If an anti-vaxx Deplorable blocks you or a loved one from getting life-saving shots..

[RoryN]

...should you be allowed to defend your / your loved one's right to live with violence?

We'll see how these future attempts to keep people from getting the vaccine go (and no, they are not simply protesting; they are blocking access). I think bloodshed is possible.

 

[phrodeau]

Just point away and say, “look, free Cheetos!” Then continue past them.

 

[Comshaw]

...should you be allowed to defend your / your loved one's right to live with violence?

We'll see how these future attempts to keep people from getting the vaccine go (and no, they are not simply protesting; they are blocking access). I think bloodshed is possible.

Interesting...you are now expounding the same violent philosophy you spent 4 years deploring when it came from the right. A call for violence isn't any more appropriate coming from the far left than it was from the far right. You really shouldn't take on the same mantle and be the same type of person you so adamantly denigrated for so long.


Comshaw

 

[RoryN]

Interesting...you are now expounding the same violent philosophy you spent 4 years deploring when it came from the right.

^^^
Show where I criticised people for protecting themselves with a violent response when their lives were in danger.

Or, admit your false equivalency.

Kthx!

 

[rae121452]

i thought they only blocked 16 year old frightened girls from access to abortions? well, i guess elderly people are fair game, too, if you're deplorable enough.

 

[Paul_Chance]

Have at it. Just don't whine when you go to jail.

A longer answer is no, you're not. The general rule of self-defense in America is a three pronged test.

1. Does the person constitute an imminent threat to cause bodily harm to you?
2. Does the person have the ability to cause that harm?
3. Have you exercised every avenue of retreat (extricating yourself from the situation).

In the scenario above the answer is:

1. No, COVID-19, though potentially life threatening, is not an imminent threat.
2. No, the person themselves is not threatening you with a handful of COVID-19.
3. No, because you can simply wait for the authorities to remove them or return another day to be vaccinated.

Otherwise, anytime you saw someone having a beer you could punch them because you might get killed in a car wreck with a drunk driver.

 

[RoryN]

2. No, the person themselves is not threatening you with a handful of COVID-19.

How about a mouthful?

3. No, because you can simply wait for the authorities to remove them or return another day to be vaccinated.

What if authorities aren't available / aren't willing?
Return another day? COVID can be caught at almost any time.

 

[oggbashan]

Advise them if they don't get out of your way, you will drive your 4x4 over them...

If they get injured it is their fault for obstructing the highway.

 

[Comshaw]

^^^
Show where I criticised people for protecting themselves with a violent response when their lives were in danger.

Or, admit your false equivalency.

Kthx!

Surprise! Rory goes on the defensive when he's called on doing exactly what he so zealously slammed others for doing. Let's see how about all the armed rightwing nuts during the BLM protests? They claimed what they did was for self-defense and their lives was in danger. That culminated with Rittenhouse killing people. I'm not going to get into a debate of whether or not they were in danger, but that was their claim. What was your response at the time? Huh?

But now you are claiming these people, because protestors are blocking access to vaccinations have a right to use violence because their lives are in danger? No false equivalency to it. You're being an arrogant self-righteous asshat just like those dumbasses. You're talking out of both sides of your mouth, denigrating an action with one breath, while expounding the same action with the next. the only difference being who is carrying it out. a mirror image of Ish.



Comshaw

 

[Comshaw]

Have at it. Just don't whine when you go to jail.

A longer answer is no, you're not. The general rule of self-defense in America is a three pronged test.

1. Does the person constitute an imminent threat to cause bodily harm to you?
2. Does the person have the ability to cause that harm?
3. Have you exercised every avenue of retreat (extricating yourself from the situation).

In the scenario above the answer is:

1. No, COVID-19, though potentially life threatening, is not an imminent threat.
2. No, the person themselves is not threatening you with a handful of COVID-19.
3. No, because you can simply wait for the authorities to remove them or return another day to be vaccinated.

Otherwise, anytime you saw someone having a beer you could punch them because you might get killed in a car wreck with a drunk driver.

^^^
Show where I criticised people for protecting themselves with a violent response when their lives were in danger.

Or, admit your false equivalency.

Kthx!

Read and heed the above post by Paul_Chance. He said it much more clearly and concisely then I did. You stepped in it. Admit it, let it go and move on.


Comshaw

 

[RoryN]

Rory goes on the defensive when he's called on doing exactly what he so zealously slammed others for doing.

^^^
Of course I'm being defensive; you're lying about me.

You were asked for proof of this. You're providing none.

Buh bye, credibility.

IBut now you are claiming these people, because protestors are blocking access to vaccinations have a right to use violence because their lives are in danger?

Again, proof? This thread posed a question; that's all.

Your poor reading comprehension skills aren't evidence of me being a hypocrite, no matter how badly you want to "nail" me. But, if you feel a need to keep grasping at straws...

 

[Comshaw]

^^^
Of course I'm being defensive; you're lying about me.

You were asked for proof of this. You're providing none.

Buh bye, credibility.



Again, proof? This thread posed a question; that's all.

Your poor reading comprehension skills aren't evidence of me being a hypocrite, no matter how badly you want to "nail" me. But, if you feel a need to keep grasping at straws...

So you're saying you NEVER denigrated Kyle Rittenhouse? Nevar called him a murderer? NEVER insisted he should go to jail? But at the same time, you believe those wanting to get a Covid vaccination and blocked by protestors should be allowed to use violence, be allowed to do EXACTLY what Rittenhouse did?

And as far as your attempted dodge, are you taking lessons for Ish or visa-versa? He's used the same lame "I was only posing a question" lame-ass excuse too, many times.
As well as the cry: I want proof! And when it's detailed you pivot to: That's not proof! Moving the goalposts is a time-honored dodge of those who can't legitimately defend their position or actions.

"You're out to get me!" You sound like the typical conspiracy theorist. "They're out to get me!" FFS Grow up.

The only question being answered here is: Does the right have a lock on myopic zealots? You gave a pretty convincing answer to that one.

Comshaw

 

[RoryN]

So you're saying you NEVER denigrated Kyle Rittenhouse? Nevar called him a murderer? NEVER insisted he should go to jail?

Of course I did. He's a murderer. He should go to jail.

But at the same time, you believe those wanting to get a Covid vaccination and blocked by protestors should be allowed to use violence

^^^
Where did I say this?

Pls quote; shouldn't be hard if it's true. Kthx.

 

[Dribble]

I believe in letting Law Enforcement a chance to do their jobs. That is what is civilized. Yet...nothing wrong with snapping pictures of every license plate around and every face of the "protesters" and surely it wouldn't be me posting them online.

 

[CornusKousa]

Gotta hand it to comrade Comshaw for dragging Rory right proper.

 

[CornusKousa]

Of course I did. He's a murderer. He should go to jail.

Self defense is murder when a non-progressive does it!!

Self defense is for progressives only.

 

[RoryN]

I believe in letting Law Enforcement a chance to do their jobs. That is what is civilized. Yet...nothing wrong with snapping pictures of every license plate around and every face of the "protesters" and surely it wouldn't be me posting them online.

I like this!

 

[Comshaw]

Of course I did. He's a murderer. He should go to jail.



^^^
Where did I say this?

Pls quote; shouldn't be hard if it's true. Kthx.

"I only asked a question!" How many times has that been heard in these parts? The analogy being "I vas only following ordas!" Both used to dodge the responsibility of one's actions.

Keep in mind that I'm an observer, a listener. I've read your posts for years and I know the persona you project here on the board. For me, any given post by any poster is fleshed out with their posting history, because it shows the intent of their post, not just the surface explanation. You only asked the question, but there hasn't even been an inkling of violence because of the protests. In a case like that the only reason to ask the question is if you support the premise of the question.

It seems you and BB, or Fescue or whatever the fuck he's calling himself these days, use the same Pigeon principle, shit on the chessboard and start around like you won no matter the real outcome. I can not and will not waste my time talking to someone who doesn't have the capacity to cohesively discuss an issue, who insists on playing word games. Please, declare yourself a winner of this exchange and I will withdraw and allow you to do so. I won't be seeing your answer btw.

TA


Comshaw

 

[RoryN]

"I only asked a question!" How many times has that been heard in these parts? The analogy being "I vas only following ordas!"

Dumb, incorrect grade-school logic.

I can not and will not waste my time...I won't be seeing your answer...

^^^
Rote response from someone who was correctly called out on their errors.

How many times has this been heard in these parts?

 

[2021Noobie]

Have at it. Just don't whine when you go to jail.

A longer answer is no, you're not. The general rule of self-defense in America is a three pronged test.

1. Does the person constitute an imminent threat to cause bodily harm to you?
2. Does the person have the ability to cause that harm?
3. Have you exercised every avenue of retreat (extricating yourself from the situation).

In the scenario above the answer is:

1. No, COVID-19, though potentially life threatening, is not an imminent threat.
2. No, the person themselves is not threatening you with a handful of COVID-19.
3. No, because you can simply wait for the authorities to remove them or return another day to be vaccinated.

Otherwise, anytime you saw someone having a beer you could punch them because you might get killed in a car wreck with a drunk driver.

Ummm those steps above don’t work in “Castle” worlds
In those places? Push someone? Get shot!!
If they come to California to do this? They deserve their state’s response, but we are Civilized in California sooooo protest correctly? All is good

Waste my fucking time? Hey, your car had better not be nearby
My time equals your four flats
Keep your god damned distance !!

 

[Paul_Chance]

How about a mouthful?



What if authorities aren't available / aren't willing?
Return another day? COVID can be caught at almost any time.

LOL - maybe if you were planning on French kissing them. (Incidentally, if they tried to kiss you against your will you would be justified in using a proportional amount of force to prevent that from happening.)

The "can be caught at any time" doesn't rise to the level of a imminent threat. Extending the same logic would be "I shot him because he could have shot me at anytime" - a "shoot first, let god sort them out" approach, which is not justified.

 

[Paul_Chance]

Ummm those steps above don’t work in “Castle” worlds
In those places? Push someone? Get shot!!
If they come to California to do this? They deserve their state’s response, but we are Civilized in California sooooo protest correctly? All is good

Waste my fucking time? Hey, your car had better not be nearby
My time equals your four flats
Keep your god damned distance !!

The Castle Doctrine removes the requirement to exercise the last avenue of retreat (you are not required to retreat from your own residence). Though, you're still going to have to account for the proportionality of the response (they still have to present an imminent threat and have the ability to carry it out).

Vandalism would not be justified in the above COVID-19 protestor scenario above either. The proper response is allow the authorities to take the appropriate steps. A common protest tactic (especially in California) is for protestors to "slow walk" the intersection. They are not breaking the law, they're crossing at the appropriate place and time, they're just moving really slow. That's why you often see protestors milling in slow circles.