SUV Protest



Claire Petersky wrote:
> "Nuck 'n Futz" <[email protected]> wrote

>> There's no excuse for damaging, defacing OR DISABLING another
>> person's property.
>>
>> Period.

> How do you feel about people who damage everyone's (vs. "another
> person's) property? After all, we all have a common share in the air
> we breathe. There are lots of people who damage it every day. Do you
> believe that, because it belongs to everyone, it belongs to no one?
> How do we go about dealing with those who would damage, deface, or
> disable something that we all have a share in?

So who gets to decide? There are emissions standards that all vehicles (at
least in the US) have to meet -- standards set by democratically elected
officials. You don't like it? Vote in better people.

Ever stand near a Harley when someone starts it as loudly as they possibly
can? Or like Wog mentioned, ever inhale near a leaf-blower?

All I'm saying is that flattening the tires of some stranger's Explorer is a
cowardly way of expressing one's holier-than-thou self.

N&F
 
[email protected] wrote:
> Nuck 'n Futz wrote:
> >
>
> >
> > There's no excuse for damaging, defacing OR DISABLING another person's
> > property.
> >
> > Period.
>
> Really?
>
> If a vehicle driver were in the process of trying to run me over, I'd
> feel very justified in disabling his property, if there were a way.


Frank, I think this is an argumentum ad absurdum. There is a huge
difference between a protest and self defence. It is silly to lump the
two together.

>
> If a Harley driver were running without mufflers at all hours of the
> night, deliberately waking all those who were trying to sleep, I'd
> probably feel the same way.
>

But here the law would clearly disagree with you!
 
[email protected] wrote (ridiculous stuff deleted):

> To get back to the subject of this SUV protest, I wouldn't go around
> letting the air out of their tires. But I can see why some might
> consider it a valid method of protest. It's similar to a case I've
> heard of, where wheelchair-bound guy went around letting air out of
> tires of cars parked illegally in handicapped spaces.

How about calling or flagging down the cops and getting the miscreant a $300
ticket? How about KNOWING that the person was "illegally" parked and didn't
just lose or forget to display their placket?
 
Thu, 15 Sep 2005 15:17:03 GMT,
<[email protected]>, a scud enslaved nobody,
"Nuck 'n Futz" <[email protected]> wrote:

>
>There's no excuse for damaging, defacing OR DISABLING another person's
>property.
>
>Period.

Go soak.

What's your excuse for polluting my neighbourhood or killing my pets
and friends with your noisey stinking ugly fossil burners?

CARS SUCK!
--
zk
 
Thu, 15 Sep 2005 17:06:39 GMT, <[email protected]>,
another scud enslaved nobody, "Nuck 'n Futz" <[email protected]> piddled:

>All I'm saying is that flattening the tires of some stranger's Explorer is a
>cowardly way of expressing one's holier-than-thou self.

How do feel about hit-and-run?

Whether it results in just minor property damage to your shiney scud
or death or injury to pedestrians and cyclists, about twenty percent
of you scud slaves prove it doesn't take backbone to be assholesl
--
zk
 
Zoot Katz wrote:
> Thu, 15 Sep 2005 17:06:39 GMT,
> another scud enslaved nobody, "Nuck 'n Futz" piddled:
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

{Nice ASSumption, BTW; bet you bought more gas in last month than I.}

>> All I'm saying is that flattening the tires of some stranger's
>> Explorer is a cowardly way of expressing one's holier-than-thou self.

> How do feel about hit-and-run?

I thought the OP (and/or subsequent) talked about people flattening tires of
SUVs and leaving pamphlets explaining why. How did that morph into hit &
run?!?

> Whether it results in just minor property damage to your shiney scud
> or death or injury to pedestrians and cyclists, about twenty percent
> of you scud slaves prove it doesn't take backbone to be assholesl

No idea what that even means.

N&F
 
wafflycat wrote:

> Article in The Times this morning.
>
> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,13509-1778863,00.html
>
> "Ecowarriors go into battle against 4x4s - with cycle pumps"
>
> Includes...
>
> "DRIVERS who park gasguzzling 4x4s overnight in Paris are receiving an
> unpleasant surprise in the morning: flat tyres. A gang of young activists
> are deflating the tyres of what they regard as anti-social urban tanks which
> clog the narrow streets of the Left Bank."
>
> "To the amazement of furious owners, the police say that it is not a crime
> because property is not damaged. "We have had complaints, but it is not
> clear that any offence is being committed," said an officer at the sixth
> arrondissement."
>
> "They expel the air slowly without setting off the vehicles' alarms, fixing
> open bicycle pump hoses to the tyre valves and returning later to collect
> their equipment. They leave a leaflet explaining their action."
>
> Cheers, helen s

Ecowarriors? Young activists? Horse hockey. They are most likely simply
typical kids acting out their antisocial angst. BTW, in Illinois we'd
simply call them heads (a cop term for arrestee) because here what they
are doing is a class A misdemeanor. It's a class 4 felony on a
subsequent offense. If I happened to catch them would *I* arrest them?
Probably not. I would however make them pump up all the tires they'd
flattened using the same bicycle pumps they'd used to flatten them
before sending them home exhausted to Mommy and Daddy. <g>

Regards,
Bob Hunt
 
gds wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
> > Nuck 'n Futz wrote:
> > >
> >
> > >
> > > There's no excuse for damaging, defacing OR DISABLING another person's
> > > property.
> > >
> > > Period.
> >
> > Really?
> >
> > If a vehicle driver were in the process of trying to run me over, I'd
> > feel very justified in disabling his property, if there were a way.
>
>
> Frank, I think this is an argumentum ad absurdum. There is a huge
> difference between a protest and self defence. It is silly to lump the
> two together.

I was merely pointing out that the phrase "No excuse ... period" was
pretty dumb. There certainly can be plenty of excuses. I just picked
one that nobody could reasonable argue against.

> > If a Harley driver were running without mufflers at all hours of the
> > night, deliberately waking all those who were trying to sleep, I'd
> > probably feel the same way.
> >
>
> But here the law would clearly disagree with you!

Of course. And of course, there are times when laws are violated for
causes so moral and good that prosecution is rightly deemed impossible.


I'm not saying this anti-SUV prank is such a cause. But we need to be
careful about dealing in absolutes.

- Frank Krygowski
 
Nuck 'n Futz wrote:
> [email protected] wrote (ridiculous stuff deleted):
>
> > To get back to the subject of this SUV protest, I wouldn't go around
> > letting the air out of their tires. But I can see why some might
> > consider it a valid method of protest. It's similar to a case I've
> > heard of, where wheelchair-bound guy went around letting air out of
> > tires of cars parked illegally in handicapped spaces.
>
> How about calling or flagging down the cops and getting the miscreant a $300
> ticket?

Sure, that's the proper way to do it. Of course, flagging won't work,
because you won't see a cop in time. But phoning is certainly proper.
And we must be proper!

And the dispatcher will get the patrol car on the radio. And,
depending where the cop is and what he's involved in, he'll be there
in, oh, 20 minutes or so. By which time the miscreant will be out of
the handicapped space with his magazine and pack of cigs, and well into
the next jurisdiction.

And of course, when the cop arrives, you can give him the license
number, the description of the car and the description of the driver.
And the cop will duly note it down, and probably say "If we catch him
doing it again, we'll have a record of this offense too." IOW, they
just don't extradite for those sorts of offenses.

And anyway, the guy won't get caught doing it again in that
jurisdiction. The odds are just too slim. He'll do it again any time
he's in a hurry, or feeling lazy, and the most he'll suffer are perhaps
some glares from passers-by.

So as usual, the scofflaws will do what they want, because society has
gotten so over-polite that any negative feedback is frowned upon, and
the risk of legal punishment is so small.


> How about KNOWING that the person was "illegally" parked and didn't
> just lose or forget to display their placket?

If that were the case, I bet the person would never make that mistake
again. But you and I know that it's rarely the case.

Personally, I think a little minor, harmless, below-the-legal-radar
vigilante justice can be valuable.

- Frank Krygowski
 
Bob wrote:
> BTW, in Illinois we'd
> simply call them heads (a cop term for arrestee) because here what they
> are doing is a class A misdemeanor. It's a class 4 felony on a
> subsequent offense.

Hmm. I'm surprised letting the air out of tires could _ever_ qualify
as a felony. Care to give the details?

- Frank Krygowski
 
wafflycat wrote:

> Article in The Times this morning.
>
> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,13509-1778863,00.html
>
> "Ecowarriors go into battle against 4x4s - with cycle pumps"
>
> Includes...
>
> "DRIVERS who park gasguzzling 4x4s overnight in Paris are receiving an
> unpleasant surprise in the morning: flat tyres. A gang of young activists
> are deflating the tyres of what they regard as anti-social urban tanks which
> clog the narrow streets of the Left Bank."
>
> "To the amazement of furious owners, the police say that it is not a crime
> because property is not damaged. "We have had complaints, but it is not
> clear that any offence is being committed," said an officer at the sixth
> arrondissement."
>
> "They expel the air slowly without setting off the vehicles' alarms, fixing
> open bicycle pump hoses to the tyre valves and returning later to collect
> their equipment. They leave a leaflet explaining their action."
>
> Cheers, helen s

Ecowarriors? Young activists? Horse hockey. They are most likely simply
typical kids acting out their antisocial angst. BTW, in Illinois we'd
simply call them heads (a cop term for arrestee) because here what they
are doing is a class A misdemeanor. It's a class 4 felony on a
subsequent offense. If I happened to catch them would I arrest them?
Probably not. I would however make them pump up all the tires they'd
flattened using the same bicycle pumps they'd used to flatten them
before sending them home exhausted to Mommy and Daddy. <g>

Regards,
Bob Hunt
 
wafflycat wrote:

> Article in The Times this morning.
>
> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,13509-1778863,00.html
>
> "Ecowarriors go into battle against 4x4s - with cycle pumps"
>
> Includes...
>
> "DRIVERS who park gasguzzling 4x4s overnight in Paris are receiving an
> unpleasant surprise in the morning: flat tyres. A gang of young activists
> are deflating the tyres of what they regard as anti-social urban tanks which
> clog the narrow streets of the Left Bank."
>
> "To the amazement of furious owners, the police say that it is not a crime
> because property is not damaged. "We have had complaints, but it is not
> clear that any offence is being committed," said an officer at the sixth
> arrondissement."
>
> "They expel the air slowly without setting off the vehicles' alarms, fixing
> open bicycle pump hoses to the tyre valves and returning later to collect
> their equipment. They leave a leaflet explaining their action."
>
> Cheers, helen s

Ecowarriors? Young activists? Horse hockey. They are most likely simply
typical kids acting out their antisocial angst. BTW, in Illinois we'd
simply call them heads (a cop term for arrestee) because here what they
are doing is a class A misdemeanor. It's a class 4 felony on a
subsequent offense. If I happened to catch them would *I* arrest them?
Probably not. I would however make them pump up all the tires they'd
flattened using the same bicycle pumps they'd used to flatten them
before sending them home exhausted to Mommy and Daddy. <g>

Regards,
Bob Hunt
 
Thu, 15 Sep 2005 23:23:36 GMT,
<[email protected]>, scud slave, "Nuck 'n Futz"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Zoot Katz wrote:
>> Thu, 15 Sep 2005 17:06:39 GMT,
>> another scud enslaved nobody, "Nuck 'n Futz" piddled:
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>{Nice ASSumption, BTW; bet you bought more gas in last month than I.}
>
You lose, nobody. I haven't bought gas since 1998.

>>> All I'm saying is that flattening the tires of some stranger's
>>> Explorer is a cowardly way of expressing one's holier-than-thou self.
>
>> How do feel about hit-and-run?
>
>I thought the OP (and/or subsequent) talked about people flattening tires of
>SUVs and leaving pamphlets explaining why. How did that morph into hit &
>run?!?

You brought up cowardice. I pointed out that statistically about one
in five of you scud slaves are irresponsible chikenshit slime. At
least these Parisian pranksters are leaving their calling cards in
vain hope that you caged goons might clue in.
>
>> Whether it results in just minor property damage to your shiney scud
>> or death or injury to pedestrians and cyclists, about twenty percent
>> of you scud slaves prove it doesn't take backbone to be assholesl
>
>No idea what that even means.

It means that you assholes are whining widdle worms when you're not
blustering, bullying or boasting. Hit-and-run represents ~17% of MV
collisions and that number is rising. It's a repugnant state you've
wrought.
--
zk
 
15 Sep 2005 18:28:43 -0700,
<[email protected]>,
"Bob" <[email protected]> wrote, in part:

>
>Ecowarriors? Young activists? Horse hockey. They are most likely simply
>typical kids acting out their antisocial angst. BTW, in Illinois we'd
>simply call them heads (a cop term for arrestee) because here what they
>are doing is a class A misdemeanor. It's a class 4 felony on a
>subsequent offense.

Is their any offence committed by letting the air out of someone's
bicycle tires? Would such a complaint even be seriously entertained?
--
zk
 
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
: Sorry for the double post. I gave the first about a half hour before
: firing the second ... and then they both popped through. I issued a
: cancel on the one, but I don't think cancels are honored as well as
: they were in the good old days. Sorry again.
:
That's OK- seeing you call people imbeciles and then double post is reward
enough.
 
"Claire Petersky" <[email protected]> wrote:

>How do you feel about people who damage everyone's (vs. "another person's)
>property? After all, we all have a common share in the air we breathe. There
>are lots of people who damage it every day. Do you believe that, because it
>belongs to everyone, it belongs to no one? How do we go about dealing with
>those who would damage, deface, or disable something that we all have a
>share in?

I'm wondering how you're managing to post on the 'net without using
electricity.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame
 
[email protected] wrote:

> society has
> gotten so over-polite

What society are you living in?

> Personally, I think a little minor, harmless, below-the-legal-radar
> vigilante justice can be valuable.

In my 'community' not so long ago, a dude was shot in
the head for letting the air out of someone's tire.

Anyway, what a sniveling weasel way to sit in judgment
on total strangers, letting air out of SUV tires. I
can see it if the driver swerves at you or
something malicious like that, sure, stab all
the f'n tires with a Gerber knife. But just for driving
the wrong kind of car as determined by the self-appointed
urban hipster large-car defamation brigade? Most of whom
undoubtedly grew up coddled and suckled by huge car cheap-
oil America themselves? I can see some jack-off johnny-come-
lately fixie convert letting the air out of the tire on my
obscenely large Chevy truck when I take it out for its
semi-annual chug around the neighborhood. How could he
know I haven't driven the thing once in the past 5 months?
He didn't bother to do that research. I wouldn't shoot the
asshole, but I would probably attempt to beat him with
my fists, and he would deserve it. (I would probably know
the guy too, so it could be a little awkward.)

Robert
 
Thu, 15 Sep 2005 21:42:21 -0700,
<[email protected]>, Mark Hickey
<[email protected]> wrote:
>"Claire Petersky" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>How do you feel about people who damage everyone's (vs. "another person's)
>>property? After all, we all have a common share in the air we breathe. There
>>are lots of people who damage it every day. Do you believe that, because it
>>belongs to everyone, it belongs to no one? How do we go about dealing with
>>those who would damage, deface, or disable something that we all have a
>>share in?
>
>I'm wondering how you're managing to post on the 'net without using
>electricity.
>I'm wondering how you're managing to post on the 'net without using
>electricity.

Pedal power can easily maintain a notebook battery.

Not all electricity generation spews green house gasses - hydro, wind
and solar for instance. There are people online who do live off the
grid, ya know.
--
zk
 
15 Sep 2005 23:52:40 -0700,
<[email protected]>,
[email protected] postured:
\whack
> But just for driving
>the wrong kind of car as determined by the self-appointed
>urban hipster large-car defamation brigade?

Cars need to be put in proper perspective rather than the exalted
status they enjoy now. Remember when smoking was sexy? People finally
clued in that it was a deadly scam and society's perspective changed.
It's well past the time car culture be de constructed. It's a deadlier
scam than smoking.

All the die-hard scud slaves take cars so personally their priorities
are totally warped.

CARS SUCK! and so do _all_ the assholes who defend that sickness that
is the status quo.

>I wouldn't shoot the
>asshole, but I would probably attempt to beat him with
>my fists, and he would deserve it.

You're one sick ***.
--
zk
 
In rec.bicycles.misc Mark Hickey <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Claire Petersky" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>How do you feel about people who damage everyone's (vs. "another person's)
>>property? After all, we all have a common share in the air we breathe. There
>>are lots of people who damage it every day. Do you believe that, because it
>>belongs to everyone, it belongs to no one? How do we go about dealing with
>>those who would damage, deface, or disable something that we all have a
>>share in?
>
> I'm wondering how you're managing to post on the 'net without using
> electricity.

No telecybernetic powers necessary, Seattle is 91% hydro and wind power.
Additionally IIRC, one has the option of only buying 'green' energy,
which Claire might or might not subscribe to.

http://www.seattle.gov/light/aboutus/customerguide/#PowSup

Fuel Mix for Year 2003

Generation Type Percentage
Hydro 89.29%
Natural Gas 5.00%
Nuclear 2.99%
Wind 1.78%
Coal 0.74%
Other 0.2%

--
Dane Buson - z u v e m b i @ u n i x b i g o t s . o r g
"Ah well, back to the cutting edge on the coal-face of e-commerce."
-- Charlie Stross
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom Back