First nations will blockade roads as part of 'Idle No More' protest

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Cowboy89

Why don't we all organize a 'blockade' to the road leading into the parking lot of the Grey Eagle Casino and see how well we get treated by the CPS or RCMP? At least if our blockade is in specific protest to all the 'Idle No More' blockades then at least our message is more specific and targeted!

I would almost laugh if CPRail to protest the blockade of railroad lines or Oilfield workers did a counter protest at the roadway exits to casinos

[The Yen Man]

I really don't understand the point of pissing off normal people. Isn't the whole point of these protests to garner public support and pressure the government to change? These blockades and rallies where they disrupt traffic just seems so counterproductive to me. It's like they are encouraging confrontation. To me, it seems like they are hoping some regular Canadian is going hurt one of them in these protests, and then they get to play the "woe is us, the white man has it in for us" card.

[Minnie]

Originally Posted by DuffMan

She could be having an emergency at home she needs to get to and will not stop for anyone.

This is something that keeps coming to mind for me. What happens in emergency situations? I realize they're probably letting ambulances, etc, through but what about someone flying into town because a relative is at the end of their life, trying to get to the hospital and some ####### is blocking the quickest route and they miss being there at the end?

I can tell you that we had one medical situation in the past 2 years, when my daughter's PICC line snapped and we had to hurry her in to Children's for that to be seen to, where I'd have been well pissed to run into one of these blockades. Not an emergency situation in that an ambulance is required to be called (not generally anyway), but we were counseled at the beginning of the whole process, that if it snapped, we needed to get back to ACH, quick as. I can't say as I'd be terribly inclined to have put up with any of this nonsense at that point, and probably would have responded similarly as the woman in the video.

[SportsJunky]

I ran into a blockade today outside of Russell, MB. Not being from the area I asked how to best detour around them. They were pleasant enough and directed me around the blockade.

[polak]

Originally Posted by Tron_fdc

Those facebook comments on the pic are quite the read. I get a good laugh when stupid people tell other stupid people to "get educated".

I judge people like that quite aggressively. It's a character flaw.

"When Columbus founded this country" had me in stitches.

[CaptainCrunch]

A driver, and especially a woman surrounded by an angry yelling mob is not going to feel especially safe, especially with all of the protester bluster over the last few weeks.

This is more of a failure of the police to set a precedent that the law will be enforced.

How much will people scream if the White Supremacists, or anti abortionists, or the Tamil Tiger community decide on a day of action and block highways and bridges.

Once you as the law enforcement set the precident that you're going to stand by while one group protests now you have to stand by and let all of them do it,

Personally my group," the we want more hot strippers from Quebec association" are planning a day of action on Sunday where we're going to block Highway two. If the RCMP move in to arrest us, I think I've got a major human rights challenge and lawsuit.

[First Lady]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Really they don't have a right to stop vehicles on a major highway peacefull protest or not, and demanding that a driver stop their vehicle in the middle of a mob is not going to happen.

Its almost like this protest isn't about educating and informing, they want someone to get so frustrated that they throw the first punch or run over the first native.

Actually most of the Treaties speak to this.

They promise and engage that they will, in all respects, obey and abide by the law; that they will maintain peace between each other and between themselves and other tribes of Indians, and between themselves and others of His Majesty's subjects, whether Indians, half-breeds or whites, this year inhabiting and hereafter to inhabit any part of the said ceded territory; and that they will not molest the person or property of any inhabitant of such ceded tract, or of any other district or country, or interfere with or trouble any person passing or travelling through the said tract, or any part thereof, and that they will assist the officers of His Majesty in bringing to justice and punishment any Indian offending against the stipulations of this treaty, or infringing the law in force in the country so ceded.

Above quote is from Treaty 9

[AR_Six]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I don't think there would be civil liability or even legal liability concerning someone getting hurt at an illegal blockade of a high way.

The Police really needed to send a signal and enforce the law properly

Absolutely there would be. If you jaywalk, you are breaking the law by illegally placing yourself in the roadway. However, if I were to... let's say... run you down in my F350 while yelling "50 POINTS!", I would be guilty of a crime and you could sue me.

You can't intentionally run into people with a car and not expect negative repercussions, regardless of the circumstances.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by AR_Six

Absolutely there would be. If you jaywalk, you are breaking the law by illegally placing yourself in the roadway. However, if I were to... let's say... run you down in my F350 while yelling "50 POINTS!", I would be guilty of a crime and you could sue me.

You can't intentionally run into people with a car and not expect negative repercussions, regardless of the circumstances.

But if its not intentional.

I get the intentional, but if its not.

[DownhillGoat]

nm

[moon]

Originally Posted by AR_Six

Absolutely there would be. If you jaywalk, you are breaking the law by illegally placing yourself in the roadway. However, if I were to... let's say... run you down in my F350 while yelling "50 POINTS!", I would be guilty of a crime and you could sue me.

You can't intentionally run into people with a car and not expect negative repercussions, regardless of the circumstances.

I am no lawyer but I would think there would be a difference between purposefully hitting someone jaywalking and driving slowly on a highway with people purposefully putting themselves in front of your vehicle.

[AR_Six]

^There is clearly a difference, and the former example was used for argument's sake, but in either case you are intentionally using a vehicle that you should reasonably know can cause serious harm to a pedestrian in order to push people out of the way. They may be in the wrong, but you are intentionally doing something that could forseeably severely injure someone, so you are as well. The dollar value of the damage you cause will likely outstrip the dents in your truck.

I can pretty well guarantee that if you try driving through a blockade and end up hurting someone that you will be charged and sued.

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

But if its not intentional.

I get the intentional, but if its not.

I don't get it. You would say to the judge, "but my lord, I simply didn't SEE the large mob of chanting protesters in the roadway"?

[northcrunk]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

A driver, and especially a woman surrounded by an angry yelling mob is not going to feel especially safe, especially with all of the protester bluster over the last few weeks.

This is more of a failure of the police to set a precedent that the law will be enforced.

How much will people scream if the White Supremacists, or anti abortionists, or the Tamil Tiger community decide on a day of action and block highways and bridges.

Once you as the law enforcement set the precident that you're going to stand by while one group protests now you have to stand by and let all of them do it,

Personally my group," the we want more hot strippers from Quebec association" are planning a day of action on Sunday where we're going to block Highway two. If the RCMP move in to arrest us, I think I've got a major human rights challenge and lawsuit.

I dont think them yelling and hitting her car makes her want to stop, I sure wouldn't. I would be sending a bill to the RCMP if the protestors made any dents in my vehicle for not properly enforcing the law.

[AR_Six]

Originally Posted by northcrunk

I dont think them yelling and hitting her car makes her want to stop, I sure wouldn't. I would be sending a bill to the RCMP if the protestors made any dents in my vehicle for not properly enforcing the law.

Which I am sure the RCMP would promptly and with all due dispatch hasten to not pay and possibly laugh at. Ain't no way you get that back. I guess you could try to make the case to your insurer that the damage was caused by vandalism if you have comprehensive coverage?

[northcrunk]

Originally Posted by AR_Six

Which I am sure the RCMP would promptly and with all due dispatch hasten to not pay and possibly laugh at. Ain't no way you get that back. I guess you could try to make the case to your insurer that the damage was caused by vandalism if you have comprehensive coverage?

What would be the possibilities of charging the protestors with vandalsim if they destroy peoples vehicles?

[Tron_fdc]

Originally Posted by AR_Six

I don't get it. You would say to the judge, "but my lord, I simply didn't SEE the large mob of chanting protesters in the roadway"?

No, you simply say "I was driving legally on hiway 2, slowed down where I encountered a protest, felt physically threatened by a mob hitting my vehicle, panicked and hit the gas".

Then your lawyer finds legal precedent of someone doing the same, you convince the judge of its relevancy, and if successful walk away.

Not a slam dunk, but it's a realistic scenario.

I also don't think CC is advocating finding random protests like this and plowing through them mad max style.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by AR_Six

^There is clearly a difference, and the former example was used for argument's sake, but in either case you are intentionally using a vehicle that you should reasonably know can cause serious harm to a pedestrian in order to push people out of the way. They may be in the wrong, but you are intentionally doing something that could forseeably severely injure someone, so you are as well. The dollar value of the damage you cause will likely outstrip the dents in your truck.

I can pretty well guarantee that if you try driving through a blockade and end up hurting someone that you will be charged and sued.

I don't get it. You would say to the judge, "but my lord, I simply didn't SEE the large mob of chanting protesters in the roadway"?

No but a bunch of protesters jumped in front of my car and started hitting it and screaming at me, see above, with Tron's post and I accidentally stepped on the gas.

Or in this weather the more likely I tried to stop but there was ice on the road that made it treacherous for example.

I've seen a lot of cases where people have hit jaywalkers for example and have not been charged or held liable.

[AR_Six]

Originally Posted by northcrunk

What would be the possibilities of charging the protestors with vandalsim if they destroy peoples vehicles?

I would intuitively say 100% if they can be identified but I don't really know for sure. I would think they should be charged with whatever the Vancouver rioters were charged with for burning those cars downtown.

Originally Posted by Tron_fdc

No, you simply say "I was driving legally on hiway 2, slowed down where I encountered a protest, felt physically threatened by a mob hitting my vehicle, panicked and hit the gas". Then your lawyer finds legal precedent of someone doing the same, you convince the judge of its relevancy, and if successful walk away. Not a slam dunk, but it's a realistic scenario. I also don't think CC is advocating finding random protests like this and plowing through them mad max style.

Eh, it's an argument I guess, but I seriously doubt that it works. Either way, you're in court and spending a couple hundo per hour on your lawyer. Your insurance probably spiked. You were all over the news as "the guy who ran over someone because he couldn't stand being inconvenienced". Your license is probably suspended pending the outcome of the legal proceedings. It's just not worth it, at all.

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Or in this weather the more likely I tried to stop but there was ice on the road that made it treacherous for example.

Well, sure, if perjury is an option for you, but I wouldn't think that would be advisable.

I've seen a lot of cases where people have hit jaywalkers for example and have not been charged or held liable.

For me it's totally credible that a guy didn't want to hit the jaywalker but events conspired to create an unfortunate accident, whether they be ice-related or otherwise. Because who wants to hit a jaywalker? However, it's less credible for me that you accidentally ran into a group of protestors. More likely you just wanted to get past them to wherever you were going.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by AR_Six

I would intuitively say 100% if they can be identified but I don't really know for sure. I would think they should be charged with whatever the Vancouver rioters were charged with for burning those cars downtown.

Eh, it's an argument I guess, but I seriously doubt that it works. Either way, you're in court and spending a couple hundo per hour on your lawyer. Your insurance probably spiked. You were all over the news as "the guy who ran over someone because he couldn't stand being inconvenienced". Your license is probably suspended pending the outcome of the legal proceedings. It's just not worth it, at all.

Well, sure, if perjury is an option for you, but I wouldn't think that would be advisable.

For me it's totally credible that a guy didn't want to hit the jaywalker but events conspired to create an unfortunate accident, whether they be ice-related or otherwise. Because who wants to hit a jaywalker? However, it's less credible for me that you accidentally ran into a group of protestors. More likely you just wanted to get past them to wherever you were going.

First and foremost how is it perjury, I'm just laying out possibilities.

where this whole thing gets scetchy to me is that she has the legal right to passage on that highway. The minute that the protesters went from standing in the road to actively pushing back on her vehicle and trying to use another truck to block her off it became a threatening environment for her, and the Natives accepted the risk of injury due to their actions and not hers.

Like I said I don't blame a girl in a truck for not wanting to stop when a bunch of people are physically trying to stop her vehicle and blocking her off with the road.

By Rights as soon as she indicated that she was going through at a slow speed the Natives should have stepped out of the way and let her proceed.

You can talk about the legalities of a blockade here, but the Natives protesters decided to take the risk of not just standing in front of her truck, but attempting to obstruct her not once but twice.

Nobody is advocating running through the blockade at 100 kms an hour no matter what accusations are flying around about me.

She made reasonable motions to slow down against an illegal blockade to give them a chance to move out of the way, instead they physically tried to obstruct her vehicle with force and then used another vehicle.

I think any court charges would be dubious.

[AR_Six]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

First and foremost how is it perjury, I'm just laying out possibilities.

If the goal is to be able to drive through a group of people impeding your path to your house, and your later concocted story is "well there was ice and I didn't think stopping was safe", I call BS. Cmon now, you just wanted through the blockade. This woman wanted through the blockade too. I don't blame her. The police should have arrested those people. But if she later comes up with some story about fear of road safety, I'm not buying.

where this whole thing gets scetchy to me is that she has the legal right to passage on that highway. The minute that the protesters went from standing in the road to actively pushing back on her vehicle and trying to use another truck to block her off it became a threatening environment for her, and the Natives accepted the risk of injury due to their actions and not hers.

No they didn't. No one accepts the risk of being hit by a car. There is no legal concept that says anyone even has the capacity to accept the risk of being hit by a car and thereby absolves anyone who runs them over of legal responsibility. Hell, if I signed a contractual agreement under seal that said, "Captaincrunch, I'm a go stand in the road over thurr, and if you hit me with your truck, well, so be it, I do not hold you responsible in any way", and you then hit me with your truck, you would still be liable for my injuries and would be guilty of a number of offenses under the MVA and probably the criminal code. Would it affect damages? Absolutely. But you'd still have that liability.

Like I said I don't blame a girl in a truck for not wanting to stop when a bunch of people are physically trying to stop her vehicle and blocking her off with the road.

I don't either, I'm just saying it's not worth doing and she probably didn't think through what the possible consequences could've been for her.

By Rights as soon as she indicated that she was going through at a slow speed the Natives should have stepped out of the way and let her proceed.

Ideally, but there was no guarantee they'd do that. Mobs of this sort are not given to rational, sober thought. Occupy should be ample evidence of that.

She made reasonable motions to slow down against an illegal blockade to give them a chance to move out of the way, instead they physically tried to obstruct her vehicle with force and then used another vehicle. I think any court charges would be dubious.

You can think what you will but I think you're wrong. Hell, most motor vehicle offenses are absolute or strict liability anyway, and I'm sorry but if you do something intentionally that can forseeably hurt someone, you're pretty much all the way there to negligence.

This all of course misses the point, which was not about whether you'd win if this got in front of a judge - I don't think you'd win as much as you'd like to win but that's not the point. The point is, there would be repercussions, they would be costly and inconvenient and really not worth the risk.