Hippies lying down in front of cars getting run over.

There is almost no accepted justification for a driver intentionally running over a person in front of their car, no matter the reason that either party are there.

If someone is in immediate danger of severe bodily harm or death, and running over the person in the road would neutralize that danger, perhaps that would be a different story. Some of the drivers may have felt that they were in danger because they were being surrounded. Of course it would be up to a jury to decide if that were a reasonable reaction on the driver's part.

Originally posted by Tearman
There is almost no accepted justification for a driver intentionally running over a person in front of their car, no matter the reason that either party are there.

If someone is in immediate danger of severe bodily harm or death, and running over the person in the road would neutralize that danger, perhaps that would be a different story. Some of the drivers may have felt that they were in danger because they were being surrounded. Of course it would be up to a jury to decide if that were a reasonable reaction on the driver's part.

There is no justifiable reason for one person to inhibit an innocent person from going someplace in their car.This should be left up to a jury to decide the punishment of an animal who would illegaly detain and terrorize somebody.

reply to post by brindle

At first I was going to agree with you that there isn't normally justification for purposely obstructing traffic, and that it should be met with an appropriate response. But then you started using words like "animal" and "terrorize", which only leads me to believe that you are unstable...

I would have no problem with the protesters being forcibly removed from the road by police or even by the drivers, as long as it were not overly dangerous to do so. Even if I were sympathetic to the protesters cause, which in various cases, I may be.

reply to post by AliceBlackman

Direct Income Tax Civil disobedience massive enough to make any difference for any cause , I think would only occur if a majority of citizens believed they had nothing left to lose. If they had nothing left to lose, they probably wouldn’t be paying Income tax.

The so called "Personal Income Tax" is not a direct tax. This may seem to be off topic, but since this thread is about fools protesting wars that should not be waged, and since those wars are primarily funded by the "income" tax, there is a relation between the two.

How do we reign in an out of control government? Do we lie down in traffic and wait to become Wiley Coyote's or do we employ a strategy with much more bite to it? I am obviously recommending the latter.

It is important to understand that the "income" tax is not a direct tax because ignorance of the law is no excuse, and people who believe this odious tax - that is funding the adventures of American thug politicians - is a tax they actually have a liability to pay...well, they very well may, or they very well may not...it just depends upon the activities they are engaged in, because what should be understood is that the income tax is not on income directly, but rather indirectly and imposed upon some sort of activity, where then income is used to measure how much is owed. The evidence that it is indeed an indirect tax and not a direct tax is that if functions - under the principles of Constitutional taxation - as an indirect tax, not just facially but in its application as well.

An indirect tax is required by Constitution to be uniform across the several states and this is how the so called "Personal Income Tax" is written and enforced.

That little lecture on the principles of Constitutional taxation was to support my contention that better than protest that winds up becoming the horrible effect of a society that is increasingly out of control, be the cause that will affect positive change. The question, regarding the "income" tax and its relationship to the war machine, should be am I liable for the tax? The answer to that question has no meaning if I do not know the answer. Being told the answer doesn't mean I know the answer. The actual answer lies in the legislation itself. Those who want to know if they are liable for the tax or not need only look to the code to find out. Not that they will understand much about it, because in the end, no one understands it.

Not any member of Congress today understands the tax code, maybe the Supreme Court, but that remains to be seen, the President doesn't understand it, judges do not, and for their own peace of mind you can bet your sweet patatootie that "tax attorneys" don't understand the tax code. It is not in their best financial interest to understand the tax code. If they understood the tax code, then if you were not liable for this so called "income" tax, they would tell you that you were not liable and any defense that need be mounted in your defense would be based upon that simple fact...that you are not liable for the tax. Instead they will tell you - some of them emphatically so - that you most assuredly are liable for the tax, that everybody who earns income is liable.

Find out for yourself, look at the tax code and find where a tax has been imposed on income, or the act of earning income. Look hard, and take as long as you need. When you can not find any clear, concise language written into that code that makes clear what the subject of the tax in question is, then you will realize why no one understands the tax code, and the problem isn't in the way it is written. The tax code is a testament to the brilliance of the language and mystical incantations the priest class lawyer set. The tax code is perfectly legal and Constitutional facially, meaning as it is written. It is in the application that it all becomes problematic.

There are "tax protestors" who proudly wear the mantle and make heroic stands against that most frightful administrative agency the Internal Revenue Service. Everyone fears the IRS, even other acronymistic alphabet agencies fear the IRS. Who would dare go up against the IRS? Well, there have been heroic "tax protestors" who have, and metaphorically speaking they went in the middle of traffic and lied down and expected everyone to see their heroic actions as so noble as to affect the necessary change to correct the problem. As noble as these sacrificial lambs were and remain, they accomplish nothing but the perverse pleasure sacrifice brings greedy gods, and the priest class that worship them. The "tax protestors", in willingly wearing this mantle, would, and continue to do so, make fallacious arguments, show gross ignorance of the law, rely upon legislation and case law they clearly haven't read or don't understand, on and on and on, these hapless "tax protestors" offer themselves up as fodder for the system.

The "tax protestors" mistake is they believe they understand the tax code, and are shocked or will cry fascism, or tyranny when their fallacious arguments fail them. Understanding the tax code is the trap. It is the rabbit hole, and I heartily recommend not going down the rabbit hole. Do not fight this battle inside enemy lines. Do not declare war on the IRS. Do not pick a fight with the government, just keep honing your political strategy and using your inherent unalienable rights, and authority as one of the holders of the original political power, and if they pick this fight with you, let them invade your space, where you have a stronger defense in which to deal with the usurpers.

What is that defense? I keep telling you...anyone who cares to listen...that defense is that you don't understand the tax code. Why don't you? Well, for starters, when was the last time you bothered to read the tax code? Even if you have made that effort, how far did you get? Fun read was it? Understood it completely, didja? How was it you were made liable? Am I wrong about this not being a direct tax, but instead an indirect tax? If so, can you point to credible and understandable language within the code that supports the argument that it is a direct tax?

The blatant tautology, and circumlocution of language in most of the tax code is astoundingly complex. Where tautology is always true, it is used as a device to hide the being "truthful". This language is so complex and so twisted and tangled that to expect a person of average intelligence to actually understand it is not lawful, and not even legal. The idea that a person should have to hire a "specialist", either a tax accountant, or worse a tax attorney, who claims to "understand" the code only demonstrates how absurdly complex this tax code is. Ah! Ignorantia juris non excusat, you may thing to yourself...ignorance of the law is no excuse. Ignorance is not a lawful defense. However, not understanding tautological and circumlocutory language, is not the same as ignorance.

If you know the law, and then have read the tax code well enough to understand that it is incomprehensible, then it is fairly easy to reveal the frauds who pretend to understand the code. The skilled ones employ virtually every fallacious argument in existence, and particularly enjoy the ad hominem, quickly framing you as a "tax protestor" not because the tax protestor is seen as heroic, but because the tax protestor is seen as a fool, and the term is used as a pejorative. Questioning how you were made liable for the tax to begin with is not protest, it is a common sense question to a charge being leveled against you.

I have spent much time in a this post - in a thread about "hippie" protestors as sacrificial lambs - yammering on about tax codes and subject of taxes, and the question of liability for many reasons.

First, it must be understood that if we all collectively are fed up with the unlawful nature of our government and expect to correct this problem we have to ask ourselves what is the most effective strategy to accomplish this. As you have seen, some applaud the actions of the "hippie" protestors and seem to be satisfied that their actions, even with its tragic consequences, was more than enough - strategy wise - to put an end to the military industrial complex....well, slow down there JPZ, no one is saying that their sacrifice and protest was going to topple this evil regime we call the military industrial complex, all we are saying is that their actions will draw more attention to the cause. However you want to frame it, I respectfully submit that this strategy of placing yourself in harms way simply to draw attention to your cause is among the least effective strategies to accomplish the goals of that cause. If the cause is to draw attention to your self, there are better ways than inviting your own death or injury through stupidity. If the cause is to put an end to the military industrial complex, there are much better strategies.

One of those strategies would be to starve the beast. You can sit around and wait for Congress to somehow mystically become an institution filled with ethical and lawful legislators who will starve this beast for you, or you can take matters into your own hands again do what is necessary on your end. I am not, however, suggesting you engage in civil disobedience. If the dictates of your own conscience demands you do, then I support your decision to engage in civil disobedience, (although I would advise you do not throw yourself under the bus in doing so), but this is not what I am urging in this thread.

What I am saying is that - to the best of my knowledge - the vast majority of people filing valid tax returns year after year, were never actually made liable for that tax by any statute, and in the end it was their own admission to liability - sworn to under penalty of perjury - that they were liable. If most people have not been made liable for any "income" tax then they are not subject to the applicable revenue laws and if they are not subject to those laws then there is, of course, no requirement to file any valid tax return, and be rest assured your signature swearing under penalty of perjury that all the above is true and correct is what makes that return valid, and no obligation to pay any tax. The question is; has the tax code made you liable for any tax? If you believe it has, what is the subject of that tax? If you conclude you do not owe that tax, then why would you pay the tax?

The second reason I have taken the time to delve into the "income" tax problem is that this thread ultimately seems to be about the unlawful wars being waged by an illegitimate governing body we call the military industrial complex. Whomever these usurpers are, their system is overwhelmingly complex, and if justice is ever to prevail, the we as individuals have an obligation to begin simplifying the process. We are not sacrificial lambs who throw ourselves on the floor and beg for the mercy of the gods, we are individuals who each hold a part of the inherent political power, and when our government is acting unlawfully it is our obligation to put a halt to it. Not protest it, but to stop it.

For this reason it is a good idea to examine the complexity we face, so that we can avoid becoming fodder, and take our opportunities where they exist - and they do exist - to simplify the system. You can't just throw yourself under a bus and expect complexity to simplify itself, and you can't expect your sacrifice to inspire a nation to do the same. People would rather acquiesce than be slaughtered, and if those are your options, acquiescence comes with its own honor. Non-acquiescence, however, does not mean you have to sacrifice yourself. Why pay a tax you don't owe? Why apply for a license to do what is a right to do? Why agree to go along with a system that is clearly failing?

All close systems tend towards entropy. Look around and see the self evident entropic world around us. Do you want to affect change for the better? Do what you can to move us towards an open system. Freedom is an open system. Tyranny is a closed system. Feed the beast of tyranny, but don't be surprised at the size of the monstrosity later. Starve the beast and keep it under better control. Feeding the beast, is expedient. Starving the beast for the purpose of controlling it is not so expedient, and takes the courage of conviction, and patience and much wisdom. However, if you are not willing to maintain control of that beast, why do you insist on having it?

Originally posted by Tearman
reply to post by brindle

 

At first I was going to agree with you that there isn't normally justification for purposely obstructing traffic, and that it should be met with an appropriate response. But then you started using words like "animal" and "terrorize", which only leads me to believe that you are unstable...

I would have no problem with the protesters being forcibly removed from the road by police or even by the drivers, as long as it were not overly dangerous to do so. Even if I were sympathetic to the protesters cause, which in various cases, I may be.

edit on 9-6-2011 by Tearman because: (no reason given)

If you dont think having an angry mob terrorizing your elderly mom or grandmom stalking the car,lying underneath the car...connotates some of the worst behavior man has to offer,I can say nothing more than you are extremely unstable .

Instigating other people is a serious situation.What type of person would prey on an innocent citizen to try to change a law .How about if one of these protestors gives an old man a heartattack by scaring him too much.Now what?What if somebody is heading to the emergency room and they cant make it.These monsters need to be stopped.

Except in a situation where a driver is confronted with an obstacle that is so sudden it would be impossible to avoid he or she has a serious responsibility to themselves and society in general to operate their vehicle in a safe manner.

A person that shows less regard to human life than I would to a stray dog when operating a potentially deadly vehicle is a sociopath that does not deserve to operate freely in our society.

reply to post by ShaunHatfield

Deny Ignorance, or promote it? Let me help you... Democracy : government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system.

You do not live in a democracy. At best you live in a fractured democracy. You wouldn't know but America in reality is a real beauty, it's fascist claiming to be democratic.

I live in a country where there's more democracy than in the US and I still say that I don't live in a democracy. Because I don't. Nobody is directly voted for, but most importantly, law makers are not voted for directly. One has to vote for this one, who votes for another one, who votes for another one. I'm sorry but by this time all bets are off because god knows how much bribery and ass kissing goes down at those levels where the average Joe doesn't see a thing.

Regardless of what the paranoid few think, the people still have the #'s in their favor.... The only problem is they lack true conviction.

Hey it's okay to blame it all on the people. It's ignorance, we all get over that phase sometime. I don't think you've zoomed out enough yet. The people have never been in power, the people have always struggled to get into power. Along this way tons of compromises have been made with people in positions of authority, most of them consisting of them not killing us for sports and us giving up leadership and wealth into their hands.

Did you just imply that it is the Govts responsibility to provide a place to protest?? Needs to be televised??

Yes. In a democracy a government would provide that. It's all good and fine when you can yell democracy as if that makes you better than another country, but as long as that democracy is a ruse...well you can guess the rest.

The American people like American Idol, and that reflects on democracy how?? Do you have anything logical to add here?

Yes. It was a pun, because obviously the people cannot be bothered to view other peoples political views and learn from that and demand a direct voting system. You know, a democracy. Instead, the people decide to vote(presented as direct voting - to let you feel that democracy,,,mmmmm does it feel good?) for their favorite random person put on stage. Who cares to read up about politics and freedom? Idols is on!

BUT, the minority does not have the right to FORCE their opinions down everyone's throat! Period!

That's not what they are doing. I didn't see every single person in America get held up at that street. So that's just a bull argument. Sure, some folks had to wait, but this is the nature of protesting. This is what got you to a democracy in the first place. This is what will eventually get you beyond the fascist democracy you have now - unless, you fight for that fascist democracy yourself.

But you believe the majority has the right to run over people with cars? And you dare say the word democracy. Just...amazing.

reply to post by Zamini


You should really focus on reality, not some blown our over dramatic talking points speech.

I did not say it is ok for "the majority to run over the minority" If this is what you concluded after reading my post, you should definitely work on your comprehension skills. Or, just stop trying to be such a drama queen.

I did say " It is not the right of these worthless little maggots, to step on my rights" I also said that I would not sit there and allow these little maggots to willfully detain me by lying in front of my car.

If a person is stupid enough to lie down in front of my car, who knows what their small brain is capable of. I would feel threatened, stomp the gas, and cover the smell of patchouli with the smell of burning rubber.

"While your down there, can you check my fluids"

Originally posted by Michelangelo
Freakin' hippies always trying to protest things. This doesn't even make sense, they're protesting a war by laying down in front of people's cars who have some place to be so that they can contribute to society. This is just a bunch of idiot kids that are trying to be a part of something bigger. I hate people that protest something without a cause.

They deserve it if they get run over. If they did that to me I wouldn't just lay on the gas, I would drive slowly and deliberately. If they were smart they'd get out of the way, if not I would slowly roll over them.

And you would quickly get a citation...

your lack of sympathy and caring is disturbing, in that first video that man intentionally drove into the group of people and after realizing he had run over someone, just simply continued on, and you joke and call them hippies, you do realize you are on the fence of indirectly and directly supporting the intentional injury of anybody that wishes to voice an opinion, you joke as if it is ok, they were not running onto the road and lying down infront of cars that were already moving, that would be stupid, no they sat down in an area where cars came to a halt, they actually had faith in the people that they would not drive into them, yet you joke at their injuries, if people failed to protest in extreme manners then things on this planet would not be what they are today, how can you justify your humorous approach to these people that essentially put their lives on the line for their beliefs...you would not joke about soldiers that go running into on coming fire putting their lives on the line for the beliefs of the leaders of their countries, that person was intentionally run over, you wonder how they can not expect to be run over? they expect from people what is slowly draining out of humanity, decency, they were not harming the people in the cars, and im sure they knew that the cars could at any time crush them, now it may be simple wishful thinking to have the idea that surely somebody in a car would not drive into a group of people, but then again you would think that would be so, clearly this person does not, and clearly you do not, that is upsetting, and disappointing, now you can argue that you do not support it, but your tone is humorous when talking about the issue, you clearly don't like protesters as you deem this group of people hippies and you can not argue for a second you do not use it in a derogatory sense cause it is clear that you do, they were brave to do what they did, and just like a brave soldier running into on coming fire, they suffered the consequences yes, except the on coming fire was a person that decided what ever he was doing was more important than the life and well being of the persons infront of him, and you support that, don't think for a second you don't but im sure you're aware of this already, infact i get the feeling your proud of it, in all three videos the fault was of the driver, not the protesters, just because people chose to lay down infront of their cars does not give the driver the right to driver over them as if "oh well its their choice", not at all, your a very disappointing human being.

reply to post by Anonymuz


I appreciate you taking the time to lecture me. I wish I could give you the same courtesy, but I can't. I'm going to get out of work, hook the boat up and take my kids wake boarding. Do you know why I am able to this today?

Let me fill you in. I am a human, a human with a desire to live. I have been part of several protests. Nobody was ever run over by a car, simply because nobody was dumb enough to lay down in front of one.

At no point in my life did I think it was a good idea, to lay down in front of a 2000lbs vehicle. Do you think the girl with the broken knees will ever lay down in front of a vehicle again? Probably not.... Do you think she learned a lesson? Do you think, those that watched this happen, will ever lay down in front of a car again?

I am glad that nobody died from this protest planking. BUT, I am also glad to see that there are others out there, that share my outrage over these maggots thinking it was their right to stomp all over the drivers rights.

They have the right to protest, but lack the right to block me from where ever I am going. period~!

You mention hippies... Of course I am saying it in a negative way... Hellen Keller would have seen that!

it seems you did give me the same courtesy even though you stated you couldn't, the point isn't that she might not ever lay down in front of a car again, its that she was brave enough to do so in the first place, it seems your are assuming that she wasn't aware of what the 2000lbs vehicle could do to her, when in actual fact she was, and still proceeded to do so, she probably didn't think that the person behind the wheel would actually run over her, so yes in that situation its Car-1 Girl-0 faith in humanity-somewhere in the negatives, but that doesn't make it funny or any less disappointing, and stomping all over their rights as drivers?, quite an exaggeration, all they were doing was blocking their path, maggots? you must have a strong hate for these people, but i don't understand why. and you end with a joke about a disabled person.

also "They have the right to protest, but lack the right to block me from where ever I am going. period~!" you are aware on the point of a protest is...thats like saying they have the right to protest, just not on the foot paths, roads, grass or anywhere else...the fact is nobody has the right to intentionally injure, fatal or minor alike, anybody, especially because they are just blocking their desired path, they weren't pointing guns at the drivers, or threatening to kill their families...im sorry but you are wrong, enjoy your wake boarding, i've heard it's quite fun.

reply to post by j-man

Finally, a sane answer! Jee-sus! I cannot believe how weak-minded people here can be, to be swayed by the constant labeling by Tru TV of those people as 'radicals', fanatics', and euphemizing the abortion mill as a 'women's health center'. Good God, what is the world coming to? When it's perfectly OK to run over or kill protesters? These people are trying to make a statement here, in a LEGAL way. Protesting should be a protected free speech in America,. What has happened to the society we live in, when a person's right to protest is met with cold-blooded cruelty...and that cruelty defended in just as cold-blooded a way?

reply to post by Anonymuz


try using paragraphs if you're so into humanity.

geeze!

what all you people are saying i can jump infront of your car and stop all progress and

you have to wait there?

anytime and for any reason?

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

Samuel, I read with pleasure your comments about the system, and how you believe one should handle themselves with regard to it. Might I invite you to check out a website of like minded people? We have all begun in our own ways, we of the Republic, to learn how to rescind contracts, NOT swear under penalty of perjury to go along with a failed and tyrannical government, an illegitimate government, and form a structure of a government that is of de jure, rather than de facto.
the site is republicoftheunitedstates.org... and I will be honored if you would spend some time there, and give me your take.

--Jeff Weaver

reply to post by ShaunHatfield

Easy, so easy, to dehumanize people into "worthless little maggots", when they DARE upset YOUR precious schedule to go have YOUR FUN..
When you call them "maggots", it's easier to kill them, isn't it?
God forbid that you should have to THINK about the passion in another human being's heart. That would be much too taxing on your selfish little immature brain.