It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
I never condoned anything or said I believe anything.Dont twist things and make up lies.I said if you lay down under somebodies car,you are as sick as they come.I stand by this.
Originally posted by dubiousone
Originally posted by brindle
If you lay down in front of somebodys car,you are as sick as they come.
Originally posted by dubiousone
If you intentionally, knowingly, recklessly or negligently run into or over a person with your car you are a criminal and you deserve to be prosecuted and jailed for a considerable period of time. It doesn't matter who you are, where you are going, whether you're in a hurry, or whether you disagree with the reason why the other person is in your way. It's really just that simple. If someone stands or lays down in front of your car and blocks your way you do not have the right to injure them. If you do, you're a criminal. If you encourage someone to injure them, you're a criminal. That you condone injuring them makes you a psychopath.edit on 6/7/2011 by dubiousone because: Spelling correction.
Do you really believe that? It may not be a healthy chocie if you don't know whether the driver is a psychopath who cares more about saving ten minutes on his way to Walmart than whether he is prosecuted and jailed for felony assault.
And why would you condone injuring a person who is "as sick as they come"? Do you believe that all sick people should be murdered?edit on 6/7/2011 by dubiousone because: Punctuation.
Originally posted by ShaunHatfield
reply to post by OmegaLogos
How about the tree hugging hippies GET OUT OF THEIR WAY!!!! Lay down in front of a car? For what? To prove that your parents didn't have ANY kids without some sort of retardation?
Why should my day/week/year be affected by some over emotional little twits???? I revel in the fact that these little emotionally distressed humans weren't killed...... But I am happy as a pig in mudd that the drivers ran their arses over!!!!!
Drivers 8 Protesters 0edit on 6/7/2011 by ShaunHatfield because: (no reason given)
Reclaim the Streets was an anti-car direct action movement which used street parties as political protest. The aim was to seize roads, and in this way to prevent cars from being able to access them. The street parties halted the normal flow of things so spectacularly, that passers by would be made to stop and question the reasons for the disruption. The first actions took place in London in 1995, closing Camden High Street on 14 May and Upper Street in Islington on 23 July. A year later, the largest street party of several thousand protesters closed an elevated section of the M41 motorway in Shepherds Bush on 13 July 1996.
The Criminal Justice Act strengthened links that already existed between ravers and protesters by criminalising them with the same definitions of 'nuisance' and 'trespass'. Finding themselves criminalised, ravers became politicised, and 'raving' became a defiant act.
Reclaim the Streets called itself a disorganisation; a loose collection of environmentalists, anarchists and anti-captialists with no formal structure, leaders or spokespeople and no distinct political agenda.
A similar position is claimed by Critical Mass which is often defined as an 'organised coincidence'. A Critical Mass is a disruptive direct action which takes place only when enough cyclists turn up at a known place and time (in London typically on the last Friday of the month under Waterloo Bridge) to ride together creating as they do a mass large enough to exclude cars from a piece of road.
Critical Mass is a global phenomenon which communicates via an informal network of local websites. There are no permanent organisers or members. Routes are decided spontaneously by the cyclists at the front of the mass or by anyone that decides to distribute a route to other cyclists at the start of the ride. When a Critical Mass causes disruption, it demonstrates by reversing the usual situation, the dominance of car traffic over cyclists.
In 2006 a cyclist challenged Police attempts to restrict Critical Mass rides in London. The police claimed that the organisers were required to give 6 days advance notice of the ride and its route. The cyclist argued that prior notice was not possible because routes were customary, not set in advance, and had no formal organiser. The court found in the cyclist's favour on 27 June 2006.
In the late 1990s global capitalism, rather than the car, became the primary focus of Reclaim the Streets protests.
Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
Protest has its place, but in the end is really just a limp wristed way of admitting that you are powerless to anything about the problem you are protesting. It follows that such an admission would lead to such stupidity.
I wonder which is more "limp wristed", placing your physical body in harms way over a cause one believes in, or arm chair quarterbacking from a position of safety armed with nothing but a keyboard and mouse..?