How far gone are you to think that kidnapping and robbery aren't violent acts that justify violent responses? If you try to detain me illegally (also known as false imprisonment) you're just asking for a face full of lead. But 'Murder' is unlawful killing. This would be self-defense.

Right, but the law doesn't allow you (in California, at least) to assume that someone (for example) putting a cone on your car is also intending to rob or kidnap or kill you.

And even then, you are not legally allowed to use deadly force to protect your belongings; you can only do so if your life is in danger.

Certainly some places have "stand your ground" and "castle doctrine" laws that give you more latitude to use self-defense as legal justification, but even in places like that, it's not absolute.

The acts I listed [edit: or the one in the grandparent post - it’s literally talking about putting a cone on a car…] don’t necessarily involve violence.

Even if they do, self-defense has to be proportional. Laws obviously differ in different places, but, generally, yes, you can defend yourself. You generally can’t kill someone unless you yourself are under a plausible threat of death though.

nit: it is usually death or grievous bodily harm.

We are that far gone.

https://philosophybear.substack.com/p/a-short-comment-on-sel...

Thanks for that link. Points 8, 9 and 10 seem so appropriate.

I often feel that we’re similarly in danger of forgetting the adage that “it is better to let the crime of a guilty person go unpunished than to condemn the innocent.”

I’m not sure we really are ‘that far gone’ though. I’m hopeful that people just always feel like this a little, to greater and lesser extents. Both the world and America have been through darker periods in the past.

To me that suggests that we need to go through another such dark episode before a cold slap of reality returns us all to more sensibility.

You want life-altering fines and prison for inconveniencing cars? Do you think the US judicial system is at all capable of applying this fairly? That law would exist for a day before someone deemed "undesirable" is arrested for not getting across the street faster than the crosswalk signal.

Mental breakdown in the street? Jail Cyclist riding in a way the cops don't like? Jail Grandma can't get her wheelchair up the curb ramp? Jail

> But we need harsh penalties for people that intentionally block traffic.

So for instance, the CEO of the self-driving car company should go to jail whenever one of their cars blocks a fire truck. Right?

> intentionally

Was the car following the CEO's edict to block firetrucks as a protest?

Not as a protest obviously, but that's irrelevant. If the fire truck can't get to the fire because the car blocks the road, it can't get to the fire.

Responsibility stops with the CEO, so we need to hold them accountable. The alternative is to say that driverless can do any and all harm and nobody can be ever held reponsible simply because there is no driver.

Intent matters. I tire of ridiculous arguments like this that think they’re clever.

I'm unclear how this comment follows from the thread?

A driverless car can't have intent, since "intent" is a human (or animal) concept.

A driverless car has bugs in its software that end up causing harm (e.g. by blocking a firetruck). A bug is not intent. But the consequences are real.

Someone mentioned that

> we need harsh penalties for people that intentionally block traffic They were talking about people intentionally messing with SDVs and causing incidents

You tried to turn it on them by saying

> So for instance, the CEO of the self-driving car company should go to jail whenever one of their cars blocks a fire truck. Right? Presumably equating a SDV having an issue with people intentionally blocking traffic.

I commented on that with a tongue-in-cheek statement about the CEO intentionally blocking firetrucks as a protest.

You replied with

> Not as a protest obviously, but that's irrelevant.

The other commenter said

> Intent matters.

You profess confusion about how their comment follows the thread, but that's the whole point. You said CEOs should be responsible for their vehicles blocking traffic in response to a message about people intentionally blocking traffic. That gives the appearance that you think a fault in a SDV is equivalent to intentionally blocking traffic. A SDV having a fault is like your car breaking down. Are you personally liable if your broken vehicle blocks a fire truck? You may be subject to the ire of the FD and they may destroy your vehicle in the execution of their duty, but you aren't treated like you intended to block traffic. You just happened to have a vehicle that decided to stop working.

If that's the penalty for delaying traffic, a DUI or texting while driving should be life in prison. Delaying traffic is much less likely to get someone killed.

Prison and life altering fines are already in place for those. If you kill a person while DD you will be charged for that and face years/decades in prison.

The GP said DUI or texting alone would have to involve life sentences, regardless if anyone was hurt or killed.

The point is that punishments that aren't in proportion to the crime don't lead to a particularly good society to live in. A society that imposes a "life altering fine" for delaying traffic is not a society I'd like to live in, and I suspect many others would agree with me.

I think if you said you’ll throw activists that intentionally block traffic in prison for 1 year you’d get 70%+ approval for the position. People are sick of the lawlessness and the excuses for it and inaction. Times up.

"You are allowed to protest the status quo as long as you do not interfere with it in any way."

Which leaves airing grievances, to which you'll say

"Quit complaining and make it better if you feel that strongly about it."

Must be nice.