#Block4Trayvon - Friday, July 26

[Spurholder]

For everyone's situational awareness:

 

Link Here:

 

http://occupywallst.org/

 

Excerpts:

 

"The Zimmerman verdict reminds us that in the United States Black life is given no value by the forces of law, order, and property. While #hoodiesup shows a historical force drawn up in opposition, the direction of the protests is still uncertain. Some demonstrators call for a federal civil rights suit, while others draw attention to the larger structural oppression faced by black and poor people. Some want to stay focused on a single vigilante, while others draw the connection to Oscar Grant, Sean Bell, Amadou Diallo, and Rodney King. Some want to ignore the institution of the police, while the rest of us know that Zimmerman is a wannabe cop, and that every cop is a wannabe Zimmerman."

 

“I’m not shocked, I’m outraged.” The murder of a black teen is not the exception, but the norm; we are coming to fists with normal life in America. Hence, #hoodiesup must disrupt the places that sustain this normal: cities, highways, trains, ports, social media—all the flows that compose the false harmony of America. The sit-ins in Pittsburgh and Florida, the marches blocking streets around the country, the highway takeovers in Oakland, LA, and Houston, all share a wisdom: every place that politics and commerce carry on as if nothing has happened is ripe for disruption. Block everything!"

[jgradyc]

This article should be titled... In a Desperate Move to Remain in the News, Occupy Wall Street announces...

[2.ooohhh]

Here's the original source, a blog set up in the last week. 

 

They even have handy water bottle labels.  :unsure:

 

[Guest Emtdaddy1980]

What they are advocating is domestic terrorism and SHOULD be dealt with accordingly by the authorities. Of course it will NOT be dealt with. But they're in for a rude awakening once they've pushed too far.

[TMF]

Sounds like anarchists again looking to exploit the situation. Convenient that anarchists have nothing to lose by destroying society, since they have contributed nothing and therefore have no vested interest. Anarchists and freedom are like a 15 year old with a Ferrari.

[Guest Emtdaddy1980]

Can we start a concurrent movement ......... #zoomforzman where we all pledge to accelerate rather than break for anyone stupid enough to congregate on the highway.

[mikegideon]

Paintball guns with lots of ammo.

[Spots]

Shotguns and Ar's with lots of ammo.

Fixed that for ya.

Tapatalk ate my spelling.

[Dolomite_supafly]

Paintball guns with lots of ammo.

Pepperballs and CS balls would be my first choice but then again a lot of these animals have become immune to pepper spray and CS from their time in jail.

[mikegideon]

Fixed that for ya.

Tapatalk ate my spelling.

 

Of course. Those paintballs are gonna piss 'em off. 

[Wyldk2]

I wouldn't advise it but frozen or near frozen paintballs instead of Pepper balls. They evenmake paintballs that smell like rotten eggs.

 

could always use re-balls ( foam balls) and freeze them.

[Wiljo05]

So my frustrated and angry self made this edit to the labels lol. If you have a smartphone use a barcode scanning app to read my updated qr code...



Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk 2

[billyscott]

I agree with Emtdaddy1980. If not terrorism at least inciting civil unrest. Where is the DOJ? <sarcasm>

What about the kids led out on the interstate in Houston, that's at least child endangerment.  

[jcluff]

I am in no way supportive of OWS and I agree with the juries decision on the Zimmerman case, but please do not try to confuse or equate OWS actions with Terrorism. In no way are their actions anything close to those of suicide bombers, 9/11, Ted Kaczynski or Timothy McVeigh. The more we loosely use this term, the more power we give the government to abuse this term to attack its own citizens. Just google domestic violence and terrorism and you can see how this term can be misused.

Civil unrest should not be confused with terrorism, that becomes a very slippery slope and a double edged sword.

All I have to say on that.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

[Wiljo05]

I am in no way supportive of OWS and I agree with the juries decision on the Zimmerman case, but please do not try to confuse or equate OWS actions with Terrorism. In no way are their actions anything close to those of suicide bombers, 9/11, Ted Kaczynski or Timothy McVeigh. The more we loosely use this term, the more power we give the government to abuse this term to attack its own citizens. Just google domestic violence and terrorism and you can see how this term can be misused.

Civil unrest should not be confused with terrorism, that becomes a very slippery slope and a double edged sword.

All I have to say on that.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

Sorry, but according to the FBI definition of domestic terrorism, this fits right in.
First thing that stands out is the intimidation part...

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk 2

[Reaper]

Evil crackas always gotta keep da black man down.

[ted]

I think caster said the other day he caught a skunk it should be good and stinky by now , jest leave it where thay will be doing there get together . Hehehe

[dats82]

My wife asked what she should do if someone tried to stop her on the road.  That's pretty simple, you run their ass over.  There is no way I would be stopping for somebody trying to block the road. 

[jcluff]

I am in no way supportive of OWS and I agree with the juries decision on the Zimmerman case, but please do not try to confuse or equate OWS actions with Terrorism. In no way are their actions anything close to those of suicide bombers, 9/11, Ted Kaczynski or Timothy McVeigh. The more we loosely use this term, the more power we give the government to abuse this term to attack its own citizens. Just google domestic violence and terrorism and you can see how this term can be misused.



Civil unrest should not be confused with terrorism, that becomes a very slippery slope and a double edged sword.



All I have to say on that.





Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

Sorry, but according to the FBI definition of domestic terrorism, this fits right in.

First thing that stands out is the intimidation part...



Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk 2

So where do you draw the line on what constitutes intimidation? If violence or the threat of violence isn't involved, can it be domestic terrorism? If so, can drones be used to take the intimidator out? What about using a sharpshooter to put down the leader of a protest that threatens the local economy for a day or two because they have amassed in the streets? Could that be viewed as intimidation and allow the use of lethal force?

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

[Wiljo05]

So where do you draw the line on what constitutes intimidation? If violence or the threat of violence isn't involved, can it be domestic terrorism? If so, can drones be used to take the intimidator out? What about using a sharpshooter to put down the leader of a protest that threatens the local economy for a day or two because they have amassed in the streets? Could that be viewed as intimidation and allow the use of lethal force?

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

I don't do pissing matches, but consider 2 things.
1) intimidation begins when your rights are violated or Infringed upon. I this case, your right to travel safely to and from a destination have been taken away from you and hundreds or thousands of others.
2) if your wife and kids/family member/friend is in need of medical aid, and they are headed to the hospital and are stopped or the medics are blocked from getting to you or them, By this mob of people on the interstate with no option to turn around, or proceed unimpeeded to the hospital, do you just consider this an inconvenience of some friendly protestors or has your right to medical attention. Or I impeded travel been violated?

Violent or not, that's domestic terrorism at its finest.

And as far as lethal force, I didn't say anything about drones or snipers. I will use lethal force to protect me and mine. If I had a drone, and the situation required it, yes I just might use it :-) Edited July 25, 2013 by Wiljo05

[jcluff]

1) intimidation begins when your rights are violated or Infringed upon. I this case, your right to travel safely to and from a destination have been taken away from you and hundreds or thousands of others.

2) if your wife and kids/family member/friend is in need of medical aid, and they are headed to the hospital and are stopped or the medics are blocked from getting to you or them, By this mob of people on the interstate with no option to turn around, or proceed unimpeeded to the hospital, do you just consider this an inconvenience of some friendly protestors or has your right to medical attention. Or I impeded travel been violated?


Violent or not, that's domestic terrorism at its finest.


And as far as lethal force, I didn't say anything about drones or snipers. I will use lethal force to protect me and mine. If I had a drone, and the situation required it, yes I just might use it :-)

I cannot disagree more. It would be wonderful if more groups would simply gather on the lawn of whatever government capitol they were near and protest there, but peaceful civil unrest should not be met with violent response. I would hope that no medical emergencies are not at risk due to a protest, if every decision we made was measured against the stick of 'what would you do if your significant other' was used, then I see our freedoms quickly eroding in the face of personal security.

However, I think we have strayed far from the topic at hand, and for that I apologize since I did bring this particular soapbox into this thread.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

[rugerla1]

I don't care if it is peaceful or violent if they are stomping around on the interstate. When you are stuck between other vehicles against your will as these idiots who don't even know what they are there for (except the tweet on their Obama phone told them to), you shouldn't have to sit there and wait to see how bad its going to get. If I drive by the capital and my kid sees these people protesting, no big deal. But on a public roadway, a child is not going to understand, and would most likely be scared to death. I shouldn't have to let my family worry about safety because you want to act like idiots. If we shouldn't be upset at this kind if action, maybe a hundred of us crackas should walk through the hood, disrupting their daily activities, yelling about what they do that annoys us....I'm sure they will sit there like good little citizens and not get mad.

[jcluff]

Be upset. Glare at them, call the police on them. Have the police Arrest them for violating the various pedestrian and vehicular laws that we have, but do not call them, or treat them like terrorists. Israel has to deal with terrorists. What we have is simple civil unrest.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

[Wingshooter]

Of course. Those paintballs are gonna piss 'em off.

Yea, probably would complain about whatever color paint you choose

[Guest Emtdaddy1980]

Be upset. Glare at them, call the police on them. Have the police Arrest them for violating the various pedestrian and vehicular laws that we have, but do not call them, or treat them like terrorists. Israel has to deal with terrorists. What we have is simple civil unrest.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

They are attempting to organize themselves into a coordinated mass action with the stated goal of upsetting the infrastructure of society by impeading the free movement of individuals and also impeding vital services such as EMS, FIRE, and LE. How does that NOT fit the definition of domestic terrorism? I will call them or treat them as such if they try to impede or intimidate me in any way. I'm not about to hand over my security to them OR take orders from you.