Opinion Polls: Delphi's Polling Place

Hosted by Cstar1

Opinion polls on all subjects. Opinions? Heck yes, we have opinions - but we're *always* nice about it, even when ours are diametrically opposed to yours. Register your vote today!

  • 3907
  • 60360
  • 20


Should Those that Advise to Defy Virus Orders be Held Liable?   The Serious You: Politics

Started Mar-30 by BWArtist; 1487 views.

Poll Question From BWArtist


Should Those that Advise to Defy Virus Orders be Held Liable?
  • Yes but only if the end result is death.14  votes
  • No it's protected freedom of speech.5  votes
Yes but only if the end result is death. 
No it's protected freedom of speech. 
In reply toRe: msg 1

From: BWArtist 


In reply toRe: msg 1

From: BWArtist 


Jeri (azpaints)

From: Jeri (azpaints) 


This is why I voted yes, they should be held responsible.  If someone encourages another person to break the law, they can and often are held responsible- conspiracy to commit murder is an example.


From: MerlinsDad 



I started to vote that it's protected freedom of speech, but yelling fire in a theater is a crime, it's not protected.

The problem with something as ambiguous as advising to defy virus orders can easily be based on ignorance or it could be malicious intent.  How do you decide?   There are those who deny the gravity of the situation.  I shouldn't mention names.  I've seen numbers on that, and they're shockingly high, just like the absurdity of denying global warming and the high numbers of that among a certain segment of our population. 

What is really ridiculous, at least as far as I am concerned is the ignorant believing and following the ignorant,  oy vey

Of course, the ignorant are often too ignorant of being ignorant to heed the better informed.


From: MerlinsDad 


Why should they worry about this particular set of lies, given the thousands they've told over the past 1384 days?  Seems totally hypocritical.

But that's their stock in trade.


From: Showtalk 


Thank you for starting polls.  We need much more variety than I provide.

MerlinsDad said:

The problem with something as ambiguous as advising to defy virus orders can easily be based on ignorance or it could be malicious intent. How do you decide? There are those who deny the gravity of the situation.

good point.

It is a pretty tall order to prove beyond reasonable doubt that advising to defy virus orders is *not* based on ignorance, but on malicious intent. If it was ignorance, it would be hard to rise to the level of "deadly conduct", which is a charge often used for reckless behavior that can potentially result in death or serious injury.

It might be difficult to convince a jury to convict unless evidence came to light that 1) the defendant actually was telling people to defy orders based on malicious intent, 2) he also knew it had a high probability of causing more sickness. That is hard to prove unless he was stupid enough to actually post something on social media to the effect of "I'm gonna convince those <fill in group he hates> to go ahead and have their huge gathering."

However, reckless behavior certainly has precedent for convictions - such as if someone gets drunk and then drives home because he is certain that he can "hold his liquor" and "isn't impaired" even though he is pulled over for weaving all over the road, fails a roadside sobriety test, and then blows a .241, and finally in the squad car on the way to jail passes out from alcohol poisoning and in the emergency room a blood draw reveals his BAC has risen to .348. He's definitely endangering everyone on the road whether or not he believes it.

Now it gets a bit more murky if someone defies, say, a lockdown, and is trying to, say, get to a relative's place to retrieve some masks or other supplies, is taking extreme care to not come anywhere near others along the way, maybe even is moving stealthily along back roads making every effort to not be observed, but is only spotted by a drone with a thermal camera on his way back with the vital supplies. Then at least around here, a jury could be pretty easily convinced that he had made a lot of effort to not endanger anyone.

In fact one of the things we practiced in the early survivalist days of late 1970s through 1980s was stealth bug-outs when the main roads are blockaded, officials might even be hunting for or shooting on sight anything moving, but one needs to move something vital to keep your group alive.

It later morphed to how to move around in a Red Dawn kind of scenario by the mid 1980s. We even built a couple of dirt bikes that were fitted out with extremely quiet mufflers, to travel long distances down cattle or game trails unobserved.

One of the fellows was a Vietnam veteran who trained us in a lot of survival, evasion, and escape techniques he had learned in the Army. I think he's deceased now because a lifetime of smoking ruined his lungs a good 20 years ago.

But then that's a whole other situation than getting a huge congregation together to exchange coronavirus. I'd absolutely avoid anyone from that congregation like modern day lepers because there's no telling who caught it, or how long before some of them show symptoms.


From: MerlinsDad 


Some preachers had services for about a 1000 and were arrested. I think they have been charged with unlawful assembly.  This was the weekend before last.

You say, “That is hard to prove unless he was stupid enough to actually post something on social media to the effect of "’I'm gonna convince those <fill in group he hates> to go ahead and have their huge gathering.’"

There was a curious incident in Georgia along the lines of what you say.”

Even worse is that a top aide to Gov. Brian Kemp has once more taken to social media to effectively pooh-pooh the pandemic’s peril.  As the AJC reported, “Georgia – go to the beach, lake or a state park” said Tim Fleming, the governor’s chief of staff, in a Facebook post late Saturday.”  [From the AJC, April 7, p. A11. ]

In what category do we place this little encouragement to defy?  It probably wasn’t malicious; he can’t claim to be ignorant of the threat of the virus; his boss had just issued a stay at home order for the whole state.  There is no antidote for stupidity, even in the higher ranks of government. Oy vey.


From: MerlinsDad 


After writing the response below, I encountered this tidbit in CNN's summary of the day's news, "Meanwhile in America"

"You are incredibly safe to go out," said Wisconsin state Assembly Speaker Robin Vos at a polling station on Tuesday -- despite the fact that he himself was dressed in full medical protective gear, including a mask, gloves and gown. The Republican speaker was volunteering as a poll worker after successfully fighting for the election to take place without delay. He told reporters that he'd been instructed to wear the surgeon-esque ensemble. (The Journal Times  )

Where in the categories we've discussed does this fit?  Of course, it's primarily political, but I guess there is no antidote  for politics either. 

This is the article which introduced that juicy little nugget.

What would you choose — your health or your vote?

The last thing that makes sense in a pandemic is forcing people to flock to polling stations. But that’s exactly what happened in Wisconsin on Tuesday, after Republican lawmakers and conservative judges thwarted the Democratic governor’s attempt to postpone the state’s elections, in a battle that went all the way to the Supreme Court. (Liberal Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said in her dissent that deciding to let the election proceed “boggles the mind” when a deadly pathogen is stalking America.)

Badger State voters duly lined up six feet apart, some wearing masks, to exercise their democratic rights. 

Many states have rescheduled their presidential primaries. But the Wisconsin controversy may be a harbinger of future partisan splits over the safety of November’s general election. Democrats want to virus-proof the process by expanding mail-in voting. But Republicans are resisting, claiming — without much evidence — only in-person voting beats fraud. 

Democrats and civil rights activists argue that conservatives always make it harder for people to vote. Republicans often push for shorter voting hours, less early voting, and ID laws that discriminate against minority voters — who tend to vote disproportionately for Democrats. 

The President, who falsely claims there were millions of stolen votes in the last election, may have given the game away in one of his blasts of staggering frankness. In a late March Fox News interview, he criticized Democratic attempts to fund more absentee and vote-by-mail options amid the lockdown, saying, “They had things — levels of voting that, if you ever agreed to it, you’d never have a Republican elected in this country again.”  [Bolding theirs]

No antidote for politics.

...[Message truncated]
View Full Message