On stopping a legal activity

[sarisataka]

Is it ever acceptable to use force to stop a person who is doing something legal- even if it is disruptive, offensive or has some potential of danger to person or property?

2 votes, 0 passes | Time left: Unlimited
	Yes
	1 (50%)
	No
	0 (0%)
	Yes if it potentially puts many people at risk
	0 (0%)
	Yes if someone is in danger of imminent harm- e.g. the person is about to drop a heavy object on a child by accident
	0 (0%)
	Yes if lots of people don't like it (think Westborough Baptists)
	0 (0%)
	I like 3.1415
	1 (50%)
	0 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[isobar]

1. Why would a sane person carry a gun to wal-mart?

Crazy is as crazy does.

[sarisataka]

2. That is

Is a question for a different poll
Look for it in RKBA sometime

[isobar]

6. Right, your post has NOTHING to do with GUNZ.

Just an innocent poll about law abiding people who get harassed for wearing hats. If your innocent gun-toter had a concealed weapons permit, why did he not conceal his weapon? Must have been "brandishing".

But your post has nothing to do with that.

[sarisataka]

14. See #12

You can answer above and in comments justify your answer in any way you wish.

[Taitertots]

13. WHy do you support violence against innocent mentally disabled people?

[gopiscrap]

3. depends on the situation

[bowens43]

4. youre talking about guns, right?

hell yes they should be stopped with any force necessary.

[isobar]

9. No, I think he's talking about the rash of people being stopped from eating french-fries.

[sarisataka]

12. I am asking

About legal activities

That could be riding a bike without using your hands, standing on the corner preaching 'God hates fags', carrying a gun, practicing archery in your front yard, talking loud on a cellphone while riding a bus, smoking in the open area or anything else...

[isobar]

15. So you are OK with eating french-fries?

[sarisataka]

17. Onion rings

Or we are having a throw-down

[isobar]

18. Only if they are real, not those burger king mush rings.

[sarisataka]

21. Deal

[Nuclear Unicorn]

30. Except guns, right?

[benz380]

5. Pi is winning. Yum! n/t

[merrily]

7. Why do you hate kids and mathematicians so much?

It should be possible both to like pi and to want to save a two-year old's life.

Kidding!

[jberryhill]

8. Like owning slaves? That was legal

[Hoyt]

23. Good point. Lots of things are legal, but they ain't right.

[hunter]

10. When am I not "disruptive, offensive or (having) some potential of danger to person or property?"

Hell, I've broken bones stopping a person who is doing something legal.

This is a sports question, right?

[randome]

11. No, it's a drunk proctologist question.

[hr][font color="blue"][center]"If you're bored then you're boring." -Harvey Danger[/center][/font][hr]

[arcane1]

16. Does that include boycotting?

[PeaceNikki]

19. That depends on who is stopping them.

A private person or business can stop a person from entering their home or business if they are not wearing shoes (a legal state of being) or carrying a weapon, for example. They can ask for assistance from local authorities to enforce their rules.

[Warren Stupidity]

20. It is very difficult to tell the difference between a nut with a gun and a gun nut. nt.

[DirkGently]

22. Nothing's inherently "legal."

We make laws restricting behavior based on the likelihood of harm to others.

So the real question is whether the activity in question serves a purpose that makes whatever risks or burdens it imposes on society necessary or worthwhile so as to make sense for it to be "legal."

There's no moral or ethical question regarding whether you should be able to stop legal activity -- "legal" is the word we use for whether we think we have the right to stop it or not.

[sarisataka]

24. Nothing's inherently "legal."

Constitution and laws be damned- if someone think an action is too risky or burdens society they can stop it?

I cannot wrap my head around that...

[DirkGently]

25. Yes. People make and change laws every day.

Usually we do that because we see something that needs to change. Laws are things we make and change and unmake all the time.

Yes, we have a Constitution in this country, which outlines principles and rights and to some extent circumscribes what laws we can and cannot make. The Constitution is also a law made by people, and as such is constantly interpreted and re-interpreted. It can also be changed and has been several times.

A problem arises when people think something they hold dear is some kind of mandate from God. America is not a theocracy. We have laws -- including the Constitution -- based on what we all think is right. We have notions of individual rights, but we reconsider them constantly. We have changed and re-arranged those rights many times.

"We" once thought people could own other people. That women couldn't vote. That alcohol should be banned nationwide. All of these things were upheld as "legal" and Constitutional.

Now they aren't.

Food for thought?

[sarisataka]

27. Yes laws can and do change

over time. That is why we have a legislature, to make them changes.

I am asking about individuals taking action on their own initiative.

Example-If a person sees kids riding bikes and they don't have helmets do they have the right to physically stop the kids from doing so?

[hunter]

32. We have helmet laws where I live. Sometimes the police do stop kids.

Usually it's teens they suspect of making other sorts of trouble; it's like a "burnt out tail light" stop for minors. But that's another subject.

I'm not a Law-is-the-Law sort of person. I never think about the law, I just do whatever seems right at the moment.

Fortunately my own internal ethical system doesn't seem to conflict with the law too often.

I've been known to mock Gun Luv, but I don't resort to force against Gun Luv'rs except when I think they are doing something dangerous or stupid.

Still I'm nothing like the Wild West women in my family. In their presence a fool and his gun are very soon parted.

I live in a place where "open carry" is against the law and the police have a propensity to shoot anyone they see carrying a gun -- black, white, or brown, "threatening" or not. These incidents are usually reported as some kind of "suicide by cop" even when there's no evidence the dead guy was suicidal. I also live in a place where Wal-Mart doesn't sell guns because they got in trouble for selling them to gangsters.

Without Wal-Mart guns, the gangsters simply steal guns from "responsible" gun owners, sometimes hauling off entire gun safes while the owner isn't home. In this environment it's rather silly to advertise one's gun luv.

[jberryhill]

33. You seem to be heading in a circle

Is it illegal to stop the kids from riding the bikes without a helmet?

Again, laws do not define what is "legal". They define what is not legal. If you want to include civil causes, then the term "unlawful" is generally preferred.

Now, there are often positively-stated exceptions to laws proscribing behavior.

For example, what you are proposing is some sort of unlawful detention / false imprisonment scenario. Many state statutes will include a carve-out for a "shopkeepers privilege" permitting, as an exception to the general rule, detention of customers suspected of shoplifting, within certain bounds.

In your scenario, assuming that California has a bicycle helmet law then, yes, detention by anyone would fall within California Penal Code 837:


837. A private person may arrest another:

For a public offense committed or attempted in his/her presence.

When the person arrested has committed a felony, although not in his presence.

When a felony has been in fact committed, and he or she has reasonable cause for believing the person arrested to have committed it

---

To avoid liability for unlawful detention, you'd better be right. But, yes you can.

[sarisataka]

35. You seem to be splitting hairs

But if you like- substitute "doing something not prohibited " for "legal"

[Iggo]

26. MOAR GUNZ!!!11!!!1!

[Nye Bevan]

28. 3.1415 is not Pi. Just saying.

And if you really want to round Pi to 4 decimal places, 3.1416 would be much more accurate.

[hunter]

29. 355/113 is pretty damned close.

I learned that in ancient times, when math was expensive.

[Nye Bevan]

34. 355/113 is indeed an incredibly good approximation (nt)

[Ykcutnek]

31. Yes.

When someone is being verbally abusive and they get their nose busted or a few teeth knocked out to shut them the fuck up, I'm all for it.

In a perfect world, the asshole with the big mouth would be charged for inciting violence and have to pay the medical bills for any damage done to his victim's hands/knuckles.