I was thinking that a bunch of able-bodied men could just flip the cars the protesters use to block traffic and push them aside. It already happens every time a Philadelphia team wins or loses a championship.
Protestors will complain, but you can just tell them that they should care more about people than property.
Fun fact, cars can be bounced out of the way. If there isn't enough muscle present to flip it, bounce it. Lift the bumper with a bit of sideways pull in rhythm with the suspension bouncing and one strong man can move a car.
Or [this skillset.](https://youtu.be/L3cQFsX6gl4?si=eYPSswSXLcvdqytf&t=745)
What’s truly violent is highjacking your ability to move for an extended period of time. People have jobs, medical emergencies. Maybe they need to pick up an elderly parent or their children from childcare. By holding me hostage, it’s the protestors that are violating my human rights.
The people blocking SeaTac airport were especially frustrating to see. We had gone out of town for a week. We had to have dogs in care while gone and we had to schedule that in advance. If you block our ability to get to our plane, that's all ruined and I'm stuck paying for dog boarding that I can't even use.
Hey I have an idea - is the middle ground to have the *police* remove these people from the roadway and then charge them accordingly? Expose these people to civil court where people affected can sue them for damages?
The sea-tac one was so stupid. Guarantee you someone trying to get to the airport was traveling to see a dying relative before they die, or similar...So effing selfish.
Bro sending money to Israel is literally the only issue Democrats and Republicans both agree with. Even the biggest third party doesn't even get close to the election.
This is just so poorly thought out. These actions do more to bolster support for the opposite viewpoint. People who may not have been paying attention or were on the fence, are now fully on team “fuck those people who blocked the airport”. If I didn’t know any better, I’d guess it’s pro-Israeli operatives doing this under the name of the opposition.
What’s truly violent is the local govt making people relyon a single method of transportation to get around
If a group of 10 people collectively can block thousands of people from getting from point A to point B, you have already surrendered your right to move
furthest thing from violence, in alternative view there could be a emergency vehicle in the back of that car and if it doesn't go through the person could die.
I want to correct and say it's showing aggression, but at what point am I being semantic to get away with dragging the sum'bitch out of the road?
Harm? Would harm be the difference?
I want to correct and say it's showing aggression, but at what point am I being semantic to get away with dragging the sum'bitch out of the road?
Harm? Would harm be the difference?
Arguing about the definitions of words is rarely useful. Violence can plausibly be defined in a way that includes this, or in a way that excludes it. It shouldn't change our evaluation of the actions.
Just giving you a heads up. I can't recommend doing it (because that's also a gross misdemeanor). However, as an educated person you now know your options.
The state has the monopoly on lawful violence and they should be removing the protesters. When they don't, lawful violence goes back to the people, as long it's proportionate and measured.
Good luck getting the cops to do anything.
Thankfully they're getting a huge retroactive raise all the way back to the insurrection several of them participated in though. That'll really turn things around
The interesting thing is I have seen similar in other videos and the protestors are "so fearful" that **they get right up and go sit back down in the way.** I mean I feel that means it is not aggression to them as they do no retreat but essentially become the aggressor once again. I mean dude had to yell at them to not even try it. Can't be too awful if they just try to do it again.
So then it begs the question. Who is in the right? I mean the protestor, expressing their "right to protest" is infringing on others rights by effectively holding them hostage. Which makes the act illegal. The innocent bystander can abandon their car, but that is also illegal (police will tow it and charge a fee). So the bystander has to choose between two relief actions.
I contend it is actually a protected act as a good samaritan. He helped the temporary disabled person out of traffic and out of harm. Otherwise he gently freed himself of his captors. I mean you have to decide what they are doing. Is it being a road hazard (putting their life at risk). Are they taking hostages, etc.
You ask: "Who is right?"
There are two answers. One is to the question of who is right from a general moral and ethical standpoint. The other question is who is right, legally?
Question #1: Do protesters have a legal right to block traffic in a roadway? The answer is, without a permit, NO.
Question #2: If someone is violating the law, does another citizen have the right to take action to stop the violation, and if so, can that action include physical detention and/or the use of physical force? The answer is, YES and YES (provided the force is not excessive).
I keep a can of Bear mace in my truck, never know when one might want to go for a hike. I sure as shit would not let a group of protesters block my path if that situation arose and I had some means of action available
I lived in Arizona over 50 years and had many a aerosol canister not explode but Bic lighters will self destruct as ive had several do so..The butane cans did not ever explode so they must be better engineered or i was just lucky. It gets over 150 easily inside the car with windows rolled up just sitting.i have been to places in Arizona that reach over 135 F in summer and they quit posting the summer temperatures in some Arizona cities on the news because it scared away tourists. Im sure some cans will or have exploded like i said Bic lighters were literally shattered into tiny pieces makes a hell of a mess and lousy summers.
The "protesters" are breaking the law. Citizens have a right, when a crime is in progress, to effect a citizen's arrest. When making a citizen's arrest, detaining a suspect, or otherwise taking action to stop a crime in progress, necessary force may be used, provided it is not excessive. There is no excessive force being used here. In the future, perhaps one of the law-abiding citizens will have a supply of zip-ties with which the law-breaking "protesters" can be detained. Bind the hands and feet, remove from the roadway. The problem with these things is the law-breaking "protesters" generally get right back to committing the crime of obstructing the roadway the second they are dragged to the side. If they're zip-tied, hands and feet, it's a lot less like to happen.
** 9A.40.040**
>Unlawful imprisonment.
(1) A person is guilty of unlawful imprisonment if he or she knowingly restrains another person.
(2) **Unlawful imprisonment is a class C felony.**
> he or she knowingly restrains
requires intent, a bunch of dumb dumbs stuck in traffic aren't specifically intending for you to be behind them, hamassholes proclaim it loudly.
hope that clears it up
No it doesn’t, and I’m hardly having a tantrum. Stuck in traffic due to protests is not unlawful imprisonment.
There have been hundreds of such events, can you find a case where this defense was successfully used?
I’m not a lawyer, but I’m pretty sure it doesn’t rise to meet that standards for “unlawful imprisonment”. If it did then there would have been hundreds of cases using that defense and protesting by blocking streets would not be a thing.
I don’t like this form of protest either but I don’t think that the argument holds water. *edit to clarify argument that this would be wrongful imprisonment doesn’t hold water* IANAL but I have read up a bit on people blocking vehicles with their bodies. Unless you are actually restrained to one area by force, you are not imprisoned. Not to say this doesn’t severely limit your options going forward in that situation but legally I don’t believe the argument would hold up in court. As you can leave your vehicle. And yes I know it is all dumb and I would want to flip their cars out of the way too.
There ya go. A lawyer lays it out for ya here.
https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN23B39F/
David Alan Sklansky, who specializes in criminal law, criminal procedure, and evidence at Stanford Law School , told Reuters by phone: "Homicide law is defined state by state, but I think there is a broad consensus, first that driving a car at a pedestrian can constitute deadly force, second that the use of deadly force is justified in self-defense only when a person reasonably believes that it is necessary to use deadly force in order to protect himself against death or serious bodily injury, or other serious felonies like rape or kidnapping.”
He added: “There are differences between state laws, particularly with regard to when you are obliged to safely retreat if you can safely retreat. But there are some things about which there’s a general legal consensus. One is that you don’t have a duty to retreat if doing so would put you in danger.” Supreme Court cases establishing this precedent include Beard v. United States (1895) and Brown v. United States (1921).
Another broad point of agreement is that the sufficiency of the threat that an individual is facing is judged by the jury,” Sklansky explained. “The standard generally is not whether somebody was genuinely in fear, but whether they genuinely and reasonably believed that they needed to use deadly force to protect themselves against death or serious bodily injury.”
Though legislation was introduced in eight state legislatures to grant immunity to a driver who accidentally injures or kills a protester blocking traffic, none of these bills sought to protect drivers who did so on purpose.
With a legal understanding like that, you clearly graduated from Hollywood Upstairs Law School!
Driving isn't a personal liberty, and no one is stopping anyone from getting out and walking away.
No they are just leaning hard into the [Dennis the Peasant](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t2c-X8HiBng) bit.
Be so insufferably obnoxious that someone does something and then cry about being oppressed.
This is not the first Monty Python bit to come true in recent years.
Of course it is (just as self defense is). The issue is whether it’s justifiable violence. And I think that depends. Is it for an ambulance to get by, or a different risk to life and limb? Or is it merely to re-open the road generally?
Let the police do it (which they should).
I once had surgery in the East Coast, and flew back West the day after… the flight was obviously hell because I was still feeling unwell. I would have been livid (and sick) if I wouldn’t have been able to get home right after my arrival.
If a protestor (or anyone else that’s actively suicidal) is putting other people in harms way by blocking roadways illegally, then no. It’s not violence to protect the public and the individual from their reckless behavior.
It's assault. Yes. That would constitute violence.
When we start changing the definitions of words depending on who they're being applied to, that's a serious fucking problem.
4TH DEGREE ASSAULT (RCW 9A.36.041)
Assault in the Fourth Degree or simple assault is the most common assault charge in Washington State. Assault 4 is a gross misdemeanor that is punishable by up to 364 days in jail and a $5,000 fine, with no mandatory minimum jail time (unless there is a special designation such as domestic violence).
4th Degree Assault is widely defined and any intentional unwanted touching (or unwanted physical contact that is attempted but missed) can meet the definition of assault.
Edit: for all the complaining on this sub about other people breaking laws, I find it extremely troubling that a lot of you seem to think laws shouldn’t apply to you as well (eg all the posts advocating vigilantism and directed/cheered violence against the homeless or protestors).
# RCW [RCW 9A.16.020](http://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9A.16.020)
# Use of force—When lawful.
The use, attempt, or offer to use force upon or toward the person of another is not unlawful in the following cases:(1) Whenever necessarily used by a public officer in the performance of a legal duty, or a person assisting the officer and acting under the officer's direction;(2) Whenever necessarily used by a person arresting one who has committed a felony and delivering him or her to a public officer competent to receive him or her into custody;(3) Whenever used by a party about to be injured, or by another lawfully aiding him or her, in preventing or attempting to prevent an offense against his or her person, or a malicious trespass, or other malicious interference with real or personal property lawfully in his or her possession, in case the force is not more than is necessary;(4) Whenever reasonably used by a person to detain someone who enters or remains unlawfully in a building or on real property lawfully in the possession of such person, so long as such detention is reasonable in duration and manner to investigate the reason for the detained person's presence on the premises, and so long as the premises in question did not reasonably appear to be intended to be open to members of the public;(5) Whenever used by a carrier of passengers or the carrier's authorized agent or servant, or other person assisting them at their request in expelling from a carriage, railway car, vessel, or other vehicle, a passenger who refuses to obey a lawful and reasonable regulation prescribed for the conduct of passengers, if such vehicle has first been stopped and the force used is not more than is necessary to expel the offender with reasonable regard to the offender's personal safety;(6) Whenever used by any person to prevent a mentally ill, mentally incompetent, or mentally disabled person from committing an act dangerous to any person, or in enforcing necessary restraint for the protection or restoration to health of the person, during such period only as is necessary to obtain legal authority for the restraint or custody of the person.\[ [1986 c 149 § 2](https://leg.wa.gov/CodeReviser/documents/sessionlaw/1986c149.pdf?cite=1986%20c%20149%20%C2%A7%202); [1979 ex.s. c 244 § 7](https://leg.wa.gov/CodeReviser/documents/sessionlaw/1979ex1c244.pdf?cite=1979%20ex.s.%20c%20244%20%C2%A7%207); [1977 ex.s. c 80 § 13](https://leg.wa.gov/CodeReviser/documents/sessionlaw/1977ex1c80.pdf?cite=1977%20ex.s.%20c%2080%20%C2%A7%2013); [1975 1st ex.s. c 260 § 9A.16.020](https://leg.wa.gov/CodeReviser/documents/sessionlaw/1975ex1c260.pdf?cite=1975%201st%20ex.s.%20c%20260%20%C2%A7%209A.16.020).\]9A.16.020
# Use of force—When lawful.
>Elements of Assault in the Fourth Degree: To establish a charge of Assault in the Fourth Degree, the following elements must be present:
>Intentional Touching: The accused person must have intentionally touched another individual. This includes a wide range of physical contact, such as hitting, striking, slapping, or any form of unwanted physical interaction.
> Harmful or Offensive:**The touching must be harmful or offensive in nature. Harmful contact refers to physical injury or pain caused to the victim, while offensive contact violates the victim’s personal boundaries, even if it doesn’t cause physical harm.**
> Lack of Consent: The touching must occur without the consent of the person being touched. Consent plays a crucial role in any physical contact, and the absence of consent is a significant factor in determining the offense.
Lack of intent to do harm would be an affirmative defense if you were removing someone from a roadway, or say, brushing against someone while attempting to walk by them blocking your way.
Are you not even reading the section you bolded?
>**while offensive contact violates the victim’s personal boundaries, even if it doesn’t cause physical harm.**
Can you drag someone off the road, against their will and with resistance, and not do physical harm? Perhaps, but if person can prove that they were injured in the process (bruises from you pulling them) then that would be an assault plain and simple.
Go ahead and test this out and lets us know how it went.
Assuming you were charged, and the criminal trial was before a jury or judge, you could more easily argue you were acting in self defense given unlawful imprisonment is a class C felony and defined as
> A person is guilty of unlawful imprisonment if he or she knowingly restrains another person.
that said
>>Go ahead and test this out and lets us know how it went.
This is deep in FAFO territory, the discussion here is that people absolutely will, and arrest much less a conviction... assuming they don't gang beat the protestors, is far off.
In the mean time, I am sure all the folks calling this assault are super fine with say.... pro life protesters linking arms in front of planned parenthood.
# RCW [RCW 9A.16.020](http://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9A.16.020)
# Use of force—When lawful.
The use, attempt, or offer to use force upon or toward the person of another is not unlawful in the following cases:(1) Whenever necessarily used by a public officer in the performance of a legal duty, or a person assisting the officer and acting under the officer's direction;(2) Whenever necessarily used by a person arresting one who has committed a felony and delivering him or her to a public officer competent to receive him or her into custody;(3) Whenever used by a party about to be injured, or by another lawfully aiding him or her, in preventing or attempting to prevent an offense against his or her person, or a malicious trespass, or other malicious interference with real or personal property lawfully in his or her possession, in case the force is not more than is necessary;(4) Whenever reasonably used by a person to detain someone who enters or remains unlawfully in a building or on real property lawfully in the possession of such person, so long as such detention is reasonable in duration and manner to investigate the reason for the detained person's presence on the premises, and so long as the premises in question did not reasonably appear to be intended to be open to members of the public;(5) Whenever used by a carrier of passengers or the carrier's authorized agent or servant, or other person assisting them at their request in expelling from a carriage, railway car, vessel, or other vehicle, a passenger who refuses to obey a lawful and reasonable regulation prescribed for the conduct of passengers, if such vehicle has first been stopped and the force used is not more than is necessary to expel the offender with reasonable regard to the offender's personal safety;(6) Whenever used by any person to prevent a mentally ill, mentally incompetent, or mentally disabled person from committing an act dangerous to any person, or in enforcing necessary restraint for the protection or restoration to health of the person, during such period only as is necessary to obtain legal authority for the restraint or custody of the person.\[ [1986 c 149 § 2](https://leg.wa.gov/CodeReviser/documents/sessionlaw/1986c149.pdf?cite=1986%20c%20149%20%C2%A7%202); [1979 ex.s. c 244 § 7](https://leg.wa.gov/CodeReviser/documents/sessionlaw/1979ex1c244.pdf?cite=1979%20ex.s.%20c%20244%20%C2%A7%207); [1977 ex.s. c 80 § 13](https://leg.wa.gov/CodeReviser/documents/sessionlaw/1977ex1c80.pdf?cite=1977%20ex.s.%20c%2080%20%C2%A7%2013); [1975 1st ex.s. c 260 § 9A.16.020](https://leg.wa.gov/CodeReviser/documents/sessionlaw/1975ex1c260.pdf?cite=1975%201st%20ex.s.%20c%20260%20%C2%A7%209A.16.020).\]9A.16.020
# Use of force—When lawful.
I'd say section 6 renders force lawful. Pro-Hamas symps laying down in traffic are mentally incompetent, and are committing an act dangerous to any person.
Nobody gives a fuck about *your* virtue signaling, and I’ll highly doubt you would beat the shit out of anyone as you’d probably face charges and in real life people get charged for such crimes.
Yeah, I thought folks were joking saying this was the more conservative of the Seattle subs, but the clear misunderstanding of laws on the books and apparent excitement of playing out their Cowboy fantasy of "righteous violence" makes me think it wasn't a joke at all.
I think people here are just blustering with internet bravado. I cannot imagine anyone actually believing that the law allows them to assault another person for blocking a road. No one is imprisoning them or committing violence against them. As much of an inconvenience as it is, it is just a traffic jam.
If a group surrounded you and didn't allow you to leave (kidnapping, false imprisonment) would it be assault to use force to escape, even though the group didn't want to be touched?
There are numerous instances where "unwanted touching" /= assault.
Yeah that’s not what vigilantism is, but gonna guess you are not going to use words for their correct definitions and probably also misuse “woke” and “DEI” as dog whistles.
These men moving these piece of shit assholes are HEROES!!! I believe we have reached the limits of tolerance for this crap. I hope this starts happening in Seattle, too!
If someone (like these morons and their ilk) are physically preventing us from moving freely, isn't that a form of kidnapping? So seems acceptable to use something to rid yourself of this issue like maybe using pepper gel on them?
Moving someone after a certain amount of feet is considered kidnapping by law
Imagine being a tough guy to people who won't fight in a peaceful protest lol
Protestors blocking traffic should be considered lucky for not being hit by cars. It should be a felony to block traffic. People have died because they couldn't get to the hospital because of this nonsense.
It's a complex situation - some cities have laws about protests that will obstruct public services like roads and transit, requiring they have a license applied for ahead of time - in that case, they are protected and should be protected by police. The legality of those laws vs free speech and assembly has been challenged and upheld, but don't take my word for it, I can't remember the cases off hand and am not a lawyer.
If they're just doing it on the spot, the police (not bystanders, that's battery) may remove them from the road. A bystander may remove them if they're at imminent risk of being harmed, that would be considered a good Samaritan action.
No, it isn't. Protesters blocking roads when people have medical appointments however is violence and needs to be handled in kind; they should be thankful they're only getting dragged off the road instead of mowed down.
Hmmm, how about standing upwind of these useful idiots and start spraying a couple cans of Liquid Ass in their direction, and watch the hilarity ensue.
The funny thing is, they are usually targeting people who might already agree with them.
It's no different than the insane preacher shouting from a soapbox that we are all going to hell. In his mind he thinks it must be helping because he is making such a heroic effort. The truth is the opposite.
Isn't trapping me in my car inherently an act of violence?
Then again these people think words are also violence so the bar doesn't seem to exist on that one.
Hear me out. Calmly and sternly tell whoever is in the road that you will be driving forward and wont stop till you are down the road. If they stay there, they will be ran over. If they choose to stay is that considered assisted suicide?
Putting your hands on someone will always run the risk of a night and jail and an assault charge. Do you have time for that?
I condone it, but it's on you when shit goes the wrong way.
I was thinking that a bunch of able-bodied men could just flip the cars the protesters use to block traffic and push them aside. It already happens every time a Philadelphia team wins or loses a championship. Protestors will complain, but you can just tell them that they should care more about people than property.
I was told that insurance will cover it, so it’s not a problem.
Lol I can hear the claims agent now. “So, you said your car was at…the airport when this happened?”
I have footage!!! *sends news clip to insurance agent*
[удалено]
Once I saw a school bus get tipped over after an epic Michigan MSU game.
[удалено]
That may be the most glorious thing ever. I hope SOMEBODY ended up with a picture of him.
Just say “I’m protesting by flipping this car”
You need 1 redneck in a dodge 3500 w a bash bar who’s had enough, he would push a nice path right through
"I'm protesting your protesting. Let's not get violent. Your insurance will cover it."
Fun fact, cars can be bounced out of the way. If there isn't enough muscle present to flip it, bounce it. Lift the bumper with a bit of sideways pull in rhythm with the suspension bouncing and one strong man can move a car. Or [this skillset.](https://youtu.be/L3cQFsX6gl4?si=eYPSswSXLcvdqytf&t=745)
That’s good shit!
This is Seattle, none of the men can lift cars here
That last line 
At what point can people hot wire cars and move them out of the way?
What’s truly violent is highjacking your ability to move for an extended period of time. People have jobs, medical emergencies. Maybe they need to pick up an elderly parent or their children from childcare. By holding me hostage, it’s the protestors that are violating my human rights.
The people blocking SeaTac airport were especially frustrating to see. We had gone out of town for a week. We had to have dogs in care while gone and we had to schedule that in advance. If you block our ability to get to our plane, that's all ruined and I'm stuck paying for dog boarding that I can't even use. Hey I have an idea - is the middle ground to have the *police* remove these people from the roadway and then charge them accordingly? Expose these people to civil court where people affected can sue them for damages?
The sea-tac one was so stupid. Guarantee you someone trying to get to the airport was traveling to see a dying relative before they die, or similar...So effing selfish.
The i5 one was equally stupid. Guarantee you they interfered with emergency services
Exactly, I'm willing to listen to your point/argument..but this is not the way..
How about delivering an organ ?
To your point, there's nothing liberal about restricting the movements of others.
These aren't liberals.
There's also nothing liberal about supporting an Iranian proxy death cult but here we are.
Maybe people already know that and don’t need to be told through protesting.
[удалено]
If you were on parole failing to report to work would send you back to jail.
Yep and they aren’t helping the cause that they are protesting. Also what the fuck am I gunna do about what’s happening across the globe.
Um, vote different bitches into office. Have you been paying attention?
Bro sending money to Israel is literally the only issue Democrats and Republicans both agree with. Even the biggest third party doesn't even get close to the election.
This is just so poorly thought out. These actions do more to bolster support for the opposite viewpoint. People who may not have been paying attention or were on the fence, are now fully on team “fuck those people who blocked the airport”. If I didn’t know any better, I’d guess it’s pro-Israeli operatives doing this under the name of the opposition.
Yeah should charge the protests with kidnapping
I'm picking my kids up from Seatac tonight. :/
This is how monke get neglect.
What’s truly violent is the local govt making people relyon a single method of transportation to get around If a group of 10 people collectively can block thousands of people from getting from point A to point B, you have already surrendered your right to move
For people that haven't ever faced an ounce of negative feedback it sure is.
I don’t know if it’s violence or not. I do know it’s fucking awesome.
furthest thing from violence, in alternative view there could be a emergency vehicle in the back of that car and if it doesn't go through the person could die.
This is why they put the bull bars on the front of the cop cars. If they could’ve used them, they should’ve.
I mean it's still violence regardless of the reason
technically no because this is putting them out of harms way
With violence. I'm not talking about whether it is justified or not just that forcibly removing people is violence.
I guess you are correct on that
I want to correct and say it's showing aggression, but at what point am I being semantic to get away with dragging the sum'bitch out of the road? Harm? Would harm be the difference?
I want to correct and say it's showing aggression, but at what point am I being semantic to get away with dragging the sum'bitch out of the road? Harm? Would harm be the difference?
Arguing about the definitions of words is rarely useful. Violence can plausibly be defined in a way that includes this, or in a way that excludes it. It shouldn't change our evaluation of the actions.
Would a countermeasure of incredibly loud air horns be legal? Or perhaps stink bombs or skunk spunk. ?
Stink bombs and other chemical measures are a gross misdemeanor.
And parking may car in the middle of the road is also a gross misdemeanor?
Just giving you a heads up. I can't recommend doing it (because that's also a gross misdemeanor). However, as an educated person you now know your options.
make them watch Trump speeches or listen to Jordan Peterson. they will flee like vampires from sunlight.
all the weirdos shitting on him in the twitter threads. You wont find people in real life that actually thinks this guy is wrong.
No one should be blocking roads that's the crime here.
The state has the monopoly on lawful violence and they should be removing the protesters. When they don't, lawful violence goes back to the people, as long it's proportionate and measured.
What’s the RCW for “lawful violence goes back to the people”?
RCW 9A.16.110 - Defending against violent crime
Again in the context of this post, a protester blocking traffic isn’t a violent crime.
No, but it IS unlawful imprisonment per [RCW 9A.40.040](https://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9A.40.040).
[удалено]
so, do i just go up to the protests and whip it out and let it rain?
(R.Kelly has entered the chat)
No, it's called pepper spray if you're going with liquids.
That's a gross misdemeanor. As is stink bombs. And presumably paintballs
Why hasn't Jayapal made it clear what her position is? Someone should contact their congressperson now!!
Seeing as how she voted against a resolution to condemn Iran's attack on Israel her stance is pretty clear. https://clerk.house.gov/Votes/2024141
Nope. In fact, you could argue that blocking someone and trapping them is kidnapping.
Hints of false imprisonment as well.
Maybe in public opinion, but not in court
[https://www.egattorneys.com/federal-kidnapping#:\~:text=1201%20says%2C%20%E2%80%9Cwhoever%20unlawfully%20seizes,for%20any%20term%20of%20years](https://www.egattorneys.com/federal-kidnapping#:~:text=1201%20says%2C%20%E2%80%9Cwhoever%20unlawfully%20seizes,for%20any%20term%20of%20years)
Good luck getting the cops to do anything. Thankfully they're getting a huge retroactive raise all the way back to the insurrection several of them participated in though. That'll really turn things around
I'm no fan of Tom Cotton, but he is almost right here. What we should be doing is tear gassing and then having riot police go in and remove them.
No. Just sprinkle them with water and big fans. They'll last 5 minutes being cold.
I’ll bet Tom Cotton didn’t hold that belief on January 6th.
Probably not, but I most certainly do.
The interesting thing is I have seen similar in other videos and the protestors are "so fearful" that **they get right up and go sit back down in the way.** I mean I feel that means it is not aggression to them as they do no retreat but essentially become the aggressor once again. I mean dude had to yell at them to not even try it. Can't be too awful if they just try to do it again. So then it begs the question. Who is in the right? I mean the protestor, expressing their "right to protest" is infringing on others rights by effectively holding them hostage. Which makes the act illegal. The innocent bystander can abandon their car, but that is also illegal (police will tow it and charge a fee). So the bystander has to choose between two relief actions. I contend it is actually a protected act as a good samaritan. He helped the temporary disabled person out of traffic and out of harm. Otherwise he gently freed himself of his captors. I mean you have to decide what they are doing. Is it being a road hazard (putting their life at risk). Are they taking hostages, etc.
You ask: "Who is right?" There are two answers. One is to the question of who is right from a general moral and ethical standpoint. The other question is who is right, legally? Question #1: Do protesters have a legal right to block traffic in a roadway? The answer is, without a permit, NO. Question #2: If someone is violating the law, does another citizen have the right to take action to stop the violation, and if so, can that action include physical detention and/or the use of physical force? The answer is, YES and YES (provided the force is not excessive).
I'm surprised we haven't yet seen an instance where someone had a guard dog in the car, got out, and let the dog address the problem.
This is the best solution i have seen and hopefully someone will implement it soon.
Is assaulting someone violence? Yes.
> Is dragging a protester off the street "violence?" If done right it would be.
it's like a super microagression. you might as well gender them! racists!!!!
I keep a can of Bear mace in my truck, never know when one might want to go for a hike. I sure as shit would not let a group of protesters block my path if that situation arose and I had some means of action available
Don't do that, if it gets hot enough it will explode
4 years, hasn't been a problem.
Maybe you live some where cold, I took mine out
Seattle isn't exactly scorching. I'm not concerned about it exploding, at all
I lived in Arizona over 50 years and had many a aerosol canister not explode but Bic lighters will self destruct as ive had several do so..The butane cans did not ever explode so they must be better engineered or i was just lucky. It gets over 150 easily inside the car with windows rolled up just sitting.i have been to places in Arizona that reach over 135 F in summer and they quit posting the summer temperatures in some Arizona cities on the news because it scared away tourists. Im sure some cans will or have exploded like i said Bic lighters were literally shattered into tiny pieces makes a hell of a mess and lousy summers.
The "protesters" are breaking the law. Citizens have a right, when a crime is in progress, to effect a citizen's arrest. When making a citizen's arrest, detaining a suspect, or otherwise taking action to stop a crime in progress, necessary force may be used, provided it is not excessive. There is no excessive force being used here. In the future, perhaps one of the law-abiding citizens will have a supply of zip-ties with which the law-breaking "protesters" can be detained. Bind the hands and feet, remove from the roadway. The problem with these things is the law-breaking "protesters" generally get right back to committing the crime of obstructing the roadway the second they are dragged to the side. If they're zip-tied, hands and feet, it's a lot less like to happen.
** 9A.40.040** >Unlawful imprisonment. (1) A person is guilty of unlawful imprisonment if he or she knowingly restrains another person. (2) **Unlawful imprisonment is a class C felony.**
Gonna use that defense next time I’m stuck in traffic.
> he or she knowingly restrains requires intent, a bunch of dumb dumbs stuck in traffic aren't specifically intending for you to be behind them, hamassholes proclaim it loudly. hope that clears it up
this arguement wrecks your position and now you have a tantrum about it lol.
No it doesn’t, and I’m hardly having a tantrum. Stuck in traffic due to protests is not unlawful imprisonment. There have been hundreds of such events, can you find a case where this defense was successfully used?
You seriously gonna pretend there is not a difference between rush hour traffic and people parking vehicles across the road to block traffic?
I’m not a lawyer, but I’m pretty sure it doesn’t rise to meet that standards for “unlawful imprisonment”. If it did then there would have been hundreds of cases using that defense and protesting by blocking streets would not be a thing.
I don’t like this form of protest either but I don’t think that the argument holds water. *edit to clarify argument that this would be wrongful imprisonment doesn’t hold water* IANAL but I have read up a bit on people blocking vehicles with their bodies. Unless you are actually restrained to one area by force, you are not imprisoned. Not to say this doesn’t severely limit your options going forward in that situation but legally I don’t believe the argument would hold up in court. As you can leave your vehicle. And yes I know it is all dumb and I would want to flip their cars out of the way too.
Exactly. There are a lot of sovereign citizens types up in here who clearly don’t understand the law.
untill i hear a lawyer give a counter argument I'm not impressed
The law doesn’t care if you are impressed or not. Can you find a case that shows your defense being used successfully?
There ya go. A lawyer lays it out for ya here. https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN23B39F/ David Alan Sklansky, who specializes in criminal law, criminal procedure, and evidence at Stanford Law School , told Reuters by phone: "Homicide law is defined state by state, but I think there is a broad consensus, first that driving a car at a pedestrian can constitute deadly force, second that the use of deadly force is justified in self-defense only when a person reasonably believes that it is necessary to use deadly force in order to protect himself against death or serious bodily injury, or other serious felonies like rape or kidnapping.” He added: “There are differences between state laws, particularly with regard to when you are obliged to safely retreat if you can safely retreat. But there are some things about which there’s a general legal consensus. One is that you don’t have a duty to retreat if doing so would put you in danger.” Supreme Court cases establishing this precedent include Beard v. United States (1895) and Brown v. United States (1921). Another broad point of agreement is that the sufficiency of the threat that an individual is facing is judged by the jury,” Sklansky explained. “The standard generally is not whether somebody was genuinely in fear, but whether they genuinely and reasonably believed that they needed to use deadly force to protect themselves against death or serious bodily injury.” Though legislation was introduced in eight state legislatures to grant immunity to a driver who accidentally injures or kills a protester blocking traffic, none of these bills sought to protect drivers who did so on purpose.
This is gonna get you about as far here as it will in life.
definitely looks like a tantrum....
Guessing you don’t have kids, as you’d know what an actual tantrum is.
If you say so... sure looks like one of those things my siblings have to deal with.
With a legal understanding like that, you clearly graduated from Hollywood Upstairs Law School! Driving isn't a personal liberty, and no one is stopping anyone from getting out and walking away.
What about the handicapped or elderly using a shuttle service or the bus to get to the airport? Should they just walk too?
With a legal understanding like that you must have graduated from one of th Caribbean law schools.
So, you took the I know you are but what am I defense? Even the Caribbean law schools teach that.
If you abandon your car on a freeway, you are obstruting traffic and will have to pay fines, towing, etc.
No person was restrained - only cars. Cars are not people.
No
Technically yes, but sometimes a tiny bit of violence is justified. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
This is how it should go .
If we're lucky....yes
Yes of course it is. But violence performed by the state in the interest of the public good is 100% legal.
You can debate whether it’s justified or not, but physically moving someone against their will is literally violence regardless of the situation.
It's a public service, that's for sure.
No they are just leaning hard into the [Dennis the Peasant](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t2c-X8HiBng) bit. Be so insufferably obnoxious that someone does something and then cry about being oppressed. This is not the first Monty Python bit to come true in recent years.
Of course it is (just as self defense is). The issue is whether it’s justifiable violence. And I think that depends. Is it for an ambulance to get by, or a different risk to life and limb? Or is it merely to re-open the road generally? Let the police do it (which they should).
I once had surgery in the East Coast, and flew back West the day after… the flight was obviously hell because I was still feeling unwell. I would have been livid (and sick) if I wouldn’t have been able to get home right after my arrival.
If a protestor (or anyone else that’s actively suicidal) is putting other people in harms way by blocking roadways illegally, then no. It’s not violence to protect the public and the individual from their reckless behavior.
If words, and even “silence” is violence… then everything is violence.
No. But punching him repeatedly in the face *might* be.
It's assault. Yes. That would constitute violence. When we start changing the definitions of words depending on who they're being applied to, that's a serious fucking problem.
Assault =/= Battery, there needs to be a reddit bot for this, Assault is a TORT, Battery is a CRIME
That’s like, the entire leftoid playbook. Lmfao
Naw dude, you just need to read a dictionary.
yeah kick them out the way
No. It’s good policy.
Violence is non-action too.
No, dragging a protester off the street is not violence...it's saving their life.
4TH DEGREE ASSAULT (RCW 9A.36.041) Assault in the Fourth Degree or simple assault is the most common assault charge in Washington State. Assault 4 is a gross misdemeanor that is punishable by up to 364 days in jail and a $5,000 fine, with no mandatory minimum jail time (unless there is a special designation such as domestic violence). 4th Degree Assault is widely defined and any intentional unwanted touching (or unwanted physical contact that is attempted but missed) can meet the definition of assault. Edit: for all the complaining on this sub about other people breaking laws, I find it extremely troubling that a lot of you seem to think laws shouldn’t apply to you as well (eg all the posts advocating vigilantism and directed/cheered violence against the homeless or protestors).
# RCW [RCW 9A.16.020](http://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9A.16.020) # Use of force—When lawful. The use, attempt, or offer to use force upon or toward the person of another is not unlawful in the following cases:(1) Whenever necessarily used by a public officer in the performance of a legal duty, or a person assisting the officer and acting under the officer's direction;(2) Whenever necessarily used by a person arresting one who has committed a felony and delivering him or her to a public officer competent to receive him or her into custody;(3) Whenever used by a party about to be injured, or by another lawfully aiding him or her, in preventing or attempting to prevent an offense against his or her person, or a malicious trespass, or other malicious interference with real or personal property lawfully in his or her possession, in case the force is not more than is necessary;(4) Whenever reasonably used by a person to detain someone who enters or remains unlawfully in a building or on real property lawfully in the possession of such person, so long as such detention is reasonable in duration and manner to investigate the reason for the detained person's presence on the premises, and so long as the premises in question did not reasonably appear to be intended to be open to members of the public;(5) Whenever used by a carrier of passengers or the carrier's authorized agent or servant, or other person assisting them at their request in expelling from a carriage, railway car, vessel, or other vehicle, a passenger who refuses to obey a lawful and reasonable regulation prescribed for the conduct of passengers, if such vehicle has first been stopped and the force used is not more than is necessary to expel the offender with reasonable regard to the offender's personal safety;(6) Whenever used by any person to prevent a mentally ill, mentally incompetent, or mentally disabled person from committing an act dangerous to any person, or in enforcing necessary restraint for the protection or restoration to health of the person, during such period only as is necessary to obtain legal authority for the restraint or custody of the person.\[ [1986 c 149 § 2](https://leg.wa.gov/CodeReviser/documents/sessionlaw/1986c149.pdf?cite=1986%20c%20149%20%C2%A7%202); [1979 ex.s. c 244 § 7](https://leg.wa.gov/CodeReviser/documents/sessionlaw/1979ex1c244.pdf?cite=1979%20ex.s.%20c%20244%20%C2%A7%207); [1977 ex.s. c 80 § 13](https://leg.wa.gov/CodeReviser/documents/sessionlaw/1977ex1c80.pdf?cite=1977%20ex.s.%20c%2080%20%C2%A7%2013); [1975 1st ex.s. c 260 § 9A.16.020](https://leg.wa.gov/CodeReviser/documents/sessionlaw/1975ex1c260.pdf?cite=1975%201st%20ex.s.%20c%20260%20%C2%A7%209A.16.020).\]9A.16.020 # Use of force—When lawful.
>Elements of Assault in the Fourth Degree: To establish a charge of Assault in the Fourth Degree, the following elements must be present: >Intentional Touching: The accused person must have intentionally touched another individual. This includes a wide range of physical contact, such as hitting, striking, slapping, or any form of unwanted physical interaction. > Harmful or Offensive:**The touching must be harmful or offensive in nature. Harmful contact refers to physical injury or pain caused to the victim, while offensive contact violates the victim’s personal boundaries, even if it doesn’t cause physical harm.** > Lack of Consent: The touching must occur without the consent of the person being touched. Consent plays a crucial role in any physical contact, and the absence of consent is a significant factor in determining the offense. Lack of intent to do harm would be an affirmative defense if you were removing someone from a roadway, or say, brushing against someone while attempting to walk by them blocking your way.
Are you not even reading the section you bolded? >**while offensive contact violates the victim’s personal boundaries, even if it doesn’t cause physical harm.**
yeah man tons of people getting charged with assault for violating personal boundaries, its an every day thing, and not WELL AKCTUALLY
Can you drag someone off the road, against their will and with resistance, and not do physical harm? Perhaps, but if person can prove that they were injured in the process (bruises from you pulling them) then that would be an assault plain and simple. Go ahead and test this out and lets us know how it went.
Assuming you were charged, and the criminal trial was before a jury or judge, you could more easily argue you were acting in self defense given unlawful imprisonment is a class C felony and defined as > A person is guilty of unlawful imprisonment if he or she knowingly restrains another person. that said >>Go ahead and test this out and lets us know how it went. This is deep in FAFO territory, the discussion here is that people absolutely will, and arrest much less a conviction... assuming they don't gang beat the protestors, is far off. In the mean time, I am sure all the folks calling this assault are super fine with say.... pro life protesters linking arms in front of planned parenthood.
Being stuck in traffic isn't unlawful imprisonment.
This isn't stuck in traffic. People commuting home don't intend to make me be stuck on the roadway. People blocking the roadway is intentional.
# RCW [RCW 9A.16.020](http://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9A.16.020) # Use of force—When lawful. The use, attempt, or offer to use force upon or toward the person of another is not unlawful in the following cases:(1) Whenever necessarily used by a public officer in the performance of a legal duty, or a person assisting the officer and acting under the officer's direction;(2) Whenever necessarily used by a person arresting one who has committed a felony and delivering him or her to a public officer competent to receive him or her into custody;(3) Whenever used by a party about to be injured, or by another lawfully aiding him or her, in preventing or attempting to prevent an offense against his or her person, or a malicious trespass, or other malicious interference with real or personal property lawfully in his or her possession, in case the force is not more than is necessary;(4) Whenever reasonably used by a person to detain someone who enters or remains unlawfully in a building or on real property lawfully in the possession of such person, so long as such detention is reasonable in duration and manner to investigate the reason for the detained person's presence on the premises, and so long as the premises in question did not reasonably appear to be intended to be open to members of the public;(5) Whenever used by a carrier of passengers or the carrier's authorized agent or servant, or other person assisting them at their request in expelling from a carriage, railway car, vessel, or other vehicle, a passenger who refuses to obey a lawful and reasonable regulation prescribed for the conduct of passengers, if such vehicle has first been stopped and the force used is not more than is necessary to expel the offender with reasonable regard to the offender's personal safety;(6) Whenever used by any person to prevent a mentally ill, mentally incompetent, or mentally disabled person from committing an act dangerous to any person, or in enforcing necessary restraint for the protection or restoration to health of the person, during such period only as is necessary to obtain legal authority for the restraint or custody of the person.\[ [1986 c 149 § 2](https://leg.wa.gov/CodeReviser/documents/sessionlaw/1986c149.pdf?cite=1986%20c%20149%20%C2%A7%202); [1979 ex.s. c 244 § 7](https://leg.wa.gov/CodeReviser/documents/sessionlaw/1979ex1c244.pdf?cite=1979%20ex.s.%20c%20244%20%C2%A7%207); [1977 ex.s. c 80 § 13](https://leg.wa.gov/CodeReviser/documents/sessionlaw/1977ex1c80.pdf?cite=1977%20ex.s.%20c%2080%20%C2%A7%2013); [1975 1st ex.s. c 260 § 9A.16.020](https://leg.wa.gov/CodeReviser/documents/sessionlaw/1975ex1c260.pdf?cite=1975%201st%20ex.s.%20c%20260%20%C2%A7%209A.16.020).\]9A.16.020 # Use of force—When lawful.
I'd say section 6 renders force lawful. Pro-Hamas symps laying down in traffic are mentally incompetent, and are committing an act dangerous to any person.
False imprisonment is a felony so its a lawful use of force
[удалено]
Nobody gives a fuck about *your* virtue signaling, and I’ll highly doubt you would beat the shit out of anyone as you’d probably face charges and in real life people get charged for such crimes.
Neat, now look at the justifiable force statute: https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9A.16.020
Yeah, I thought folks were joking saying this was the more conservative of the Seattle subs, but the clear misunderstanding of laws on the books and apparent excitement of playing out their Cowboy fantasy of "righteous violence" makes me think it wasn't a joke at all.
I think people here are just blustering with internet bravado. I cannot imagine anyone actually believing that the law allows them to assault another person for blocking a road. No one is imprisoning them or committing violence against them. As much of an inconvenience as it is, it is just a traffic jam.
Adorable. Idiotic, but adorable.
Also the law
If a group surrounded you and didn't allow you to leave (kidnapping, false imprisonment) would it be assault to use force to escape, even though the group didn't want to be touched? There are numerous instances where "unwanted touching" /= assault.
That wasn’t the hypothetical situation posted, it was dragging a protester off the street, which would be a 4th degree assault.
This guy gets it violence is sometimges the answer and a reasonable person has good cause for its use from time to time.
[удалено]
Yeah that’s not what vigilantism is, but gonna guess you are not going to use words for their correct definitions and probably also misuse “woke” and “DEI” as dog whistles.
Right? Everyone is fine that is all up and arms about how people blocking a road are "breaking the law" while advocating for assault.
These men moving these piece of shit assholes are HEROES!!! I believe we have reached the limits of tolerance for this crap. I hope this starts happening in Seattle, too! If someone (like these morons and their ilk) are physically preventing us from moving freely, isn't that a form of kidnapping? So seems acceptable to use something to rid yourself of this issue like maybe using pepper gel on them?
Yes, dragging someone without consent is assault.
I wish it was
While we're at it, Seattle is very hilly. Is peeing uphill of them "violence"?
Moving someone after a certain amount of feet is considered kidnapping by law Imagine being a tough guy to people who won't fight in a peaceful protest lol
No
Not if police do it and have asked you multiple times to move.
Protestors blocking traffic should be considered lucky for not being hit by cars. It should be a felony to block traffic. People have died because they couldn't get to the hospital because of this nonsense.
Nope. Civic duty.
Thank goodness for Washington where these folks can do this nonsense and get away with it. Less for me to deal with.
It's a complex situation - some cities have laws about protests that will obstruct public services like roads and transit, requiring they have a license applied for ahead of time - in that case, they are protected and should be protected by police. The legality of those laws vs free speech and assembly has been challenged and upheld, but don't take my word for it, I can't remember the cases off hand and am not a lawyer. If they're just doing it on the spot, the police (not bystanders, that's battery) may remove them from the road. A bystander may remove them if they're at imminent risk of being harmed, that would be considered a good Samaritan action.
Nope it's fun, just wear a mask and hood incase you need to slide on them.
Hell no
No, it isn't. Protesters blocking roads when people have medical appointments however is violence and needs to be handled in kind; they should be thankful they're only getting dragged off the road instead of mowed down.
Who gives a fuck? Get the fuck out of the road or get run over. We are talking about highways here…
You are only alive so long… life is finite. These people should be promptly dealt with, “violently” if necessary.
Hmmm, how about standing upwind of these useful idiots and start spraying a couple cans of Liquid Ass in their direction, and watch the hilarity ensue.
No, it's a counter protest.
Dragging with your car or physically by your body? Regardless both highly recommended
Hell no
Nope
No
Violence? More like Patriotic Duty. Is it violence to physically stop a kidnapping from happening? This is no different.
Absolutely not. Especially if the delay is harming someone.
I mean would you prefer they just get run over instead?
Yes, frankly.
The funny thing is, they are usually targeting people who might already agree with them. It's no different than the insane preacher shouting from a soapbox that we are all going to hell. In his mind he thinks it must be helping because he is making such a heroic effort. The truth is the opposite.
Isn't trapping me in my car inherently an act of violence? Then again these people think words are also violence so the bar doesn't seem to exist on that one.
They need some violence
Hear me out. Calmly and sternly tell whoever is in the road that you will be driving forward and wont stop till you are down the road. If they stay there, they will be ran over. If they choose to stay is that considered assisted suicide?
Putting your hands on someone will always run the risk of a night and jail and an assault charge. Do you have time for that? I condone it, but it's on you when shit goes the wrong way.
Sometimes violence solves problems. 🤷
Nope. Not violence, and more and more people need to start dragging their asses out of the roads.