Tennessee Apparently Passes Law Allowing Drivers To Run Over Protesters

[Book of Jeremiah]

No, I have a 6 cylinder but my husband said it is a very powerful engine. He said the engine is made in Germany.

 

[Pogo]

Again, nowhere in the Constitution is awarded the right to "weed out the gene pool because the weed is 'dumb'".

THINK about it.

I am thinking about it, and that's why I'm totally fine with protestors accidentally being killed. Though, since you missed my edit due to your speedy reply, I also elaborated that the law still means that if you kill someone, you'll face criminal charges, and you're supposed to "exercise due caution". I'd be fine with them being killed, but the killer will still face charges. You just can't be sued.

I'm not anywhere NEAR as concerned with what the law does or doesn't provide as I am with you and others proclaiming it's perfectly OK to run people down with a car because you in the court of your own head have adjudged them "dumb".

Shouldn't have been protesting in the road. For every action, there are consequences, and if someone chooses to stand in the road to protest, they're accepting all consequences for those actions, ESPECIALLY after this law has been passed. If someone stands on train tracks, they know a train could come through there. If someone stands in the road, they know cars could come through there. Knowing that, I wouldn't mind one bit if they were run over for their stupidity.

Thanks --- you just re-confirmed the same problem I pointed out.

Post 66 directly above appears to be joining you in the same sentiment, which is, again to state it bluntly, advocating terrorism.

You are running a gif on your signature of a black man blindsiding and knocking down our President which is clearly advocating violence against the highest office in the land and you are complaining about someone who says they will defend themselves against these road protesters? LOOK IN THE MIRROR. That's your problem.

Uh ---- no, I am not. Don't sit on here and lie. That image is from the "grab 'em by the pussy" conversation, which if memory serves was in 2005. I believe the POTUS was George Bush then, and he does not appear in the image. Furthermore the aggressor photoshopped in is simply a man, probably one who has a name although I don't know it. Nothing in the image has anything to do with his being "black".

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

"Protesters" have been known to block freeways. Freeways which are fenced from general access. Freeways which usually have prominent signs at each entrance advising "NO BICYCLES". "NO PEDESTRIANS", in some jurisdictions citing the statute addressing the prohibition. So those protesters have violated the law and are committing a crime. Who's to blame when a criminal is accidentally killed WHILE COMMITTING A CRIME?

Exactly, Henry. This whining about not being able to block cars and terrorize drivers is for the birds!

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

No, I have a 6 cylinder but my husband said it is a very powerful engine.

It'll still run forever.
We've switched to Toyota/Lexus since longevity is the same yet performance is better.
And I cant fathom off roading with a $150'000 G class.

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

My husband said my Mercedes station wagon weighs about 3,000 lbs. I thought it weighed 4,000 lbs. I need to correct myself on that one. But my engine is very powerful the car is a very heavy car and has a lot of power to it. It's a tank. I bought it because it was so solid and dependable. I was going to get a Range Rover but decided I liked the wagon better. Next time I'll get a Range Rover with one of them deer bumper guards on the front. I'm going to buy me a bumper sticker that says I do not stop for protesters. They cannot say they were not warned.

Yeah,Mercedes are built like tanks.
The wife's 300 got rear ended by a Honda accord and it totaled the Accord while leaving the Benzs with minor bumper damage.

Yes, I have a 300 and I feel very safe in it. I'm not surprised the Accord was totaled. That was no match for a Benz. Your wife is in a great car. I plan on driving the wheels off of mine.

Oh she did. She put over 500,000 thousand miles on it before she got rid of it.
The funny part,when she traded it in a black dude took it for a test drive and never came back.

I have 223,000 miles on mine and a mechanic told me I haven't even broken the engine in yet. It's a real cream puff. I love it. Newer is not better these days. My car is a keeper. I have strangers who literally come up to me asking me to sell them my car! I tell them it's not for sale and then they give me their phone number and say, if you ever want to sell it! Here's my number! I'm amazed that the guy stole the car on a test drive! Some folks just don't have any shame!

We had them put in the touring tank and she could go for a month without refills going back and forth to work.
We'd take road trips of 800 miles and not have to refill,the thing was a touring monster!!

Wow! That is amazing! I only drive to the store down the road once in a while. I do not drive it very often but it is in beautiful condition. The dashboard, seats, carpet and paint on the car look like new. Not even a tiny chip or tear anywhere. The paint is beautiful. I take good care of it. I cannot remember the last time I put gasoline in my car. My husband has done it for years. Whenever I look at the gas gauge it is usually on full. He's very good about that. I really need to thank him for doing that for me now that I think of it. That really is a blessing as I do not like having to go inside a store.

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

No, I have a 6 cylinder but my husband said it is a very powerful engine.

It'll still run forever.
We've switched to Toyota/Lexus since longevity is the same yet performance is better.
And I cant fathom off roading with a $150'000 G class.

I owned a Toyota Lexus before. Beautiful car, the leather seats are very nice in the Lexus and I loved the drive. My husband put Perelli wheels on it and that really gave it a very smooth drive, like riding on air. You will love that car and you are right the performance is outstanding. I would never pay 150k for a car. Never. That is obscene.

 

[JOSweetHeart]

To me, this is how it should be. Having such a law will teach people to stay the heck out of the road if their lives mean anything to them.

God bless you always!!!

Holly

 

[Montrovant]

Shoppers are found inside stores. Normal protesters are found on sidewalks and the violent ones are found in the middle of the street trying to pull drivers from their cars. It's not rocket science. Don't over think it.

People intentionally blocking traffic and threatening drivers and pedestrians are no longer "protesters." They are rioters. If a person feels threatened by an angry mob, they are within their rights to get out of a dangerous situation by any means necessary. Blocking traffic and impeding business and making the public feel threatened by your presence is not protected by the First Amendment.

That is an excellent point. They are rioters. Not protesters.

Simply blocking traffic does not make someone a rioter. If they are threatening people or damaging property, sure. I would think blocking traffic is illegal pretty much everywhere in the country, though.

The very definition of a riotous person is a lawless person, a person disturbing the peace, a trouble maker.

Look at the definition:

See more synonyms on Thesaurus.com
adjective
1.
(of an act) characterized by or of the nature of riotingor a disturbanceof the peace.
2.
(of a person) inciting or taking part in a riot.
3.
given to or marked by unrestrained revelry; loose; wanton:
riotous living.
4.
boisterous or uproarious:
riotous laughter.
5.
hilariously funny.
__________
If you are blocking traffic illegally, pounding on people's cars and shouting and carrying on, blocking a car from moving, you are a rioter and a criminal. If you are acting in a manner which terrorizes people sitting inside of a car you are a terrorist in my opinion and you belong behind bars.

If protesters are "pounding on people's cars and shouting and carrying on," sure. If they are just standing in the street blocking traffic, without the rest, then they are not rioting. I would guess that there are some of both types involved in the various protests that have involved blocking traffic.

In terms of the bill from the OP, there is no reference to rioting. It's not really relevant to the original discussion.

I think you have an overly broad definition of the word terrorist, but as I said earlier, I would think most, if not all, areas of the country have laws against blocking traffic. Certainly blocking traffic and terrorizing the occupants of the vehicles you block could land a person behind bars.

 

[Montrovant]

To me, this is how it should be. Having such a law will teach people to stay the heck out of the road if their lives mean anything to them.

God bless you always!!!

Holly

As has already been pointed out, the law only prevents civil suits against drivers who hit, without intent, protesters who block public roads.

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

Shoppers are found inside stores. Normal protesters are found on sidewalks and the violent ones are found in the middle of the street trying to pull drivers from their cars. It's not rocket science. Don't over think it.

People intentionally blocking traffic and threatening drivers and pedestrians are no longer "protesters." They are rioters. If a person feels threatened by an angry mob, they are within their rights to get out of a dangerous situation by any means necessary. Blocking traffic and impeding business and making the public feel threatened by your presence is not protected by the First Amendment.

That is an excellent point. They are rioters. Not protesters.

Simply blocking traffic does not make someone a rioter. If they are threatening people or damaging property, sure. I would think blocking traffic is illegal pretty much everywhere in the country, though.

The very definition of a riotous person is a lawless person, a person disturbing the peace, a trouble maker.

Look at the definition:

See more synonyms on Thesaurus.com
adjective
1.
(of an act) characterized by or of the nature of riotingor a disturbanceof the peace.
2.
(of a person) inciting or taking part in a riot.
3.
given to or marked by unrestrained revelry; loose; wanton:
riotous living.
4.
boisterous or uproarious:
riotous laughter.
5.
hilariously funny.
__________
If you are blocking traffic illegally, pounding on people's cars and shouting and carrying on, blocking a car from moving, you are a rioter and a criminal. If you are acting in a manner which terrorizes people sitting inside of a car you are a terrorist in my opinion and you belong behind bars.

If protesters are "pounding on people's cars and shouting and carrying on," sure. If they are just standing in the street blocking traffic, without the rest, then they are not rioting. I would guess that there are some of both types involved in the various protests that have involved blocking traffic.

In terms of the bill from the OP, there is no reference to rioting. It's not really relevant to the original discussion.

I think you have an overly broad definition of the word terrorist, but as I said earlier, I would think most, if not all, areas of the country have laws against blocking traffic. Certainly blocking traffic and terrorizing the occupants of the vehicles you block could land a person behind bars.

Or underneath the car that decides to drive on. Yes.

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

To me, this is how it should be. Having such a law will teach people to stay the heck out of the road if their lives mean anything to them.

God bless you always!!!

Holly

As has already been pointed out, the law only prevents civil suits against drivers who hit, without intent, protesters who block public roads.

The intent is to drive on, not hit protesters. If they are in the way and get hit that is their own fault. Not the drivers.

 

[JOSweetHeart]

^^^ Which to me is how it should be.

God bless you always!!!

Holly

 

[Frankeneinstein]

Tennessee Passes Controversial Law Allowing Drivers to Injure Protesters Without Civil Liability | We Are Change
I don't agree with the web site or the writer of the article, but the news remains the same. If you decide to block the road while protesting, there are now consequences. This makes me happy.
U.S. Drivers Can Now 'Legally' Hit Protestors Standing In Their Way
Another place.

Apparently it means that the protestor can't sue you, but you can still face criminal charges.

I think North Dakota just did that too. About the pipeline.

Tell us, why does a blatant contravention of the First Amendment's guarantee of the Right to Assemble "make you happy"?

It's kinda like the second amendment and gun free zones...constitutional cherry pickers are always going to do both those things while trying to justify why their amendment matters more

 

[JimBowie1958]

This law is dumb.

Why I would never sue any protester who crawled under my car upside down at high speed.

Not ever in my life.

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

This law is dumb.

Why I would never sue any protester who crawled under my car upside down at high speed.

Not ever in my life.

I found it interesting to see how upset the liberals became at the very thought that they would no longer be free to stop traffic, terrorize people in cars and have free reign over city streets and sue anyone who managed to get away and happened to bump into them or run them over. It really gives you an idea of just how indulged and deluded they have become under 8 years of Obama.

 

[Montrovant]

This law is dumb.

Why I would never sue any protester who crawled under my car upside down at high speed.

Not ever in my life.

I found it interesting to see how upset the liberals became at the very thought that they would no longer be free to stop traffic, terrorize people in cars and have free reign over city streets and sue anyone who managed to get away and happened to bump into them or run them over. It really gives you an idea of just how indulged and deluded they have become under 8 years of Obama.

But they aren't free to do those things. They weren't before this law.

 

[Montrovant]

To me, this is how it should be. Having such a law will teach people to stay the heck out of the road if their lives mean anything to them.

God bless you always!!!

Holly

As has already been pointed out, the law only prevents civil suits against drivers who hit, without intent, protesters who block public roads.

The intent is to drive on, not hit protesters. If they are in the way and get hit that is their own fault. Not the drivers.

There have been a number of posts which implied, if not outright stated, otherwise. Then there is the title of the thread, which would seem to indicate that anyone can decide to drive over a protester should they want to.

I think the majority of people would simply want to drive on.

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

To me, this is how it should be. Having such a law will teach people to stay the heck out of the road if their lives mean anything to them.

God bless you always!!!

Holly

As has already been pointed out, the law only prevents civil suits against drivers who hit, without intent, protesters who block public roads.

The intent is to drive on, not hit protesters. If they are in the way and get hit that is their own fault. Not the drivers.

There have been a number of posts which implied, if not outright stated, otherwise. Then there is the title of the thread, which would seem to indicate that anyone can decide to drive over a protester should they want to.

I think the majority of people would simply want to drive on.

We're not talking about bop a mole here. We're not intentionally looking to hit as many Protesting rioters as possible as we swerve out of harms way. We're looking to mind our own business and drive down the road like normal citizens. We've seen scenes of horror on the streets of America from the lunatic left dragging people out of cars - beating them, robbing them, terrorizing them, even murdering them right in front of their families (who were trapped in the car with them!) and that time is now come to an end.

We've had enough. The laws of this land will be enforced and the cops will get these nutcases off the streets or they are going to end up run over but the days of dragging people out of cars is finished. As in finished. Get it? Pass the word.

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

This law is dumb.

Why I would never sue any protester who crawled under my car upside down at high speed.

Not ever in my life.

I found it interesting to see how upset the liberals became at the very thought that they would no longer be free to stop traffic, terrorize people in cars and have free reign over city streets and sue anyone who managed to get away and happened to bump into them or run them over. It really gives you an idea of just how indulged and deluded they have become under 8 years of Obama.

But they aren't free to do those things. They weren't before this law.

The laws weren't enforced under Obama. Times are changing. Trump will enforce the law and the cops know that he's got their back. It's a new day.

 

[JimBowie1958]

A common robbery trick is to swarm a car with several bodies then take it over; rob it or just car jack it.

Any reasonable person can/should feel that their lives are threatened when a gang of people move illegally into a roadway and physically stop them from moving forward.

the cops need to stop these ass holes before they start getting killed en masse.