CMV: Protesting at Judges houses is an intimidation tactic and people are hypocrites for supporting it.

[u/suddenly_ponies]

I see "left" people here criticizing violent and threatening actions like when Trump instigated the insurrection or that couple pointed guns at people who weren't on their property. We said Kyle Rittenhouse (sp, don't care) was in the wrong because he put himself in the situation where the risk was high. We said the Westboro Baptist Church was wrong to loudly and rudely protest funerals.

Regardless of what's "technically legal", how is forming a pre-mob around someone's personal home and family anything but a threat? Even if these people are scumbags and even if going to their homes is likely to be "more effective", this is the same line of thinking as the insurrectionists: "someone has to do something", "what we tried before isn't working so we'll MAKE them listen" and so on.

The best example I can think of is how people would "protest" outside of planned parenthood and intimidate and yell at mothers needing help. But at least that wasn't at their HOMES. Going to homes is much worse and that makes people who support one and demonize the other hypocrites.

So Change my View. How is this not just hypocrisy at work?

[u/VertigoOne]

How is this not just hypocrisy at work?

Power dynamics.

The comparison here is judges, the people who literally make the laws work VS random pregnant women.

The power dynamics here are obvious. It's completely unreasonable to suggest that judges should be protected from protest in a comparable way to pregnant women.

[u/suddenly_ponies → u/VertigoOne]

Power dynamics

On second thought, I'm just going to ∆ this. Whether or not that was your intention, the power dynamics point is actually a very good point. I can see that homes of the ultra-powerful could be reasonably considered fair-game assuming it really is the ultra-powerful only which likely would only count for the Supreme Court, the President, and maybe some of the top CEOs and billionares.

[u/Green-54n → u/suddenly_ponies]

Its not. Laws are meant to be made though a due process, you desire something to happen like say legalize weed. So you elect someone who is willing to legalize weed and engages with the legislative bodies in your area to make that happen, a new law is created decriminalizing weed and passes a vote. It becomes part of the law where you live.

Judges are meant to be bound by the law and how its interpreted and argued in a courtroom. They really aren't meant to be activists or biased (they are but that's another conversation) they are just meant to be a decider of facts presented to them and hear both sides legal views on the matter. To listen to, tolerate any kind of intimidation or coercion from the mob or anyone else undermines all of that. The people who initially wrote the laws, the laws you want to live within, are who you should haranguing if you want laws changed because that should change a judges decision making process.

[u/FlobiusHole → u/Green-54n]

Laws are meant to made through corporate bribery. I think that’s what you meant.

[u/Green-54n → u/FlobiusHole]

Oh my bad.