Search results

Law's pretty clear on what violence is, and you have no right to commit it, regardless of the "provocation." If it ain't violent, it's peaceful. Like I said, I don't approve of any of it, but I get what they're trying to do.

Hell, I thought he meant my next flight! I coulda been 80% KILLED!

I was kidding. The imbeciles obviously had no clue what happened in Kenosha.

I'm not going to debate the necessity (that's been done to death), but all I can say is "public health emergency" (again, not debating whether it was worth everything that was done). Did you get it sorted, or give up and pay just to get the morons off your back?

We're pretty much in agreement. If you're going to do something peaceful but illegal, it's best to aim it directly at the highest-profile and closely-related-to-the-harm target. Block the MP's driveway, or the MPs' entrance to Parliament. You'll get all the attention you could possibly crave...

Don't worry about it. Mom Nature has a solution. It's called a "dieback."

Great! More money for lawyers!

I see it as a "wrong for wrong" situation. In your example, you could argue that the people who are being harmed (in the economic/peace of mind sense) are not the ones "harming" the protesters or the people for whom they're protesting. My counter-argument would be that the "innocent" people...

Spam, is it strictly necessary to post these overlong tu quoque fallacies?

He's right! We need to move pipeline materials by truck and train, cuz that's more environmentally friendly!

Maybe they meant "black" in the sense of "evil" or "vile." You'd agree with that, wouldn't you.

The problem is the lack of recourse. The Brits have a great thing where, if you prove your interaction with the cops violated your rights, you get 500 pounds through a minimal, no-fuss administrative process. You're free to go through the months or years of hassle and expense of suing for the...

Peaceful means "not harming, or attempting to harm, people or property." So yes, your two examples are "peaceful." Didn't say they're LEGAL, mind. Just peaceful. Martin Luther King, and other advocates of non-violent civil disobedience before him, always maintained that willingness to...

With the understanding that I'm not Canadian, I see nothing wrong with this "sweep." According to the story it was voluntary, the police are within their authority to bring any legal pressure to bear to secure consent, and why should they destroy information properly gathered?

Didn't you know that you're less dead if you die in an accident or a random occurrence than if you die in a political or "terrorist" attack? If the interneterati can't make political hay out of a death, they don't care.

I sometimes like to watch the YouTube videos of the "First Amendment auditors" who go out and film the cops and public buildings, fishing for a police reaction. The legal errors they make in defying the cops are cringeworthy/funny. The only reason they get away with it is that the cops...

I listened to the closing arguments in the Arbery case. They were a master class in the law of citizen's arrest and the time-and-space limits of self-defense (as well as, of course, a lot of irrelevant bullshit).

I looked at his CV in the Facebook post. Low-level IT guy. Some college, no degree. No indication of legal training, not even the legal services specialist (military) or paralegal (civilian) level. He got the rule of self defense wrong, he got the so-called Castle Doctrine wrong, and other...

So dumb. . .

Whenever I have couple of shots before shopping online, I end up with tons of useless crap and a HUGE credit card bill!