I recently spoke on Rage and the Republic at Cornell University and posted about the beauty of the school with the return of flowers and birds in the Spring. What I fortunately missed was the seasonal return of harassing protesters. That experience was reserved this week for Cornell President Michael Kotlikoff, who is now embroiled in controversy over a parking-lot confrontation.
Kotlikoff was followed to his car on April 30 after Kotlikoff introduced an Israel-Palestine debate hosted by the Cornell Political Union and co-sponsored by Cornellians for Israel, Cornell Progressives and Students for Justice in Palestine. A small number of protesters, however, were unhappy with the civil dialogue over Israeli-Palestinian conflicts.
According to Kotlikoff, the President was “accosted by a group of several individuals,” including non-students who were known to Cornell for past conduct involving “ongoing verbal and online abuse” of administrators and staff. He alleged that two of the individuals had previously been banned from campus following a “disruptive protest.”
As Kotlikoff walked to his car, he answered some of the protesters’ questions, then asked them to stop filming and leave him alone. When they reached his car, they then surrounded the vehicle to keep him from leaving. He backed up slowly, with students intentionally standing in the car’s path.
Kotlikoff stated, “I waited until I saw space behind the car and then, using my car’s rear pedestrian alert and automatic braking system, was able to slowly maneuver my car from the parking space and exit the parking lot.”
The students, however, remained standing in his path. One person can be heard yelling, “He just ran over my f—— foot!” There is no report of an actual injury.
Students for a Democratic Cornell (SDC) posted a video showing an individual being nudged by the vehicle while standing behind it.
The coverage has been sensation and arguably misleading with such headlines of “Cornell President Runs Into Protesters With Car” (Inside Higher Education) and “Kotlikoff Drives Into Student and Recent Grad Following ‘Harassment” (Cornell Daily Sun).
The student newspaper wrote an editorial titled “President Kotlikoff, It’s Time To Hit the Brakes,” that seemed almost delusional for those of us who watched the video. The student editors objected that:
“This incident is emblematic of a deeper problem at Cornell: an administration that protects itself, not its students. An administration that has consistently moved to protect itself before it moves to understand, or even to check on, the students in its care.”
The newspaper objected to how Kotlikoff “used his power as president of the University to set a narrative on his terms.” Yet, if Kotlikoff had not responded, there would have been complaints that he was bunkered and unresponsive. He did not “set a narrative,” but rather shared his view of what occurred in the incident. He was, after all, one of the key figures involved.
I am surprised that the President did not have a campus police escort, who could have handled this confrontation. This situation could have easily and dangerously escalated for the President, given the rising violence on our campuses. Just this week, a Jewish student was reportedly injured by an alleged chemical agent at a pro-Israel event at George Washington University.
The Cornell protesters were clearly harassing Kotlikoff and eventually trapped him in the parking lot. He was trying to avoid any injury by backing out slowly. I do not fault Kotlikoff, who wanted to extricate himself from an angry group of radicals. Being trapped and surrounded at night is a frightening prospect for anyone.
The incident shows how a relatively small number of students can undermine the culture of dialogue and civility on our campuses. This was an important effort to allow people to engage in a reasoned discussion of these issues rather than screaming at each other across protest lines. However, for some, the screaming and conflict are precisely what they want to achieve.
This is not the exercise of free speech, but disorderly and unlawful conduct. You are not allowed to trap people in their vehicles or prevent their movement on campus. The college should seek a restraining order to prevent the non-students from returning to campus and should take disciplinary measures against any students who sought to trap the President in his car.
Despite the suggestions online, I do not see the basis for a charge against Kotlikoff in this video. The video shows the driver trying to slowly leave the parking lot as the protesters put themselves into his path. His alternative was to remain trapped and surrounded by this group of radical protesters.
Given the relatively small number of individuals, Kotlikoff clearly believed that he could move back without contact with the students. There are six visible protesters as Kotlikoff puts his car into reverse. One remains on the sidewalk and four are clearly visible on the right side of the car as Kotlikoff moved back to the left. Only one student can be seen near the back of the vehicle. He was moving back with the car and before coming into contact with the vehicle, was moving at less than five miles an hour.
If the crowd were larger, I do not believe it would have been reasonable to attempt to back out of the parking lot. In such a case, it would have been advisable to call the campus police to seek assistance. In this incident, it was only one student standing behind the car and that student was obviously fully aware that the vehicle was slowing moving backward.
For these students, the greatest lesson may be the meaning of consequences from their own choices. You cannot throw yourself around moving vehicles and then claim to be a victim as a result.
Jonathan Turley is a law professor and the best-selling author of “Rage and the Republic: The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution.”
Turley’s title is deceptive.
It is NOT considered striking a pedestrian if you slowly run into someone who is blocking your way.
There is excellent information on this from lawyers covering the law of self defense.
Many people in cars have been “trapped” by left wing nut protestors and several law of self defense experts have therefore posted guides as to how to deal with such instances.
If you are in a vehicle on a roadway and you are being detained by protestors you have the right to slowly procede in your vehicle to safety. The Dury to not obstruct you rests with the protestors not the party being obstructed.
I would further note that it is actually a crime – unlawful detention – to prevent someone from leaving somewhere if they wish to. Unlawful detention is the minimal form of the crime of kidnapping.
There is no unlawful detention if you are able to safely leave, but if you can not, then those preventing you from leaving are committing a felony.
Conversely the use of FORCE to exit when you are being unlawfully detained is perfectly legitimate,
But the FORCE used must be proportionate to the circumstances.
I as appears in this case the criminals merely surrounded the car and refused to move – then you may proceed SLOWLY striking those blocking your way – if necescary to leave. If the protestors start pounding your car – you may move slightly faster. If hey sart damaging your car – you may proceed a bit faster still. If they break windows or seek entry into the vehicle you may proceed as fast as you need to, to escape.
The amount of FORCE you may use in exiting when you are “trapped” is proportionate to the threat you are facing from those detaining you.
The “headline” is not deceptive: the Cornell president is being “accused.”
ma
The headline is deceptive – it has shifted the accusation to the victim.
Left wing protestors – and possibly even left wing prosecutors MIGHT be stupid enough to make such accusations and even press charges.
But the actual crime in this incident is unlawful detention – a lessor form of kidnapping.
A felony with a potential sentence of 10 years.
It is important – not just with respect to this particularly event – but more generally that young woke left idiots who have been deprived by left wing educators of proper moral and ethical education grasp that
You may not infringe on the rights of others for whatever cause it is you are protesting.
In this case – you may not prevent another person from escaping your haranguing
As is typical those on the left are looking to try to semantically game the system.
But our system of laws is ancient and though left wing nuts might be deluded into beleiving there is some loophole.
THERE IS NOT.
Completely blocking the escape of another person is a crime – a serious crime of violence.
It justifies the use of FORCE in self defense. That Force must be proportionate to the threat.
In this instance Kotlikoff is fully justified in slowly pushing through left wing nuts blocking his exit – even if that might result in injury to one of the left wing nuts.
Outside the peoples republics where law is decided by politics, those detaining Kotlikoff are committing a crime.
And self defense is justifed.
Reversing who is the perpitrator and who is the victim, is not corrected by calling the misrepresentation an accusation.
Many criminals blame their victims.
It’s not a “lesser form of kidnapping”. It’s misdemeanor false imprisonment. It’s only a felony if it involves violence of bodily injury.
This obsession with exacting the maximum form of punishment for benign crimes such as blocking a vehicle shows us the zealotry of the need to be vindictive. The law does not prescribe the kind of punishment you want. Nothing those protesters did warrants a felony charge. Not even close.
Keep in mind that the ACTUAL crime involved ONE protester blocking the car. The others were standing beside it. According to the ACTUAL law. It’s only a misdemeanor. No actual violence occurred.
“Many criminals blame their victims.“
Like Trump. He does it all the time and he’s already a convicted criminal, a felon.
All crimes of violating the liberty of another are in the same catagory.
Abridging liberty is the catagory.
They differ slightly in means, and significantly based on the actual facts in degree.
“ All crimes of violating the liberty of another are in the same catagory.”
Wrong again. There is a reason why there are misdemeanors and felonies. Some acts that you deem a violation of liberties are by law misdemeanors. Some are felonies. They differ a LOT in means and what actions change them from misdemeanors to felonies. They are clearly spelled out by the law.
Blocking a car without violence is a misdemeanor offense regardless of how long it is blocked. If you use violence and threaten the life of the driver and injure or damage property then it’s a felony.
The legal system categorizes these offenses based on the specific interest being protected, the severity of the harm, and the intent of the perpetrator.
False imprisonment: This is the most direct violation of physical liberty. It involves unlawfully restraining someone in a confined space without moving them.
Kidnapping: adds aspiration, the movement of the victim or holding someone in secret.
Then there’s the most basic, unlawful restraint.
There are more serious categories like crimes against humanity.
So no, they’re not in the same category. There are several.
Wrong X, you are so lame. This is a crime and you know it. Insincere transparent snowjobs from you tells me you are out of ideas. Not only a crime but only a commie would think it’s ok to violate another human’s rights like this. You defend the reprehensible and it makes you ugly inside.
George/X, do you even understand what “category” means? ?????????????????????????????????????”
Here, let me explain it to you.
It is NOT a separation of misdemeanors vs. felonies.
The fact that you are lecturing John Say is hilarious. So Cute! So Amusing! ROLF!
https://newyork.public.law/laws/n.y._penal_law_part_3_title_h_article_135
“This obsession with exacting the maximum form of punishment for benign crimes such as blocking a vehicle shows us the zealotry of the need to be vindictive.”
Absolutely agree. Is there anywhere I have said these students SHOULD get 10 years ?
The strongest I have said is that I am aware of lessor actions right now getting 10 years.
Absolutey I oppose the mostly right (as long as Trump or politics is not involved) tendency to over charge, over convict an over sentence.
Ignoring the political context – where the left is the most egregious offender – the norm in this country is for big blue cities to slap people on the wrists for very serious offenses and red domains to seek capital punishment for jaywalking.
The rule of law requires to the greatest extent possible ALL crimes must be punished, and that punishment must be proportionate to the crime.
I will complegtely agree that the right overcharges and over convicts and over sentences.
Though the left is much worse in the narrower domain of criminalizing politics.
But it is also a major problem that the left under charges, under convicts and under sentences.
“The law does not prescribe the kind of punishment you want.”
ROFL
Again – there is literally a person in my country convicted of felony unlawful detention convicted and sentenced to 10 years for parking another car in.
Your beleif that SHOULD not happen – does not mean it does not.
” Nothing those protesters did warrants a felony charge. Not even close.”
I agree – but contra your claim – the law does not.
While in reality – I doubt they will be charged. They should be. They should not receive a custodial sentence if they have no prior record. But they also should leave the process hopefully aware that the next time they violate others rights – they are going o prison – and possibily for a long time.
“Keep in mind that the ACTUAL crime involved ONE protester blocking the car. The others were standing beside it.”
False – everyone surrounding the car limiting its ability to leave has committed the same crime as the person in front.
“According to the ACTUAL law. It’s only a misdemeanor.”
No according to prosecutions in much of the country. Not the same.
How many times do I need to repeat – there is a guy right now in the PA prison for 10 years for using his car to block another person into a parking space.
“No actual violence occurred.” Restricting the actual liberty of other IS violence.
This is a crime of violence. You are correct that as crimes against persons go – this is a minor offense.
But it is generally more serious than crimes against property – such as theft.
“Like Trump. He does it all the time and he’s already a convicted criminal, a felon.”
Which is just proof that even though I said that it is the right that primarily over charges, over prosecutes and over sentences – once you introduce politics – it is the LEFT that is the greater offender – and it is not even close.
The Trump DOJ has gone after a number of people who are political enemies for actual crimes.
The alleged crimes are nearly all slam dunk true. There is no over charging. Outside of far left loonies – people actually understand the factual allegations. The crimes alleged have a strong factual basis.
They are crimes that ordinary people would go to jail for and are familiar with.
None of these people were arrested by pre-dawn SWAT teams.
With respect to the left targeting of Trump and those on the right – none of the above is ever true.
You claim Trump is a convicted felon. But most sane people grasp that there is not even a crime alleged in that case. As SCOTUS has repeatedly said – of both state and federal law – Fraud is a property crime.
Absent proof that real person(s) suffered a real loss of real property – you can not ever have fraud.
None other than Ruth Bader-Ginsberg wrote that.
This is important precisely to prevent the political gargage that you call a felony conviction in NYC
If you were smart you would Stop using proof of your own malfeasance in your arguments.
You LOST all the cases against Trump when he was re-elected in 2024.
Nearly the entire country does not beleive that convicted felon should hold public office.
Yet Trump was elected president. There are only two choices – people do not actually beleive Felons should not be president or they do not beleive the NYC jury. Most of us understand which of those reflect the view of voters.
John Say,
“ The law does not prescribe the kind of punishment you want.”
ROFL
Again – there is literally a person in my country convicted of felony unlawful detention convicted and sentenced to 10 years for parking another car in.”
But you mentioned there is an appeal by your wife. Also the fact that here is a felony conviction in your county in Pennsylvania where the law makes it a felony only when a minor is involved. If the judge deemed the evidence which I presume involves a minor then the felony charge would be in line with what the law says.
YOU want the six protesters charged with a felony because you incorrectly assert their actions are “a minor form of kidnapping” which is absolutely wrong.
“ False – everyone surrounding the car limiting its ability to leave has committed the same crime as the person in front.”
Wrong again. Standing beside the car does not impede the movement of the car. Only the person standing directly behind the car is the one obstructing. The law is very specific. You want to apply the same violation and crime to everyone contra to what the law says.
“ No actual violence occurred.” Restricting the actual liberty of other IS violence.”
Wrong again, violence is a specific action. Merely standing in front of a car preventing its movement is not violence. You’re confusing obstruction with violence. They are not the same thing.
“ The Trump DOJ has gone after a number of people who are political enemies for actual crimes.
The alleged crimes are nearly all slam dunk true. There is no over charging. Outside of far left loonies – people actually understand the factual allegations. The crimes alleged have a strong factual basis.”
Wrong again. Trump is using the DOJ for exactly the same reason you blame the left, it is political and they are overcharging and over sentencing. None of the alleged crimes have been a slam dunk. Because Trump’s DOJ has not been able to prove the allegations true. Allegations are not evidence.
People don’t “understand” the “factual” allegations, which is really bad contradiction. An allegation cannot be factual without evidence and clearly there is no evidence that they are factual. That is why Trump has not been able to convict any of his political enemies and that is on top of the sheer incompetence in prosecuting the cases.
If the alleged crimes had “strong factual basis” they would have had multiple convictions by now. Clearly they don’t have any factual basis for the alleged crime. That’s why they remain…alleged. Not proven true.
X is wrong, wrong wrong. This is what happens when non-lawyers try to tell lawyers what the law is.
Under NY law,
“A person is guilty of unlawful imprisonment in the first degree when he restrains another person under circumstances which expose the latter to a risk of serious physical injury. Unlawful imprisonment in the first degree is a class E felony.”
Read it again , George. “….under circumstances which expose the latter to a risk of serious physical injury.”
So….where was the injury? How was the president of the school exposed to injury?
The students were not restraining the president. They were obstructing his vehicle. No violence was involved.
Clearly you’re not very smart. Perhaps you should compare the facts with the law you cite and see why it does not meet a felony charge. Was there violence directed at the president? Was his car damaged? Were there threats to his life? Only one student or person stood behind his car preventing him from leaving. No touching or physical violence on the car. That’s a misdemeanor in NY.
Clown, no one said that violence was involved. (“No violence was involved.”)
The statute says, “….under circumstances which EXPOSE the latter to a risk of serious physical injury”.
“When they reached his car, they then surrounded the vehicle to keep him from leaving.”
“This situation could have easily and dangerously escalated for the President, given the rising violence on our campuses.”
“He alleged that two of the individuals had previously been banned from campus following a ‘disruptive protest.’
Clown, six angry juveniles surround and block an old man from leaving.
Do you think a reasonable older man would consider that he was exposed to a risk of serious physical injury?
You’re not even worth the time, clown.
excellent.
There you have it, unlawful detention. The boy willingly , knowingly stood behind a moving vehicle.
Kolikoff was always in danger, night, alone, a stalking group. Horribly frightening
Title deceptive? Sure John Say, he wrote hit (there are vary degrees of “hit”) not strike is different, it implies impact, and each state has its definition of assault, vehicular or otherwise. You wrote crap man.
ATS – the deception is the invesrion of the facts – the criminals are those unlawfully detaining Kotlikoff
The correct accusation of misconduct is that of those unlawfully detaining Kotlikoff
John Say is completely wrong.
“ I would further note that it is actually a crime – unlawful detention – to prevent someone from leaving somewhere if they wish to. Unlawful detention is the minimal form of the crime of kidnapping.
There is no unlawful detention if you are able to safely leave, but if you can not, then those preventing you from leaving are committing a felony.”
Detention is not kidnapping. Abducting and moving a person from one place to another IS kidnapping. Preventing a car from moving is in no way any form of kidnapping. It is also not even close to anything resembling a felony. The law does not make it a felony for merely blocking the car. The only way it can be classified as a felony is if violence or threat to life are involved. None of that happened with the protesters at Cornell.
“John Say is completely wrong.”
Yet, you have agreed with much of what I have said.
John Say is completely wrong is totally different from I disagree with John Say on a minor detail.
You make a huge detail about kidnapping requiring moving a person.
Lets say you are right – both are still crimes against the person. and specifically crimes against a persons freedom.
In fact both are crimes about freedom to move. Further I am not aware of anyone ever being charged with kidnapping for moving someone 20ft to the right. Kidnapping REQUIRES that the person kidnapped is NOT free to move as they please – which is EXACTLY the case here.
But going beyond your point – do you really think it will be hard to find a kidnapping conviction where the person kidnapped was NOT moved ?
Google is your friend. Start here.
https://www.masslive.com/news/2025/05/mass-man-and-woman-face-kidnapping-charge-after-teen-reports-being-locked-in-closet.html
Logic actually matters – disagreement on ONE items is not “completely wrong”.
Existential logic is the form of logic that deals with mutiple elements.
“for all”
“there exists”
“Atleast one”
and “completely”
Not only are you wrong in the specific point of disagreement.
But you are wrong by claiming “completely” or for all, when you disagree on a single point.
John Say,
Nope. Nice try moving the goal posts.
You ended up agreeing with me, not the other way around. When I pointed out why you were wrong by calling the obstruction of the president’s vehicles “a form of kidnapping” to justify a felony. I showed you exactly what the law says what kidnapping and false imprisonment are.
You were completely wrong and still are.
Google can’t help you when you have a reason comprehension issue. Your example shows that the mother forcibly moved the child into the closet and locked it. That is kidnapping. Obstructing a vehicle without physical contact and occupant can’t leave is false imprisonment. You claimed it was “a form of kidnapping” and that is patently wrong.
“ In fact both are crimes about freedom to move. Further I am not aware of anyone ever being charged with kidnapping for moving someone 20ft to the right. Kidnapping REQUIRES that the person kidnapped is NOT free to move as they please – which is EXACTLY the case here.”
Wrong again.
In some legal precedents, moving a victim as little as 9 to 15 feet has been upheld as kidnapping if it substantially increased the danger to the victim—such as moving them from a public space to a private, isolated one (e.g., from a storefront to a back room).
If someone is merely “not free to move,” they are being falsely imprisoned (a misdemeanor in PA). The jump to kidnapping happens when the perpetrator uses that restraint to isolate the victim or move them to gain an advantage.
Not being free to move as they please.” Legally, that is the definition of False Imprisonment, not kidnapping. You keep wanting to conflate the two different definitions because you know you’re wrong. You just don’t want to admit it. You already lost the argument. Moving the goalposts is not going to change that.
“ But going beyond your point – do you really think it will be hard to find a kidnapping conviction where the person kidnapped was NOT moved ?”
Yes, because the law is very specific on what constitutes a kidnapping. A big element of that charge is specifically the movement of the victim. Be it a house, county line, state lines, or another room.
Detention is kidnapping. Did you get your law degree from your fairy princess?
If you TRAP someone, do not expect them to look up what law to follow or consult with their lawyer. Expect to be run over by their instinctual fight or flight response. Humpty Dumpty and all that…
I don’t understand why he didn’t run the brat down???
Because it’s a crime.
It is not a crime to use force against others in self defense.
If you are preventing another person from leaving when they wish to – YOU are committing a crime.
And the victim of your crime may use force in self defense.
The amount of FORCE used in self defense depends on the extent of YOUR efforts to detain.
You may – as Kotlikoff did – push through a crowd surrounding you – including running over people if they refuse to get out of the way.
But you may not “gun” it and run over people until they go beyond obstructing your exit and start damaging your car or moving towards a direct threat to your person.
“ It is not a crime to use force against others in self defense.”
It is, as you pointed out at the end of your post. Running over a protester IS a crime no matter how much protesters are obstructing. The level of force must be directly proportional to the level of threat. To just run down a protester because they are obstructing the vehicle is indeed a crime.
The only place where that may be legal is Florida.
He didn’t “run over” the kid. He gently pushed him aside.
” Running over a protester IS a crime no matter how much protesters are obstructing.”
FALSE.
I correctly stated the application of the law ofd self defense in cases involving obstructing a vehicle.
FIRST – you absolutely positively have no right to prevent another person from leaving any situation – unless you are a law enforcement officer detaining a suspected criminal.
You may not lock someone in a closet,
You may not surround them in a hotel lobby and prevent them from leaving.
You may not surround their car and prevent them from moving.
Doing so is a form of kidnapping which is a very serious fellony.
This is NOT state specific – unlawfully detaining someone is a crime in all 50 states.
There are MINOR distinctions in the law between states – but nothing that would change this instance or anything I wrote.
Protestors surrounding vehicles and preventing them from proceding is a common event at protests.
As it is common – many people right and left worry that might happen to them and wonder what they may do to get out of that scenario.
And experts on the law of self defense have provided public guidance on exactly this scenario.
You can find that on the web, and on social media.
There is no disagreement over the fact that you can not intentionally preclude someone else from exiting.
and even if you have done so accidentally – which is NOT the case in this incident – the person being trapped – even unintentionally may use proportionate FORCE to escape.
Particularly in the most left leaning states in the country – fleeing is always the prefered response.
Do you really think those lft wing states that do NOT have castle doctrine or stand your ground self defense laws are going to impose a duty to back off and then punish you for doing so ?
Contra your claim what I am saying is even MORE true in non-stand your ground or castle doctrine states.
If you have a duty to back down – you have an absolute right to escape – those are inseparable.
Though honestly – with extremely rare exceptions you ALWAYS have the right to escape and it is almost always a crime to prevent someone from escaping.
“The level of force must be directly proportional to the level of threat.
Incorrect. The level of force permitted in a self defense situation is based on what is necessary to achieve safety. Proportionate – does NOT mean “equal”. You may intentionally kill someone who is just trying to break your leg.
“To just run down a protester because they are obstructing the vehicle is indeed a crime.”
False. You are permitted to use the amount of force necescary for YOU to successfully escape – even if that results in harm to others. But you may not use significantly more force than necescary.
While anyone with a brain can figure out that this is a continuum and gauge the force they may use by the threat they are faced with – as I have noted – there are MULTIPLE explanations of the applicaton of the law of self defense to being trapped by “protestors” in a vehicle – because that has become commonplace.
That explanations of how much force you are free to use based on the threat you are faced with is readily avalable.
As a rule you are allowed to use MORE force that you are faced with – but not significantly more.
You may use your car to push through SLOWLY a crown that has trapped you – even unintentionally,
and if that results in an injury to someone in the crowd that is not a crime – so long as you were not using more force than necescary to get out of the crowd.
While we are dealing with a vehicle here – the same applies to surrounding a person on the street.
They may push you aside to get through if you and others had trapped them.
With extremely rare exceptions – escaping any situation is ALWAYS a right.
And the use of the force necescary to do so and no more is always justified.
“The only place where that may be legal is Florida.”
Nope – all 50 states.
As noted above the right to escape a confrontation – is a DUTY in many left leaning states
So contra your claim – left leaning states where there is a duty to avoid confrontation would have the strongest right to escape.
John say, wrong as usual. You cannot run over a protester for merely blocking the car. The only justification for doing so is if the force is directly proportional to the threat. Merely standing there and running a protester over and killing him/her IS absolutely a crime. A serious felony.
“ FIRST – you absolutely positively have no right to prevent another person from leaving any situation – unless you are a law enforcement officer detaining a suspected criminal.”
Nobody is saying it is not, not even I.
“ You may not lock someone in a closet,
You may not surround them in a hotel lobby and prevent them from leaving.
You may not surround their car and prevent them from moving.
Doing so is a form of kidnapping which is a very serious fellony.”
FALSE.
Kidnapping is not holding someone against their will or keeping them in a closet.
Simple Kidnapping: Involves the basic elements of unlawful movement and restraint.
Aggravated Kidnapping: Occurs when additional factors are present, such as the use of a deadly weapon, the intent to sexually assault the victim, a demand for ransom, or the infliction of serious bodily injury.
Federal Kidnapping: Under the Federal Kidnapping Act (18 U.S.C. § 1201), the crime becomes a federal offense if the victim is transported across state lines or international borders, or if the offender uses tools of interstate commerce (like the mail or internet) to commit the act.
The common element of what constitutes a kidnapping is movement of the victim.
Preventing a car from moving is false imprisonment under the law. If you’re going to argue the law at least use the correct terminology.
“ As a rule you are allowed to use MORE force that you are faced with – but not significantly more.”
Well DUH!! If you attempt to run over a protester who is merely standing in the way it is significantly more force than necessary, it’s deadly force. Therefore running over a protesters for merely standing in front the car IS a crime. You’re contradicting yourself while trying to prove me wrong. Your’e basically agreeing with me without seeming to because that would be embarrassing.
“Well, DUH.” a direct copycat from others’ comments yesterday?
X, please start blocking cars for your cause or don’t you have the courage of your convictions?
Please keep defending these anti-human actions. Don’t ever change.
Neither logic not law is your friend and that should be obvious.
“You cannot run over a protester for merely blocking the car.”
If there is one protestor blocking you and you have other means of escape – you are correct – and I have not claimed otherwise.
The discussion here is exclusively about circumstances in which because of a person or persons you can not move in any direction without being impeded. That can be only one person if you have only one means of exit.
“The only justification for doing so is if the force is directly proportional to the threat.”
Your logic is topsy turvey. The justification is that you wish to go elsewhere.
The right to move on property you are legally allowed to be on is the issue.
Infringing on that is a Crime – it is a crime against the person, it is a crime against liberty, it is a crime involving the use of FORCE – impeding someone is FORCE and it ABSOLUTELY justifies the use of FORCE – while you are correct that impeding another person does not grant them the right to use any and all force that they wish – that proportionality is required.
You still completely misunderstand what proportionality means in law.
It does NOT mean equal to what is being used against you.
It means no more force than necescary – in this case the force necescary to restore your liberty.
“Merely standing there and running a protester over and killing him/her IS absolutely a crime. A serious felony.”ou
Who said anything about Killing ?
You may use the force needed to escape – not more. You can not go from intentially escaping to intentionally killing. At the same time – if you have used only the force needed to escape and no more and that has resulted in someone else’s injury or death – and that person was violating your liberty – then your actions are justified – not a crime.
“Nobody is saying it is not, not even I.”
But you are – you are just too stupid to realize it.
Did Kotlikoff have the right to leave – you seem to accept that as true.
Did the protestors have the right to prevent that – you seem to accept that is true.
Next – did Kotlikoff have the right to leave if that could not be accomplished without using force ?
If you say no – then you are saying Kotlikoff did not have the right to leave – that he had to wait – forever if needed for law enforcement to free him or for the protestors to leave.
Unless you are arguing that Kotlikoff did not have the right to leave, then you have accepted that he had the right to use force to do so.
That leaves us with the question of how much force ?
And the answer is relatively simple – the amount of force needed to get out – and no more.
Again there is NOT a qualifier – or the right to leave no longer exists.
You say he can not leave if that results in someone getting killed.
While it is highly unlikely that someone will get killed using only the amount of force needed to push through the crowd. There is no qualification that he can only use that much force if no one gets killed – or hurt. What he can not do is intentionally use more force than is needed in order to cause harm.
That would be a crime.
This is no different from other forms of self defense – if you are attacked by someone with a knife and you manage to slam them to the ground, get on top of them and disarm them – you can not NOW stab them to death with their own knife.
With respect to escaping when your car (or your person) are surrounded,
you are alowed to use the amount of force needed to escape – even if that kills someone.
The more violent the resistance to your escape – the more force you are free to use.
If those trapping you resist your escape with sufficient force – you may kill them to escape – if that is necescary
Again none of this is different from self defense when you are not “trapped”.
And as I noted to another poster it is if anythign even more true in left leaning states where you have a duty to flee to avoid using deadly force. If you have a duty to flee – and your flight is prevented – your use of deadly force is in nearly all circumstances justified.
“Kidnapping is not holding someone against their will or keeping them in a closet.”
Which is why there are people in prison for kidnapping for exactly that.
I provided you with one example quickly from MA.
“The common element of what constitutes a kidnapping is movement of the victim.”
Correction A common element.
‘Preventing someone from leaving a location against their will can be considered a serious legal issue, often falling under the categories of false imprisonment, kidnapping, or unlawful restraint, depending on the jurisdiction and circumstances.’
“If you’re going to argue the law at least use the correct terminology.”
“Preventing a car from moving is false imprisonment under the law. ”
or unlawful detainment or kidnapping depending on the exact facts and the specific jurisdiction.
While I am arguing “generically” – because we have the entire US to consider, and the principles of the law are the same from jurisdiction to jurisdiction the exact law and terminology is not.
You are arguing that bits and peices of terminology from many jurisdictions somehow is the correct terminology everywhere – when it likely is not the correct terminology anywhere.
I am not pretending to be citing the exactly law in one place – this incident occured in NYC, but I cited incidents in Portland OR and mineapolis.
I have also properly noted the hierarchy – crimes against persons at the top. Crimes against liberty as a subset.
Even by YOUR argument – kidnapping is both a crime against liberty and false imprisonment.
I am also speaking again – generically – accross all jurisdictions – because there are LOTS of instances in which crimes are charged and even convicted that do not seem to meet the “terminology”.
In my state “premeditation” means forethought – even for an instant. Many many things I would consider crimes of passion – are by law premeditated.
In my state and others I am aware of kidnapping convictions for actions that only took a few seconds.
And contra your claim only meant Detaining a persons.
Arguing narrow terminology is only useful in specific cases in specific jurisdictions.
Neither you nor I know the terminology that would be used were this specific case to be prosecuted.
“Well DUH!! If you attempt to run over a protester who is merely standing in the way it is significantly more force than necessary, it’s deadly force. ”
First you get it and then you lose it. The question is not whether someone is harmed or even dies.
It is how much force is needed to escape.
You may use as much as necescary – even if that kills someone – but no more than is necescary.
You are being confused – because it is highly unlikely that killing someone would be needed to push through a crowd – though that is actually determined mostly be the crowd not the driver.
A car moving through a crowd is “deadly force” – whether it kills someone depends on whether they get out of the way or not.
“Therefore running over a protesters for merely standing in front the car IS a crime.”
You keep trying to improperly reframe the argument.
The person in the car (or even a person surrounded by a crowd) may use the force needed to escape – no more. They may use deadly for if escape is not possible with less force. That is rare, but not impossible.
You can not turn this backwards and try to claim if someone dies – too much force was used.
It MIGHT be true. It might not – depends on the exact facts in the specific case.
“You’re contradicting yourself while trying to prove me wrong.”
Nope – my language is completely consistent – and I am not trying to prove you wrong – you are obviously wrong. You are thinking too shallow. You are also violating Kants catagorical imperative.
Which is how law must be written and how most law tries to be written.
“make no law that is not universal law”.
That means you must frame the law such that it covers all circumstance.
I and the law properly frame the force you may use as limited to what is necescary to escape. That works ALWAYS – even in unusual or edge cases.
You are claiming that there is no circumstance in which deadly force can be used.
That inherently means anyone willing to require you to use deadly force to escape has prevented you from escaping.
In the circumstance at hand – if someone bashes in the window to remove your car keys or lays down under the bumper or tire of the car – you are not able to escape.
Or lets use a different example – if you have been kidnapped and are held in a room – are you free to find a cloths hanger and poke your captor in the belly – which might kill them to escape ?
The ONLY correct answer and the answer most likely codified – either in statute or case law in nearly all states is when your liberty is illegally restrained, you may use as much force as necescary to escape, and no more. Most of the time that will not mean deadly force. But some of the time – it will.
Regardless the law is rarely frames from the perspective of the alleged victim.
It is nearly always framed from the perspective of the actor. An action is lawful or not as judged from the framework of the ACTOR.
“Your’e basically agreeing with me without seeming to because that would be embarrassing.”
Nope – you are claiming as absolute a standard that is not absolute.
While I am using a different but similar standard that is absolute. ‘
Our positions overlap significantly – but yours only works most of the time.
It is wrong some of the time.
Again Kant’s catagorical imperative.
Make no law that is not universal law
If you frame a legal standard such that it only works most of the time – that is actually unconstitutional – likely unconstitutional for vagueness.
This – including Kant’s catagorical imperative is important because it ties in with “ignorance of the law is no excuse”.
We are not obligated to know the nuances of the law or its exceptions because thelaw is supposed to be written to conform to Kant’s catagorical imperative.
I beleive the bible refers to the law as written on our hearts.
It is the requirement of lawmakers to write laws that confirm as perfectly as possible to universal understanding of right and wrong.
This does NOT mean there is no nuance.
But it does mean that even acting in the heat of the moment – without thinking, without the oportunity to research the law, we should KNOW whether what we intend to do is right or wrong.
You do not have to teach people anything for them to know that when escaping from an unlawful threat that they may use FORCE, but that the force they use must be limited to only what is necescary to escape.
That is a standard “written in our hearts” – we do not need to go to law school to know it.
We do no need to do legal calculus to determine how much force we can use.
We know that we can use as much as is needed to regain our liberty – but no more.
We know the limits automatically – when people block out car, and we know them as conditions change. We know how much force we can use when we have been kidnapped, or when our lives or that of others are being threatened.
And we know this without alot of thought.
When laws are written – depending on how they are written – getting that right might require complicated language and lots of exceptions. It is the duty of legislators and the courts to get the statute and case law to match “what is in our hearts” – Kant’s universally law. It is our duty to follow “what is written in our hearts” – near universal understanding of right and wrong.
ATS – I strongly suggest thinking before you post.
Contra your claim the right to use FORCE to escape would be GREATEST in states where there is a duty to flee confrontation.
Do you really think that left leaning states are going to pass laws that say “you have a duty to flee”,
but if fleeing requires the use of force you must sit still and be beat up ?
Beyond that – do you REALLY think that anywhere in the country you can trapp another person somewhere as long as you wish and because you call it a protest there is no crime in doing so ?
X makes a permutation of this argument all the time.
No one has the right to require another person to waste their time involuntarily.
X has said that if protestors delay an event – so long as it eventually completes there is no harm and no foul.
No crime – that is nonsense. When you take another persons time – that is a form of theft.
Further if you are stupid enough to argue that delaying is not an infringement on the rights of others – then how much delay ? 10 minutes ? 10 days ? 10 years ?
While courts will often dismiss charges or claims as deminimus – they MUST actually b very tiny infringements on rights.
My point is not only could you have actually checked the law – as well as the advice of experts – not right or left leaning experts – just ordinary criminal lawyers who have chosen to provide publicly advice on a subject that many people – right and left have some concerns about.
If you live in portland an travel into the city – there is always a risk you will get trapped somewhere by a protest. Few people who live in portland are conservative. The residents of portland lean strongly to the left and it is most frequently far lefties that get trapped in a protest.
It is commonly people who support the protestors, but who can not just drop whatever they are doing for hours while trapped in a protest.
They have lives to get on with and the RIGHT to do so.
Protestors do NOT have the right to impose their will by force on those who got trapped in their protest.
It is also quite commonly seniors.
Unless you are stupid enough to beleive that once you have been surrounded by protestors – your life is under their control until they choose to let you free, then you already KNOW that you are free to FORCIBLY extricate yourself from a protest, and the only question is how much FORCE can you use.
Do you really need to have it explained to you why you are legally allowed to push through a crowd that has trapped you – whether in a car or not ?
We can debate how much FORCE you are permitted to use.
But unless you are a complete moron you already KNOW that you are free to use SOME force.
John say, as usual you substitute philosophical assumptions with facts.
Duty to retreat” laws (found in many “left-leaning” states) explicitly state that you cannot use force if you can safely move away. If you are “trapped,” the duty to retreat is technically satisfied because there is no safe escape, but this doesn’t grant extra force rights. It simply reverts to standard self-defense rules.
These states generally have a higher bar for the use of force, requiring you to prove you had absolutely no other choice. It is rarely “greatest” in these jurisdictions; it is most restricted.
Contra your “theft of time” claim If a protest blocks a road, the crime is False Imprisonment, Obstructing a Highway, or Disorderly Conduct. Labeling it “theft” is legally inaccurate and wouldn’t hold up in a courtroom.
Your “pushing through” argument has problems. The law distinguishes between passive blocking and active threats. If a crowd is simply standing in your way (even illegally), using a vehicle to “push through” is often classified as Assault with a Deadly Weapon. Which IS a crime.
In most states, you can only use force—especially with a car—if you have a “reasonable fear of imminent death or serious bodily injury.” Being “annoyed” or “late” does not justify physical battery or assault with a deadly weapon.
And your “senior” argument. Wow. So wrong. Self-defense is based on threat, not inconvenience. Clearly you are not very good at understanding legal distinctions.
If the protesters are not touching you or threatening your life, but are simply blocking your path, most jurisdictions require you to call the police rather than “forcibly extricating” yourself. If you initiate physical contact to move someone who isn’t hitting you, you may be charged as the primary aggressor. The same applies if you’re using a car. If the protesters are not touching your car or being aggressive or violent the moment you decide to “push” with your car you’re the aggressor, not the victim.
And finally, again, for a detention to be a felony (False Imprisonment), there usually needs to be violence, menace, or fraud.
Most “trapped in a protest” scenarios that don’t involve threats or weapons are handled as misdemeanors. Like the Cornell situation. Treating every traffic delay as a high-level felony kidnapping is a massive legal exaggeration. As usual you’re wrong on almost all counts.
It is not a crime to use force against others in self defense. You are a complete ignoramous. You know nothing about law. man. Self defense while being yelled at justifies vehicular assault. Was the man’s life in danger?
ATS
Self defense is NOT merely the right to defend yourself against deadly force.
It is the right to defend yourself against ANY infringement on your rights.
The standard for DEADLY force is that you or others are threatened with loss of life of serious bodily injury.
But you may use less than lethal force against lessor threats.
As I noted the FORCE that you may use must be proportionate to the extent your rights are being infringed upon.
You can perfectly legally slowly push through a crown that is either intentionally or unintentionally trapping you.
You may do so in a car – or with your body if you are trapped in a crowd.
But you may not use more force than is needed to extricate yourself.
The law generally gives the person whose rights are being infringed the benefit of the doubt on edge cases.
But gunning a car into a peaceful crowd is beyond an edge case.
He is an adult in control of himself, really, he saved those morons lives. They were the ones not in control of themselves like supposed adults.
All adults know you cannot violate another rights, we all learn that in kindergarten. These kids apparently got the commie teachers who teach humans aren’t valuable except as slaves to their murderous cause. But humans are valuable, we don’t throw out babies when the newborn room is out of bassinets, it’s because we love them, we don’t want to kill like commies feel the need to.
Hey everyone, you should know that no parents are perfect, so you MUST finish your parenting yourself by holding yourself accountable for your actions and caring for the rights of others. and no murderous commies. sorry commie.
> I am surprised that the President did not have a campus police escort, who could have handled this confrontation.
That is an incredibly sad indictment of the state of elite universities that ANYONE on the campus would need police escort to go about their normal day.
Of course, half the reason it got this bad is that the colleges refuse to place any repercussions on disruptive behavior. None of these students will face any academic consequences, and will instead portrayed as heroic victims of an evil white man.
No … The “greatest lesson” (for student or non-student): get your foot out of the way.
I commend the President of Cornell for his restraint. Now he needs to follow through and act against the student who blocked his car, by expelling him after the usual procedures are done to protect this students “rights”. He did not shoot the student in the face as has occurred in other parts of the country so expelling him would be appropriate.
This student is obviously not high caliber for rational thought or he would not be attempting to wrestle with a vehicle of several thousand pounds.
Unplanned events can occur when such stupidity is manifest. People trip and people fall down and get lost to sight and sometimes feet slide off a brake and hit the accelerator and then vehicles roll over them. Too many of these events end up in emergency rooms. Sometimes death and severe injury occurs, again prompted by an act of stupidity.
I wonder if the words “He just ran over my f—— foot” were preceded by the statement “Watch Me Do This!”.
Sounds like a psych evaluation is in order.
GEB – thank you.
We have spent thousands of years developing the nuances of criminal law to address exactly situations like this.
When you intentionally prevent another person from exiting – you are committing a CRIME – an actual felony.
Surrounding another persons vehicle so that they can not escape is the lowest form of Kidnapping.
It is a serious crime.
When you unlawfully detain another person they may legally use the FORCE needed to escape.
But the amount of force they may use must be proportionate to the circumstances.
They can as an example use deadly force if you start breaking into the car. \
They may use less than deadly force but more than gentle force if you start damaging their property.
Regardless, the point – which the left completely ignores is that whatever you beleive the merits of your cause you are NOT free to infringe on the actual rights of others – not to “get their attention” not because you beleive they are morally wrong.
The majority of the time preventing someone from leaving is a misdemeanor. A felony charge only occurs when there is violence involved. Just preventing the vehicle from moving does not rise to the level of a felony.
“ Surrounding another persons vehicle so that they can not escape is the lowest form of Kidnapping.
It is a serious crime.”
No, kidnapping is moving a person from one place to another. Surrounding a vehicle is false imprisonment.
Using “more than gentle force” for property damage alone is legally risky. Most jurisdictions allow for “reasonable non-deadly force” to protect property, but escalating to significant physical harm over a car window or dent is often not legally protected.
I am actually very familiar with this RIGHT NOW – not just because of familiarity with experts on the law of self defense addressing the law with respect to people being trapped in a protest.
But because my wife has a case RIGH NOW where a client used his care to block another person in a car from exiting a parking lot.
The prosecutor charge felony unlawful restraint, The Judge allowed it, the jury convicted.
The sentence was 10 years – consecutive with other charges.
She is appealing and expects to win – though successful criminal appeals are very rare.
Were the jury, courts and prosecutor wrong – in my opinion ?
Absolutely.
But it would also be WRONG to tell people this can not happen – because it did.
As part of this appeal decades of cases of unlawful detention prosecutions were researched,
and while we can not find a single other conviction as weak as this one – it is still wrong to say that it is difficult to get convicted of Felony unlawful detention.
The unlawful detention of the university president is significantly more egregious than the above case.
While it is true that those involved are unlikely to face serious charges in NYC.
They absolutely would face serious charges if they did the same to a university president in my community in PA
“The majority of the time preventing someone from leaving is a misdemeanor.”
Correct – in most places most of the time.
“A felony charge only occurs when there is violence involved.”
Again – correct in most places most of the time.
“Just preventing the vehicle from moving does not rise to the level of a felony.”
Again – correct in most places most of the time.
“No, kidnapping is moving a person from one place to another. ”
Very loosely correct – please do not presume that the way the law is applied in cities of a million people of more is the same as it is throughout the country.
If you shove someone into a closet and trap them – in significant parts of the country you can and likely will be charged with kidnapping – and may well be convicted.
You absolutely will in my community – which is conservative – but still far from the degree that much of the country is.
Regardless, my statement is still correct – these are ALL crimes involving restricting a persons freedom of movement.
“Using “more than gentle force” for property damage alone is legally risky.”
All choices are risky once you have been trapped in a car by a crowd.
“Most jurisdictions allow for “reasonable non-deadly force” to protect property,”
Correct – but this is NOT about protecting property.
It is not he car that was detained – it was the person.
The car provided two functions – some protection from the crowd and a means of escape.
“but escalating to significant physical harm over a car window or dent is often not legally protected.”
Again – consult the experts – as well as use a bit of logic.
The reason that various factors allow escalation is not the threat to property.
It is that they reflect an increase in the perceived threat to the person.
A crowd that will not get out of the way is not perceived of as as dangerous to the person as one that starts pounding on the car. The perceived danger to the person is greater when the car starts getting damaged.
The perceived danger to the person is at or close to that justifying deadly force when the crowd starts trying to enter the vehicle.
With very minor variance the LAW is exactly the same throughout the country.
There is significant variation in how the law is applied from jurisdiction to jurisdiction – even within the same state.
I live in a medium red community in a purple state. This is not the boonies of arkansas.
There is plenty of culture, little predjudice, while predominantly conservative – there are significant minority and very liberal community members – and though there are disagreements on values, and conservatives in the majority mostly win those political disagrements, this is far from a homogenous deep red community.
But we take crime very very seriously. We take it seriously when it is plain vanilla crime, and that does not change when it is criminal acts in the context of politics.
I real case in my community right now of a far lessor offense than this has resulted in a 10 year consecutive sentence for unlawful imprisonment. Hopefully that will be overturned on appeal. But it is wrong to assume that.
While you can likely correctly argue that this would receive a slap on the wrist in NYC – that is not universally true. I would bet that outside of cities of a million people or more – this would result in felony convictions.
Absent a prior record for violence it probably would only result in a few year sentence.
But lots of things that get slaps on the wrist in left wing nut enclaves result in serious prison time in the rest of the country.
A good explanation of why the crime rates in big cities is double or more that of the rest of the country.
John say, that’s a LOT of words to say you agree with me.
“ Just preventing the vehicle from moving does not rise to the level of a felony.”
Again – correct in most places most of the time.”
But you claimed that this is a felony kidnapping in prior posts. Obviously you learned your original assertion is wrong.
“ While you can likely correctly argue that this would receive a slap on the wrist in NYC – that is not universally true. I would bet that outside of cities of a million people or more – this would result in felony convictions.”
Why? Because rural law is different than city laws? State law applies everywhere in the state. Preventing someone from leaving without violence is always going to be a misdemeanor. Your example of a prosecuted conviction a judge to agree to felony charges sounds like something YOU would do. Of course, it is highly dependent on the circumstances and what exactly happened. But blocking a car with another car is still a misdemeanor.
In Pennsylvania the only way a car blocking a car resulting in false imprisonment being a felony is if the victim is a minor. Otherwise all other acts are misdemeanors or citable offense. I would have to assume the case your wife is appealing involved a minor. If not she may well have the felony charge dropped to misdemeanor.
I thought we all learned a lesson from the Reginald Denny experience.
I will tell the judge that I feared for my life.
I will say that I was just careful as I could be but that I’m not responsible for their suicidal tendencies trying to impede the progress of a moving vehicle.
It’s absolutely ridiculous.
We should have minimum safe speeds of 5 mph allowed in such situations.
If they are serious protesters then they are welcome to become martyrs
Only six? Hardly seems worth writing about it. But of course it must be done so the rage continues. At least Cornell had a successful and civil debate including those on the left who participated. Turley didn’t bother to at a minimum give credit for some on the left for doing exactly what he supports. A civil debate.
How much credit do you want for doing what you should do?
Just a simple acknowledgment would suffice. At a minimum Turley could have mentioned that even the left does engage in civil debate. But he “missed” a good opportunity to point out the left does indeed act civil.
Nonsense. Just yesterday you went on and on asking for evidence (like you were a lawyer), and criticizing comments with accusations like, “How big were those containers? Were they sealed? Jars?”
And then you created your OWN theory of events: “Whoever got ‘injured’ may have made the mistake of trying to open one, because there were several left around and we don’t know how many is ‘several’ in this incident. Clearly there is not a lot of information to infer it was as serious as it some [sic] may want it to be.”
But today, clown X, you have the hubris to mention the debates held at Cornell?
It does not appear that the six students harassing the president were present at the debate, since it just started.
You have at least 10 people here who criticize your silly posts and take you down; several others just ignore you.
“Only [10] plus? Hardly seems worth writing about it.”
So? My points about yesterday’s article were not wrong. Making a few speculations isn’t saying there were true. Just pointing out here are possibilities that can or should be considered.
“ But today, clown X, you have the hubris to mention the debates held at Cornell?
It does not appear that the six students harassing the president were present at the debate, since it just started.”
Hubris? I don’t think you understand what you think it means. But whatever. Of course it does not appear that the six students and non-students were present at the debate. That IS my point. Those who were AT the debate TO debate did so civilly. Which is what Turley didn’t really make an effort to give them credit for. Instead he chose to focus on six protesters blocking a car and make hay about it. He “missed” an opportunity to show that the left can engage in civil debate and conduct themselves the way Turley approves.
“So?” “So?” “So?
No, I meant hubris. I know my words better than you.
Hubris: arrogance or “overbearing pride or presumption.”
The perfect capture of a know-it-all like you.
Nope, you still used it wrong and is shows.
Listen clown, you arrogantly claimed that Turley ERRED in not mentioning that “some” leftist students participated in a debate. “But he ‘missed a good opportunity to point out the left does indeed act civil,” you said.
Did you miss the part, clown, where Turley says “The President was ‘accosted by a group of several individuals,’
‘ including non-students who were known to Cornell for past conduct involving ‘ongoing verbal and online abuse’ of administrators and staff. He alleged that two of the individuals had previously been banned from campus following a ‘disruptive protest.’”
Can you READ and COMPREHEND, you little clown?
Hubris is an understatement for your condescending stupidity.
Arrogantly? LOL! It does not mean what you think it means. You used this word wrong too. Wow. Two for two.
There’s nothing arrogant about pointing out a missed opportunity by Turley. It’s just a simple fact.
It’s a fact that students representing the left who participated in the debate did so civilly. Turley could have mentioned that or could have given them credit and used that to compare to the six who did not. But as usual he chose not to because that would diminish the point of his narrative which is to cast the left as violent thugs or criminals. Never mind that the left did indeed act and engaged in a civil debate that concluded without violence.
The students involved in the protest and blocking the vehicle were a mix of non-students and students for a grand total of…six individuals. I would have thought Turley could have used the fact that the students who participated in the debate would be a better example to use. But he had to choose to focus on the worst to peddle his own brand of rage baiting.
But thanks for letting us know that you don’t understand what “hubris” and “arrogance” mean or how to use them properly.
X is very triggered that this president dared to call this little brats bluff.
LOOK at all the posts!
When you trigger someone’s fight or flight response, the law of the jungle takes over. Don’t mess with Mother Nature. Insincere lawyers get eaten too.
You do not deserve an acknowledgement for doing what you are obligated to do.
Regardless – shifting to different tactics – intmimidating the college president is NOT the same as “engaging in civil debate”
The left absolutely DID NOT act civilly – they just changed their method of intimidation.
The left deserves MORE criticism here than Turley is giving them.
Those on the left responded by criminally intimidating the university president for allowing this debate.
That is NOT “acting civily”.
You do NOT get credit for allowing others to excercise their rights – you are obligated to do that.
You get credit when you do MORE than what you are obligated to do – not less.
You get criticism when you use ANY means to restrict others from excercising their rights.
This is another instance where the left proves its stripes.
This is another instance where the left attempts to thwart the liberty of others with violence and intimidation.
John Say,
“ Regardless – shifting to different tactics – intmimidating the college president is NOT the same as “engaging in civil debate”
The left absolutely DID NOT act civilly – they just changed their method of intimidation.”
Obviously you’re conflating the six protesters with the others who DID engage in a civil debate. Because you WANT to accuse all of them simply by association. Pitiful.
Were the students who participated in the debate the same ones who engaged in the protest and blocked the car? Yes or no?
You’re falsely assuming it was the debaters who were intimidating the college president.
“ You do NOT get credit for allowing others to excercise their rights – you are obligated to do that.
You get credit when you do MORE than what you are obligated to do – not less.”
Because you say so? Please.
Turley could have given the students representing the left who engaged in civil debate credit for doing so and used that as an example comparing the actions of the six protesters.
You just don’t want to admit that the left does engage in civil debate. So you conflate the six protesters with the rest of the students who did engage in civil debate.
“You get criticism when you use ANY means to restrict others from excercising their rights.“
Being annoying or a nuisance is not “restricting others from exercising their rights”. You still get to exercise them anyway.
“Those on the left responded by criminally intimidating the university president for allowing this debate.
That is NOT “acting civily”.
This six were. But you want to conflate them with those who did debate civilly. Because they were indeed acting civilly and you can’t deny that. Turley chose to be critical of a very small number of protesters (only six) vs. what could have been a few dozen or perhaps a hundred people engaged in the actual civil debate. That would have been a far better example for Turley to prove his point that civil debate or discourse IS possible. He had an opportunity to show it is not as bad as YOU want it to be and he missed it deliberately, because it fits with his “the-left-is always-violent” false narrative. If he chose to recognize them and give them credit it would have undermined his narrative meant to rage bait the right-wing nuts on the blog.
Yes, you can tell how upset X is by the length of his posts!
Cmon X, you have not defended this commie brat very well, what kind of a lawyer are you?
Post more X, we still “don’t get it”.
Cornell did NOT have a civil debate – unlawfully detaining Kotlikoff as he departs is part o the totality of the event.
You would not be praising left wing nuts if after the speaker finished and Q&A was completed, one of theleft wing nuts assassinated the speaker.
Kotlikoff was unlawfully detained for allowing this debate.
When you engage in criminal acts to express your displeasure at others exercising their rights:
YOU are a criminal
YOU are also still engaged in censorship
YOU are engaged in terrorism.
John, obviously you’re wrong. The protesters in question were not part of the event. You know, the one that successfully concluded involving both the left and the right engaged in civil debate.
“ You would not be praising left wing nuts if after the speaker finished and Q&A was completed, one of theleft wing nuts assassinated the speaker.”
Nobody would. I’m sure in that little fantasy of yours the assassin is also apprehends and charged with capital murder and sentenced to death.
I get it. You love to overdramatize everything the left does.
“John, obviously you’re wrong. The protesters in question were not part of the event.”
They were inarguably part of the LEFT, and they were inarguably seeking to punish the president for allowing the event and intimidate him from allowing future events.
Absolutely everyone one the left is not individually culpable for every act of violence commited by anyone arguably on the left – and the same it true regarding the right – though you refuse to accept that.
Most “mass killings” are by disturbed people who were going to do something bad regardless of politics.
While there is some contribution made by political rhetoric – mostly that goes to picking targets – NOT committing acts of violence.
However there is true political violence in this country – that is not for the most part committed by seriously mentally unhealthy people – except to the extent that being on the far left is itself evidence of serious mental health problems and disconnection from reality.
People who initiate violence at protests – something that is almost completely exclusive to the left, are absolutely engaged in political violence.
The effort to trap the university president was political violence by the left.
While to those with a brain it is inextricably linked to the excercise of free speech by someone not on the far left.
Even if as you wish to delude yourself – it is not part of the same event.
It is stall another glaring example of left wing political violence.
You do not deserve credit for the fact that many left wing protestors behaved themselves at this event.
That is what is expected of them.
We do not give people credit for NOT committing any crimes today.
The left still gets the blame for the violence directed at the university president.
The entire left ?
Yes, to some extent for THREE reasons.
First – it is literally far left dogma that violence is a legitmate means of obtaining their political goals.
I would qualify that because violence IS justified to obtain SOME political goals under SOME conditions.
That is precisely the purpose of the declaration of independence. To establish that violence in defence of liberty AFTER protracted infringement and sustained failure of the existing institutions to deliver redress has failed.
That is NOT the lefts justification for political violence. Actual rights are not threatened – except by the left.
Regardless, whether it is the french revolution or the formation of the USSR, CCP, Cuba, Venezuella or anhy other left wing political take overs – violence is the deliberate method and justified solely politically.
The 2nd is the frequency and scale of left wing violence dwarfs that of any other political identity.
We can debate the causation – but the correlation is near absolute and robust over time.
The third reason is evident by your posts.
MAGA, conservatives, most of the right does not defend the rare actual violence of real neo-nazis.
When dealing with events like J6 – the primaryu focus of those on the right is
WHO actually engaged in the violence – who started it who threw the first punch.
I have argued that political violence CAN be justified by a long pattern of significant govenrment abuse of rights – exactly as the declaration of independence does.
The lawless and fraudulent 2020 election is an example of the START of such a train of abuses.
But that does not as a single abuse reach the point at which violence is the only means of redress.
I have also argued that the FAILURE of the courts to hold REAL hearings on the election, itself is another step towards justified political violence. The declaration of indepence justifies political violence after a long train of abuses of rights AND a failure of institutions like the courts to allow efforts to seek redress.
You revel in some 70 cases that failed to take claims against the election seriously – but it that failure that brings us one step closer to justified political violence.
Regardless the right does NOT claim that we have come near the point at hich political violence is justified.
The rare instances of political violence involving the right that do occur – result in questions from the right as to Who the first punch – not whether it was justified.
While YOU – and the left constantly argue that political violence is justified.
Or you constantly defend those who revel in it.
Were those trapping the university president neo nazis ? Where they ANY far right or even just plain MAGA group?
What we get from you is arguments like:
The event was merely delayed – that is OK.
The violence was AFTER the even – that is OK.
What was thrown on someones face probably wasn;t acid – that is OK.
And other such efforts to justify left wing violence.
The right is far from perfect – but even the proudboys are model citizens compared to you and the left.
John Say,
“ They were inarguably part of the LEFT, and they were inarguably seeking to punish the president for allowing the event and intimidate him from allowing future events.”
ROFL!!
John, you sound desperate. They were not part of the debate team. You desperately want to conflate the two very different groups into one to justify your asinine argument.
The debate was clearly over by the time the president was walking to his car.
“ Absolutely everyone one the left is not individually culpable for every act of violence commited by anyone arguably on the left – and the same it true regarding the right – though you refuse to accept that.”
But you do accuse everyone there of being part of the intimidation because they are the “left”. You contradict yourself often when you can’t hide your disdain for the left.
The six individuals were not part of the debate team from the left. You WANT them to be so you can lay blame on all of them for the actions of a few. Your guilt-by-association reasoning is pitiful.
Then you go off on a familiar rant regarding disproving election fraud claims and political violence justified because you say so. Come on.
“ The right is far from perfect – but even the proudboys are model citizens compared to you and the left.”
The Proud Boys are not model citizens. They are an extremist group who were intent on fomenting violence against law enforcement and got caught committing crimes. Hardly a good example of “model citizens”.
“The event was merely delayed – that is OK.
The violence was AFTER the even – that is OK.
What was thrown on someone’s face probably wasn;t acid – that is OK.“
I’m sure you’re referring to yesterday’s incident at the Jewish festival. You keep making the false claim that acid was thrown. That never happened and was never reported. You have no idea what happened. The only thing we do know is a substance was placed in various locations. Nothing was thrown. You sure want to make things look worse than they are to justify your hatred for the left even if you have to make it up. Come on John I thought you were better than that.
“ When dealing with events like J6 – the primaryu focus of those on the right is
WHO actually engaged in the violence – who started it who threw the first punch.”
That would be the Proud Boys. They were the ones encouraging and prodding the crowd to get more aggressive. They were coordinating with each other to rile up the crowd and storm the Capitol. It’s on video.
“Nobody would. I’m sure in that little fantasy of yours the assassin is also apprehends and charged with capital murder and sentenced to death.”
You do not seem to live in the real world.
The former director of the FBI specuilates about the assassination fo the president – and YOU justify that.
How many left wing celebrities have either publicly pondered the assassination of Trump – or others on the right or defended those who did, or threatened those on the right with violence ?
A grand Jury decided with full context that Comey committed a crime – we will see if a jury finds the same.
You can argue – with difficultyu that Comey was engaged in free speech and did not committ a crime.
The same is true of the many prominent people on the left who regularly wish violence on Trump and republicans.
Their conduct may or may not be legal.
It is NOT moral.
I personally do not think “8647” alone meets the high standard necescary to shift from protected speech to a crime. But DOJ cvlaims there is more context and the GJ agreed. I weill wait to see that context before deciding whether I defend Comey’s right to free speech or not.
Bujt under no cirtcumstances was Comey’s speech MORAL, ETHICAL, or defensible. There is ZERO question it was revolting and WRONG, the only question is wherther it was a crime.
YOU constantly defend the heinous and violent speech of others especiaslly when it is directed at those on the right.
But there is a difference between defending the right of people to say revolting and immoral things.
And defending what they said.
You delusionally beleiver that if what was said was protected speech, that it is also moral.
Until the left Woke takeover – even the left would not do that.
Those of you on the left have no core principles.
You have no problems with censoring speach you do not like.
You defend jailing people who engaged in silent prayer.
But you want the rest of us to join your defense of calls for political assassination and violence by your own.
Why should anyone be surprised that absent any actual principles – some on the left would resort to politicsal violence – and worse still that you would defend them and try to make hero’s of them.
Man y on the right v iew abortions as murder – and there is a rational argument for that even if you do not agree.
But few, and no one of significance is defending t Eric Rudolph And in the even t someone did – nearly all the right would join in condemning them for doing so.
Yet the left has made a martyr of Luigi Mangione, and Tyler Robinson – and even YOU tried to pretend the kirk assassination was some bizzare right wing false flag.
No one needs to overdramatize what the left does.
You do an excellent job of blowing emotions out of proportion and making everything about emotions not fact.
You are here posting demanding Kudos for “obeying the law” for once – and then only inside the walls of the auditorium.
In what world is anyone entitled to recognition for obeying the law ?
The social contract does not require partial compliance with the rule of law.
Debate is not civil when as the debate concludes you unlawfully detain (kidnap) those who fascilitated the debate.
You do not get to claim that you are civil and law abiding because you waited until after the debate to punish and intimidate those who fascilitated it.
Unfortunately all too quietly accross the country those – near exclusively on the left who engage in criminal conduct such as this intended to intimidate those who do not kowtow to left wing demands are being arrested, tried convicted and sentenced to years in prison.
Those involved in detaining Kotlikoff should be arrested and charged with unlawfully detaining him – which in my state is subject to a maximum of 10 years in prison.
Turley glosses over the fact that trapping someone in their car and denying them the opportunity to leave is a SERIOUS crime – with potentially a long prison sentence.
John Say, you’re making wild assumptions without evidence. You have zero evidence that the protesters who surrounded the car were the same people who were debating.
“ Debate is not civil when as the debate concludes you unlawfully detain (kidnap) those who fascilitated the debate.”
Who is “you”? The debate concluded with both sides acting civil. You have no idea or evidence that the people who were debating are the same people who surrounded the car. You WANT it to be true because it gives you an excuse to lay blame on the left.
Btw, what they did was not kidnapping. Please learn the difference. Kidnapping means taking a person from one place to another. False imprisonment is what they did.
I agree with you that those who were involved should be arrested and charged accordingly. It is however more likely to be a misdemeanor not a felony as you so desperately want it to be.
“John Say, you’re making wild assumptions without evidence. You have zero evidence that the protesters who surrounded the car were the same people who were debating.”
I did not claim otherwise. I DID claim – as they made evident by their own words that they were on the left and engaged in a different tactic to suppress speech.
“ Debate is not civil when as the debate concludes you unlawfully detain (kidnap) those who fascilitated the debate.”
“Who is “you”?”
Those who engaged in illegal conduct.
“The debate concluded with both sides acting civil.”
Who is “sides” ?
Are only those inside the auditorium criticising the speaker – the “left side” ?
Aren;’t those outside protesting – legitimately also on the left ? Aren;t those outside infringing on the univeristy presidents freedom also on the left ?
You(X) chose to use the word “sides” – worse still you keep offering a piss poor defense of those clearly engaged in illegal conduct, You have chosen your “side” – your stuck with it.
” You have no idea or evidence that the people who were debating are the same people who surrounded the car.”
Correct – nor have I claimed they were – but YOU demanded credit to “the left” for a civil debate.
“the left” did not have a civil debate – SOME of the left did – and merely having a civil debate does not earn you credit. Not violating others rights is an obligation – a duty – not something you should be praised for.
“You WANT it to be true”
No. It is True that those enegaged in unlawful conduct are on the left.
I never said EVERYONE on the left was engaged in unlawful conduct.
” to lay blame on the left.” – because the left is to blame.
YOU ask for kudo’s for “the left” – YOU are the one now trying to make this idiotic claim that you only meant a tiny portion of “the left”
Further – while you are demanding Kudos for “The left”,
you are not criticising – and in many cases defending the criminal conduct of many of those on “the left”.
While you are not obligated to criticise ever left wing nut who does something stupid.
When you defend them you OWN them.
“what they did was not kidnapping.”
All forms of infringing on the liberty rights of others are different only in degree as crimes.
YOU are unfamiliar with the law. Please come to my community and trap someone in a closet and see whether you are charged with Kidnapping.
But I am glad that you are atleast now recognizing that the committed a crime.
” It is however more likely to be a misdemeanor not a felony as you so desperately want it to be.”
That depends on he jurisdiction – RIGHT NOW, My wife is appealing a 10 year consecutive sentenced felony conviction for unlawful imprisonment of a guy who merely parked another person in. The “victim” was free to exit his car and walk away. There was not a mob trapping him in his car.
If you are asking me whether the conduct of those with respect to the university president should be a misdemeanor rather than a felony – MOSTLY I would agree.
In fact I would not impose a custodial sentence on any who did not have prior convictions.
But as big as I am on law and order – I am also opposed to trying to convert every offence into a capital offense.
The primary negative impact on those who unlawfully detained the university president is the absolute certainty that in the future they need to be on their best behavior. If only that was how democrat cities normally applied the law. In my community – your first strike – lands you in jail – and this would be prosecuted as a felony.
And my community is pink to light red.
X, How many times are you going to re-read and scour these posts?
this is the 3rd time you’ve gone by here.
If you’re reading this, You’re obsessed, get help!
“If the crowd were larger, I do not believe it might not have been reasonable to attempt to back out of the parking lot.” Really awkward sentence, nonetheless I will try to push back. The larger the crowd the more imminent the danger. Thus, backing out is even more justified (and reasonable) because the threat is greater. If one (or more) of the thugs trying to hold the driver (and passenger(s)) hostage is injured, that is a consequence of his or her illegal actions–an assumption of the risk.
Problem is this is not Florida. There you can run over protesters if a driver feels threatened.
👍🏻
so to Democrats ATTACKING people….is free speech?
Crawl back under your rock you wackjob.
Still making derogatory comments from folks? If you weren’t so antagonistic to others, your posts might get some positive responses.
You restrain people travel…you should be SHOT!
I don’t want these terrorists just expelled….I want them ARRESTED on FEDERAL CHARGES
Intimidation…isn’t free speech!
Democrats are attempting to create a Fascist STATE….and they attack their own!
Free Speech is not interfering with other people…shouting down, attacking people, block people, defacing property.
Democrats are intelligent to debate ideas…they are terrorists and fascists attempting to intimidate and terrify others.
I want the Democrat Party Abolished for THEIR 2nd Civil War
GOP/Trump End Federal Aid to colleges including student loans. Also Aid to states which goes to public universities!
Any professor inspiring “activism” against others….should be immediately be fired!
You want to make a speech about your point of view on your time in a netural place fine.
I know Cornell well…75% of posters are for WOKE CRAP!
Prof. Turley, I hope you will write about the decision of the Arlington Commonwealth Attorney regarding Barbara Wien. Wien publicized Stephen Miller’s home address on fliers that made it very clear that she thought he was a horrible person. Why did she do that? I don’t think it was so people could send him Christmas cards. The Arlington Commonwealth Attorney sees no violation of the law. Was that a close call? BTW, the home address of the Arlington Commonwealth Attorney is not publicly available, “for security reasons.”
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/protester-stephen-miller-doxxing-no-charges-virginia/
BTW, does anyone know where the cited 166-page court filing can be found? I can’t find it.
For a great deal of additional information about this matter, including a “WANTED” poster containing Miller’s face with slash across it and the statement “No Nazis in NoVa,” see
https://www.arlnow.com/2026/05/07/arlington-prosecutor-alleges-federal-overreach-in-stephen-miller-protester-case/
I just can’t believe any impartial person could deny this is an attempt to intimidate. But the Commonwealth Attorney does deny that.
“Rather, the sole call to action was to a traditionally and clearly protected political activity, encouraging residents to petition Congress to investigate Mr. Miller’s actions based on the wanted flyer’s allegations.”
Wait a minute.
The flier said “No Nazis in NoVa.” Was that a declarative statement or an imperative one?
If it was declarative, there would be no reason to put it on the flier. If it was imperative, then it was a call to action.
The Commonwealth Attorney’s argument is completely unreasonable.
Here is a thought experiment. Suppose the same type of flyer was distributed in Arlington, but targeting not Stephen Miller but the Commonwealth Attorney, by her name and face. Would that be allowed? I’m no attorney so I have no idea, but I think that is a reasonable question to ask of the local authorities, just to gain clarity. What are the limits of speech? And do different people have different rights to suppress speech?
The Virginia law cited in the CBS news article is
§ 18.2-186.4. Use of a person’s identity with the intent to coerce, intimidate, or harass; penalty
https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title18.2/chapter4/section18.2-186.4/
So the law requires intent.
The flyer disseminated contains the phrase “No Nazis in NoVa.” How could it be any clearer what the intent of the flyer, and those who disseminated it, was?
And as to who the flyer was talking about, the flyer included Steven Miller’s name, photograph, and home address. I just can’t see how the Commonwealth Attorney can not see such a blatant violation of the law.
you block a car….you “SHOULD BE RUN OVER”
Kidnapping and retraining people is a CRIME
The TERRORISTS….should be jailed for 2 years!
Collateral Damage of a Mid-Eastern conflict on Cornell University (U.S.A.) soil. On both sides, The University President’s and the Student’s.
“… You cannot throw yourself around moving vehicles and then claim to be a victim as a result.”
Pulling a ‘Murphy Brown’ (Actor: Candice Bergen) “I’ll provoke you, just claim to be the Victim”
Re. Wikipedia:
“Collateral damage” is a term for any incidental and undesired death, injury or other damage inflicted, especially on civilians, as the result of an activity. Originally coined to describe military operations, it is now also used in non-military contexts to refer to negative unintended consequences of an action.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collateral_damage
For many Jews in the United States, the current atmosphere is beginning to feel like a modern echo of 1930s Germany. This isn’t a political argument about the complexities of the Middle East; it is an observation of a shifting social reality where being Jewish carries an inherent risk of harassment or physical violence. We are witnessing a movement that has radicalized a new generation, where the condemnation of Israel has found a ‘logical extension’ in the targeting of Jewish people. While some might dismiss the comparison to the Nuremberg Laws as hyperbole, for those of us living through this surge of hostility, the parallel feels less like a historical reach and more like a looming premonition.
90% of Jew VOTE and Endow FASCIST Democrats
maybe they should WAKE UP?
The irony of course is that the establishment of Israel was intended to give Jews a safe refuge from antisemitism, not promote antisemitism.
Play stupid games. Win stupid prizes. Now expel the complaining student (if he is a student) from Cornell. He is too stupid to warrant a college degree under any circumstances. All this being said, our colleges and universities have become far too permissive when it comes to such thuggish behavior in the first place. Expel. Expel. Expel.
“I am surprised that the President did not have a campus police escort, who could have handled this confrontation.” Seriously? If it is like the majority of institutions of higher learning – HAHAHAHA- they would have done nothing- and if this president has helped foster the entitlement crowd, then he is reaping the fruits of his labor.