Freakin idiots

[red viking]

1 minute ago, JimmySpeaks said:

According to all the libtardos on here the cop could have moved.   

The pig did move and was perfectly safe, with or without the murdering gunshots. 

[fishbane]

7 minutes ago, Caveira said:

Don’t care.    Leo should not allow these rioters to block the street every time they have beef.   And they have beef way too often.  Period.   Zero.   

Blocking the street may have been illegal, but if that many people want to do it the best solution can be to let it happen.  Trying to clear out a large group of people can present a greater risk than just waiting it out.

 This guys wasn't a random guy minding his own business.  He was intentionally driving through the protest protesting the protest.  In theory it should be possible, but in practice he should expect a frosty reception and not do this is he has somewhere to be in a hurry.

[Caveira]

1 minute ago, red viking said:

The pig did move and was perfectly safe, with or without the murdering gunshots. 

We’ve been over this.  
 

He could have been sitting criss cross apple sauce with a sign on that said I don’t follow my own police training in the middle of the street with his eyes closed……  singing dream on by Aerosmith …..

 

And if the rioter drove at him the officer would be within his rights to defend himself 

[JimmySpeaks]

2 minutes ago, red viking said:

The pig did move and was perfectly safe, with or without the murdering gunshots. 

Then the idiots blocking traffic have nothing to worry about.   

[Caveira]

Just now, fishbane said:

Blocking the street may have been illegal, but if that many people want to do it the best solution can be to let it happen.  Trying to clear out a large group of people can present a greater risk than just waiting it out.

 This guys wasn't a random guy minding his own business.  He was intentionally driving through the protest protesting the protest.  In theory it should be possible, but in practice he should expect a frosty reception and not do this is he has somewhere to be in a hurry.

The police let it happen in every blue city.  It’s beyond time to let Leo take the streets back.  Protest on the sidewalk.  You’re not changing policy.  You’re not changing the administration.  You’re just rioting. 

[Caveira]

1 minute ago, fishbane said:

Blocking the street may have been illegal, but if that many people want to do it the best solution can be to let it happen.  Trying to clear out a large group of people can present a greater risk than just waiting it out.

 This guys wasn't a random guy minding his own business.  He was intentionally driving through the protest protesting the protest.  In theory it should be possible, but in practice he should expect a frosty reception and not do this is he has somewhere to be in a hurry.

Who cares what the sign said.  If I had a sign diametrically opposed to your cause you have no right to attack my vehicle.  That’s rioting not protesting.  
 

Even idiots are allowed to have an opinion that people who don’t disagree with cannot attack  

[fishbane]

2 minutes ago, Caveira said:

Who cares what the sign said.  If I had a sign diametrically opposed to your cause you have no right to attack my vehicle.  That’s rioting not protesting.  
 

Even idiots are allowed to have an opinion that people who don’t disagree with cannot attack  

Sure he's allowed to have that opinion and share it.  Don't share it by driving a truck with it plastered on the side through a crowd of people with the opposing views if you have to be somewhere in a hurry.

Standing in a street might be illegal, but it definitely isn't rioting.  It's unclear from the video if he started driving his truck through the crown first or if he was driving down a clear street and they surrounded and stopped it.  I'm leaning towards the former right now.

[Caveira]

1 minute ago, fishbane said:

Sure he's allowed to have that opinion and share it.  Don't share it by driving a truck with it plastered on the side through a crowd of people with the opposing views if you have to be somewhere in a hurry.

Standing in a street might be illegal, but it definitely isn't rioting.  It's unclear from the video if he started driving his truck through the crown first or if he was driving down a clear street and they surrounded and stopped it.  I'm leaning towards the former right now.

The rioting part was when they climbed on his vehicle… threatened him.   Jumped on top of the vehicle.  Broke his windows.  Etc 

[Caveira]

3 minutes ago, fishbane said:

Sure he's allowed to have that opinion and share it.  Don't share it by driving a truck with it plastered on the side through a crowd of people with the opposing views if you have to be somewhere in a hurry.

Standing in a street might be illegal, but it definitely isn't rioting.  It's unclear from the video if he started driving his truck through the crown first or if he was driving down a clear street and they surrounded and stopped it.  I'm leaning towards the former right now.

Sign is still on.  Are they attacking his vehicle ?

 

[Caveira]

Neither of yall @fishbane or the Viking will comment on the rioters attacking the truck first will ya 

[fishbane]

27 minutes ago, Caveira said:

Sign is still on.  Are they attacking his vehicle ?

 

Some signs had been ripped off by the time that clip started.  The original video you posted started with the u haul apparently attempting to turn onto a street full of people protesting against the Iranian gov.  Initially no one is attacking the truck and it is stopped as the street is blocked with all the people.  The protesters are telling the truck to back out the way it came.  It doesn't move.   Which isn't surprising it can be tricky to back up a truck like that with a lot of people around.

Then some protesters then notice the signs and start pulling them down.  Another breaks his window and yet another climbs on top and assists in pulling the signage down.

Someone described the actions of the protestors as play stupid games win stupid prizes, but that's kind of the wrong way around.  If there is a street full of people protesting a particular authoritarian dictatorship it is a stupid idea to plaster a truck with messages in support of that regime and attempt to drive through the protest.  Play stupid games and win stupid prizes indeed. 

If I were the the operator of a u haul franchise and someone came to me wanting to rent a truck with that plan I would decline to rent them the truck.  Not because I agree or disagree the message but because it is highly likely to end in my property being damaged.  

[Caveira]

2 minutes ago, fishbane said:

Some signs had been ripped off by the time that clip started.

Well the second clip I showed you the big sign was still on and they were already violently attacking the vehicle.  

let’s pretend the u hall signs were bad….  Or anti whatever message  the rioters have 

you would agree they have zero reason to attack the u hall or rip any signs off of it right?   It’s his right to be a moron if he wants to 

Edited January 13 by Caveira

[Caveira]

3 minutes ago, fishbane said:

If I were the the operator of a u haul franchise and someone came to me wanting to rent a truck with that plan I would decline to rent them the truck.  Not because I agree or disagree the message but because it is highly likely to end in my property being damaged.  

I would not be a rioter or this idiot.   Ever. 
 

but.  The idiot doesn’t need to be attacked period no matter how stupid he is.   You agree right ?

[Offthemat]

Your speech is violence. 
My violence is speech. 

[fishbane]

Just now, Caveira said:

I would not be a rioter or this idiot.   Ever. 
 

but.  The idiot doesn’t need to be attacked period no matter how stupid he is.   You agree right ?

Yes he doesn't need to be attacked.  His signs were always going to ripped down and his vehicle was likely to sustain damage.  I suspect there is a reason he chose to drive a rental for this and not use his personal vehicle.

[Caveira]

1 minute ago, fishbane said:

His signs were always going to ripped down and his vehicle was likely to sustain damage.

Wrong.  He shouldn’t be attacked.  Period.  Local police should enforce this 

[Caveira]

15 minutes ago, fishbane said:

I suspect there is a reason he chose to drive a rental for this and not use his personal vehicle.

Ya.  He’s a moron.   But morons don’t need to be attacked by delusional rioters.   Just let him drive on through and continue with whatever it is your rioting about 

I mean you agree with this right ?

Edited January 13 by Caveira

[fishbane]

30 minutes ago, Caveira said:

Ya.  He’s a moron.   But morons don’t need to be attacked by delusional rioters.   Just let him drive on through and continue with whatever it is your rioting about 

I mean you agree with this right ?

The guy wasn't driving through to get somewhere  There was nothing in the back of the u-haul.  Driving through the protest was his destination.  If the protesters had cleared the street to let him drive through there is a good chance he would have turned around and headed right back through the other direction.  

You call the protest a riot but even with this incident there were no significant injuries.  And that's with at least one person being struck by the truck.  As for property damage that is sometimes a necessity in a protest.  The most celebrated protest in the county's history, The Boston Tea Party, resulting in almost $2M in property damage in 2025 dollars.  This resulted in what $2k in damage to a rental van?  Far from the most outrageous criminal act of protest.  

This guy knew the truck would be damaged.  If he didn't he was delusional.  If he opted not to get the optional damage waiver then he was clearly delusional.

[Caveira]

4 minutes ago, fishbane said:

The guy wasn't driving through to get somewhere  There was nothing in the back of the u-haul.  Driving through the protest was his destination.  If the protesters had cleared the street to let him drive through there is a good chance he would have turned around and headed right back through the other direction.  

Ok.  They still have zero justification to attack him.  Let him circle the block for hours and hours at a time.  Or days.  Or years.  It’s his right to be a moron. 
 

I work in tech.  When we have huge conferences  our competition drive trucks around all day with negative messages about the company having the conference.   They are intending to literally take money out of our pockets.   
 

Do you know what we do to them.  
 

nothing.  Nothing at all 

Edited January 13 by Caveira

[Caveira]

8 minutes ago, fishbane said:

As for property damage that is sometimes a necessity in a protest. 

Wrong.  That’s still illegal and should not happen.   Police should be arresting people who are damaging property.   

Edited January 13 by Caveira

[fishbane]

2 minutes ago, Caveira said:

Ok.  They still have zero justification to attack him.  Let him circle the block for hours and hours at a time.  Or days.  Or years.  It’s his right to be a moron. 

He was never going to circle the block.  The protesters were in the street when he got there.  He only made it through once because he forced his way through after they started busting the truck up.

5 minutes ago, Caveira said:

I work in tech.  When we have huge conferences  our competition drive trucks around all day with negative messages about the company having the conference.   They are intending to literally take money out of our pocket.  

They are not literally taking money out of your pocket.  If they attempted that I am sure there would be a tense confrontation.

4 minutes ago, Caveira said:

Wrong.  That’s still illegal and should not happen.   

Oh it is illegal, but so it driving a truck into someone.  Are your thoughts on the Boston Tea party that it was a lawless riot and not a principled protest?  

[Caveira]

1 minute ago, fishbane said:

He was never going to circle the block.  The protesters were in the street when he got there.  He only made it through once because he forced his way through after they started busting the truck up.

They are not literally taking money out of your pocket.  If they attempted that I am sure there would be a tense confrontation.

Oh it is illegal, but so it driving a truck into someone.  Are your thoughts on the Boston Tea party that it was a lawless riot and not a principled protest?  

They have zero legal reason to attack the truck.  Period. End of story.   Like I said.  He has the right to be a moron. And a moron he probably is.  
 

Leftist goons don’t need to attack his truck for any reason.   
 

You have no idea what he would or would not have done because the leftists rioting attacked him immediately.   Maybe he was a comic.  Maybe he’s a moron.  Either way.   The rioters were wrong first and should be held accountable 

[Caveira]

19 minutes ago, fishbane said:

This guy knew the truck would be damaged.  If he didn't he was delusional.  If he opted not to get the optional damage waiver then he was clearly delusional.

This is beyond irrelevant.   I can put a message that disagrees with you on my personal truck or my rental all I want.  You have no right to attack it.  If you do you should be arrested for property damage and or assault depending on how nutty you get in attacking me and or my stuff 

[fishbane]

6 minutes ago, Caveira said:

This is beyond irrelevant.   I can put a message that disagrees with you on my personal truck or my rental all I want.  You have no right to attack it.  If you do you should be arrested for property damage and or assault depending on how nutty you get in attacking me and or my stuff 

You were calling the protesters delusional.  They may not be the only delusional party involved.

Most of the protesters were not damaging property.  Sure charge the ones that damaged the truck.  I think the driver was the only person arrested so far.

Do you think the leftist Son's of Liberty should have been charges for destroying the tea back in 1773 too?

[Offthemat]