Another highway take-over, another group of protesters struck

[BobM]

Of course we didn't investigate such scenes as feds, but I've come up on a few. The saddest thing for me was always the empty shoes, and the rag doll limpness of the bodies after the bones have been broken. Just one of those images that stays with you.

Empty shoe in the road and the imprint of the kids denim pants on the hood when we located the suspect vehicle. 1992.

[BehindBlueI's]

So, just organized trolling then, with no real long term goal. Which is counter to what the old Civil Rights protest, which were done with an actual goal in mind.

Well, that would depend on who's doing it. When "Right to Work" was an issue in my state, unions held a massive protest downtown. They took over the streets for awhile. They had a definite goal in mind, protection of their unions. When we started making announcements to clear the streets, they did. Thousands of people, zero arrests, zero property damage, zero injuries.

I have zero issues enforcing the law upon real rioters and left our response group largely because I don't believe our civilian leadership shared that goal, but that's not the same as peaceful protests that block a street *temporarily* and then comply with lawful orders to leave in order to get attention.

[paherne]

Yeah, First Amendment Zones are bullshit. I've done a number of candidate and Presidential visits. It always cracks me up when USSS brings out that stuff. Now, if we had 2nd Amendment Zones and cities/counties had to build shooting sports parks instead of softball fields, then I might get behind the idea of "Zones."

[Clusterfrack]

Thanks for the insights. I’m convinced.

[Joe in PNG]

The point of non-violent protest is often to gain sympathy from observers, usually by trying to do normal, everyday things forbidden by foolish laws.
Eating lunch, riding buses, swimming in pools- you want others to think "well, why can't they do that? It's not fair." Especially if you get nasty overreactions.

While blocking highways gets attention, does it get that kind of sympathetic attention to gain more widespread acceptance for one's goals? Or, is the population at large actually sympathizing more with the people stuck in traffic and would be super happy to see those damnfool protesters moved out of the way.

[JRB]

I didn't say they were legal. Obstruction of traffic is a misdemeanor here.

Which is more acceptable? A coordinated shutdown with law enforcement present, slowing then stopping traffic, and keeping the protesters and bystanders separated, allowing other first responders to know ahead of time the route will be blocked, and having an agreed upon end time vs guerilla protests? Because that's your options. Mass misdemeanor arrests means they can be back out blocking a road again tomorrow if they want to be. Especially out of towners. Nobody is going to extradite them back for a misdemeanor.

Yeah, it may suck. So does an overturned semi. Yet you deal with it.

I am not a fan of "1st amendment zones" absent a bonafide security reason. I think that cure is worse then the disease. I've dealt with protesters for over a decade, from NRA rallies to BLM, and many took the streets but only one became a riot or resulted in damage beyond littering.

What do you propose we do with those who decide to picket outside your area?

My beef with it intent. Protesting downtown, blocking some chunk of surface streets in a dense city, especially in front of significant gov't buildings and such. I get the 'where else can it happen?' argument there. One can 'drive around' those problems.

Once an interstate highway is involved we have a totally different dynamic. Traffic has to suddenly and unexpectedly slow from highway speeds to a complete stop (you and every other LEO here knows that lots of very nasty MVA's happen this way) and once stopped, they are stranded for the duration against their will. Sure, cars get in wrecks and semis jackknife but there's almost never an *intent* to screw up highway traffic and those problems get cleared as fast as they can. Same for traffic, it's a fact of life.

But to *intentionally* stop traffic from high speeds, and strand motorists in their vehicles for some pre-determined 'okay' period of time to 'arrest' them when needed so they can get their trolling rocks off *WITH THE LOCAL PD'S COOPERATION* is 100% pure bullshit.

If they block a highway, personally I have zero problem with seeing those 'protesters' turned into semi-truck road pizza or blasted out of there via water cannon each and every time. Free speech is free speech, but creating a dangerous traffic stop in the middle of a highway to trap people against their will and be potentially victimized in their vehicle isn't speech, it's fucking violence. Passive chickenshit police-have-to-save-us-even-though-we-hate-them violence, but violence nonetheless.

No lie, I laughed when I saw those two pedestrians go flying in this video. To hell with them and their ilk. If they want my sympathy for their cause they can persuade and compel me with reason like a rational human being - becoming a meat shield of righteous trolling and passive violence posing as an 'inconvenience' for a 'protest' only makes me care less and less for them, their well-being, or their 'cause'.

[BehindBlueI's]

My beef with it intent. Protesting downtown, blocking some chunk of surface streets in a dense city, especially in front of significant gov't buildings and such. I get the 'where else can it happen?' argument there. One can 'drive around' those problems.

Once an interstate highway is involved we have a totally different dynamic. Traffic has to suddenly and unexpectedly slow from highway speeds to a complete stop (you and every other LEO here knows that lots of very nasty MVA's happen this way) and once stopped, they are stranded for the duration against their will. Sure, cars get in wrecks and semis jackknife but there's almost never an *intent* to screw up highway traffic and those problems get cleared as fast as they can. Same for traffic, it's a fact of life.

But to *intentionally* stop traffic from high speeds, and strand motorists in their vehicles for some pre-determined 'okay' period of time to 'arrest' them when needed so they can get their trolling rocks off *WITH THE LOCAL PD'S COOPERATION* is 100% pure bullshit.

If they block a highway, personally I have zero problem with seeing those 'protesters' turned into semi-truck road pizza or blasted out of there via water cannon each and every time. Free speech is free speech, but creating a dangerous traffic stop in the middle of a highway to trap people against their will because you're fucking annoyed isn't speech, fucking violence. Passive chickenshit police-have-to-save-us-even-though-we-hate-them violence, but violence nonetheless.

No lie, I laughed when I saw those two pedestrians go flying in this video. To hell with them and their ilk. If they want my sympathy for their cause they can persuade and compel me with reason like a rational human being - becoming a meat shield of righteous trolling and passive violence posing as an 'inconvenience' for a 'protest' only makes me care less and less for them, their well-being, or their 'cause'.

We've never done it on an interstate, but there's methods of safely slowing and stopping traffic on the interstate. That's how you get ladders and shit out of the road. Ever see a cop slowing weaving with his lights on? There's some other cop (or DoT worker) up ahead getting a sofa or ladder or some shit out of the road.

People get smoked in the road all the time and it's generally not criminal on either side. It's sumdood playing Frogger and sumdood with his head in his phone or whatever. Just like any fatal crash, unless someone is drunk usually the highest level crime is a citation, which is civil in my state. Intentionally hitting someone for obstructing traffic is using lethal force for a misdemeanor. Work to change the law if you feel like that's what should be acceptable, but as I've said in other places ignoring what is in favor of what you wish it was is at your peril.

[BehindBlueI's]

The point of non-violent protest is often to gain sympathy from observers, usually by trying to do normal, everyday things forbidden by foolish laws.
Eating lunch, riding buses, swimming in pools- you want others to think "well, why can't they do that? It's not fair." Especially if you get nasty overreactions.

While blocking highways gets attention, does it get that kind of sympathetic attention to gain more widespread acceptance for one's goals? Or, is the population at large actually sympathizing more with the people stuck in traffic and would be super happy to see those damnfool protesters moved out of the way.

I think they buy into the notion "there's no such thing as bad publicity".

Personally, I think it makes people hate the cause even if they were neutral before. The counter-argument is it "forces" the media to cover something they ordinarily wouldn't. That's likely outdated. What it does do is get social media hits, which gets it in front of people who may decide they are like-minded and want to join you. Again, just a guess based on what I've seen from bystanders, that's a small gain for all the ill will you generate. I think it's mostly just self-congratulating at this point. Look what we did! We'll keep being a minor aggravation until we get what we want and that makes us someone making a difference!

I've seen some protests that in other circumstances would have almost certainly gathered public support turn into "fuck those guys" for that sort of thing. Would you be against a bunch of people in wheelchairs demanding better access to public areas, better treatment from Medicare offices, etc? I think most people would find them sympathetic. I've seen them piss away a lot of goodwill as onlookers went from "those poor people..." to "get them the fuck out of here!" in the span of a few minutes.

[FNFAN]

How about using this?


18 U.S. Code § 241.Conspiracy against rights

If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same; or

If two or more persons go in disguise on the highway, or on the premises of another, with intent to prevent or hinder his free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege so secured—

They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

[JRB]

We've never done it on an interstate, but there's methods of safely slowing and stopping traffic on the interstate. That's how you get ladders and shit out of the road. Ever see a cop slowing weaving with his lights on? There's some other cop (or DoT worker) up ahead getting a sofa or ladder or some shit out of the road.

People get smoked in the road all the time and it's generally not criminal on either side. It's sumdood playing Frogger and sumdood with his head in his phone or whatever. Just like any fatal crash, unless someone is drunk usually the highest level crime is a citation, which is civil in my state. Intentionally hitting someone for obstructing traffic is using lethal force for a misdemeanor. Work to change the law if you feel like that's what should be acceptable, but as I've said in other places ignoring what is in favor of what you wish it was is at your peril.

LE having methods of mitigating the risk in such a situation because of unintentional accidents is beside the point.

Just because those methods exist doesn't excuse the fact that the *intent* of these people is to purposely create a dangerous situation for.. what? To piss off a bunch of people and get those cameras rolling?

That is what I find so unacceptable, and why I personally believe as a taxpayer interested in the rule of law and the social contract that these whiny brats should be hosed off with water cannons the second they step into a highway. The fact that these antics continued so long unabated because of chickenshit city leadership is precisely why I stopped caring about the well-being of these 'protestors'.

I'll remember when I get to the voting booth.