Protesters blocks car, then one shoots the driver

[Rational Poster]

So is Taliban a domestic group in Afghanistan but only considered a non-state actor for things they do in other countries?

Also BLM isn't that domestic because there's been plenty of BLM protests in European countries as well.

Taliban is always a domestic group in Afghanistan and internationally, they were previously the ruling party of the country and probably will be again soon. Al-Qaeda are non-state actors.

BLM in America is domestic, though people in other countries have co-opted the movement in their countries sure.

But even if they were all non-state actors you're still not allowed to hit them with your car.

 

[Barteh]

Taliban is always a domestic group in Afghanistan and internationally, they were previously the ruling party of the country. Al-Qaeda are non-state actors.

BLM in America is domestic, though people in other countries have co-opted the movement in their countries sure.

But even if they were all non-state actors you're still not allowed to hit them with your car.

I've studied public international law and I'm just trying to understand your point because it seems like you're talking about a certain legal meaning.

You posted a definition and it doesn't mention anything about being international, it seems like the main point is political influence. There's a pretty strong argument to make that BLM certainly has political influence in the USA at the moment. So given the definition you posted to me it seems like BLM could easily fit that definition.

About hitting somebody with your car. Non-violent people blocking the road, sure. What if people are actively attacking the car, smashing the windows and being very aggressive in general? I definitely feel like it's a pretty natural reaction to panic and just want to get out of there and drive away.

 

[Rational Poster]

I've studied public international law and I'm just trying to understand your point because it seems like you're talking about a certain legal meaning.

You posted a definition and it doesn't mention anything about being international, it seems like the main point is political influence. There's a pretty strong argument to make that BLM certainly has political influence in the USA at the moment. So given the definition you posted to me it seems like BLM could easily fit that definition.

About hitting somebody with your car. Non-violent people blocking the road, sure. What if people are actively attacking the car, smashing the windows and being very aggressive in general? I definitely feel like it's a pretty natural reaction to panic and just want to get out of there and drive away.

The definition also included a more in depth description, "which are wholly or partly independent of a sovereign state or state."

These people are not wholly or partly independent of a sovereign states. They're American citizens.

People weren't actively attacking the car in the video, he drove into them initiating the aggression.

 

[Barteh]

The definition also included a more in depth description, "which are wholly or partly independent of a sovereign state or state."

These people are not wholly or partly independent of a sovereign states. They're American citizens.

People weren't actively attacking the car in the video, he drove into them initiating the aggression.

So basically non-state actors have to be non-domestic then? I don't think it matters a whole lot for the discussion, but good to know anyway.

I didn't see the specific video but I'm just talking in general. People turning around and hitting people in the crowd another time of of revenge, they're in the wrong. When people are stuck in an aggressive crowd with people banging on the car it's justified imo to just drive on. I feel like we should all be able to agree on that but it seems like there are people who think all situations where people drive into a crowd of protesters/rioters is justified while other feels like none on those situations are justified.

 

[Ultra O’Dia]

This is the average intelligence of the people we’re dealing with. They can’t even hurl insults correctly, let alone fix any of societies difficult problems.

This shit keeps up and these cowards are going to be put down and forgotten about

i am in favor of that happening.



edit - didnt really mean to quote @bobgeese

 

[Ultra O’Dia]

The definition also included a more in depth description, "which are wholly or partly independent of a sovereign state or state."

These people are not wholly or partly independent of a sovereign states. They're American citizens.

People weren't actively attacking the car in the video, he drove into them initiating the aggression.

What would Genghis do?

 

[Rational Poster]

So basically non-state actors have to be non-domestic then? I don't think it matters a whole lot for the discussion, but good to know anyway.

I didn't see the specific video but I'm just talking in general. People turning around and hitting people in the crowd another time of of revenge, they're in the wrong. When people are stuck in an aggressive crowd with people banging on the car it's justified imo to just drive on. I feel like we should all be able to agree on that but it seems like there are people who think all situations where people drive into a crowd of protesters/rioters is justified while other feels like none on those situations are justified.

I'm talking about the car in the specific video.

When the shots started firing, he was totally justified just getting out of there. But he clearly engaged the crowd and tried to force his way through to start.

 

[Deleted member 159002]

Even if they were non-state actors, which they aren't. It's still a felony to hit them with your car. If they were an illegal alien, it's still illegal for you to hit them with your car.

They're not exerting any authority because they have none, they're just being a nuisance and you're just a psycho desperately looking to rationalize hitting someone with you car.

They are not employed by the state to dictate the terms under which Americans can use roads. That makes them non-state actors. They're using power in a non-state capacity.

If someone tries to constrain the movement of another person on public property, he is acting as if it's the other person's responsibility to submit to him. But the American people aren't these people's slaves. They have no authority to prohibit me or anyone from traveling on public roads.

 

[Barteh]

I'm talking about the car in the specific video.

When the shots started firing, he was totally justified just getting out of there. But he clearly engaged the crowd and tried to force his way through to start.

Just checked the video out and it looks like he started sounding the horn at the start and had his mind made up from the start that he would force his way to the crowd. Probably not the best attitude to have in that situation.

I do feel like in general (knowing you're quite an irrational poster and very left leaning) we should be able to agree that in some situations it's justified that people keep driving on and in some situations it isn't. I don't feel like this particular situation is very clear cut on one side but but I'd also lean more to the "not justified" in this situation.

 

[Rational Poster]

They are not employed by the state to dictate the terms under which Americans can use roads. That makes them non-state actors. They're using power in a non-state capacity.

If someone tries to constrain the movement of another person on public property, he is acting as if it's the other person's responsibility to submit to him. But the American people aren't these people's slaves. They have no authority to prohibit me or anyone from traveling on public roads.

Nope, they're just American citizens exercising their rights.

Historically, protests in America have always done things like this. Whether they were sit-ins or marches or blockades, they're constitutional rights and they're meant to be inconvenient. That's the whole point.

And you're not allowed to hit them with your car no matter how bad you want to.

 

[Brodels]

Yeah i mean look at all those other folks in that intersection that those protestors had drug from their cars and beaten in the streets. Clearly that's what they were doing out there. Amazing logic!

Yeah man because it didn't happen YET in THIS video, it's impossible, and has never happened multiple times recently. Douche

 

[Rational Poster]

Just checked the video out and it looks like he started sounding the horn at the start and had his mind made up from the start that he would force his way to the crowd. Probably not the best attitude to have in that situation.

I do feel like in general (knowing you're quite an irrational poster and very left leaning) we should be able to agree that in some situations it's justified that people keep driving on and in some situations it isn't. I don't feel like this particular situation is very clear cut on one side but but I'd also lean more to the "not justified" in this situation.

This is a situation where everyone involved is an asshole, but especially the shooter.

 

[Deleted member 159002]

Nope, they're just American citizens exercising their rights.

Historically, protests in America have always done things like this. Whether they were sit-ins or marches or blockades, they're constitutional rights and they're meant to be inconvenient. That's the whole point.

And you're not allowed to hit them with your car no matter how bad you want to.

How are American citizens and non-state actors mutually exclusive? We'll see if people are allowed to run these self-appointed authorities over. We thought people weren't allowed to loot and deface property that doesn't belong to them, but people who have done these things have basically gotten off scott free. Hopefully anyone who runs over these self-appointed authorities gets the same treatment the BLM/Antifa thugs have gotten from law enforcement.

 

[Rational Poster]

How are American citizens and non-state actors mutually exclusive? We'll see if people are allowed to run these self-appointed authorities over. We thought people weren't allowed to loot and deface property that doesn't belong to them, but people who have done these things have basically gotten off scott free. Hopefully anyone who runs over these self-appointed authorities gets the same treatment the BLM/Antifa thugs have gotten from law enforcement.

If you're an American citizen you have allegiance to a state or country. You're automatically not a non-state actor because of that.

I implore you to intentionally run over Americans protesting and let me know how it goes.

Literally thousands of rioters have been arrested around the country since this started.

 

[Halge]

They are mostly peaceful though.

Far as I can tell it works like this:

If person A is standing in the street shouting abuse at cops and white people, person A is a peaceful protester. Fair enough.

If person A picks up a rock and smashes a store window or someone's head, person A is a violent rioter (no longer part of the protests).

Once person A has thrown the rock and is back to shouting abuse at cops and white people, person A is a peaceful protester again.

So if every person at the "protest rallies" are only throwing rocks ten percent of the time, the protests are mostly peaceful.

My point being that it doesn't seem like a "few bad apples" are ruining the protests by commiting violence all the time. Rather, a much larger percentage of the "protesters" are ruining the protests by commiting violence intermittently.

Needless to say I have no respect for anyone out protesting at this point, nor anyone defending them. They are enemies of civilization itself.

 

[tenniswhiz]

It’s actually easier to get trapped by these protests than you may think.

A few weeks back I was driving home, made one wrong turn and was cut off immediately, I had no idea they were going on, in a residential area at that.

Idk about this driver, just adding my 2 cents

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-new...de-blasio-defends-police-after-video-n1220246

Yes it is.
Even DeBlasio is defending the cops in this situation.

 

[Brodels]

Nope, it's always a felony to intentionally hit people with a motor vehicle.

Not if you feel like your life is in danger

 

[bjpenngoat]

So if you protect yourself you get arrested and if you dont you get killed. Our leaders are spineless right now. They need to grow balls and stand up to this with force.

 

[Rational Poster]

Not if you feel like your life is in danger

You can't feel your life is in danger. It has to actually be in danger and you need to be able to prove it.

 

[Deleted member 159002]

If you're an American citizen you have allegiance to a state or country. You're automatically not a non-state actor because of that.

I implore you to intentionally run over Americans protesting and let me know how it goes.

Literally thousands of rioters have been arrested around the country since this started.

First of all, your source was a wikipedia article, which is a dubious source. But aside from that, you obviously didn't read your source or realize the implications of what your source says:

Some common and influential classes of NSAs are listed here in alphabetical order:

• Business magnates are individuals who command large wealth, and who often seek to influence national and international affairs. Examples are Warren Buffett and Bill Gates

According to your logic, Bill Gates and Warren Buffett aren't non-state actors since they're American citizens. According to your source, Bill Gates and Warren Buffett are non-state actors.

• People's movements are mass movements which become influential with size and longevity. Examples include the movements arising during the Arab Spring of 2011.

Are you denying that BLM is a people's movement?

• Transnational diaspora communities are ethnic or national communities that commonly seek to bring social and political change to their originating countries and their adoptive countries. The Israeli diaspora is an example.

Is BLM not an ethnic movement ("black" is right in the name) to bring social and political change to their adoptive country?

• Violent non-state actors (VNSA)s are armed groups, including groups such as ISIS or criminal organizations, for example drug cartels.

Has BLM not used violence?