trained in non-violent direct action, so we know not to respond, although a few swear words may have come from ourselves."

Of course the whole part about shutting down the basis of business operations for several hours is just... well a form of speech in their view. Nonsense.

Speech is speech and I am all for protecting it. I have almost an extreme view about my desire to keep speech free. However what these folks did, and what the abortion protesters in our hypothetical would do, is not speech. I would support the right of the protesters to march on the public sidewalk all day long, everyday, chanting about how they think the people inside the abortion clinic are evil because that is speech.

However the second they lie to gain entrance to a private property(be they Greenpeace or abortion protesters) , the second they engage in actions instead of speech, the second their actions cross from speech into actual interaction in/on the domain of that which they are protesting, then the protections are gone. We keep speech free because expressing an ideal, especially in a public forum, does not harm you. But deceiving people to gain entrance, barring others from entering, attempting to destroy or harm the business via direct actions are all matters that are not speech and are open to self-defense.

I'm quite consistant and truthful in this matter and I fully would support the arrest of both parties being discussed. I would also fully support the right of the people being forced into the protest, forced to be an audience or people simply in fear of these non-speech actions to take action to protect themselves.

Nick

midwinter

02-19-2005, 01:08 PM

What they were not prepared for was the post-prandial aggression of oil traders who kicked and punched them back on to the pavement....
Protesters conceded that mounting the operation after lunch may not have been the best plan. “The violence was instant,” Jon Beresford, 39, an electrical engineer from Nottingham, said.

Again: Am I correct that the implication here is that the traders had all had a couple of pints at lunch?

e1618978

02-19-2005, 01:17 PM

Originally posted by ShawnJ
My definition of the right to forcibly remove non-violent trespassers from private property does not include beating the shit of them. "They got what they deserve?" What are you, General Pinochet's exiled son?

Obviously we are dealing with different sets of value here.

My value set dictates that once you cross the line, you are free game. As long as they stay on the sidewalk, they can protest all that they like, but if they break in like they did, they deserved to get their butt kicked (just as a child needs a consequence when they do something wrong).

There are limits to what "free game" means - in this case I doubt that the workers would have gotten away with killing the protestors. If protestors want to be seen as "non-violent", then they need to be a little less violent than these particular protestors were.

trumptman

02-19-2005, 01:20 PM

Originally posted by e1618978
The 'trumpet' abortion clinic situation is a lot different that the 'running invasion' situation. If they just chain themselves together, why would the employees have the right (or the motivation) to beat them up? I think that this is a case where you would not feel threatened, so just call the police and go to lunch while they haul them off.

The two situations are totally different.

I was working with a hypothetical and if you prefer the hypothetical protesters to chain themselves, that is fine. I would still support action against them to gain an exit and protect the employees. You have to be familiar with the tactics of protesters. They don't chain the door closed because that would constitute all sorts of law nastiness. You are violating fire codes, it could be proof that you were creating a hostage situation, etc. So what they do instead is chain themselves together and simply create a human wall you cannot move in front of the door. It is one of those hazy areas of the law where you can achieve the same effect, but it becomes much harder to prosecute. It is much much harder to prosecute a law against chaining so many people together that access to a door becomes next to impossible.

Also while authorities might be willing to simply ram the door open, for example, they cannot take the same actions with people who are chained together. They have to find ways to unchain them and get them arrested without them screaming police brutality. They do accomplish this, but it is VERY SLOW which is exactly what protesters want when they invade a private business and shut it down. They want a minimal arrest charge for themselves and to keep the place closed as long as possible.

I can even see the point about not harming protesters who are in a public space and block access to a private property. However when they enter the private property, all bets are off, the people inside that property are under no obligation to remain helpless while the protesters reveal their true intent.

Nick

trumptman

02-19-2005, 01:26 PM

Originally posted by ShawnJ
My definition of the right to forcibly remove non-violent trespassers from private property does not include beating the shit of them. "They got what they deserve?" What are you, General Pinochet's exiled son?

Then why don't you mention what actions would be acceptable instead of just taking potshot at other people?

Nick

trumptman

02-19-2005, 01:29 PM

Originally posted by ShawnJ
Uday? Qusay? I thought you love-muffins were dead!

Is that you Lenin?

Nick

e1618978

02-19-2005, 01:35 PM

Originally posted by trumptman
Is that you Lenin?

Nick

I am the reincarnation of Nicolo Machievelli, Usay was a pussy.

trumptman

02-19-2005, 01:41 PM

Originally posted by e1618978
I am the reincarnation of Nicolo Machievelli, Usay was a pussy.

That was directed at Shawn. Don't steal my snide asides for him.:D :devil:

Nick

groverat

02-19-2005, 02:03 PM

trumpt:

I seriously do not understand this notion that people have of speech as being so unlimited that it involves taking over other people's property, forcing other people to be an audience, causing financial harm, etc. That isn't speech for goodness sakes and it is easy to make a distinction between the two.

I have never once made the argument that the protesters acted legally or reasonably. They do not have the right to do what they did, but neither do the traders have the right to do what they did.

They are not police officers or even phony police (read: security).

Then why don't you mention what actions would be acceptable instead of just taking potshot at other people?

Call the police and leave the area.
Leave the area.

Leave.
The.
Area.

However when they enter the private property, all bets are off, the people inside that property are under no obligation to remain helpless while the protesters reveal their true intent.

Luckily the American legal system disagrees with your "all bets are off" nation.

You don't believe the things you are saying. If you thought it through and removed yourself from an Internet argument that you were determined to keep alive you would realize that the things you are saying run completely counter to civilized law and social practice.

e#s:

My value set dictates that once you cross the line, you are free game.

Luckily the law in all civilized nations completely disagrees with your "value set".

Hassan i Sabbah

02-19-2005, 02:06 PM

Originally posted by e1618978
Obviously we are dealing with different sets of value here.

My value set dictates that once you cross the line, you are free game. As long as they stay on the sidewalk, they can protest all that they like, but if they break in like they did, they deserved to get their butt kicked (just as a child needs a consequence when they do something wrong).

Well, OK. We're dealing with different sets of values here alright.

My value set says that it's not OK to beat the shit out of someone unless you can possibly help it. Life and death? Threaten those I love? I'll hurt you if that's what it takes (see, I can be 'hard' too.)

But break into my place of work and spoil a good day's work? I'll keep my frigging dignity and telephone the police.

midwinter

02-19-2005, 02:47 PM

Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
Well, OK. We're dealing with different sets of values here alright.

My value set says that it's not OK to beat the shit out of someone unless you can possibly help it. Life and death? Threaten those I love? I'll hurt you if that's what it takes (see, I can be 'hard' too.)

But break into my place of work and spoil a good day's work? I'll keep my frigging dignity and telephone the police.

Hassan,

Do you know anything about British notions of private property? I was under the impression that traditionally the Brits are a bit different about it than Americans are.

trumptman

02-19-2005, 02:56 PM

Originally posted by groverat
trumpt:

I have never once made the argument that the protesters acted legally or reasonably. They do not have the right to do what they did, but neither do the traders have the right to do what they did.

They are not police officers or even phony police (read: security).

Call the police and leave the area.
Leave the area.

Leave.
The.
Area.

Luckily the American legal system disagrees with your "all bets are off" nation.

You don't believe the things you are saying. If you thought it through and removed yourself from an Internet argument that you were determined to keep alive you would realize that the things you are saying run completely counter to civilized law and social practice.

I still don't get this reasoning that I don't believe that I believe.

Also civilized law appears to agree with me since it doesn't appear any of the traders were charged. Thirty+ people entered this building and depending upon the accounts one or two of them were sent to the hospital. If the police felt unreasonable force had been used, they would have charged the traders with crimes.

Considering these facts, it appears to be yourself who cannot admit that these traders were properly found to have met the legal and societal definition for defending themselves.

You hold these folks to a much higher standard than the law. The law (which can vary) often requires two things to fully justify self defense, the first is any commiting of a felony, the second is a reasonable belief that danger is imminent. Understand that these two criteria can justify action up to and including killing people. Nothing close to that was done here.

I just don't get you here Grove. I mean I could understand a lot of variables where the traders were wrong. If they started beating these guys preemptively for example outside the building, that would be wrong. But the protesters committed criminal trespassing, and their numbers alone represent a danger large enough for individuals to feel threatened and take action.

Nick

trumptman

02-19-2005, 03:11 PM

BTW, how does one leave when this is what the door looks like?

http://secure.designerz.com/news-image.php?i=shared/science/SGE.LOL63.170205145454.photo00.photo.default-378x269.jpg

Nick

groverat

02-19-2005, 03:13 PM

If the police felt unreasonable force had been used, they would have charged the traders with crimes.

I didn't say they should be arrested, you and e#s are both arguing "all bets are off" and that's wrong. Just because someone breaks the law does not mean you have the right to beat the hell out of them.

You have the right to defend yourself, sure, but you don't have the right to enforce law (i.e. - get them off the premises).

Further, I don't think the fact that no traders were punished is a sign that they did not break the law or act improperly (and yes, I hold people to higher-than-legal standards because I'm not a sociopath). Cops aren't known, historically, to treat dirty hippies as well as they treat those in buttoned-up shirts.

hardeeharhar

02-19-2005, 03:19 PM

Originally posted by trumptman
Also civilized law appears to agree with me since it doesn't appear any of the traders were charged. Thirty+ people entered this building and depending upon the accounts one or two of them were sent to the hospital. If the police felt unreasonable force had been used, they would have charged the traders with crimes.

Actually Nick,
Crimes aren't always punished due to lack of evidence, in this case, the police probably couldn't connect the injuries to individual traders -- without that there is no case.

trumptman

02-19-2005, 03:23 PM

Originally posted by groverat
I didn't say they should be arrested, you and e#s are both arguing "all bets are off" and that's wrong. Just because someone breaks the law does not mean you have the right to beat the hell out of them.

You have the right to defend yourself, sure, but you don't have the right to enforce law (i.e. - get them off the premises).

Further, I don't think the fact that no traders were punished is a sign that they did not break the law or act improperly (and yes, I hold people to higher-than-legal standards because I'm not a sociopath). Cops aren't known, historically, to treat dirty hippies as well as they treat those in buttoned-up shirts.

I posted information from an article that showed that the last protesters were not removed from the building for almost three and a half hours. So they didn't fight them all the way off the premises. It appears the fought them off the floor where the traders happened to be.

When I say all bets are off, I do not mean totally inappropriate violence, I mean that they are no longer in the realm of speech and the actions you take at that point are not related to suppression of speech. When you cross the line from speech to action, a reaction can occur. Case law denotes what type of action is appropriate and to me, the action here was very appropriate.

I don't know where you would think I condoned unlimited action by the traders because I've even stated examples of where the traders could have overstepped their own rights. I simply stated that fists and feet are about as low as you can go on the self-defense chain of weapons. It appears they used the minimal force they could. The alternative offered by you and a few others is no force at all. I'm sure there are people who did use no force, but the force used by some when challenged by a group of thirty plus people, with unknown intent, criminally trespassing into their work place was minimal and appropriate. It appears the police saw it that way, and I'm sure any judge would as well.

Nick

trumptman

02-19-2005, 03:24 PM

Originally posted by hardeeharhar
Actually Nick,
Crimes aren't always punished due to lack of evidence, in this case, the police probably couldn't connect the injuries to individual traders -- without that there is no case.

Any eye witness account from the injured party would have been enough for an arrest. You are right that it may not have been enough for a conviction, but arrests weren't even made.

Nick

hardeeharhar

02-19-2005, 03:31 PM

Originally posted by trumptman
Any eye witness account from the injured party would have been enough for an arrest. You are right that it may not have been enough for a conviction, but arrests weren't even made.

Nick

As groverat said, that would take diligence on the part of the police.

midwinter

02-19-2005, 09:12 PM

Originally posted by trumptman
BTW, how does one leave when this is what the door looks like?

http://secure.designerz.com/news-image.php?i=shared/science/SGE.LOL63.170205145454.photo00.photo.default-378x269.jpg

Nick

You step over them?

Hassan i Sabbah

02-20-2005, 05:35 AM

Originally posted by ShawnJ
...or kick them in the head. :rolleyes:
Yes. We've established that fists and feet are reasonable force. Beat them up.

trumptman

02-20-2005, 06:23 AM

Originally posted by midwinter
You step over them?

And if they have a knife, gun, bomb or just a desire to have ten of them stop one of you?

You seem to think that a person has to expose themselves to this sort of continued risk no matter what the protesters do.

Nick

trumptman

02-20-2005, 06:50 AM

Originally posted by ShawnJ
...or kick them in the head. :rolleyes:

I think I would ask them to move out of the exit and when they didn't, I'd clear a way with a bat.

I like bats.

Sidenote, my first piece of owned property, a condo, wasn't in the greatest part of Long Beach. We had an absentee owner who just rented his unit, which happened to be right next to mine, to whatever trash happened to hand him some money. He rented it to these kids who suddenly needed to have a lot of traffic up to their unit, (a lot of people making 10 minute stops if you know what I mean.)

As a result of this need for traffic, they would go around attempting to keep the security doors open sticking things in them, etc. I was going to school while working and my wife had to be left home in this nice, new nonsense. I would arrive home at 10 pm or so from my classes and go around undoing all the nonsense they had done to keep the doors open that night. (They were already in the midst of being evicted, folks in that profession don't pay past the first month)

One night, one of these "tenants" actually yells at me to open the gate for him as can't get back into the building and walked out with his keys. (He found the fact that the security doors were working apparently shocking) I let him in as he is the tenant and as I am walking behind him up the stairs, he mutters something about shooting assholes.

I go back to my unit, get my bat, beat on their door with it until they open it, then inform them that the next time a door is screwed with or a threat is made, someone's head is going to be cracked like a cantaloupe. The police had been called a couple times a day on these folks, but that was the only thing that slowed them down a bit. There are plenty of times when the police won't do much and this was one of them. Hell, I had called them a dozen times myself.

I like bats.
Nick

Scott

02-20-2005, 07:32 AM

What a bunch of cry babies.

SDW2001

02-20-2005, 08:39 AM

Originally posted by ShawnJ
My definition of the right to forcibly remove non-violent trespassers from private property does not include beating the shit of them. "They got what they deserve?" What are you, General Pinochet's exiled son?

You know, maybe you could read the ENTIRE next 6 sentences of my post the next time, Shawn? Actually, I would even settle for reading the next three, where I really state my position. By just quoting that part out of context, you destroyed the entire meaning. Here, so you can read it again:

It was private property that was invaded. That had every right to forcibly remove them. As for the asault, it's hard to tell what would be necessary. My feeling is that they should have been forcibly removed, but there may have been some folks that just went over the top. Or, even a LOT of folks.

Somehow I doubt that no one fought back. I mean, you're telling me that while they were being beaten, they just sat there?

The bottom line is that it seems most of protestors got what they deserved, save one or two.

midwinter

02-20-2005, 12:02 PM

Originally posted by trumptman
And if they have a knife, gun, bomb or just a desire to have ten of them stop one of you?

And what if they're all made of cheese? The issue is whether or not non-deputized non-security guards have the right to beat up Dirty Hippies™, as Gröverat aptly puts it.

You seem to think that a person has to expose themselves to this sort of continued risk no matter what the protesters do.

You seem to think "they're coming right at us!" is a valid excuse to beat up Dirty Hippies™

midwinter

02-20-2005, 12:09 PM

Originally posted by trumptman

I go back to my unit, get my bat, beat on their door with it until they open it, then inform them that the next time a door is screwed with or a threat is made, someone's head is going to be cracked like a cantaloupe.

That was you? ;)

That's a touching story, Nick. What it has to do with whether or not non-deputized, non-security guards can beat up Dirty Hippies™ is beyond me.

Jubelum

02-20-2005, 02:20 PM

These people needed a kick in the head. Well deserved. You do not have an unlimited right to continually harass and obstruct the legal business of others, just because of your personal bed-wetting issue.

LOL

trumptman

02-20-2005, 03:05 PM

Originally posted by midwinter
And what if they're all made of cheese? The issue is whether or not non-deputized non-security guards have the right to beat up Dirty Hippies™, as Gröverat aptly puts it.

You seem to think "they're coming right at us!" is a valid excuse to beat up Dirty Hippies™

I do think thirty of them coming right at you does give you the right to defend yourself.

What is the reasoning that you shouldn't have the right?

As for them being made of cheese, they are obviously not and have taken criminal and deceptive actions up to this point. As for calling them dirty hippies, I see nothing identifying them as being with Greenpeace and I do see plenty of literature with violent rhetoric, for example associating what the traders are doing with crime and death.

Again, thirty plus unidentified people breaking into the building unlawfully, coming toward you and even if you get a chance to read what they might be there about, (you obviously can't hear with the 120 db noise) all you know is that it implicates you with crimes and death.

Yeah, like anyone really has to wait under such circumstances.

Nick

midwinter

02-20-2005, 03:58 PM

Originally posted by trumptman
I do think thirty of them coming right at you does give you the right to defend yourself.

So as long as I yell "they're coming right at us," I am free to attack next year's Christmas parade, I take it.

midwinter

02-20-2005, 04:07 PM

Shit. I take it back.

hardeeharhar

02-20-2005, 04:12 PM

Perceived threat shouldn't (and doesn't) hold its weight in water.

trumptman

02-20-2005, 04:58 PM

Originally posted by midwinter
That was you? ;)

That's a touching story, Nick. What it has to do with whether or not non-deputized, non-security guards can beat up Dirty Hippies™ is beyond me.

I didn't say it had anything to do with them. Hence why I called it a sidenote.

Nick

trumptman

02-20-2005, 05:17 PM

Originally posted by ShawnJ
So, trumptman, e-numbers, sdw, scott, and jubelum have all more or less come out approving of using violence against non-violent protesters. And especially trumptman, who not only tacitly approves of it but has a bat in his hand *just waiting* for a protesting hippie or two to take one step on his lawn. Collectively, these views hardly indicate your little group's humanity and more closely resemble the outlook of fucking savages. It's a barbaric thing to do-- beat the shit out of people. All you need to see is a dozen pair of birkenstocks where they "don't belong" and it's tee-off time!

Something tells me you don't find this quite right, with the amount of justification you're trying to do-- which now includes the "fact" that the protesters were "coming right after [the employees]." Tell me you missed this little nugget in the article you linked to.

"But they were set upon by traders."

Let's repeat that.

"But they were set upon by traders."

THEY came after THEM, after the protesters tried to disrupt the oral-trading by making a lot of noise.

And you agreed with how they handled the situation in your original post:

You knew that. You knew the traders thought the big bad intruders were only protesters, and that the appropriate response to "protesting on private property" was to leave them with a "bruise or two on [their] heads."

Yet now, because you're humbled and embarrassed by a group of people with more humane preferences for handling things, you have to resort to these lame justifications that you know are not true just to salvage whatever you feel like salvaging here.

The degree you will go to twist facts to your own view is pretty darn amazing.

See when the protesters broke into the building, traveled all the way to the main trading room, entered the room and then encountered the traders, they were then "set upon" by the traders. The amount of effort neceesary for the one group to encounter the other was exerted almost entirely by the protesters and yet you still assign responsibility to the traders. I can't stop laughing at your reasoning here.

Your wonderful slipperly slopes are even more amusing. The nice strawman about simply wanting to savagely "tee-off" on anyone wearing a pair of Birkenstocks shows how desperate you've become to justify actions that cannot be justified.

You've taken quotes from myself and SDW and intentionally misrepresented them. Either that or you enjoy taking a small quote and spinning it out into some yarn. Me claiming that someone entering my private property, getting all the way in my face, and stopping me from being able to conduct my own business, in otherwords violating my own rights, becomes some little Shawn fantasy.

Of course you also enjoy declaring that when 35 people enter a building illegally and one of them ends up treated at the scene and another goes to the hospital, after occupying the building for three and a half hours, it becomes "the traders savagely beating the shit out of all of them."

The fact that most of them participated in a second protest later that night shows just how bad off they were, doesn't it.

Enjoy your fantasy. You think anything about your reasoning in this discuss would humble or embarass someone? The most embarassing about this discussion is how you change the topic when discussing whether your girlfriend would have the right to defend herself in her own house. "So protesters are now rapists you ask?" You still wouldn't even assign her the right. Of course in your own twisted reasoning, she could just "step over" the intruder, or wait until the intent of the intruder is revealed before she acts.

Sorry, sad, and sick, that is what your reasoning is in that instance.

The reality is that you don't assign any right of self-defense. You can justify it in any manner you care, but the reality is that you believe the politics of the people triumphs their illegal actions and should even suppress the rights of the other people in the building who didn't care to be part of their protest, have rape horns or whistles in their ears, or any other such nonsense.

No matter what you desire to claim, when you criminally trespass into a private building, you are no longer in the realm of speech. No one has an obligation to hear you out before they throw you out. You have no right to be there no matter what your political stripes happen to be.

Nick

addabox

02-20-2005, 05:17 PM

You know, all of this is making me misty eyed for the forthright way that the good authorities of the South dealt with those Dirty Negroes™ during the unpleasantness of the civil rights movement.

Those whiny faggot bedwetting Dirty Negroes™ had no respect at all for The Law, or Private Property, or Proper Behavior, or the Orders of a Duly Constituted Authority to Disperse. Fortunately, the South wasn't going to let a bunch of pussy malcontents just walk right over their right to conduct Business as Usual, so they beat them and killed them and set fire to their churches and turned dogs and fire hoses on them and buried their bodies in nameless graves. Bravo! I know all you bully boys can take some satisfaction that at least somebody got it right.

Of course, some might say that there is no comparison between the causes involved-- Greenpeace being the work of People You Don't Like as opposed to the civil rights movement being Safely in the Past-- but advocating violence against non-violent civil disobedience isn't a position that can be defended by claiming some disobedience is righteous and deserves defending while some is stupid and deserves a beating.

It's a principle of civilized society. Not that I expect ya'll to get that.

trumptman

02-20-2005, 05:19 PM

Originally posted by midwinter
So as long as I yell "they're coming right at us," I am free to attack next year's Christmas parade, I take it.

If the parade takes a detour through your livingroom, be my guest. You are also welcome to take action on the public street and claim self-defense. Something tells me you won't get far with it though.

Nice strawman though...

Nick

Res

02-20-2005, 06:14 PM

Originally posted by groverat

You have the right to defend yourself, sure, but you don't have the right to enforce law (i.e. - get them off the premises).

Further, I don't think the fact that no traders were punished is a sign that they did not break the law or act improperly (and yes, I hold people to higher-than-legal standards because I'm not a sociopath). Cops aren't known, historically, to treat dirty hippies as well as they treat those in buttoned-up shirts.

In America you do have the right to toss people off the premises - that what bouncers are always doing.

I have been a protester on and off for a long time, and I've been to many peaceful protests (starting with anti-Vietnam protests). The acts attributed to these particular greenpeace activists are not the actions of peaceful protesters.

Rape Alarms (http://www.besafealarms.com/BSACAT7/Personal-Attack-Alarms.htm) and Air Horns (http://preparedness.com/safsounair.html) blast out noise from 120 to 140 decibles (and that is usually measured at a 1 meter distance). They will not only hurt, but can cause permanent hearing loss. 30 people charging into the building blasting away with their sonic weapons is not a peaceful protest, it is an attacking mob, and the traders were well within their rights to defend themselves.

I'll put my own well being at risk to defind a persons right to free speach and assembly, but these people are not peaceful protesters trying to get their message heard, they are a group of criminals that were engaged in Unlawful Entry, Trespassing and Assault (They also conspired to and succeeded in shutting down the trading floor -- which probably cost various parties a hefty hunk of change