>>941334267
They're babies.
I was at the No Kings in Southern Arizona, nobody lit fires, nobody threw anything, but some assholes with maga flags rolled coal on the protestors.
By the way, it's hard to understand this, but as a matter of law, rolling coal is a type of assault.
The relevant definition in most Jurisdictions reads something like: A person commits assault by . . . 'Knowingly touching another person with the intent to injure, insult or provoke such person.'
Just because the thing making contact has left your direction doesn't mean it's not your fault; throwing a balloon at someone is harmless yet provocative, and you can be charged for assault for things you say if they are intended to provoke, in the same manner as offensive contact.
In the same way, the particles from your exhaust are an extension of you. If you intended to offend by blowing that smoke over someone intentionally, that's not very different than making loud offensive noises or throwing harmless things at people. It's not different than any other tort claim.
The issue is enforcement, nobody would spend the money to sue for this, but case law does exist to support the interpretation.
In B4 "muh chatgpt/openai/grok says the opposite!"
That's because the law books that contain the cases I'm talking about are physical objects that are in libraries, most of which are not digitized, and those that are digitized are only available through specific legal avenues, usually requiring a Bar Card to access.