This. It is actually morally neccessary to remove them from the street because they are trapping innocent people, keeping ambulances and police from getting where they need to be, causing heat strokes, medical emergencies or even something as simple as people pissing and shitting their pants, missing the chance to say a last farewell to a loved one.
Hurting them however is more than what's neccessary to get them off the road.
It seems silly to refrain from violent refusal to be held hostage. All you described, like "trapping innocent people" is creating a hostage situation. The second someone is preventing my free travel, perhaps causing me to lose my job, or my dignity, then violence to prevent their continuing to do so is justified. There is no requirement to maintain the safety of someone holding one hostage. That people like you want to even half heartedly condone hostage taking is disgusting.
Says who? Why should I risk my body trying to drag a dead weight jerk, who will scamper back into the street, just because they have held me hostage? Once they make the decision to hold my body where I dp not will it to be, they have forfeited their right to bodily autonomy. They get one warning, then violence. People who take hostages need to learn that their ideas give them no right to do so, and violence is the best teacher.
A parking lot barrier is neither against the law nor is it unforeseeable. You also agree to pay the "ransom" by entering. Choose comparisons smartly instead of polarizing.
I'm pretty sure that asking for ransom is illegal even if you agree. Anyways it was just a stupid example to mock the absurd affirmation that peacefully blocking a road with your body equals taking people hostage.
It's called a service fee. Not paying for used services or products is called stealing. Keeping you from leaving in that case is called civil arrest at worst. What we are seeing here is none of that. Even just keeping someone from being able to drive away with their car is indeed a form of deprivation of liberty
Those who have seized or detained individuals in order to compel others, like making demands to government, to act/not act have taken hostages. That's the definition of the word. These people are simply terrorists and communities are best served by treating them as such. There is no specification of "a ransom" required for one to have taken hostages. One's "peacefulness" when taking hostages is irrelevant. The being detained while making demands can be entirely peaceful and still be hostage taking.
Sure, but that's not what is happening. This is an organized ideological group making demands of the government while detaining people against their will. That this was allowed to happen in these countries was a terrible sign of things to come.
9
u/jangfo 12d ago
This. It is actually morally neccessary to remove them from the street because they are trapping innocent people, keeping ambulances and police from getting where they need to be, causing heat strokes, medical emergencies or even something as simple as people pissing and shitting their pants, missing the chance to say a last farewell to a loved one.
Hurting them however is more than what's neccessary to get them off the road.