Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
What happens when an ambulance gets caught up in a protest and the person in the ambulance dies because he/she was not able to receive medical help in time. That otherwise would have been very treatable if no roads were blocked.
So, we should also arrest all those drivers I see constantly who refuse to move over to let an ambulance through.
Let's just point out here that the question can be seen in two ways:
"Can protests be legally construed as domestic terrorism?"
and
"Can protests be morally construed as domestic terrorism?"
Most of the answers seem not to acknowledge this very valid distinction. The very notion that what is legal defines what is moral, I find appalling, and very sad that anyone seems sucked into it.
The way it works in reality is that if a black man representing BLM peacefully protests at a Trump event, then yes, it is considered radical terrorism and that individual is legally subject to the whim of the crowd, including, but not limited to, group spitting, mass kicking while on the ground, punching and actual shooting, if he resists or fights back.
If a bunch of white guys carry loaded AR15s and march around a Mosque then throw pig heads and firebombs, it's just good old American citizens exercising their first Amendment rights and every Muslim within 10 miles better keep their mouths shut if they know what's good for them.
That's how it works in real time.
So, we should also arrest all those drivers I see constantly who refuse to move over to let an ambulance through.
Wow..is this how you really think? You're comparing apples & oranges here. There is a HUGE difference in people holding up traffic illegally versus people who don't even see the ambulance coming.
You do realize you completely missed the first portion of the definition:
(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State
The definition is not A or B or (i) or (ii) or ....
It is A AND B (of which must fall within one of the sub-definitions i, ii, or iii) AND C
So the answer is NO, unless you can show that the demonstrations were a danger to human life.
You are treading on very dangerous ground if you want to redefine domestic terrorism to only need the (i) definition.
I'm pretty sure standing on the 405(San Diego Freeway) which is what happened on Wens would fall under the category of acts dangerous to human life.
I live in Southern CA and that is one of our busiest freeways, also the freeway used to get to LAX. You know people trying to catch flights.
Real smart to stand in the middle of 5 lanes of traffic, the southbound lanes were picked due to that being the way to the airport.
They had one of the representatives of the BLM movement on the local news. She told the reporter they only demonstrate in a safe manner. The reporter looked at her like she had two heads and asked how is standing on freeway safe?
Their cars got towed, and they got arrested. All they did was p**s off people, many who had(had being the key word) empathy for their cause. Who no longer have empathy for their cause.
Their cars got towed, and they got arrested. All they did was p**s off people, many who had(had being the key word) empathy for their cause. Who no longer have empathy for their cause.
Common sense says this is true. And many protests have in fact backfired on those protesting. When the news is about your disruption, and not about your message, your protest has failed.
The way it works in reality is that if a black man representing BLM peacefully protests at a Trump event, then yes, it is considered radical terrorism and that individual is legally subject to the whim of the crowd, including, but not limited to, group spitting, mass kicking while on the ground, punching and actual shooting, if he resists or fights back.
If a bunch of white guys carry loaded AR15s and march around a Mosque then throw pig heads and firebombs, it's just good old American citizens exercising their first Amendment rights and every Muslim within 10 miles better keep their mouths shut if they know what's good for them.
That's how it works in real time.
While I agree with the Mosque scenario, in regards to the first event; please!! In real time the BLM protest probably would not be all that peaceful, but even if it turned rough, whitey better not say or do one thing about it, lest the lawsuits, more violent demonstrations, and ridiculous pandering and labeling in the name of Social Justice commence! and before some SJW tells me to "check my privilege" let me inform said SJW that I'M not the one that can get my every whim catered to, no matter how ridiculous, just by crying "racism" and threatening lawsuits and "justice"
Common sense says this is true. And many protests have in fact backfired on those protesting. When the news is about your disruption, and not about your message, your protest has failed.
Ideally this is true, though in reality it depends on who's delivering the news (and who's absorbing the news as well).
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
. The reporter looked at her like she had two heads and asked how is standing on freeway safe?
