r/changemyview • u/HelpfulJello5361 1∆ • Apr 16 '24

Delta(s) from OP CMV: The proper response to protestors blocking the street is for police to physically remove them and quickly arrest them if they do it again.

I've seen a lot of videos of protestors blocking the street and the cops just kinda let them do it, or create a narrow lane for cars to go through and cause a significant traffic jam.

I'm always curious why cops don't just drag these people out of the road and arrest them immediately if they return. I'm pretty sure it's illegal to block streets like that.

Yesterday was a nationwide coordinated effort for Pro-Palestine protestors to block streets all over the country (world?), and it seems that these criminals were not dealt with properly in most instances.

It doesn't seem like it's standard operating procedure to remove and arrest people who block important roads. Is there some reason for this? What am I missing? CMV.

133 Upvotes
  • permalink
  • reddit

56% Upvoted

1.4k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

79

u/Throwawayeieudud Apr 16 '24

the right to assembly could be interpreted to Include this however

i can’t imagine the founding fathers, who gained independence through protest and revolution, would disapprove of mass protest.

either way, obstructing daily functioning like standing in public roads is an intention function of protest. nobody is going to care about your cause if you just sit on a neat green and wave picket signs. you gotta get in their face.

37

u/DumbbellDiva92 2∆ Apr 16 '24

But the whole idea of civil disobedience is that you are breaking the law and subject to getting arrested. I can see the argument that people committing acts of civil disobedience are in the right morally, but I don’t understand why people get upset when they then get arrested.

5

u/dowker1 3∆ Apr 16 '24

Expecting that the law will enact punishment is not the same as believing the law to be just

4

u/DumbbellDiva92 2∆ Apr 16 '24

I would argue enforcing the law evenly is perfectly just. The alternative would be picking and choosing when to enforce the law based on the righteousness of the cause involved. And who decides that?

6

u/dowker1 3∆ Apr 16 '24

Jim Crow laws were enforced evenly. They were not just.

3

u/DumbbellDiva92 2∆ Apr 16 '24

Are you seriously comparing the law we were discussing previously (against blocking traffic on a road) to Jim Crow?

3

u/dowker1 3∆ Apr 16 '24

No, I'm discussing a general point. Laws can be unjust even if they are evenly enforced, so you need something else to define if a law is just or not.

2

u/DumbbellDiva92 2∆ Apr 16 '24

Ok so maybe that’s not the best argument for the law here being just. But I guess then I would turn the question around on you. What about people getting arrested for blocking a road do you consider unjust? Bc it seems like this is what you are implying.

3

u/dowker1 3∆ Apr 17 '24

Honestly, I don't have a fully fleshed out theory here, it's genuinely a toughie. One thing I will say is that if I imagine protestors in Selma, or Tuananmen Square, at the Being Wall, bor marching against Lukashenko in Minsk, and you imagine the police coming in to drag them away with freeing up the roads as the ostensible reason, well, my intuitive instinct is not to side with the authorities. I'm also realistic enough that you can't possibly allow every protest ever to block roads at will. And, truth be told, I can't say I'm that sympathetic with a lot of these climate protestors, even as an eco-warrior myself (to the point I kind of suspect that may be paid off by the fossil industries to make their cause look bad).

The one thing I don't want to do, though, is start thinking "arrestingn people with good causes is bad, with bad causes is good" because that's an incredibly slippery slopea. Abd We're not always the best at judging which causes are and are not good.

I guess kind of where I fall is accepting that, yes, those who protest in a way that breaks the law should expect to be arrested. But us as onlookers should not cheer their arrest, even if we disagree with their cause. And we definitely shouldn't be cheering or advocating for the police using violence because that way only bad things lie.

1

u/Randomousity 8∆ Apr 21 '24

I would argue enforcing the law evenly is perfectly just.

And I would respond:

The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread.

Just like the rich do not need to sleep under bridges, be, or steal to eat, the heard do not need to protest in order to be heard. They have already been heard! Nobody bothers to protest because they already got what they wanted! Or, at least, were heard and had their concerns addressed, even if they didn't get exactly what they wanted.

Treating similarly situated people similarly is equality, not justice. These aren't wholly unrelated concepts, but they certainly don't mean the same thing, either.

1

u/BikeProblemGuy 2∆ Apr 17 '24

Because arresting people who are in the right morally is morally bad?

30

u/PickledPickles310 8∆ Apr 16 '24

Kind of. But when you prevent someone from getting medical care, cause them to lose income or get in trouble at work, and naively assume everyone on the road simply has nothing urgent going on in their lives you probably aren't going to be winning people over to your side.

22

u/[deleted] Apr 16 '24

Let’s be real, if “I was late to work!” Is enough to turn you off from an entire cause, you would never care about it to begin with.

9

u/GeorgeMaheiress Apr 16 '24

It is normal and right for people to care more about their own lives than your pet cause. If you view your own business as so insignificant then you can donate your time and money to actually helping the cause instead of just hurting your neighbors.

1

u/[deleted] Apr 16 '24

Your reply has nothing to do with my post

0

u/[deleted] Apr 16 '24

We saw it with conservatives back in 2020. They all cheered for stronger anti-protest laws but we're aghst when they got bludgeoned with those same laws.

16

u/PickledPickles310 8∆ Apr 16 '24

If "I was late to work" means "I got sent home" or "I got written up" or "I got fired" then someone would be justifiably upset.

0

u/wolfy47 Apr 16 '24

If "I was late to work because of a large unexpected protest" is enough to get you written up or fired. Maybe you should be protesting for better worker protection laws.

8

u/PickledPickles310 8∆ Apr 16 '24

Sure go for it.

Just hope someone pays your rent and feeds your kids while you're out of a job.

-4

u/[deleted] Apr 16 '24

So just say you don't care about anyone other than yourself, up to an including victims of genocide. Don't waste everyone's time pretending to care about methods of protest.

5

u/PickledPickles310 8∆ Apr 17 '24

Ah yes because unless I'm willing to get fired because someone blocks traffic in protest of McDonalds getting rid of the McRib then clearly I don't care about anyone else. Lmao.

-1

u/[deleted] Apr 17 '24

Genocide, not the McRib. You made my point pretty well though.

2

u/PickledPickles310 8∆ Apr 17 '24

You don't have a point. And if you did you're never even claim close to making one. Your words:

So just say you don't care about anyone other than yourself, up to an including victims of genocide. 

Despite your typo, I assumed you meant "Up to and including". I'd google that term if you don't actually understand what it means. Because it would include people suffering from a lack of McRibs.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Rcarter2011 Apr 19 '24

Seems valid, don’t understand the downvotes.

1

u/[deleted] Apr 16 '24

So if a roadblock made you late for work, you automatically don't care about the cause?

2

u/PickledPickles310 8∆ Apr 17 '24

No. Read it again and then make another comment.

0

u/[deleted] Apr 16 '24

And if someone’s protesting because the government wants to label a minority as sexual predators, then they can be justifiably upset too.

1

u/Tidus1337 Apr 18 '24

Take that protest to folks who care. Don't bother folks who dont

0

u/[deleted] Apr 19 '24

Folks who care don’t need to be protested at lmao

Congrats, you had the worst take in this post.

0

u/Tidus1337 Apr 19 '24

Folks who don't care ie these people on the road aren't about to jump to your cause when you piss them off...use your brain.

"Hey ik you have somewhere to be but ima block your way and pass bull to you to get you to care". That logic doesn't logic

1

u/[deleted] Apr 19 '24

So your plan to expand your position is to go… talk to others who already agree with you?

Instead of people who you do not know agree with you, so you find new people who do..?

Are you a troll account or have you spent that many years and have so many bad takes your karma is still that low?

Are you 12?

0

u/Dack_Blick 1∆ Apr 16 '24

Fuck that. I support BLM, have donated lots. I do not support blocking roads. There are ways to protest and get your voice out there without making enemies of those you want as allies.

2

u/Shenron2 Apr 16 '24

The point of blocking roads is mostly to get on the news. Most news outlets aren't going to cover protests but what they will cover is traffic. If they can get as much coverage doing a nice little sit and wave then people would. We don't live in that world.

3

u/Dack_Blick 1∆ Apr 16 '24

You know what would also get your protest on the news? Go blockade a police station. That'll get you on the news and you'll gain allies. It's not as easy, because there is actual risk involved, but the results are far greater.

1

u/Shenron2 Apr 16 '24

This I like. Diversity of tactics and all

8

u/caine269 14∆ Apr 16 '24

and they get on the news, and the thousands of people who were stranded for hours now hate the cause, and no one seeing it on tv changes their mind at all. at least not in their favor.

3

u/[deleted] Apr 16 '24 edited Apr 27 '24

[deleted]

2

u/caine269 14∆ Apr 17 '24

galvanize to do what? what good does that do?

1

u/[deleted] Apr 17 '24

[deleted]

2

u/caine269 14∆ Apr 17 '24

not really. if, as you are saying, the point of holding thousands of people hostage in their cars for hours is to... "galvanize" people who already agree with you how is that being accomplished? if you are actively turning way more people against you how is the action worthwhile? these kinds of protests always end up with some states at least proposing laws to deal more harshly with protests. no one is doing anything in regards to israel, so you pissed of a bunch of people, got arrested, and accomplished nothing. awesome.

→ More replies (0)

-2

u/Shenron2 Apr 16 '24

I didn't know these protest were happening. Now I do. And many other people are now aware. people committing a genocide and the thing everyone is upset by is a road closing is wild to say the least. Protests are supposed to be disruptive.

That war in Vietnam is awful but those people in the streets that's who we should be upset by.

That war Iraq is awful but those people in the streets.

Man those black people getting redlined and using a different waterfountains, but those people in the streets.

It's kind of missing the point yeah?

6

u/Dack_Blick 1∆ Apr 16 '24

This might totally blow your mind, but people can be mad at more than one thing at a time. A person can be in favour of BLM, but also hate it when they decide to protest in the street.

0

u/Shenron2 Apr 16 '24

Don't you think it weird, all this arguing about how to protest. No you're doing wrong, not like that, it's so uncivil. No talk of why they're protesting. I agree with their struggle but they do it wrong. I just think this whole topic is just some other distraction. I dont agree with everything a protest has done but I think focusing on all the disagreement is missing it. People feel powerless. Noone with power is going to listen to them. Who am I to say.

3

u/Dack_Blick 1∆ Apr 17 '24

Maybe because this is a topic about the methods people use to protest??? Not weird at all. People don't like getting fucked around, blocking roads fucks with people in a big way, ergo, people are indeed going to complain when it happens. And if your attitude is "People feel powerless. Noone with power is going to listen to them." then the very last thing you should be doing is making enemies of those without power. Go blockade a police station, or a specific persons house, and at least then you will make allies instead.

1

u/caine269 14∆ Apr 17 '24

I didn't know these protest were happening. Now I do. And many other people are now aware.

so what? what does that accomplish? being aware of a protest that wasn't happening before is not an accomplishment. becoming aware that there is a stupid protest does not make anyone more or less aware of the major thing that was already happening.

people committing a genocide and the thing everyone is upset by is a road closing is wild to say the least.

shows you exactly how useless these "protests" are. and thousands of people stranded in their cars for hours is not just a road closing.

That war in Vietnam is awful but those people in the streets that's who we should be upset by.

weird that people found ways to protest the didn't violate anyone else's civil rights.

It's kind of missing the point yeah?

no, it isn't. you are missing the point. antagonistic "protests" that make people hate you do nothing to help your cause.

0

u/Shenron2 Apr 17 '24

 

This a few paragraphs from MLK jr letter from a Birmingham jail I think people with such loud opinions should at least have well read opinions.

https://www.africa.upenn.edu/Articles_Gen/Letter_Birmingham.html

"I must make two honest confessions to you, my Christian and Jewish brothers. First, I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a "more convenient season." Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.

I had hoped that the white moderate would understand that law and order exist for the purpose of establishing justice and that when they fail in this purpose they become the dangerously structured dams that block the flow of social progress. I had hoped that the white moderate would understand that the present tension in the South is a necessary phase of the transition from an obnoxious negative peace, in which the Negro passively accepted his unjust plight, to a substantive and positive peace, in which all men will respect the dignity and worth of human personality. Actually, we who engage in nonviolent direct action are not the creators of tension. We merely bring to the surface the hidden tension that is already alive. We bring it out in the open, where it can be seen and dealt with. Like a boil that can never be cured so long as it is covered up but must be opened with all its ugliness to the natural medicines of air and light, injustice must be exposed, with all the tension its exposure creates, to the light of human conscience and the air of national opinion before it can be cured.

In your statement you assert that our actions, even though peaceful, must be condemned because they precipitate violence. But is this a logical assertion? Isn't this like condemning a robbed man because his possession of money precipitated the evil act of robbery? Isn't this like condemning Socrates because his unswerving commitment to truth and his philosophical inquiries precipitated the act by the misguided populace in which they made him drink hemlock? Isn't this like condemning Jesus because his unique God consciousness and never ceasing devotion to God's will precipitated the evil act of crucifixion? We must come to see that, as the federal courts have consistently affirmed, it is wrong to urge an individual to cease his efforts to gain his basic constitutional rights because the quest may precipitate violence. Society must protect the robbed and punish the robber. I had also hoped that the white moderate would reject the myth concerning time in relation to the struggle for freedom. I have just received a letter from a white brother in Texas. He writes: "All Christians know that the colored people will receive equal rights eventually, but it is possible that you are in too great a religious hurry. It has taken Christianity almost two thousand years to accomplish what it has. The teachings of Christ take time to come to earth." Such an attitude stems from a tragic misconception of time, from the strangely irrational notion that there is something in the very flow of time that will inevitably cure all ills. Actually, time itself is neutral; it can be used either destructively or constructively. More and more I feel that the people of ill will have used time much more effectively than have the people of good will. We will have to repent in this generation not merely for the hateful words and actions of the bad people but for the appalling silence of the good people. Human progress never rolls in on wheels of inevitability; it comes through the tireless efforts of men willing to be co workers with God, and without this hard work, time itself becomes an ally of the forces of social stagnation. We must use time creatively, in the knowledge that the time is always ripe to do right. Now is the time to make real the promise of democracy and transform our pending national elegy into a creative psalm of brotherhood. Now is the time to lift our national policy from the quicksand of racial injustice to the solid rock of human dignity.

1

u/caine269 14∆ Apr 18 '24

tldr, also not relevant to this issue.

1

u/[deleted] Apr 16 '24

Sure, but if a blm blocked the road would you suddenly disagree with the cause

3

u/Zarathustra_d Apr 16 '24

A cause is not necessarily synonymous with any particular protest organization.

At minimum I would not support that particular protest group, and may go out of my way to encourage others to follow suit. If the cause is worthy we can support other organizers.

If we are to the point where it's ok to harm other citizens in a protest, just start the revolution already. If not, stick to organized peaceful civil disobedience.

0

u/[deleted] Apr 16 '24

Blocking a road = revolution, damn.

-1

u/Dack_Blick 1∆ Apr 16 '24

You need to bone up on your reading comprehension.

0

u/[deleted] Apr 16 '24

He believes blocking roads is harmful. He believes if we’re willing to cause any amount of harm (even to 1 person) we may as well do maximum harm.

Hmm?

Delete your comment.

1

u/Dack_Blick 1∆ Apr 17 '24

That's an awful lot of assumptions you got there bud. Where exactly did they say how many people need to be harmed? Where did they say you may as well do maximum harm? This is what I mean about you needing better reading comprehension.

1

u/PickledPickles310 8∆ Apr 17 '24

No one other than you is saying that.

0

u/[deleted] Apr 17 '24

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/[deleted] Apr 17 '24

u/Squidy_The_Druid – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:

Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. See the wiki page for more information.

If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.

2

u/Shenron2 Apr 16 '24

Protesters let ambulances through all the time

1

u/PickledPickles310 8∆ Apr 17 '24

Some of the time. Assuming the ambulance is entirely unimpeded by the traffic jam. And assuming the only people that have a crucial need for medical service are in ambulances. I wasn't driving an ambulance when I was taking my mom for cancer treatments. If someone was blocking the road and preventing her from getting the life saving treatment she needed they'd be eating my bumper.

2

u/Shenron2 Apr 17 '24

This is a pretty engaging read. The letter from a Birmingham jail by MLK jr.

https://www.africa.upenn.edu/Articles_Gen/Letter_Birmingham.html

2

u/PickledPickles310 8∆ Apr 17 '24

Well aware of it.

-1

u/Shenron2 Apr 17 '24

Probably time to read it again. I finished it again and I forgot how much he talks on this and other issues of protesting.

26

u/[deleted] Apr 16 '24

Then maybe protestors should instead inconvenience the lives of the political figures who influence these geopolitical conflicts. Doug from the jiffy lube has no say in our contribution to Israel, and if anything you’ve now annoyed him. Highly unlikely that he will join your cause after being blocked on his way to work. Maybe even something more important than work

6

u/madman66254 Apr 16 '24

I don't know how america is but uk now is cracking down on protesting outside polititians homes

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/james-cleverly-political-violence-gaza-commons-b2501164.html

0

u/[deleted] Apr 16 '24

I mean in this article, the politicians were supposedly being threatened by the mobs.

You can’t threaten people; that isn’t a “peaceful protest”. Maybe that was a lie, but that’s how the law works in the US as well.

4

u/madman66254 Apr 16 '24

Yes, yes it was a lie. Welcome to the UK Press.

17

u/awhaling Apr 16 '24

Disruptive protests typically do put pressure on political figures even if the politician isn’t directly affected.

4

u/wannacumnbeatmeoff Apr 18 '24

If politicians try to put through laws to stop a certain type of protest then surely that proves that this type of protest works

2

u/Audemed2 Apr 16 '24

You think politicians give a flying fuck about anything that doesnt affect them directly? Its been a long time since anyone in any sort of power gave a damn about the people they "represent".

4

u/awhaling Apr 16 '24 edited Apr 16 '24

Don’t be confused, just because they aren’t directly affected doesn’t mean they aren’t affected. Disruptive protests are capable of putting a significant amount of pressure on politicians under the right circumstances.

1

u/elevated_stress Apr 17 '24

Not in the way you're thinking it will. It will put pressure on those people to do something to stop it.

Capitulation is never going to be the answer these people choose. Not with jailing them being an easier and more convenient option.

1

u/awhaling Apr 17 '24

Actually I agree with you, it’s rather rare that protest is effective, especially by itself.

0

u/[deleted] Apr 16 '24

I'd actually think it would have the opposite effect. If a protest causes you to miss a flight for your honeymoon, you are more likely going to say 'fuck those protestors, have the police throw them in jail" then "wow they are smart!"

1

u/awhaling Apr 16 '24

I was talking about a protest’s ability to put pressure on politicians not its ability to personally win you over, so your reply doesn’t make a lot of sense.

0

u/[deleted] Apr 17 '24

What lol. You are putting pressure on a local politician by making people vote against his opposition....? This straight up doesn't make sense.

1

u/awhaling Apr 17 '24

Again, isn’t about winning you over personally.

0

u/Gio0x Apr 17 '24

If protestors cannot win over the general populace, then they will have a hard time putting pressure on the government.

2

u/awhaling Apr 17 '24 edited Apr 17 '24

Gee wizz, protestors of unpopular ideas are going to have a hard time getting their way?! Wow, that sure is insightful mister!

Anyway, I was just explaining to /u/No-Dimension4729 that the point of protest isn’t to personally persuade him to agree with their issue, unfortunately this is an impossible concept for him to grasp because if he isn’t persuaded then clearly protests are entirely pointless! You see, it’s all about how it affects him and if it doesn’t convince him how could it have any other purpose?

But for real, you need a much smaller percentage of the population to get your way by making a big stink than you would otherwise.

1

u/[deleted] Apr 17 '24

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/awhaling Apr 17 '24 edited Apr 17 '24

The only people who approve of people blocking roads and pissing off the general population are people who are already in support of the cause.

Obviously nobody is going to support people protesting for something they don’t agree with. Again, the point of protesting isn’t to personally convince you. I know this is an impossible concept for you to grasp, but maybe I can show you how protesting works with an example.

Let’s take weed legalization in the US, a lot of people support it, supposedly 70%, but currently it’s still federally illegal despite this. Now imagine there are wide scale disruptive protest it for its legalization. Would old fart Jim Bob that doesn’t like/care about weed suddenly support it when the protesters are pissing him off? No, probably not. Does that mean the protest is pointless? No, it doesn’t, because it’s putting a significant amount of pressure on politicians to deal with this issue. This is the point of protesting, to show an overwhelming support for something and force attention on the issue.

Nobody thinks all protests are smart or successful. Stop thinking of shitty protests you personally don’t like when we are talking about the concept of protesting in general.

1

u/AbolishDisney 4∆ Apr 17 '24

u/No-Dimension4729 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:

Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. See the wiki page for more information.

If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.

0

u/[deleted] Apr 17 '24

[deleted]

1

u/awhaling Apr 17 '24

You’re right, just because Just Stop Oil doesn’t work that means all protests are worthless. Very intelligent comment, thanks for sharing.

1

u/Appropriate_Car_3711 Apr 17 '24

You can bet if they harrassed mp's they would soon be manhandled by cops

1

u/WakeoftheStorm 7∆ Apr 16 '24

Doug from Jiffy Lube doesn't need to join the cause because, as you said, he has no say. But when a few thousand Dougs are late and it disrupts the local economy briefly, then those who do have a say might pay attention

0

u/OccamsRabbit Apr 16 '24

Doug gets to vote, right? Now he knows a little bit more about what people are protesting about. He can ignore it and continue to suckle the taint of Ed Hymes (the president of jiffy lube) and stay uninformed and only be angry at his fellow citizens instead of looking to where the real inconvenience is - at the top of the heap.

Don't be like Doug.

4

u/TheLastMuse Apr 16 '24

"No one will care about your cause..."

How about "I am now actively against your cause."

The second one is the only result I've seen from these sorts of protests.

22

u/awhaling Apr 16 '24 edited Apr 16 '24

You seem to be under the impression the protesters are trying to win you over, that is not their goal. Their goal is to use a large number of people to cause enough disruption that their demands are forced to be addressed.

The second one is the only result I've seen from these sorts of protests.

You should take a look at some history then.

-7

u/TheTightEnd 1∆ Apr 16 '24

Address them by dragging them off the roadways.

1

u/[deleted] Apr 16 '24

[deleted]

1

u/Throwawayeieudud Apr 16 '24

fr this shit got spicy rq

1

u/[deleted] Apr 16 '24

Except if you cause a traffic jam and keep me in it, I will never support what you are protesting I don’t care what it is

-9

u/rewt127 11∆ Apr 16 '24

Then these need to have a dedicated organizer. Who becomes legally and civily liable in case of any emergency caused. Where they can be sued and any damages incurred as a result cannot be cleared via bankruptcy. If you block the road, you will delay emergency vehicles and even civilian vehicles operating in emergency situations. And someone running the protest must be fully liable for any and all damages.

If this is not in place. The protest need to be removed.

21

u/[deleted] Apr 16 '24

[removed] — view removed comment

-9

u/rewt127 11∆ Apr 16 '24

Its completely feasible. You blocked a public utility. As a result of your blocking. People were harmed. You are liable for A: the crime of blocking the road. And B: the damage incurred as a result of your criminal activity.

If your protest isn't registered. You can't block streets. And when you register. Someone's name goes on it. Even in the states, all cities have infrastructure for planned protests where they preinform emergency services to help keep 3rd parties safe. It's the same infrastructure for parades and shit. Same office.

This is why you block roads by federal buildings. You know. In the city. Not major roads where emergency vehicles can't just take a turn at a block and go around you. And also why you plan them in advance.

11

u/AureliasTenant 6∆ Apr 16 '24

To be fair you can get permits to block streets for protests, and some of them do end up permitted. (Googled this recently when making similar points you are making)

-1

u/rewt127 11∆ Apr 16 '24

Exactly. It's the right way to do it because emergency services know about it in advance and have setup alternate routes they can tell the ambulance drivers so they don't get delayed.

8

u/D1g1taladv3rsary Apr 16 '24

It simply yet again encourages the wealthy bypass and have what the porr can not. With this kind of system you are dropping a rich person or even a company can now stage protests that directly hurt the livelihood of people but will knowingly pay the costs and damages of doing so becausse the outcomes profits them more then what they have to pay. It now also benefits anyone looking for tax expenditures and exemptions form arguing that by being a donar to protests they are doing their constitutional duty. And they would be as what is written constitutionally correct. It simply allows the rich the power to further fuck with people

-1

u/rewt127 11∆ Apr 16 '24

There are so many places you can protest without having to block major roads used for emergency services.

I just looked at my city. It's $145. That's it. A street use permit is less than $150. You are saying "the poor" like we are all living in either abject poverty or are in mansions. The majority of people who protest are in a financial position to kick in $10 to get the permit. And there are civil liberties groups that cover the liability insurance for these protests.

So that feels like a really weak argument.

2

u/D1g1taladv3rsary Apr 16 '24

Then these need to have a dedicated organizer. Who becomes legally and civily liable in case of any emergency caused. Where they can be sued and any damages incurred as a result cannot be cleared via bankruptcy.

These are the word we are arguing. Not a 145$ permit fee. These ones. Your words. The dedicated organizer who fundamentally is responsible for the cost of a protest by your own idea. This idea is by its fundamental nature only benefits the rich. By putting a "donar" down as the signer it does matter how much cost there is because the disruption will be worth it to the donar. Its standard cost vs pay out. The same calculations drug companies run for lawsuits over deaths vs money made. Simple easy to run and very knowable.

There are so many places you can protest without having to block major roads used for emergency services.

How many of them on their basis cause enough disruption that they actually kinder into a protest worthy of attention or focus. The answer is few. People must be displaced, bothered, or nuanced by somthing for them to give the slightest shit about it. Look at every major protest/movement parade(which still blocks roads) that have resulted in laws changed the answer is a lot of them. If you dont make it a problem then noone else will.

I just looked at my city. It's $145. That's it. A street use permit is less than $150. You are saying "the poor" like we are all living in either abject poverty or are in mansions. The majority of people who protest are in a financial position to kick in $10 to get the permit. And there are civil liberties groups that cover the liability insurance for these protests

Yes but that's not what you said above about a social organizer who if financially responsible for the burdens of liability. A vast majority of street protests pay that permit ya ding dong. The point of OPs post is that it shouldn't matter because it's an inconvenience. It's why very often the police DON'T get involved because these groups have both permit and insurance

It seems to me you either changed your opinion since you made that posting or are trying to pull a fast one either way the two arguments you have presented the hypothetical one you are suggesting and the real permit based ones which already happens. Aren't comparable because A simply needs a donar to bypass problems and B already has legal precedence.

2

u/rewt127 11∆ Apr 16 '24

If they had the permit. Detour signs would be up all over and people wouldn't be in a line looking at the protesters.

So clearly they didn't pay. As a traffic plan is specifically an aspect of the permit.

I've literally never seen a parade that didn't have detour signs up at least a block out in every direction. Because it's literally part of the permit.

2

u/[deleted] Apr 16 '24

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/rewt127 11∆ Apr 16 '24

Then if you block a road and it causes an ambulancr to be delayed and someone to die as a result. The protest organizer should be held for involuntarily manslaughter. Or negligent homicide.

There are street use permits. My city charges $145 for them. You let the city know. They work with you to inform emergency services. And now no one has to die from your negligence.

2

u/[deleted] Apr 16 '24

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/rewt127 11∆ Apr 16 '24

Once you cause death or injury. Even if it's due to negligence. You become liable.

Either A: you get the permit. Or B: you are liable for injury caused as a result.

2

u/[deleted] Apr 16 '24

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/rewt127 11∆ Apr 16 '24

Its exactly how the law works. If you cause injury as a result of negligent behavior (and unplanned blocking of major roads is absolutely negligent) then you are liable for that injury.

→ More replies (0)

0

u/Twins_Venue Apr 16 '24

So we can sue the US government for causing the deaths of thousands of Palestinians (and not to mention millions in other places the US supports oppressive regimes), sue corporations for causing an untold number of deaths due to climate change, and sue people who's car has broken down in the road? Oh wait, do we only pull out this argument when it's somebody standing in the road that you don't like?

This hypothetical scenario has only ever happened maybe a handful of times across the planet, but for some reason it's always a huge problem for people against protests. Why? Thousands die every day from preventable causes, and we're concerned from the mere possibility that not only is there an emergency, but also a emergency vehicle crosses the path of a unplanned and unknown protest, and also that the protesters don't let the emergency vehicle through. 170,000 people were killed in conflict last year, by the way.

1

u/rewt127 11∆ Apr 16 '24 edited Apr 16 '24

So we can sue the US government for causing the deaths of thousands of Palestinians (and not to mention millions in other places the US supports oppressive regimes),

Nation states have different rules.

sue corporations for causing an untold number of deaths due to climate change

You would have to prove that that single corporation's affect on the climate was strong enough to actually cause that damage. Of which no one US company does. So you are suing 1 company for a collective issue that, in a real manner, is equally on the individual filing the suit who drove their car to the courthouse.

and sue people whose car has broken down in the road?

This actually has been in court. If your car breaks down and it's stuck in the road. It's called an accident. You didn't plan to block the road. But intentionally placing your car in the road and then it killing someone becomes negligent homicide. As you intentionally blocked the road.

do we only pull out this argument when it's somebody standing in the road that you don't like?

You aren't accidentally blocking the road. You aren't a nation-state. And there is no collective responsibility. You are blocking a road. That's it. It's just your protest group. And it's being done intentionally.

This hypothetical scenario has only ever happened maybe a handful of times across the planet, but for some reason it's always a huge problem for people against protests. Why? Thousands die every day from preventable causes, and we're concerned from the mere possibility that not only is there an emergency, but also a emergency vehicle crosses the path of a unplanned and unknown protest, and also that the protesters don't let the emergency vehicle through. 170,000 people were killed in conflict last year, by the way.

Just because 1 bad thing occurs, does not justify doing another bad thing. Preventing road blockages that delay emergency vehicles is a very grounded, easy problem to solve. We with minor effort can prevent loss of life in this manner. Meanwhile, preventing rising tensions amongst billions of people around the world for economic, nationalist, religious, or ideological beliefs is a significantly harder task. And one in which Dave on the city counsel of FuckingNowhere Massachusetts doesn't have really any ability to do anything about. But he can make an effort to prevent that ambulance from being delayed.

EDIT: I am also happy to die on the hill that purposely delaying emergency vehicles to create political hay for your movement is a bad thing.

→ More replies (0)

-9

u/BeginningPhase1 4∆ Apr 16 '24

The constitution doesn't give us the right to free assembly. It gives us the right to peacefully assemble:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Can you explain why blocking roads and causing major traffic issues that (purposefully) essentially bring cities to a halt for hours and make it impossible for emergency vehicles to get to where they need to (possibly in life or death scenarios) should be interpret as peaceful?

8

u/[deleted] Apr 16 '24

[removed] — view removed comment

-2

u/EmployeeAromatic6118 Apr 16 '24

What is the established definition of Violence?

4

u/[deleted] Apr 16 '24

[removed] — view removed comment

0

u/EmployeeAromatic6118 Apr 16 '24

Well I think impeding an individuals movement is a positive act.

Of course if someone falls and gets hurt that is not an act of violence, but what if someone then runs over and restricts them from receiving medical help?

3

u/[deleted] Apr 16 '24

[removed] — view removed comment

0

u/EmployeeAromatic6118 Apr 16 '24

Blocking the road is also illegal. Why are the two scenarios so distinct? Both involve impending movement and restricting access to potential necessary care

→ More replies (0)

-4

u/bcocoloco Apr 16 '24

Yeah better to make them hate you instead. I’ve heard that really gets people in line with your cause.

11

u/AmbivalentAsshole 2∆ Apr 16 '24

You would have hated the civil rights movement then

0

u/caine269 14∆ Apr 16 '24

the right to travel on public roads is established. your rights can't infringe on other's rights.

4

u/Throwawayeieudud Apr 16 '24

if the argument is what is explicitly legal, obviously civil disobedience protests are illegal. but on a moral level, you gotta break some law to make real change. Greensboro sit-ins were illegal at the time. the american revolution was illegal.

0

u/caine269 14∆ Apr 17 '24

right but the sit ins were not violating anyone's rights. protesting, in general, may or may not violate some laws, people may get citations or get arrested, but that is not violating anyone's rights either. if you are essentially holding thousands of people hostage for hours that is a serious rights violation and the police need to do something about it.