Tennessee Considers Bill To Protect Drivers Who Hit Protesters

a reply to: Ohanka

Yes. When you take someone out of their comfort zone it kind of forces them to pay attention to you.

originally posted by: intrptr

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Krazysh0t

The Tennessee bill, SB944, would shield a driver from civil liability as long as the driver exercised “due care.”

Yah whatever, license to kill. Only really 'carefully'.

Get ready for Death Race 2017!

Excusing a vehicular collision with a person is not ok even if it is done "carefully" or with "due care". It is inexcusable.

Well yah, what dd you think I meant?

Heh. I guess your sarcasm flew over my head.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: LSU0408

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: JDmOKI

Just because the street is blocked doesn't give you the right to run over whatever is in front of you. It's like you guys have lost your humanity. How can you be celebrating running someone over with a car?

How could you support inconveniencing everyone else because you didn't get your way?

Because I support the Bill of Rights even when it causes people inconvenience. I don't recall there being any caveats in the Bill of Rights saying you have the right to protest except when you prevent some dude from getting to work on time.

Suit yourself. I support getting to where I'm going whether bitter angry drama queens are standing in my way or not.

a reply to: TheBorg

Yes, times 1,000! That's exactly right.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Ohanka

Yes. When you take someone out of their comfort zone it kind of forces them to pay attention to you.

They're just going to ask the police to deal with you so that you're not being a nuisance to the general public.

People don't like roads/streets being blocked or getting attacked by people for no reason.

originally posted by: LSU0408

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: LSU0408

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: JDmOKI

Just because the street is blocked doesn't give you the right to run over whatever is in front of you. It's like you guys have lost your humanity. How can you be celebrating running someone over with a car?

How could you support inconveniencing everyone else because you didn't get your way?

Because I support the Bill of Rights even when it causes people inconvenience. I don't recall there being any caveats in the Bill of Rights saying you have the right to protest except when you prevent some dude from getting to work on time.

Suit yourself. I support getting to where I'm going whether bitter angry drama queens are standing in my way or not.

Good luck with getting to where you're going in a timely manner after plowing down protesters with your car!

The proposed bill doesn't clear you from criminal charges, and a hit and run charge is going to tie up a LOT of your free time.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: coop039

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: coop039

Has that actually happened to you? Or are you just referencing Youtube videos?

It happen here in St. Louis, but not to me.
But your reading comprehension is not up par, I never said it happened to me.

That's why I asked if it happened to you. Generally you ask questions when you aren't sure of the answer.

You must not read entire posts. If you read my entire post, your question would not have been necessary.

a reply to: Krazysh0t
I have a right to freedom of movement. There has been many instances of protesters blocking emergency vehicles. Your right to protest does not supersede my rights.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

You can think what you want. What you think, however, is not relevant.

It is illegal to block any public road. But not only that, it's stupid and dangerous. People already have been seriously injured. And yes, people have been arrested for it.

Plus I think it does more harm than good in getting people to be sympathetic to their cause. It's pretty annoying tbh.

I don't think it should be legal to run over protesters just for the hell of it, but if someone feels threatened you can't expect them to not protect themselves.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

You ask: How are you protecting yourself by running someone over with a multi-ton vehicle?

I started this video halfway through. Please watch the whole thing, your question will be answered.

This happened not even two blocks from where I live.
This was not a protest, either. It was supposed to be a celebration, which now is policed HEAVILY and cut down with choppers in the air and horses clearing the streets at 4:30pm.

What a shameful thread. The right to protest is one of the most important rights we have and should be defended at all costs (politics aside). Authoritarian times have arrived when the gov't has got the citizenry calling for the vehicular death of protestors out of 'convenience' issues. What an absolute shame. Who thought we'd see it here in the USA.

a reply to: okrian

You're right! You do have the right to peaceably protest. You however, do NOT have the right to block the free movement of others. When that happens, a crime is committed. If you block me in the road, and prevent my movement, that can be construed as an assault on my person.

TheBorg

I have no problem with this bill, because we all know we aren't dealing with "peaceful protesters" anymore. We're dealing with violent mobs of people who are threatening the lives of normal citizens by blocking roads, smashing cars, and surrounding cars with swarms of angry and crazy idiots.

"What the hell is "due care"? Running someone over with a car, regardless of the circumstances on why you did it, should come with stiffer penalties not be seeking to give them a slap on the wrist for vague (likely partisan) reasons."

If the protester are endangering my life and are doing things that i believe are dangerous to me you bet your life i will run them over.
This is why i have a dash camera on my car to record. everything.

And if that does not work i will think highly of adding a propane flame bar left over from burning man to the front of my car to move people.
i.dailymail.co.uk...

Blocking traffic should be a criminal charge and a criminal act. If somebody gets out of their car and physically removes a person from blacking their path, no charges should be filed against them. If they get attacked physically or physically resisted by the protesters, then that's assault. But I would say that running somebody down with a car is probably going too far. Now simply forcing them out of the cars path at a slow speed might be okay.

a reply to: Dutchowl>>>> makes me think about our local city high school. People have learned that you don't go near there at the end of the school day because the students will literally walk out onto the city street like a herd of livestock. I almost hit a student on a rainy day when she just walked in front of the car, jaywalking. The police aren't there to direct traffic, its too much of a hopeless task to get these numbskulls to follow orders.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Inconveniencing people is not what protest is all about. Protest is about voicing your opinion to try and make sure that other people hear you. Blocking traffic, looting, pillaging, destroying property, or busting up a cop's car is not protesting.

I keep hearing "protesting is a right but driving is a privilege".

Well freedom of movement is also a constitutional guaranteed right.

en.wikipedia.org...

I think that protesters who block roadways assume inherent risk, but that should not negate the liability on the part of a person who recklessly mows them down either. I think protesting in the middle of the street is a stupid way to exercise rights as well, but again do not think an appropriate response is to run people over, even if they're being dumb.

Instead why not require law enforcement to reroute traffic? win-win,

Also for those who say this can't be done, sure it can. They reroute traffic from accidents and hazards all the time.

I say we start arresting them for the following:

False Imprisonment

An crime as well as an intentional tort. A person commits false imprisonment when he commits an act of restraint on another person which confines that person in a bounded area. An act of restraint can be a physical barrier (such as a locked door), the use of physical force to restrain, a failure to release, or an invalid use of legal authority. Threats of immediate physical force are also sufficient to be acts of restraint. An area is only bounded if freedom of movement is limited in all directions. If there is a reasonable means of escape from the area, the area is not bounded.

Cornell Law