The state of the republican party

One wonders just how many of those straws it took to break that camel's back. It's the New York Post, after all--another Murdoch rag.

 

Call em out point by point for their stupidity, call them gullible and morons...they won't want to visit anymore.....

DD

 

Of course retreat is an option. This law deals with what liability you have to people in the way of your retreat.

It wouldn't lower the standard, it would change what you are allowed to do. The standard would still be that you are in reasonable fear of death or great bodily injury. I disagree about one person representing a threat. One person can certainly drag someone from their car and beat them.

You would not have a claim of self-defense. You may have a claim of necessity, but that is much more difficult to stick.
[/quote]So is the crowd party A ? If so then under current self-defense laws if you were fully surrounded that would mean the whole crowd is already a lethal threat.[/quote]
No, only the one person attacking you is party A.

No, though I don't have a database of every legal action filed in the United States or anything. I am just going off the law, not how it has been applied.

Assault with a deadly weapon, vehicular manslaughter, and murder.

Why? I think clarity in the law is a very good thing. Being a libertarian is not about a hatred of specificity in the law, it is about an opposition to unjust infringement on individual liberty.

 

OMG, just when you think Republicans couldn't take a new low, they do it again. SMH.

I like this response.

 

One person could but it would be difficult. We've seen where it's difficult for even LEO to drag a single person out of a car with an open door (Sandra Bland). With a closed door and windows it's very unlikely a single person could. Remember modern cars are designed to resist forcible ejection of passengers.

So in other words this law does lower the standard of self-defense to state that lethal force can be used against another party even though they aren't a lethal threat and a direct threat. Further it states that this standard would only apply to a in a vehicle and during a protests. So if you're on foot and get attacked in a crowd you're in trouble by what you've stated if you try to flee and hurt someone.

So you can't show a previous situation where this situation would actually apply.

Except as you've outlined above this law would only apply to a very specific situation and one that hasn't really be shown an actual situation that it applies to. So as a Libertarian then you're fine with laws that there isn't really a need too just out of speculation or to send an ideological message?

Further we've only been discussing one aspect of these laws. The laws form FL and OK also strongly increase fines and other penalties for protests. Given that the rights to free speech and free assemble are essential liberties under the Constitution I would think Libertarians would be concerned about laws limiting those liberties.

 

People have been dragged from their cars and beaten. It happened to Reginald Denny decades ago and had happened since. One or more people could do so without involving everyone at a protest. The people standing in front of your car may have no interest in or support for the people attacking you.

I think this is just a legal language breakdown. The standard of self-defense would not change, because the standard has nothing to do with who the person acting in self-defense injures. The standard is you can use force to protect yourself from force being used against you and force likely to cause great bodily injury or death if that level of force is being used against you. That standard wouldn't change. The change would be in to what actions would be defensible under the same standard.

If that is the language of the statute. You are allowed to drive on the interstate but not walk. This would hardly be the only law that treats motorists and pedestrians differently. I would say it is probably also far more difficult for people to completely block you in when you are on foot without also actively participating as a threat to you.

Reginald Denny would be an example. The guy that shot out of his car at the person pointing an AR-15 at him at a protest would be an example. I just don't have a comprehensive database of every example.

Except it is an actual situation that has happened. I already provided the example of Reginald Denny previously.

Sure, they are just totally unrelated. As a libertarian I am fine with a law that says the local library is closed on the third Thursday of every month for cleaning. As a libertarian I am fine with a law that says, in the event of Alien invasion, wearing a purple hat can be used as a symbol that one or more aliens have infiltrated your home, and purple specifically because we want to signal that the red vs. blue arguments should be set aside for this purpose.

I would have to see the statute, but generally speaking any law that forbids or penalizes the simple act of protest would be unconstitutional and I would obviously oppose it. In fact, earlier in this very thread I said people should protest on the sidewalk, implying that people should be allowed to protest.

 

Spoiler

here's the actual one but, is it really that much different?

 

The South has such a bunch of propaganda spouting fools in charge of decisions between Tuberville, Cruz, Greene, and DeSantis.

 

Except you said that party A (the people attacking your car) is the direct threat but under your own description you are saying that this law allows lethal force to be used on party B (other people who are in the protest but may not be a direct threat except in regards to your escape). Clearly that is a change in the standard of self-defense as from what I know all self-defense laws state that the use of lethal force is justified against the direct threat to you, party A.

So is your argument now that those other people also party A so that lethal force is justified?

Do you really believe that it is harder for a crowd of people to block in a person on foot than a person in a car?

I didn't ask if you can cite an example of a driver being beaten by a crowd. I asked,
"I mean can you show me an example where currently a driver escaping a crowd was held legally liable? I've showed two examples of where a driver did hit a crowd of protesters and wasn't held liable. Can you cite previous law that says that a driver surrounded and threatened by a crowd cannot escape the crowd?"
https://bbs.clutchfans.net/threads/the-state-of-the-republican-party.310486/page-22#post-13532901

Not sure the relevance of your response.. The question was whether as a Libertarian you would approve of a law that wasn't needed and to send an ideological message. You said that this law was a message for protesters to stay out of the street. Now granted that isn't an ideological message but it is a message and current laws, such as jaywalking and unlawful assemble, already say that.

The FL law has these features in addition to the one about immunity for drivers who hit protesters:
It creates a new felony crime of “aggravated rioting” that carries a sentence of up to 15 years in prison and a new crime of “mob intimidation.” creates a broad category for misdemeanor arrest during protests, and anyone charged under that provision will be denied bail until their first court appearance.

It defines a "riot" as a public disturbance involving three or more people "acting with the common intent to assist each other in violent and disorderly conduct" that results in injury to another person, damage to property, or danger of injury or damage.

The law will also make it a second-degree felony to destroy or demolish a memorial, plaque, flag, painting, structure or other object that commemorates historical people or events. That would be punishable by up to 10 years in prison.

It also strips local governments of civil liability protections if they interfere with law enforcement’s efforts to respond to a violent protest and add language to state law that could force local governments to justify a reduction in law enforcement budgets.

 

The modern Republican Party is in their comfort zone right now. Being out of power is the ideal spot for the party to rally the base, raise money and ignite the flames of anger. They aren't interested in doing anything when governing except tax cuts so for the politicians this is really what they want. Get power for short periods where they can cut taxes and then get out so they can churn the outrage.

 

I'm actually starting to enjoy this demolition.

It's hilarious the threads of his argument you keep unraveling.

 

Thankfully the modern democratic cultists and their unifying messages are snuffing out those flames before ignition.