Big Head Press Forum

Online Comics => Quantum Vibe => Topic started by: customdesigned on July 03, 2020, 08:15:21 am

Title: Something BLM and Antifa types need to consider
Post by: customdesigned on July 03, 2020, 08:15:21 am

https://quantumvibe.com/strip?page=2116
Title: Re: Something BLM and Antifa types need to consider
Post by: Coyoty on July 04, 2020, 04:11:31 am
I don't see a connection.
Title: Re: Something BLM and Antifa types need to consider
Post by: UncleRice on July 07, 2020, 07:23:59 am
One of the things some of the story groups keep mentioning is that no one is ever the villain in their own story. You can see this in the videos of the rioters when things go wrong. They are outraged when the car doesn't stop, the truck takes off, their victim fight back with more crazy than they brought to the game, or they get a decade in the slam slam, because they see themselves as the good guys. Ending up battered, bruised, or dead on the street is not something they consider. I suppose this would be the connection.
Title: Re: Something BLM and Antifa types need to consider
Post by: Skull the Troll on July 13, 2020, 09:12:24 am
I disagree. The same thing would be true of gun rights or tax relief protests except- Its not the fault of the person being peaceful, its the fault of those that choose to escalate. On either side of the political spectrum. If a crowd is protesting and blocking a street you don't have a right to commit vehicular assault. Likewise, if a person is doing a peaceful open carry someone cant shoot them under stand your ground because they feel threatened. One of the things I really like about Quantum Vibe is that they have very stick "laws" about punishing the aggressor, our hero has even been cited for actions most of us cheered her for.
Title: Re: Something BLM and Antifa types need to consider
Post by: UncleRice on July 14, 2020, 09:19:13 pm
Unless I'm missing something, QV law is based on NAP or ZAP. Both of those allow you to engage in self defense against an aggressor.

Seeing how many remember what happened to Reginald Denny, when the rioters attacked the FedEx semi and the driver stomped on the accelerator, he would have been completely exonerated even though one of the rioters turn into a 5 mile long skid mark. Likewise when these rioters attacked other various vehicles, when the drivers hit the gas they would be exonerated of any harm to the attackers. Likewise when looters were burning stores and smashing the doors to steal stuff, the owner of the store would have the right to defend his property against the aggressors.

The protesters blocking the road are not without guilt here either. The roads are paid for by people who drive on them via road taxes. Thus when protesters block a road, they are stealing the driver's access to the roads he paid for. Worse, the protesters seem to be protesting the consequences of their own decisions.

I'm not really seeing how these rioters, looters, or even protesters would have any ground to stand on in QV Law. In fact many of them could be legally shot.
Title: Re: Something BLM and Antifa types need to consider
Post by: Apollo-Soyuz on July 15, 2020, 01:08:44 am

...when the rioters attacked the FedEx semi and the driver stomped on the accelerator, he would have been completely exonerated even though one of the rioters turn into a 5 mile long skid mark.


Oh, yea I saw that one. It was on a reddit sub called "meatcrayon". That's all I'm saying and you can find it if you want, but not safe for life.

For some reason, that direct death (Fed-Ex guy was diverted by police) from a BLM freeway closing didn't get a lot of press, but the people who played in traffic in Seattle did.

And then Secoriea Turner was shot and we were back to the bare minimum of coverage again.

I hope that the Fed Ex driver is coping with the death. He had a perfectly reasonable response to someone pointing a gun at him, but survivor's guilt is a real thing. 
Title: Re: Something BLM and Antifa types need to consider
Post by: Skull the Troll on July 19, 2020, 09:45:10 pm
Unless I'm missing something, QV law is based on NAP or ZAP. Both of those allow you to engage in self defense against an aggressor.

Seeing how many remember what happened to Reginald Denny, when the rioters attacked the FedEx semi and the driver stomped on the accelerator, he would have been completely exonerated even though one of the rioters turn into a 5 mile long skid mark. Likewise when these rioters attacked other various vehicles, when the drivers hit the gas they would be exonerated of any harm to the attackers. Likewise when looters were burning stores and smashing the doors to steal stuff, the owner of the store would have the right to defend his property against the aggressors.

The protesters blocking the road are not without guilt here either. The roads are paid for by people who drive on them via road taxes. Thus when protesters block a road, they are stealing the driver's access to the roads he paid for. Worse, the protesters seem to be protesting the consequences of their own decisions.

I'm not really seeing how these rioters, looters, or even protesters would have any ground to stand on in QV Law. In fact many of them could be legally shot.

What you're missing is that it is not a reasonable use of force to kill someone because you cant drive your car to where you want to. Now rioters start pounding on your car you're in better moral use of force territory... unless of course you started the aggression by trying to push past with your car. its even the same thing really. Nudging by with your car and someone trying to open your door handle are both unwanted incursions into personal space. Once that occurs you have the right to defend yourself. (from a moral standpoint imo. Laws vary by state and country) The "I want to use the road" argument doesn't hold up either way though. Its a public road, they own it as much as you do and after all you wouldn't be allowed to just start ramming cars because you were stuck in a traffic jam or behind a farm truck. ZAP.
Title: Re: Something BLM and Antifa types need to consider
Post by: UncleRice on July 29, 2020, 10:12:54 am
Unless I'm missing something, QV law is based on NAP or ZAP. Both of those allow you to engage in self defense against an aggressor.

Seeing how many remember what happened to Reginald Denny, when the rioters attacked the FedEx semi and the driver stomped on the accelerator, he would have been completely exonerated even though one of the rioters turn into a 5 mile long skid mark. Likewise when these rioters attacked other various vehicles, when the drivers hit the gas they would be exonerated of any harm to the attackers. Likewise when looters were burning stores and smashing the doors to steal stuff, the owner of the store would have the right to defend his property against the aggressors.

The protesters blocking the road are not without guilt here either. The roads are paid for by people who drive on them via road taxes. Thus when protesters block a road, they are stealing the driver's access to the roads he paid for. Worse, the protesters seem to be protesting the consequences of their own decisions.

I'm not really seeing how these rioters, looters, or even protesters would have any ground to stand on in QV Law. In fact many of them could be legally shot.

What you're missing is that it is not a reasonable use of force to kill someone because you cant drive your car to where you want to. Now rioters start pounding on your car you're in better moral use of force territory... unless of course you started the aggression by trying to push past with your car. its even the same thing really. Nudging by with your car and someone trying to open your door handle are both unwanted incursions into personal space. Once that occurs you have the right to defend yourself. (from a moral standpoint imo. Laws vary by state and country) The "I want to use the road" argument doesn't hold up either way though. Its a public road, they own it as much as you do and after all you wouldn't be allowed to just start ramming cars because you were stuck in a traffic jam or behind a farm truck. ZAP.
I pay for the use of the road when I buy fuel. Said slow farm truck does the same, and our vehicles are our receipt. Protesters standing in the road are engaging in theft of my right to use said road. lethal force may be over the top, but I would expect some kind of financial compensation for the loss of the use of that road and the time I lost due to their temper tantrum.
Title: Re: Something BLM and Antifa types need to consider
Post by: Skull the Troll on July 30, 2020, 09:09:38 am
Unless I'm missing something, QV law is based on NAP or ZAP. Both of those allow you to engage in self defense against an aggressor.

Seeing how many remember what happened to Reginald Denny, when the rioters attacked the FedEx semi and the driver stomped on the accelerator, he would have been completely exonerated even though one of the rioters turn into a 5 mile long skid mark. Likewise when these rioters attacked other various vehicles, when the drivers hit the gas they would be exonerated of any harm to the attackers. Likewise when looters were burning stores and smashing the doors to steal stuff, the owner of the store would have the right to defend his property against the aggressors.

The protesters blocking the road are not without guilt here either. The roads are paid for by people who drive on them via road taxes. Thus when protesters block a road, they are stealing the driver's access to the roads he paid for. Worse, the protesters seem to be protesting the consequences of their own decisions.

I'm not really seeing how these rioters, looters, or even protesters would have any ground to stand on in QV Law. In fact many of them could be legally shot.

What you're missing is that it is not a reasonable use of force to kill someone because you cant drive your car to where you want to. Now rioters start pounding on your car you're in better moral use of force territory... unless of course you started the aggression by trying to push past with your car. its even the same thing really. Nudging by with your car and someone trying to open your door handle are both unwanted incursions into personal space. Once that occurs you have the right to defend yourself. (from a moral standpoint imo. Laws vary by state and country) The "I want to use the road" argument doesn't hold up either way though. Its a public road, they own it as much as you do and after all you wouldn't be allowed to just start ramming cars because you were stuck in a traffic jam or behind a farm truck. ZAP.
I pay for the use of the road when I buy fuel. Said slow farm truck does the same, and our vehicles are our receipt. Protesters standing in the road are engaging in theft of my right to use said road. lethal force may be over the top, but I would expect some kind of financial compensation for the loss of the use of that road and the time I lost due to their temper tantrum.

They paid those taxes too, and you DONT have a right to use the road if someone else is using it, but really that's beside the point. They are protesting getting killed by the very people that are supposed to protect them. They ARE engaged in civil disobedience, but sometimes that's a good and necessary thing. I'm sure the heroes of this story and the founding fathers would agree. You calling it a "temper tantrum" is really emblematic of how your privilege has made you blind to their reality. If liberal state police were to start arresting everyone walking around in open carry, and repeatedly killed some of them, you'd be all for far more than blocking a road. Have a little compassion and understand. Take the side street rather than committing vehicular manslaughter.
Title: Re: Something BLM and Antifa types need to consider
Post by: UncleRice on July 30, 2020, 05:12:31 pm
Unless I'm missing something, QV law is based on NAP or ZAP. Both of those allow you to engage in self defense against an aggressor.

Seeing how many remember what happened to Reginald Denny, when the rioters attacked the FedEx semi and the driver stomped on the accelerator, he would have been completely exonerated even though one of the rioters turn into a 5 mile long skid mark. Likewise when these rioters attacked other various vehicles, when the drivers hit the gas they would be exonerated of any harm to the attackers. Likewise when looters were burning stores and smashing the doors to steal stuff, the owner of the store would have the right to defend his property against the aggressors.

The protesters blocking the road are not without guilt here either. The roads are paid for by people who drive on them via road taxes. Thus when protesters block a road, they are stealing the driver's access to the roads he paid for. Worse, the protesters seem to be protesting the consequences of their own decisions.

I'm not really seeing how these rioters, looters, or even protesters would have any ground to stand on in QV Law. In fact many of them could be legally shot.

What you're missing is that it is not a reasonable use of force to kill someone because you cant drive your car to where you want to. Now rioters start pounding on your car you're in better moral use of force territory... unless of course you started the aggression by trying to push past with your car. its even the same thing really. Nudging by with your car and someone trying to open your door handle are both unwanted incursions into personal space. Once that occurs you have the right to defend yourself. (from a moral standpoint imo. Laws vary by state and country) The "I want to use the road" argument doesn't hold up either way though. Its a public road, they own it as much as you do and after all you wouldn't be allowed to just start ramming cars because you were stuck in a traffic jam or behind a farm truck. ZAP.
I pay for the use of the road when I buy fuel. Said slow farm truck does the same, and our vehicles are our receipt. Protesters standing in the road are engaging in theft of my right to use said road. lethal force may be over the top, but I would expect some kind of financial compensation for the loss of the use of that road and the time I lost due to their temper tantrum.

They paid those taxes too, and you DONT have a right to use the road if someone else is using it, but really that's beside the point. They are protesting getting killed by the very people that are supposed to protect them. They ARE engaged in civil disobedience, but sometimes that's a good and necessary thing. I'm sure the heroes of this story and the founding fathers would agree. You calling it a "temper tantrum" is really emblematic of how your privilege has made you blind to their reality. If liberal state police were to start arresting everyone walking around in open carry, and repeatedly killed some of them, you'd be all for far more than blocking a road. Have a little compassion and understand. Take the side street rather than committing vehicular manslaughter.
The city police being fingered for Mr. Floyd's death and many other excesses are hired by the city government. The city governments involved with these riots are almost exclusively Leftist. The rioters give all the appearances of also being Leftists. This means they got the police force they voted for. They are throwing temper tantrums over the actions of people they put in power and have been putting in power for decades. They are like an abused wife who keeps going back to the husband who beats her. So no, I'm not having compassion over people complaining about getting the government they chose. Their decision, their choice, their government, their consequences.
Title: Re: Something BLM and Antifa types need to consider
Post by: 0z79 on July 31, 2020, 05:59:11 pm
Unless I'm missing something, QV law is based on NAP or ZAP. Both of those allow you to engage in self defense against an aggressor.

Seeing how many remember what happened to Reginald Denny, when the rioters attacked the FedEx semi and the driver stomped on the accelerator, he would have been completely exonerated even though one of the rioters turn into a 5 mile long skid mark. Likewise when these rioters attacked other various vehicles, when the drivers hit the gas they would be exonerated of any harm to the attackers. Likewise when looters were burning stores and smashing the doors to steal stuff, the owner of the store would have the right to defend his property against the aggressors.

The protesters blocking the road are not without guilt here either. The roads are paid for by people who drive on them via road taxes. Thus when protesters block a road, they are stealing the driver's access to the roads he paid for. Worse, the protesters seem to be protesting the consequences of their own decisions.

I'm not really seeing how these rioters, looters, or even protesters would have any ground to stand on in QV Law. In fact many of them could be legally shot.

What you're missing is that it is not a reasonable use of force to kill someone because you cant drive your car to where you want to. Now rioters start pounding on your car you're in better moral use of force territory... unless of course you started the aggression by trying to push past with your car. its even the same thing really. Nudging by with your car and someone trying to open your door handle are both unwanted incursions into personal space. Once that occurs you have the right to defend yourself. (from a moral standpoint imo. Laws vary by state and country) The "I want to use the road" argument doesn't hold up either way though. Its a public road, they own it as much as you do and after all you wouldn't be allowed to just start ramming cars because you were stuck in a traffic jam or behind a farm truck. ZAP.
I pay for the use of the road when I buy fuel. Said slow farm truck does the same, and our vehicles are our receipt. Protesters standing in the road are engaging in theft of my right to use said road. lethal force may be over the top, but I would expect some kind of financial compensation for the loss of the use of that road and the time I lost due to their temper tantrum.

You must, like, REALLY hate bicyclists, then.