If you see anything stating law, would you pass it along? I know several years back the local quanell X folks blocked a major highway over some supposed injustice and a woman begged them to let her through as she was heading to the hospital with a granddaughter dealing with an allergic reaction to something...they refused
I don’t know enacted legislation for the jurisdiction, but...
There is a fundamental principle called “doctrine of competing harms” to wit:
If obeying a law causes greater harm than disobeying it, then you may disobey it.
Example: if someone needs immediate hospitalization to prevent grave harm, and someone is blocking traffic for no similarly good reason, you may drive thru them to reach the hospital in time.
You just d@mn well better have good verifiable objective reason when you do.
Found this:
I’ve done some research on the relevant laws in NY State. I’m not a lawyer, but I’ll take this into account if I’m on your jury.
From §35.15 ‹http://ypdcrime.com/penal.law/article35.htm#p35.15›; (Justification; use of physical force in defense of a person) we have:
“2. A person may not use deadly physical force upon another person under circumstances specified in subdivision one unless:
“(a) The actor reasonably believes that such other person is using or about to use deadly physical force. […]; or
“(b) He or she reasonably believes that such other person is committing or attempting to commit a kidnapping, forcible rape, forcible criminal sexual act or robbery; or […]”
Okay, let’s look up kidnapping. From §135 ‹http://ypdcrime.com/penal.law/article135.htm›; (kidnapping, coercion and related offenses) check the definitions:
Ҥ135.00 Unlawful imprisonment, kidnapping and custodial interference; definitions of terms.
“The following definitions are applicable to this article:
“1. ‘Restrain’ means to restrict a person’s movements intentionally and unlawfully in such manner as to interfere substantially with his liberty by […], or by confining him either in the place where the restriction commences or in a place to which he has been moved, without consent and with knowledge that the restriction is unlawful. A person is so moved or confined ‘without consent’ when such is accomplished by (a) physical force, intimidation or deception, or […].
“ 2. ‘Abduct’ means to restrain a person with intent to prevent his liberation by either […], or (b) using or threatening to use deadly physical force.”
The protesters blocking the highway are unlawfully restraining people stuck there: the class A misdemeanor of “unlawful imprisonment in the second degree”, or, if this endangers anyone, the class E felony of “unlawful imprisonment in the first degree”. Enough for “physical force”, but not enough for “deadly physical force”. Drive, but slowly.
On the other hand, once they swarm the car, they’re “using or threatening to use deadly physical force”, upgrading their efforts to abduction, the class B felony of “kidnapping in the second degree”. Hit the gas, mow ’em all down!