Anarchists on bikes

On Sat, 06 Jun 2020 21:30:44 -0400, Radey Shouman
wrote:

John B. writes:

On Sat, 06 Jun 2020 08:12:30 -0500, AMuzi wrote:

On 6/5/2020 11:06 PM, sms wrote:
On 6/5/2020 8:46 PM, news18 wrote:

snip

So, you support my belief that the steeling of 70 new
motor vehicles was
organised crime and not a random mob that just magically
appeared.

Ditto what happened in Santa Monica. The looting was not by
the protestors it was organized crime. What often happens is
that the police are so involved with monitoring a peaceful
protest that the looters have free reign.

The desire to conflate the protesters with the rioters and
looters is something that the EWWs love to do because it
suits their agenda.

No American is against our First Amendment right (if not
duty) to peaceably assemble and petition. The conflation I
see is mostly on the radio news where arresting rioters and
looters is described as 'attacking protesters'.

And who is harmed by that conflation? Had I not prudently
moved this could well have been me:
https://nypost.com/2020/06/04/black-...-her-nyc-shop/

She pays her taxes and gets... bupkis.


I've always wondered. Assuming that one pays one taxes and is
otherwise a good citizen, can one sue the government if they allow a
mob to destroy your business place? I'll rephrase that to say, "do not
prevent a mob from".

Given the number of conflagrations in the U.S, there must be some
legal finding on that sort of case.

I don't believe that governments in the US have such a duty to protect
random citizens. Counsellor Beatty is free to tell me what an ass I am.

https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...en&as_sdt=2006

You know, that is horrifying. I'm glad that I don't live there any
more.
--
cheers,

John B.

On Saturday, 6 June 2020 21:46:59 UTC-4, jbeattie wrote:
On Saturday, June 6, 2020 at 6:30:46 PM UTC-7, Radey Shouman wrote:
John B. writes:

On Sat, 06 Jun 2020 08:12:30 -0500, AMuzi wrote:

On 6/5/2020 11:06 PM, sms wrote:
On 6/5/2020 8:46 PM, news18 wrote:

snip

So, you support my belief that the steeling of 70 new
motor vehicles was
organised crime and not a random mob that just magically
appeared.

Ditto what happened in Santa Monica. The looting was not by
the protestors it was organized crime. What often happens is
that the police are so involved with monitoring a peaceful
protest that the looters have free reign.

The desire to conflate the protesters with the rioters and
looters is something that the EWWs love to do because it
suits their agenda.

No American is against our First Amendment right (if not
duty) to peaceably assemble and petition. The conflation I
see is mostly on the radio news where arresting rioters and
looters is described as 'attacking protesters'.

And who is harmed by that conflation? Had I not prudently
moved this could well have been me:
https://nypost.com/2020/06/04/black-...-her-nyc-shop/

She pays her taxes and gets... bupkis.


I've always wondered. Assuming that one pays one taxes and is
otherwise a good citizen, can one sue the government if they allow a
mob to destroy your business place? I'll rephrase that to say, "do not
prevent a mob from".

Given the number of conflagrations in the U.S, there must be some
legal finding on that sort of case.

I don't believe that governments in the US have such a duty to protect
random citizens. Counsellor Beatty is free to tell me what an ass I am..

https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...en&as_sdt=2006

Please, it's Beattie. And I would never call you an ass. I would use some other, more colorful term because I am an artiste and auteur like Andre Jute! I am working on my latest novel, Idiotarod, a book about extreme cyclists who ride across the Alaska, in winter with 11sp Di2 and 25mm tires.

The answer to the question is book-length, but the general proposition is correct. The general rule has been changed by statute in many instances or state common law. In Oregon, for example, the police can be sued for failing to enforce an abuse prevention order.

Under the common law, there was no duty to rescue or to prevent harm to a third-person. You could sit there on the dock and watch your pal drown. "Say, Bill, how's it going . . . not too good, eh. Sorry man." The rule is now riddled with exceptions, which is why I don't go swimming in lakes with people. Ah, the good old days, when you could just let people die.

-- Jay Beattie.

In some cultures they believe if you save a person's life then you are thereafter responsible for that person.

Cheers

On Sat, 6 Jun 2020 20:28:41 -0700 (PDT), Sir Ridesalot
wrote:

On Saturday, 6 June 2020 21:46:59 UTC-4, jbeattie wrote:
On Saturday, June 6, 2020 at 6:30:46 PM UTC-7, Radey Shouman wrote:
John B. writes:

On Sat, 06 Jun 2020 08:12:30 -0500, AMuzi wrote:

On 6/5/2020 11:06 PM, sms wrote:
On 6/5/2020 8:46 PM, news18 wrote:

snip

So, you support my belief that the steeling of 70 new
motor vehicles was
organised crime and not a random mob that just magically
appeared.

Ditto what happened in Santa Monica. The looting was not by
the protestors it was organized crime. What often happens is
that the police are so involved with monitoring a peaceful
protest that the looters have free reign.

The desire to conflate the protesters with the rioters and
looters is something that the EWWs love to do because it
suits their agenda.

No American is against our First Amendment right (if not
duty) to peaceably assemble and petition. The conflation I
see is mostly on the radio news where arresting rioters and
looters is described as 'attacking protesters'.

And who is harmed by that conflation? Had I not prudently
moved this could well have been me:
https://nypost.com/2020/06/04/black-...-her-nyc-shop/

She pays her taxes and gets... bupkis.


I've always wondered. Assuming that one pays one taxes and is
otherwise a good citizen, can one sue the government if they allow a
mob to destroy your business place? I'll rephrase that to say, "do not
prevent a mob from".

Given the number of conflagrations in the U.S, there must be some
legal finding on that sort of case.

I don't believe that governments in the US have such a duty to protect
random citizens. Counsellor Beatty is free to tell me what an ass I am.

https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...en&as_sdt=2006

Please, it's Beattie. And I would never call you an ass. I would use some other, more colorful term because I am an artiste and auteur like Andre Jute! I am working on my latest novel, Idiotarod, a book about extreme cyclists who ride across the Alaska, in winter with 11sp Di2 and 25mm tires.

The answer to the question is book-length, but the general proposition is correct. The general rule has been changed by statute in many instances or state common law. In Oregon, for example, the police can be sued for failing to enforce an abuse prevention order.

Under the common law, there was no duty to rescue or to prevent harm to a third-person. You could sit there on the dock and watch your pal drown. "Say, Bill, how's it going . . . not too good, eh. Sorry man." The rule is now riddled with exceptions, which is why I don't go swimming in lakes with people. Ah, the good old days, when you could just let people die.

-- Jay Beattie.

In some cultures they believe if you save a person's life then you are thereafter responsible for that person.

Cheers

I've seen that mentioned in various books but I have lived in Japan,
Indonesia, Thailand, Singapore, Malaysia and for short periods in
Taiwan and Hong Kong and I have never heard of it being a belief in
any of those places.
--
cheers,

John B.

On 6/6/2020 9:00 PM, John B. wrote:
On Sat, 6 Jun 2020 11:45:50 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 6/6/2020 9:12 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/5/2020 11:06 PM, sms wrote:
On 6/5/2020 8:46 PM, news18 wrote:

snip

So,Â* you support my belief that the steeling of 70 new
motor vehicles was
organised crime and not a random mob that just magically
appeared.

Ditto what happened in Santa Monica. The looting was not by
the protestors it was organized crime. What often happens is
that the police are so involved with monitoring a peaceful
protest that the looters have free reign.

The desire to conflate the protesters with the rioters and
looters is something that the EWWs love to do because it
suits their agenda.

No American is against our First Amendment right (if not duty) to
peaceably assemble and petition.Â* The conflation I see is mostly on the
radio news where arresting rioters and looters is described as
'attacking protesters'.

I think it's obvious that there is some inaccuracy coming from both
sides of the political spectrum. That's absolutely normal in this
imperfect world. But to some degree, the situation is a political litmus
test.

Tom looks at professional organized thieves taking advantage of protests
and pretends most or all protesters are thieves.

I look at a video black man getting slowly murdered; or a white female
journalist (whom has interviewed me) getting roughed up by cops despite
her press pass; or a couple being tazed and dragged from their car by
cops, for no reason; or blood coming from the ear of a 70-year-old guy
pushed over backwards by a cop. I say none of those people deserved that
treatment.

And yes, I see criminals taking advantage of the situation, which is
what criminals do with lots of situations. That doesn't invalidate the
reasons for the protests.

Here, we've had several large protests in the two biggest adjacent
cities, plus several smaller ones. Perfectly peaceful.

While I'm not condoning brutality I do wonder whether you have ever
been a situation where people were trying to do you harm. Being shot
at, bombed, stuff flying through the air, hollering and screaming,
people getting wounded and killed?

If not then I really don't think that you are qualified to comment.

Sorry, John, you don't get to decide who is qualified to comment.

I think this police action was uncalled for.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QFeewU0HhNE I see nobody shooting,
bombing hollering or screaming at the police.

The video about one screen down at
https://www.detroitnews.com/story/ne...yd/3127024001/
shows evidence of the police ignoring a reporter's press pass and, as
she says, roughing her up. I've met her. She's impossible to imagine as
a threat, and that was not "in the heat of battle" or "in the fog of war."

Competent cops behave differently.


--
- Frank Krygowski

On Sunday, 7 June 2020 10:19:44 UTC-4, Frank Krygowski wrote:
Snipped
I think this police action was uncalled for.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QFeewU0HhNE I see nobody shooting,
bombing hollering or screaming at the police.

The video about one screen down at
https://www.detroitnews.com/story/ne...yd/3127024001/
shows evidence of the police ignoring a reporter's press pass and, as
she says, roughing her up. I've met her. She's impossible to imagine as
a threat, and that was not "in the heat of battle" or "in the fog of war."

Competent cops behave differently.


--
- Frank Krygowski

US Constitution gives the right to peaceful assembly/protests. Modern police: "But you will be attacked and beaten if you do". That seems to be the case more and more often.

I wonder where it will lead? A police state? A revolution?

Cheers

On Saturday, June 6, 2020 at 2:36:05 PM UTC-7, wrote:
On Friday, June 5, 2020 at 6:25:34 PM UTC-5, wrote:

On the brightest day of your life you would give a moron fits with your stupidity. Most of these Blue states are that way because the Democrats pour money into their campaigns and FEW people vote in anything other than a Presidential election. That is how the Democrats gained control of the House despite the face that Trump won 3/5ths of the Electoral College and he will win with a FAR larger margin this time.


You are not very knowledgeable about how the USA election system works. Presidents are elected by the electoral college. It is not democratic at all. Trump won 304 electoral votes, 57%. Clinton won 227 electoral votes, 43%. BUT, and this proves how UNdemocratic the USA really is, Clinton won 65,853,514 votes, 48.2%. Trump won 62,984,828 votes, 46.1%. Clinton won by almost 3 MILLION more votes, over 2%.

Democrats control the House now due to the fact there are many more millions of Democrats in the USA than other political parties. But even the House is not a true democratic election where one vote per person counts the same. Depending on the population of the state and how many representatives it receives, each representative represents a different number of people. At the low end is Rhode Island with each of two reps serving 527,000 people. And at the high end is Montana with the one rep serving 994,000 people.

So you seem to have a problem with the election system set up by the founders of this nation so that scum of the earth like you can't promise miracles to a few population centers and win a popular vote instead of this country being run by someone that the majority of STATES want. Now it is clear that you were a Hillary supporter. You were happy with your position as a deplorable and were ready, willing and able to bow before your queen.

On Saturday, June 6, 2020 at 6:30:46 PM UTC-7, Radey Shouman wrote:
John B. writes:

On Sat, 06 Jun 2020 08:12:30 -0500, AMuzi wrote:

On 6/5/2020 11:06 PM, sms wrote:
On 6/5/2020 8:46 PM, news18 wrote:

snip

So, you support my belief that the steeling of 70 new
motor vehicles was
organised crime and not a random mob that just magically
appeared.

Ditto what happened in Santa Monica. The looting was not by
the protestors it was organized crime. What often happens is
that the police are so involved with monitoring a peaceful
protest that the looters have free reign.

The desire to conflate the protesters with the rioters and
looters is something that the EWWs love to do because it
suits their agenda.

No American is against our First Amendment right (if not
duty) to peaceably assemble and petition. The conflation I
see is mostly on the radio news where arresting rioters and
looters is described as 'attacking protesters'.

And who is harmed by that conflation? Had I not prudently
moved this could well have been me:
https://nypost.com/2020/06/04/black-...-her-nyc-shop/

She pays her taxes and gets... bupkis.


I've always wondered. Assuming that one pays one taxes and is
otherwise a good citizen, can one sue the government if they allow a
mob to destroy your business place? I'll rephrase that to say, "do not
prevent a mob from".

Given the number of conflagrations in the U.S, there must be some
legal finding on that sort of case.

I don't believe that governments in the US have such a duty to protect
random citizens. Counsellor Beatty is free to tell me what an ass I am.

https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...en&as_sdt=2006

Jay makes his living supporting these sorts of people. His kith and kin as it were.

John B. writes:

On Sat, 06 Jun 2020 21:30:44 -0400, Radey Shouman
wrote:

John B. writes:

On Sat, 06 Jun 2020 08:12:30 -0500, AMuzi wrote:

On 6/5/2020 11:06 PM, sms wrote:
On 6/5/2020 8:46 PM, news18 wrote:

snip

So, you support my belief that the steeling of 70 new
motor vehicles was
organised crime and not a random mob that just magically
appeared.

Ditto what happened in Santa Monica. The looting was not by
the protestors it was organized crime. What often happens is
that the police are so involved with monitoring a peaceful
protest that the looters have free reign.

The desire to conflate the protesters with the rioters and
looters is something that the EWWs love to do because it
suits their agenda.

No American is against our First Amendment right (if not
duty) to peaceably assemble and petition. The conflation I
see is mostly on the radio news where arresting rioters and
looters is described as 'attacking protesters'.

And who is harmed by that conflation? Had I not prudently
moved this could well have been me:
https://nypost.com/2020/06/04/black-...-her-nyc-shop/

She pays her taxes and gets... bupkis.


I've always wondered. Assuming that one pays one taxes and is
otherwise a good citizen, can one sue the government if they allow a
mob to destroy your business place? I'll rephrase that to say, "do not
prevent a mob from".

Given the number of conflagrations in the U.S, there must be some
legal finding on that sort of case.

I don't believe that governments in the US have such a duty to protect
random citizens. Counsellor Beatty is free to tell me what an ass I am.

https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...en&as_sdt=2006

You know, that is horrifying. I'm glad that I don't live there any
more.

Do Thai police have a duty to protect every citizen and resident
foreigner? Can you sue them? Petition the king for redress?

On Sunday, June 7, 2020 at 7:19:44 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/6/2020 9:00 PM, John B. wrote:
On Sat, 6 Jun 2020 11:45:50 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 6/6/2020 9:12 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/5/2020 11:06 PM, sms wrote:
On 6/5/2020 8:46 PM, news18 wrote:

snip

So,Â* you support my belief that the steeling of 70 new
motor vehicles was
organised crime and not a random mob that just magically
appeared.

Ditto what happened in Santa Monica. The looting was not by
the protestors it was organized crime. What often happens is
that the police are so involved with monitoring a peaceful
protest that the looters have free reign.

The desire to conflate the protesters with the rioters and
looters is something that the EWWs love to do because it
suits their agenda.

No American is against our First Amendment right (if not duty) to
peaceably assemble and petition.Â* The conflation I see is mostly on the
radio news where arresting rioters and looters is described as
'attacking protesters'.

I think it's obvious that there is some inaccuracy coming from both
sides of the political spectrum. That's absolutely normal in this
imperfect world. But to some degree, the situation is a political litmus
test.

Tom looks at professional organized thieves taking advantage of protests
and pretends most or all protesters are thieves.

I look at a video black man getting slowly murdered; or a white female
journalist (whom has interviewed me) getting roughed up by cops despite
her press pass; or a couple being tazed and dragged from their car by
cops, for no reason; or blood coming from the ear of a 70-year-old guy
pushed over backwards by a cop. I say none of those people deserved that
treatment.

And yes, I see criminals taking advantage of the situation, which is
what criminals do with lots of situations. That doesn't invalidate the
reasons for the protests.

Here, we've had several large protests in the two biggest adjacent
cities, plus several smaller ones. Perfectly peaceful.

While I'm not condoning brutality I do wonder whether you have ever
been a situation where people were trying to do you harm. Being shot
at, bombed, stuff flying through the air, hollering and screaming,
people getting wounded and killed?

If not then I really don't think that you are qualified to comment.

Sorry, John, you don't get to decide who is qualified to comment.

I think this police action was uncalled for.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QFeewU0HhNE I see nobody shooting,
bombing hollering or screaming at the police.

The video about one screen down at
https://www.detroitnews.com/story/ne...yd/3127024001/
shows evidence of the police ignoring a reporter's press pass and, as
she says, roughing her up. I've met her. She's impossible to imagine as
a threat, and that was not "in the heat of battle" or "in the fog of war."

Competent cops behave differently.

Maybe you can explain to us why your story doesn't meet reality as shown by the FBI crime statistics? Only 39 "unarmed" people were killed by police last year and only 9 of them were black. Being unarmed by no means, means being harmless.

On 6/6/2020 7:34 PM, John B. wrote:
On Sat, 06 Jun 2020 08:12:30 -0500, AMuzi wrote:

On 6/5/2020 11:06 PM, sms wrote:
On 6/5/2020 8:46 PM, news18 wrote:

snip

So, you support my belief that the steeling of 70 new
motor vehicles was
organised crime and not a random mob that just magically
appeared.

Ditto what happened in Santa Monica. The looting was not by
the protestors it was organized crime. What often happens is
that the police are so involved with monitoring a peaceful
protest that the looters have free reign.

The desire to conflate the protesters with the rioters and
looters is something that the EWWs love to do because it
suits their agenda.

No American is against our First Amendment right (if not
duty) to peaceably assemble and petition. The conflation I
see is mostly on the radio news where arresting rioters and
looters is described as 'attacking protesters'.

And who is harmed by that conflation? Had I not prudently
moved this could well have been me:
https://nypost.com/2020/06/04/black-...-her-nyc-shop/

She pays her taxes and gets... bupkis.


I've always wondered. Assuming that one pays one taxes and is
otherwise a good citizen, can one sue the government if they allow a
mob to destroy your business place? I'll rephrase that to say, "do not
prevent a mob from".

Given the number of conflagrations in the U.S, there must be some
legal finding on that sort of case.

--
cheers,

John B.


No, absolutely not.
One can sue but one will lose. Case law is filled with examples.

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971