Kasz216 said:
HylianSwordsman said:
|
The fact that they weren't breaking the law. Your entire post here is going into hypotheticals that don't exist. Which generally is what happens when you are against something, but the actual facts on the ground don't allow you to make an arguement.
As for your example... the difference between a 3 year old and Scroggins is that Scroggins is an adult.
If an adult with the strength of a 3 year old started hitting (and hurting) a body builder, the body builder totally should hit back. There should be no reason he should have to allow himself to be hit and hurt just because the jackass who is doing it is hiding behind their own weakness.
|
No, if an adult with the strength of a 3 year old started hitting a body builder, the body buider should still not hit back. Doesn't have to just take it, but hitting back isn't right either. Two wrongs don't make a right, and when you have the power to do a much greater wrong, than all the more so you shouldn't. Of course, in this case, the body builder hitting back isn't an analogy for the corporation stopping people from trespassing, that would be more like if the body builder restrained the wimpy adult at arms length. The hitting back is analogous to the corporation going farther than stopping trespassing, and infringing upon the person's life and livelihood.
|
Either way. My point is, that if somebody is harming you, of their own free choice and volition, and you've warned them many times to stop. You are fully within your rights to take legal means to stop them from doing so, even if the legal means are dispropotiantly damaging to them, because they are the ones inviting the problem in the first place by violating the law and refusing to leave you alone.
This is espeically true when you are taking the least damaging option, like Cabot did here.
1) I don't know if the law says that or not. All i do know is that Cabot did not ask her to be banned from those places. Either she's making it up, or the judge made such a ruling. Meaning either issue needs to be brought up with her, the judge, or the government if it is impossible to have a more percise tool.
2) Again, how do you think this can be abused? Your assumption is that this will be applied to people who don't break any laws... when there is no way forthis to be the case. Your arguement, if i've read it correctly is "If they use this on her they'll use it on protestors who are protesting legally." Which doesn't make any sense as there is no way they could, since the whole point was that she's tresspassed on their sites dozens opon dozens of times.
3) She tresspassed on their lands dozens and dozens of times and was constantly told this was a problem. If a restraining order is the only thing they can do and they would ban her from those places, then yes they should do that. She knew what she was doing, and she knows what the results would be and she sounds like she plans to continue doing it as she says she's done nothing wrong.
Now if she offered to sign a contract promising to not enter those sites under some financial penalty or jail time or something and they refused, then sure I think the company would be dicks not to take it... but right now, she's just a terrible harrassing human being getting punished for her own reactions.
Your considering them guilty of something they haven't done, simply because they could do it and are a big corporation, despite the fact that if they wanted her in jail, she'd already be in jail, for all the times she tresspassed on their property in the first place, since she was their illegally.
If the coproration wanted to harm her, legal action would of taken place WELL before now... and she'd be in jail. She's been doing this for 5 years. For 5 years they've tried to convince her to stop doing this.
5 years isn't a long enough time?
Coproations don't want protestors to go to jail, your basically creating a martyr at that point.
I would gurantee you if she offered to sign a contract stating under the penalty of huge financial loses or prison time or something similar that she will not enter their drilling areas or access roads that Cabot would happily get rid of the restraining order.
|
