Man blocks black delivery driver in Oklahoma neighborhood

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

If we oppose their racism instead of blaming ourselves for the problems caused by racism like they want us to, we have to be failures and out lives have to suck. I would be miserable and my life would suck if I was a black ass sellout repeating what whitey wants to hear.

Yeah I know. I'm just curious as to how far they'll willing to take it this time because it's been a little while since I've been publically targeted in a big way and Andy keeps insisting that if I don't cooperate then I'll have the police called on me and they'll get the information they want anyway. They're only looking at this from one side, completely overlooking what I get out of the situation if the police are called although this crap is really getting old.

 

[IM2]

If we oppose their racism instead of blaming ourselves for the problems caused by racism like they want us to, we have to be failures and out lives have to suck. I would be miserable and my life would suck if I was a black ass sellout repeating what whitey wants to hear.

Yeah I know. I'm just curious as to how far they'll willing to take it this time because it's been a little while since I've been publically targeted in a big way and Andy keeps insisting that if I don't cooperate then I'll have the police called on me and they'll get the information they want anyway. They're only looking at this from one side, completely overlooking what I get out of the situation if the police are called although this crap is really getting old.

Seems like something should be done about such a threat.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

In normal times, a Type I error is ho hum, and doesn't even make the local news, and that's how it still is for all Type I errors EXCEPT when the person making the error is white and the subject of the error is black. Then it is national news.

It's not ho hum when a man is held against his will, regardless of why. But when racism is the reason the person is held, that makes it national news. Racists need to be publicly shamed and shunned.

Only complete idiots can't find a better reason to like a person or dislike a person, one that goes any deeper than their skin color.

One of the many problems with the Great National Sin being "racism" is that, to the extent it can even be defined, it is misapplied, and, because it is an "ism", it can be asserted anywhere at any time against anybody. That's why the murderous, totalitarian, genocidal left loves it. It' like "enemy of the people". It doesn't require proof of any inculpatory action. Just the assertion is enough to justify execution, as history's most lethal group, the Bolsheviks, amply demonstrated.

You are a case in point. You see that the resident was white and the driver was black, and, presto, you KNOW that the motivating factor was "racism". Just as the Bolsheviks only needed to see that the prisoner was an artist to determine guilt and execute him, all you need to see is that resident was white to determine guilt. As Lenin famously said, all of history comes down to Who? Whom?

That's because whites have a 243 year history of consistent racist behavior. The only white people really whining about being called racists are the whites who actually are racist.

You're kind of a knucklehead, so you probably won't be able to grasp this, but here goes.

1. Race is nothing more than a very large, very extended, slightly inbred family. That's it. Members of the same race are more related to each other than they are to any other members of any other race.
2. Therefore, to call someone a racist is to call someone a familyist.
3. And yes, I am more solicitous of my mother's well-being than any other mother's on earth. She is higher in my affections. I will contribute to her happiness before I will contribute to the happiness of any other mother, and I flat out love her more than any other mother on earth.
4. So what? If I didn't put my mother first, I would be something of a monster, wouldn't I.
5. Blacks put other blacks first. Jews put other Jews first. Chinese put other Chinese first. There's nothing wrong with that.
6. It is only whites who think it's a sin to put other whites first.
7. Everyone else knows down deep this whole "racism" thing is a huge scam being run on the people who created the greatest civilization in history in order to destroy them.
8. Other than the whites themselves, the only people who really think racism is evil are the mediocrities such as yourself who've convinced themselves of it out of the need to blame their failure in life on somebody else.

If there was a law I could have passed that would give me and others like me advantages that people not of our group were not entitled to, do you think that would be a good thing or a fair thing for me & my group? What about those not in our group?

In the United States many of our laws were written in order to exclude people African descent from the same benefits and privileges that whites enjoyed so to attempt to downplay the type of institutional racism that was legislatively woven into U.S. law and society would require willful ignorance to ignore, in my opinion.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

If we oppose their racism instead of blaming ourselves for the problems caused by racism like they want us to, we have to be failures and out lives have to suck. I would be miserable and my life would suck if I was a black ass sellout repeating what whitey wants to hear.

Yeah I know. I'm just curious as to how far they'll willing to take it this time because it's been a little while since I've been publically targeted in a big way and Andy keeps insisting that if I don't cooperate then I'll have the police called on me and they'll get the information they want anyway. They're only looking at this from one side, completely overlooking what I get out of the situation if the police are called although this crap is really getting old.

Seems like something should be done about such a threat.

We'll see what sunrise brings

 

[IM2]

In normal times, a Type I error is ho hum, and doesn't even make the local news, and that's how it still is for all Type I errors EXCEPT when the person making the error is white and the subject of the error is black. Then it is national news.

It's not ho hum when a man is held against his will, regardless of why. But when racism is the reason the person is held, that makes it national news. Racists need to be publicly shamed and shunned.

Only complete idiots can't find a better reason to like a person or dislike a person, one that goes any deeper than their skin color.

One of the many problems with the Great National Sin being "racism" is that, to the extent it can even be defined, it is misapplied, and, because it is an "ism", it can be asserted anywhere at any time against anybody. That's why the murderous, totalitarian, genocidal left loves it. It' like "enemy of the people". It doesn't require proof of any inculpatory action. Just the assertion is enough to justify execution, as history's most lethal group, the Bolsheviks, amply demonstrated.

You are a case in point. You see that the resident was white and the driver was black, and, presto, you KNOW that the motivating factor was "racism". Just as the Bolsheviks only needed to see that the prisoner was an artist to determine guilt and execute him, all you need to see is that resident was white to determine guilt. As Lenin famously said, all of history comes down to Who? Whom?

That's because whites have a 243 year history of consistent racist behavior. The only white people really whining about being called racists are the whites who actually are racist.

You're kind of a knucklehead, so you probably won't be able to grasp this, but here goes.

1. Race is nothing more than a very large, very extended, slightly inbred family. That's it. Members of the same race are more related to each other than they are to any other members of any other race.
2. Therefore, to call someone a racist is to call someone a familyist.
3. And yes, I am more solicitous of my mother's well-being than any other mother's on earth. She is higher in my affections. I will contribute to her happiness before I will contribute to the happiness of any other mother, and I flat out love her more than any other mother on earth.
4. So what? If I didn't put my mother first, I would be something of a monster, wouldn't I.
5. Blacks put other blacks first. Jews put other Jews first. Chinese put other Chinese first. There's nothing wrong with that.
6. It is only whites who think it's a sin to put other whites first.
7. Everyone else knows down deep this whole "racism" thing is a huge scam being run on the people who created the greatest civilization in history in order to destroy them.
8. Other than the whites themselves, the only people who really think racism is evil are the mediocrities such as yourself who've convinced themselves of it out of the need to blame their failure in life on somebody else.

And so here we see a white supremacist complete with the whining about how whites can't put other whites first even as they continue doing so today at the expense of others.

Son, I know I have accomplished more in my life than you have. So if I am a failure, you wish you could be a failure.

 

[JoeMoma]

So why wasnt BLM arrested all those times they blocked HUNDREDS of people?

Once again, start another thread; this one's about a white man blocking a black delivery driver because he was black. Stewart didn't have a permit for a demonstration nor was he exercising his right to assemble to express grievances to the government so that's a totally unrelated scenario except one thing. You focused on, and assigned fault, in both cases the black people.

If you're really concerned about BLM protests blocking traffic, you'll hugely improve your credibility as soon as you post the links to your objections to the traffic blocked in this gun rights protest in Virginia. I'll be waiting for those links. Any other "conservatives" here, the invitation goes to you, too.



Conservatives would defend the right of peaceful assembly to protest anything. Liberty can sure be inconvenient sometimes.

On the other hand, Democrats should understand the right is to peacefully assemble and they forget that.

If blocking a car was inherently illegal, BLM would have gone to jail for it a bunch of times. You can prattle on all you want, but nothing will change that fact.

BLM interfering (blocking) traffic is illegal, but its not quite the same as the 1 delivery truck being blocked. Though it may take awhile, the people in the blocked traffic have the option of turning around and leaving another way. Also, cops give a great deal of discretion to a large group breaking a law during a protest. During some protests, people loot and burn things down without being arrested.

 

[Godboy]

If blocking a car was inherently illegal, BLM would have gone to jail for it a bunch of times. You can prattle on all you want, but nothing will change that fact.

I don't know if it is or is not illegal. All I care is that there's equal justice under the law (the thing that true liberals and true conservatives both care about) - and since no one is generally arrested for obstructing traffic during a protest, I'd say that's how we want it. If they arrest BLM then they must arrest the Virginia gun owners for obstructing traffic.

You do realize that its leftwingers who do 99% of all the traffic blocking, right?

I do realize that the left does do most.. 80%? 90%, 99%? Who knows.. But what that ratio proves is that we conservatives aren't doing enough protesting. We need to get out more.

We constantly protest. We just dont burn shit down when we do it.

Thats a lie.

No, that is fact. Only you left wingers burn shit down and break windows when you protest.

As opposed to burning shit down and breaking windows in celebration?
White People Rioting for No Reason

On the other hand, Category:White American riots in the United States - Wikipedia ( a whole page of listed incidents, I believe at least 108 documented here)

Even I was a little stunned at the African American Explusions hyperlink.

Was that a republican protest? Yeah, i didnt think so. Like i said, only democrats burn shit down when they protest.

And where exactly did you say "only democrats..." prior to this post?

Its in this ^ string of quotes, retard.

 

[Godboy]

So why wasnt BLM arrested all those times they blocked HUNDREDS of people?

Once again, start another thread; this one's about a white man blocking a black delivery driver because he was black. Stewart didn't have a permit for a demonstration nor was he exercising his right to assemble to express grievances to the government so that's a totally unrelated scenario except one thing. You focused on, and assigned fault, in both cases the black people.

If you're really concerned about BLM protests blocking traffic, you'll hugely improve your credibility as soon as you post the links to your objections to the traffic blocked in this gun rights protest in Virginia. I'll be waiting for those links. Any other "conservatives" here, the invitation goes to you, too.



Conservatives would defend the right of peaceful assembly to protest anything. Liberty can sure be inconvenient sometimes.

On the other hand, Democrats should understand the right is to peacefully assemble and they forget that.

If blocking a car was inherently illegal, BLM would have gone to jail for it a bunch of times. You can prattle on all you want, but nothing will change that fact.

BLM interfering (blocking) traffic is illegal, but its not quite the same as the 1 delivery truck being blocked. Though it may take awhile, the people in the blocked traffic have the option of turning around and leaving another way. Also, cops give a great deal of discretion to a large group breaking a law during a protest. During some protests, people loot and burn things down without being arrested.

BLM blocked freeways. No one ever turned around. People were stuck as long as BLM felt like blocking the lanes.

 

[colfax_m]

No, and you can wait until the police arrive, and they FORCE you to say why you are there, and what you are doing. Which is exactly what happened.

In Oklahoma, the police cannot force you identify who you are without probable cause.

You thugs don’t get to follow people around demanding to see their papers.

 

[Godboy]

No, and you can wait until the police arrive, and they FORCE you to say why you are there, and what you are doing. Which is exactly what happened.

In Oklahoma, the police cannot force you identify who you are without probable cause.

You thugs don’t get to follow people around demanding to see their papers.

Rules are different in gated communities. People pay top dollar for that extra protection. If you dont want to be asked questions, then dont go into gated communities.

 

[JoeMoma]

So why wasnt BLM arrested all those times they blocked HUNDREDS of people?

Once again, start another thread; this one's about a white man blocking a black delivery driver because he was black. Stewart didn't have a permit for a demonstration nor was he exercising his right to assemble to express grievances to the government so that's a totally unrelated scenario except one thing. You focused on, and assigned fault, in both cases the black people.

If you're really concerned about BLM protests blocking traffic, you'll hugely improve your credibility as soon as you post the links to your objections to the traffic blocked in this gun rights protest in Virginia. I'll be waiting for those links. Any other "conservatives" here, the invitation goes to you, too.



Conservatives would defend the right of peaceful assembly to protest anything. Liberty can sure be inconvenient sometimes.

On the other hand, Democrats should understand the right is to peacefully assemble and they forget that.

If blocking a car was inherently illegal, BLM would have gone to jail for it a bunch of times. You can prattle on all you want, but nothing will change that fact.

BLM interfering (blocking) traffic is illegal, but its not quite the same as the 1 delivery truck being blocked. Though it may take awhile, the people in the blocked traffic have the option of turning around and leaving another way. Also, cops give a great deal of discretion to a large group breaking a law during a protest. During some protests, people loot and burn things down without being arrested.

BLM blocked freeways. No one ever turned around. People were stuck as long as BLM felt like blocking the lanes.

And it was illegal. But the cops are not going to do arrests for a protest the same as smaller scale situations.

 

[Godboy]

So why wasnt BLM arrested all those times they blocked HUNDREDS of people?

Once again, start another thread; this one's about a white man blocking a black delivery driver because he was black. Stewart didn't have a permit for a demonstration nor was he exercising his right to assemble to express grievances to the government so that's a totally unrelated scenario except one thing. You focused on, and assigned fault, in both cases the black people.

If you're really concerned about BLM protests blocking traffic, you'll hugely improve your credibility as soon as you post the links to your objections to the traffic blocked in this gun rights protest in Virginia. I'll be waiting for those links. Any other "conservatives" here, the invitation goes to you, too.



Conservatives would defend the right of peaceful assembly to protest anything. Liberty can sure be inconvenient sometimes.

On the other hand, Democrats should understand the right is to peacefully assemble and they forget that.

If blocking a car was inherently illegal, BLM would have gone to jail for it a bunch of times. You can prattle on all you want, but nothing will change that fact.

BLM interfering (blocking) traffic is illegal, but its not quite the same as the 1 delivery truck being blocked. Though it may take awhile, the people in the blocked traffic have the option of turning around and leaving another way. Also, cops give a great deal of discretion to a large group breaking a law during a protest. During some protests, people loot and burn things down without being arrested.

BLM blocked freeways. No one ever turned around. People were stuck as long as BLM felt like blocking the lanes.

And it was illegal. But the cops are not going to do arrests for a protest the same as smaller scale situations.

Have they charged the with "unlawful detention"?

 

[Wyatt earp]

I’m surprised he didn’t get shot.

So sad...

 

[JoeMoma]

So why wasnt BLM arrested all those times they blocked HUNDREDS of people?

Once again, start another thread; this one's about a white man blocking a black delivery driver because he was black. Stewart didn't have a permit for a demonstration nor was he exercising his right to assemble to express grievances to the government so that's a totally unrelated scenario except one thing. You focused on, and assigned fault, in both cases the black people.

If you're really concerned about BLM protests blocking traffic, you'll hugely improve your credibility as soon as you post the links to your objections to the traffic blocked in this gun rights protest in Virginia. I'll be waiting for those links. Any other "conservatives" here, the invitation goes to you, too.



Conservatives would defend the right of peaceful assembly to protest anything. Liberty can sure be inconvenient sometimes.

On the other hand, Democrats should understand the right is to peacefully assemble and they forget that.

If blocking a car was inherently illegal, BLM would have gone to jail for it a bunch of times. You can prattle on all you want, but nothing will change that fact.

BLM interfering (blocking) traffic is illegal, but its not quite the same as the 1 delivery truck being blocked. Though it may take awhile, the people in the blocked traffic have the option of turning around and leaving another way. Also, cops give a great deal of discretion to a large group breaking a law during a protest. During some protests, people loot and burn things down without being arrested.

BLM blocked freeways. No one ever turned around. People were stuck as long as BLM felt like blocking the lanes.

And it was illegal. But the cops are not going to do arrests for a protest the same as smaller scale situations.

Have they charged the with "unlawful detention"?

The cops are not going to do arrests for a protest the same as a smaller scale situation. The situations are similar, but not quite the same. Someone would probably be charged with "unlawful detention" only if a complain is filed against a specific person. The protesters, if charged, would more likely be charged with something to the effects of public disorderly conduct and interfering with traffic. The delivery guy was blocked by a specific person that he could file a complaint about. People caught in blocked traffic would have a difficult time identifying a specific person to complain about because it was many unidentified people that blocked the traffic.

 

[Godboy]

So why wasnt BLM arrested all those times they blocked HUNDREDS of people?

Once again, start another thread; this one's about a white man blocking a black delivery driver because he was black. Stewart didn't have a permit for a demonstration nor was he exercising his right to assemble to express grievances to the government so that's a totally unrelated scenario except one thing. You focused on, and assigned fault, in both cases the black people.

If you're really concerned about BLM protests blocking traffic, you'll hugely improve your credibility as soon as you post the links to your objections to the traffic blocked in this gun rights protest in Virginia. I'll be waiting for those links. Any other "conservatives" here, the invitation goes to you, too.



Conservatives would defend the right of peaceful assembly to protest anything. Liberty can sure be inconvenient sometimes.

On the other hand, Democrats should understand the right is to peacefully assemble and they forget that.

If blocking a car was inherently illegal, BLM would have gone to jail for it a bunch of times. You can prattle on all you want, but nothing will change that fact.

BLM interfering (blocking) traffic is illegal, but its not quite the same as the 1 delivery truck being blocked. Though it may take awhile, the people in the blocked traffic have the option of turning around and leaving another way. Also, cops give a great deal of discretion to a large group breaking a law during a protest. During some protests, people loot and burn things down without being arrested.

BLM blocked freeways. No one ever turned around. People were stuck as long as BLM felt like blocking the lanes.

And it was illegal. But the cops are not going to do arrests for a protest the same as smaller scale situations.

Have they charged the with "unlawful detention"?

The cops are not going to do arrests for a protest the same as a smaller scale situation. The situations are similar, but not quite the same. Someone would probably be charged with "unlawful detention" only if a complain is filed against a specific person. The protesters, if charged, would more likely be charged with something to the effects of public disorderly conduct and interfering with traffic. The delivery guy was blocked by a specific person that he could file a complaint about. People caught in blocked traffic would have a difficult time identifying a specific person to complain about because it was many unidentified people that blocked the traffic.

Has Travis been charged with unlawful detention?

 

[Andylusion]

Stop. Stop being a prick. If someone asks you a question, what is it to you, to answer the question?

It's very simple. We're not required to under the law.

No, and you can wait until the police arrive, and they FORCE you to say why you are there, and what you are doing. Which is exactly what happened.

Or, you can be an adult human being, instead of a neanderthal, and answer the question to start with, and be on your way.

I said this back when a lady at condo building, stopped a guy from coming in until he said why he was there. He refused. The police came, got the info, told the lady why he was there, and they want on with their business.

Same thing happened here. They blocked him until they found out why he was there. He refused. The police came, got the information, gave it to the people who blocked him, and they went on with their lives.

You can chose how this goes down.

You can be a toddler, and stomp your feet, and scream "I don't have to answer".... but you will. You will either answer right then, and go on with your life... or you will answer when the police come and demand to know why you are there, and the people you refused to answer will find out anyway.

Your choice. You can be an adult, or you can be a toddler. But they will find out why you are there, now or later. They'll either find out when you answer, and let you be on your way in minutes, or you waste hours until the police come, and they'll still find out why you are there.

Your choice. You can cause drama, and cry about how your life sucks, when it's your own fault.... or you can be an adult, answer the dumb questions, and be on your way.
le
Toddler or adult. Stomp your feet and refuse to answer, or be a man, answer the questions, and be on your way in life.

Again I've done it! When I was doing deliveries, several people demanded to know why I was there. I simply answered their questions, and they let me be on my way. I didn't cause drama, even though I could *STOMP FEET* "I AM NOT REQUIRED TO UNDER THE LAW!".

That is baby talk. Grow up.

You are certainly at liberty to relinquish as many of your rights as you see fit, I however am much more protective of mine.

We are not required to inform the law enforcement officer(s) that we are carrying a concealed weapon in my state if pulled over for a traffic stop, yet I generally do so as a curtesy and to put the officer at ease hopefully. While this is one of those situations where I'm not required to do so, I don't mind for the sake of everyone present. This scenario is one that warrants my consideration and an exception being made as opposed to someone who is perhaps seeking to satisfy their curiosity, biases and/or prejudices, perhaps born out of a need to rule over someone else which is not being fulfilled in their personal life (the pecking order).

If I were engaging in the type of juvenile behavior that you're describing I wouldn't have survived in the business I'm in which relies on my professionalism, integrity, knowledge and ability to connect with people in a way that allows them to put their trust in me. These are the people I would make adjustments for if necessary, not random people on the street or elsewhere who demand or try to intimidate or force me into giving them information to which they're not entitled.

It took me a while to realize that just because someone asks or demands things of you, doesn't mean they're entitled to them or that you're obligated to comply.

You are certainly at liberty to relinquish as many of your rights as you see fit,

I didn't relinquish any rights. Name one right, that I gave up, by being a decent human being, adult enough to answer a few questions?

And you have the right to waste your time, while we wait for police to force you to answer my questions of you, and then you'll be allowed to go on your way, and I still got my answer from you.

This scenario is one that warrants my consideration and an exception being made as opposed to someone who is perhaps seeking to satisfy their curiosity, biases and/or prejudices, perhaps born out of a need to rule over someone else which is not being fulfilled in their personal life (the pecking order).

Oh bull. This is you filling in the reasons for actions, of people you don't know, and know nothing about.

It's funny how if I made up the reasons for you doing something, you would be offended that I would pre-judge you like that.... but then you turn around and do exactly that to others.

You made up all that. And it's BS.

Again, here is the bottom line. I'm going to find out why you are there. You can chose how that happens, and how much drama it causes.... but I'm still going to find out why you are there. Period.

This can happen by us waiting for police... or you can tell me, and be on your way.

Either way, I'm still going to be satisfied before you leave. You can be a toddler, and stomp your feet, and scream "I'm not giving up my rights!" or some such nonsense.... that's fine.

When the police arrive, they'll find out why you are there, and then they will tell me why you are there, and only then will you leave.

If making an ass of yourself, and wasting hours of your time, and having the police come out.... if that's what you want to.... that's your choice.

I'm ok. I'll find out why you are there, before you leave. It's good for me. You are not hurting me. Only you. As long as I find out why you are there, it's not a waste of my time, only yours.

And no matter what negative publicity happens in the country, the fact is, my neighbors will be glad I was watching out for their property. In fact we do that in the condo area where I live. We look out for each others places all the time.

So there is only one person in this entire story, harmed by the actions you decide to take. You, and maybe your family when you bring them unwanted attention, and when you are late getting home, because you had to answer all the police questions.

Only you dude. You are accomplishing absolutely nothing, but wasting your own time, and making an ass of yourself.

Me... I'm fine.

So again.... be a man, answer the questions, move on with your life. Or be toddler, end up treated like a toddler, and we'll still find out why you are there, it will just take some hours of your time. We'll find out either way. Your choice.

 

[Andylusion]

Stop. Stop being a prick. If someone asks you a question, what is it to you, to answer the question?

It's very simple. We're not required to under the law.

No, and you can wait until the police arrive, and they FORCE you to say why you are there, and what you are doing. Which is exactly what happened.

Or, you can be an adult human being, instead of a neanderthal, and answer the question to start with, and be on your way.

I said this back when a lady at condo building, stopped a guy from coming in until he said why he was there. He refused. The police came, got the info, told the lady why he was there, and they want on with their business.

Same thing happened here. They blocked him until they found out why he was there. He refused. The police came, got the information, gave it to the people who blocked him, and they went on with their lives.

You can chose how this goes down.

You can be a toddler, and stomp your feet, and scream "I don't have to answer".... but you will. You will either answer right then, and go on with your life... or you will answer when the police come and demand to know why you are there, and the people you refused to answer will find out anyway.

Your choice. You can be an adult, or you can be a toddler. But they will find out why you are there, now or later. They'll either find out when you answer, and let you be on your way in minutes, or you waste hours until the police come, and they'll still find out why you are there.

Your choice. You can cause drama, and cry about how your life sucks, when it's your own fault.... or you can be an adult, answer the dumb questions, and be on your way.

Toddler or adult. Stomp your feet and refuse to answer, or be a man, answer the questions, and be on your way in life.

Again I've done it! When I was doing deliveries, several people demanded to know why I was there. I simply answered their questions, and they let me be on my way. I didn't cause drama, even though I could *STOMP FEET* "I AM NOT REQUIRED TO UNDER THE LAW!".

That is baby talk. Grow up.

I've already responded to your comment but have to admit I didn't read everything you wrote. While skimming through your response and after I saw that you had used the word toddler 3 times I responded more on the spirit of your comment that the actual content. But there was something about it that made me go back and read it again and that's when I realized something.

I can't remember specifically if it was you but I was in a conversation with somone who held similar sentiments as yourself and indicated that because their building had been broken into several times that black people who came to their building had to show ID and answer questions else they wouldn't be allowed to enter and/or the police would be called.

So I'm curious about how serious you are about initiating a legal dispute because of your own "sensitivity" due to having been a crime victim if you are the same person? I'm asking you alo because you seem to believe that you can legally force a violation of a person's civil rights by utilizing the police to do so.

Oh and why would you assume that my life sucks? It seems to me that if it did, I'd be more compliant than I am because I would have less options to exercise. Do you think I'm a poor, ignorant and uneducated black child?

So I'm curious about how serious you are about initiating a legal dispute because of your own "sensitivity" due to having been a crime victim if you are the same person? I'm asking you alo because you seem to believe that you can legally force a violation of a person's civil rights by utilizing the police to do so.

I don't see this "right to not answer questions when on private property" in the constitution.

Regardless of what you think I "seem to believe" and such.... the fact is, if the police arrive, and ask you your name and what you are doing, you are going to answer, or you will go to jail.

Yeah, I can do that. Others have done that. That's normal.

I'm baffled you think that any group of people, can't stop another person, and call police to find out what that guy is doing.

Where do you get that from? You don't even see how odd that implied claim is?

Again, I've had people stop me. I just answered their questions. Of course that's because I'm a good person, raised by good parents, and taught how to be a decent adult man. I realize so many didn't have good morals growing up.

 

[Ame®icano]

That's not a good thing to say in Oklahoma. I've been to that state. Once. Never again.

Those men violated the trucker's civil rights. I would take that video to a lawyer to have that lawyer sue those men and that HOA. Since those men said they were members of the HOA and seemed to be representing the HOA, I would sue that HOA.

The HOA may have rules about the private homes and yards but they have absolutely no authority with our public streets. I'm sure Oklahoma has at least one law about private people blocking public streets obstructing traffic without any authority to do so.

"no authority with our public streets"

Just pointing it was not public street, but private. That kinda changes your non-point.

 

[JoeMoma]

So why wasnt BLM arrested all those times they blocked HUNDREDS of people?

Once again, start another thread; this one's about a white man blocking a black delivery driver because he was black. Stewart didn't have a permit for a demonstration nor was he exercising his right to assemble to express grievances to the government so that's a totally unrelated scenario except one thing. You focused on, and assigned fault, in both cases the black people.

If you're really concerned about BLM protests blocking traffic, you'll hugely improve your credibility as soon as you post the links to your objections to the traffic blocked in this gun rights protest in Virginia. I'll be waiting for those links. Any other "conservatives" here, the invitation goes to you, too.



Conservatives would defend the right of peaceful assembly to protest anything. Liberty can sure be inconvenient sometimes.

On the other hand, Democrats should understand the right is to peacefully assemble and they forget that.

If blocking a car was inherently illegal, BLM would have gone to jail for it a bunch of times. You can prattle on all you want, but nothing will change that fact.

BLM interfering (blocking) traffic is illegal, but its not quite the same as the 1 delivery truck being blocked. Though it may take awhile, the people in the blocked traffic have the option of turning around and leaving another way. Also, cops give a great deal of discretion to a large group breaking a law during a protest. During some protests, people loot and burn things down without being arrested.

BLM blocked freeways. No one ever turned around. People were stuck as long as BLM felt like blocking the lanes.

And it was illegal. But the cops are not going to do arrests for a protest the same as smaller scale situations.

Have they charged the with "unlawful detention"?

The cops are not going to do arrests for a protest the same as a smaller scale situation. The situations are similar, but not quite the same. Someone would probably be charged with "unlawful detention" only if a complain is filed against a specific person. The protesters, if charged, would more likely be charged with something to the effects of public disorderly conduct and interfering with traffic. The delivery guy was blocked by a specific person that he could file a complaint about. People caught in blocked traffic would have a difficult time identifying a specific person to complain about because it was many unidentified people that blocked the traffic.

Has Travis been charged with unlawful detention?

I assume you mean David Stewart. Travis Miller is the guy who drove the delivery truck. In the end, the cops never got involved. That doesn't mean that such a charge could not be brought.

 

[Ame®icano]

I don't know about other places but around here, delivery trucks are everywhere.

The shutdown has caused a huge boom in the delivery business around here.

I find it interesting to hear that delivery truck with black men are stopped and harassed but other deliveries aren't.

How do you know other deliveries are not stopped? How many were in the video?