Beerball Posted August 13, 2011 Posted August 13, 2011 Some faction of BART riders had plans to shut down trains during rush hour so they (BART) shut down their underground cell phone network so that they could not coordinate plans. What say you...was the shut down just as bad as when Egypt cut off cell and internet access in an attempt to quell street protests? Was the shut down justified as a means to keep the trains running? Sorry...this article doesn't say why folks wanted to shut down BART but I'm sure someone will fill us in. link
UConn James Posted August 13, 2011 Posted August 13, 2011 (edited) It says that it was planned in response to a 3 July shooting of a man who had a knife. I'm going to have to fundamentally disagree with the extent of the "logic" of the protestors and the ACLU. They have the right to personally protest, hold signs, make noise, etc. But when you're conspiring to shut down metro service and f--- up every commuter's day... that's not protest. Just like students protesting the early start of classes do not have the right to drain the fuel tanks of buses. Interfering with the normal functioning of a quasi-public utility/transportation service is not protest, it's a mild form of terrorism. Edited August 13, 2011 by UConn James
Beerball Posted August 13, 2011 Author Posted August 13, 2011 It says that it was planned in response to a 3 July shooting of a man who had a knife. How'd I miss that, read the darn thing twice (ok, I scanned it twice).
Wacka Posted August 13, 2011 Posted August 13, 2011 They were planning to do this at afternoon rush hour. I have ridden BART at that time. All trains at those stations in downtown SF are standing room only. If the protestors would have started, I think the crowds would have pushed them onto the third rail . As for the inability to call 911, there are cameras in the stations and emergency phones. Besides the cell service doesn't work in the tunnels between these underground stations anyway (like the 5 miles between SF and Oakland under the Bay.)
OvrOfficiousJerk Posted August 13, 2011 Posted August 13, 2011 Heh, I thought this was an article about Bona's or something. +1 to UConn James though, there's a fine line between getting your voice heard and flat-out illegal activity, and essentially shutting down public transit would qualify for the latter option.
ExiledInIllinois Posted August 14, 2011 Posted August 14, 2011 I also thought this thread was gonna be about some funky monk! Anyway.. Who cares about laws and what is illegal/legal when it comes to civil disobedience... Isn't that what "protest" is all about? "Mild terrorism?' I guess everything can be considered "mild terrorism." And people wonder why nothing gets done in this country... Anything to keep people placid and flaccid. And don't give me all the court ruling mumble jumble... Yes... I am back from summer sabbatical! Did I get a bit more poetic?
Recommended Posts