Tennessee Apparently Passes Law Allowing Drivers To Run Over Protesters

[SassyIrishLass]

 

[blackhawk]

Does anyone seriously think you need to block traffic or shutdown roads to make your point? Having the right to protest does not mean you have the right to go anywhere you want and do anything you want.

 

[JQPublic1]

There are plenty of ways to protest without blocking the road. People who do that are being EXTREMELY obnoxious and selfish.

Stop right there, because that ain't the issue at all.

The issue is whether you can kill them for doing so via assault with a motor vehicle. I asked why you like that idea. I got no answer.

If someone is dumb enough to stand in traffic to protest, I'd rather see them weeded out of the gene pool. I must have missed your question, because that's a rather easy answer to give.

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

THINK about it.

Oh I do not think that there is anything wrong with the gene pool. You'll be amazed how quickly they wise up and get out of the road once the stories begin to roll in about street protesters being run over. The problem will disappear overnight. Count on it.

And once stories begin to circulate that road warriors are being shot in self defense...makeshift detours will abound.

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

There are plenty of ways to protest without blocking the road. People who do that are being EXTREMELY obnoxious and selfish.

Stop right there, because that ain't the issue at all.

The issue is whether you can kill them for doing so via assault with a motor vehicle. I asked why you like that idea. I got no answer.

If someone is dumb enough to stand in traffic to protest, I'd rather see them weeded out of the gene pool. I must have missed your question, because that's a rather easy answer to give.

While that's my opinion, the article specified that motorists should exercise due caution, and I pointed out that you can apparently still face criminal charges. Considering the last bit, I don't think people will be speeding their vehicle through groups of protestors.

You can still face civil charges, as well. The bill only covers drivers who unintentionally hit protesters blocking the road.

Of course it was unintentional! They jumped out in front of the car in the middle of a street where they didn't belong! They were trying to stop a moving vehicle. Are you serious? They will be laughed out of the courtroom. Here is some good advice for you and your friends. STAY OUT OF THE MIDDLE OF THE ROAD. YOU COULD BE KILLED.

 

[JQPublic1]

This is the answer to the windows above that bumper:

 

[JQPublic1]

If you're stupid enough to try and block traffic you deserve to get ran over.

Here's a newsflash for the snowflakes, the world doesn't revolve around you and people have actual lives they live.

I don't condone blocking highways in protests unless the roadway is part of the site being protested. That being said, should a driver see a crowd standing on the roadway and intently uses his vehicle as a deadly weapon, the protestors would be wise to get out of the way and let him pass while firing rifes and shotguns point blank at his ass as he passes!

I highly doubt Liberals would be carrying guns, they hate self defense.

Don't bet your life on it. And don't believe all protestors are liberal when it comes to kicking ass. Some are veterans.

No veteran I know would be stupid enough to stand in the middle of a roadway.

That is because you probably don't know any!

 

[SassyIrishLass]

This is the answer to the windows above that bumper:

Dude you're just playing an internet warrior.

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

There are plenty of ways to protest without blocking the road. People who do that are being EXTREMELY obnoxious and selfish.

Stop right there, because that ain't the issue at all.

The issue is whether you can kill them for doing so via assault with a motor vehicle. I asked why you like that idea. I got no answer.

If someone is dumb enough to stand in traffic to protest, I'd rather see them weeded out of the gene pool. I must have missed your question, because that's a rather easy answer to give.

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

THINK about it.

Oh I do not think that there is anything wrong with the gene pool. You'll be amazed how quickly they wise up and get out of the road once the stories begin to roll in about street protesters being run over. The problem will disappear overnight. Count on it.

And once stories begin to circulate that road warriors are being shot in self defense...makeshift detours will abound.

There are no grounds for self defense. You shoot at a moving car and your going to prison for attempted murder. Republican House / Republican Senate /Republican White House / Republican Judges...... expect to spend some serious time in prison. Obama is gone and the party is over. It's time you wake you.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

If you're stupid enough to try and block traffic you deserve to get ran over.

Here's a newsflash for the snowflakes, the world doesn't revolve around you and people have actual lives they live.

I don't condone blocking highways in protests unless the roadway is part of the site being protested. That being said, should a driver see a crowd standing on the roadway and intently uses his vehicle as a deadly weapon, the protestors would be wise to get out of the way and let him pass while firing rifes and shotguns point blank at his ass as he passes!

I highly doubt Liberals would be carrying guns, they hate self defense.

Don't bet your life on it. And don't believe all protestors are liberal when it comes to kicking ass. Some are veterans.

No veteran I know would be stupid enough to stand in the middle of a roadway.

That is because you probably don't know any!

Idiot I'm a Navy brat. Sit down

 

[JQPublic1]

This is a very misleading article title. The bill basically says that if someone is following the rules of the road and hits someone because that person is protesting in a public roadway, without intent, they are not civilly liable. Here's the actual text, as provided by the second link in the OP:

(a) A person driving an automobile who is exercising due care and injures another person who is participating in a protest or demonstration and is blocking traffic in a public right-of-way is immune from civil liability for such injury.
(b) A person shall not be immune from civil liability if the actions leading to the injury were willful or wanton.

This isn't saying a driver is allowed to simply run over anyone who is blocking the road during a protest.

http://www.capitol.tn.gov/Bills/110/Bill/SB0944.pdf

EDIT: I will say that I could see this being used by a driver to intentionally run over protesters, if that driver feels they can do it without someone proving it was willful. That might make it a dangerous bill, but the intent doesn't seem to be to allow someone to intentionally hit a protester with their car.

Why would any driver intentionally run over someone unless street protesters were blocking their car and the driver felt his life was in danger? In that case, he has every right to do whatever he must do to get out of that situation. The days of blocking cars and dragging the driver out from behind the wheel of his car are over with. This law is going to protect them from civil suits. The right to protect yourself and your family (inside the car) from bodily harm is a given. Not even a question.

If it was me, I would just stop a mile or so away, call the cops-911- and ask their advice.

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

This is a very misleading article title. The bill basically says that if someone is following the rules of the road and hits someone because that person is protesting in a public roadway, without intent, they are not civilly liable. Here's the actual text, as provided by the second link in the OP:

(a) A person driving an automobile who is exercising due care and injures another person who is participating in a protest or demonstration and is blocking traffic in a public right-of-way is immune from civil liability for such injury.
(b) A person shall not be immune from civil liability if the actions leading to the injury were willful or wanton.

This isn't saying a driver is allowed to simply run over anyone who is blocking the road during a protest.

http://www.capitol.tn.gov/Bills/110/Bill/SB0944.pdf

EDIT: I will say that I could see this being used by a driver to intentionally run over protesters, if that driver feels they can do it without someone proving it was willful. That might make it a dangerous bill, but the intent doesn't seem to be to allow someone to intentionally hit a protester with their car.

Why would any driver intentionally run over someone unless street protesters were blocking their car and the driver felt his life was in danger? In that case, he has every right to do whatever he must do to get out of that situation. The days of blocking cars and dragging the driver out from behind the wheel of his car are over with. This law is going to protect them from civil suits. The right to protect yourself and your family (inside the car) from bodily harm is a given. Not even a question.

If it was me, I would just stop a mile or so away, call the cops-911- and ask their advice.

If it were you? Didn't you claim to be a police officer on another USMB thread yesterday? Maybe someone needs to run your IP address and track down which department you work for. When they see what you are advocating online you'll be on a brand new line..........the unemployment line.

 

[JQPublic1]

Stop right there, because that ain't the issue at all.

The issue is whether you can kill them for doing so via assault with a motor vehicle. I asked why you like that idea. I got no answer.

If someone is dumb enough to stand in traffic to protest, I'd rather see them weeded out of the gene pool. I must have missed your question, because that's a rather easy answer to give.

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

THINK about it.

Oh I do not think that there is anything wrong with the gene pool. You'll be amazed how quickly they wise up and get out of the road once the stories begin to roll in about street protesters being run over. The problem will disappear overnight. Count on it.

And once stories begin to circulate that road warriors are being shot in self defense...makeshift detours will abound.

There are no grounds for self defense. You shoot at a moving car and your going to prison for attempted murder. Republican House / Republican Senate /Republican White House / Republican Judges...... expect to spend some serious time in prison. Obama is gone and the party is over. It's time you wake you.

If a car barreled towards a crowd of people with an obvious intent to injure or kill shoot first and ask questions later just like a cop would do. Let the courts decide, all the way up to the US Supreme Court if necessary.

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

If someone is dumb enough to stand in traffic to protest, I'd rather see them weeded out of the gene pool. I must have missed your question, because that's a rather easy answer to give.

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

THINK about it.

Oh I do not think that there is anything wrong with the gene pool. You'll be amazed how quickly they wise up and get out of the road once the stories begin to roll in about street protesters being run over. The problem will disappear overnight. Count on it.

And once stories begin to circulate that road warriors are being shot in self defense...makeshift detours will abound.

There are no grounds for self defense. You shoot at a moving car and your going to prison for attempted murder. Republican House / Republican Senate /Republican White House / Republican Judges...... expect to spend some serious time in prison. Obama is gone and the party is over. It's time you wake you.

If a car barreled towards a crowd of people with an obvious intent to injure or kill shoot first and ask questions later just like a cop would do. Let the courts decide, all the way up to the US Supreme Court if necessary.

That isn't the scenario. Reverse it. If a crowd of people come barreling toward your car with the obvious intent to injure or kill put your hand on the horn, your foot on the pedal and drive with both hands on the wheel.

 

[Pogo]

There are plenty of ways to protest without blocking the road. People who do that are being EXTREMELY obnoxious and selfish.

Stop right there, because that ain't the issue at all.

The issue is whether you can kill them for doing so via assault with a motor vehicle. I asked why you like that idea. I got no answer.

If someone is dumb enough to stand in traffic to protest, I'd rather see them weeded out of the gene pool. I must have missed your question, because that's a rather easy answer to give.

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".

 

[Pogo]

There are plenty of ways to protest without blocking the road. People who do that are being EXTREMELY obnoxious and selfish.

Stop right there, because that ain't the issue at all.

The issue is whether you can kill them for doing so via assault with a motor vehicle. I asked why you like that idea. I got no answer.

If someone is dumb enough to stand in traffic to protest, I'd rather see them weeded out of the gene pool. I must have missed your question, because that's a rather easy answer to give.

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

THINK about it.

Oh I do not think that there is anything wrong with the gene pool. You'll be amazed how quickly they wise up and get out of the road once the stories begin to roll in about street protesters being run over. The problem will disappear overnight. Count on it.

Let's revise that to:

Post 17
Post 20
Post 35

Advocating for terrorism. Isn't that interesting.

 

[JQPublic1]

This is a very misleading article title. The bill basically says that if someone is following the rules of the road and hits someone because that person is protesting in a public roadway, without intent, they are not civilly liable. Here's the actual text, as provided by the second link in the OP:

(a) A person driving an automobile who is exercising due care and injures another person who is participating in a protest or demonstration and is blocking traffic in a public right-of-way is immune from civil liability for such injury.
(b) A person shall not be immune from civil liability if the actions leading to the injury were willful or wanton.

This isn't saying a driver is allowed to simply run over anyone who is blocking the road during a protest.

http://www.capitol.tn.gov/Bills/110/Bill/SB0944.pdf

EDIT: I will say that I could see this being used by a driver to intentionally run over protesters, if that driver feels they can do it without someone proving it was willful. That might make it a dangerous bill, but the intent doesn't seem to be to allow someone to intentionally hit a protester with their car.

Why would any driver intentionally run over someone unless street protesters were blocking their car and the driver felt his life was in danger? In that case, he has every right to do whatever he must do to get out of that situation. The days of blocking cars and dragging the driver out from behind the wheel of his car are over with. This law is going to protect them from civil suits. The right to protect yourself and your family (inside the car) from bodily harm is a given. Not even a question.

If it was me, I would just stop a mile or so away, call the cops-911- and ask their advice.

If it were you? Didn't you claim to be a police officer on another USMB thread yesterday? Maybe someone needs to run your IP address and track down which department you work for. When they see what you are advocating online you'll be on a brand new line..........the unemployment line.

I am retired and never had to fire my weapon at a suspect or anyone else.. i would never have
done so without a real good reason. Running over people on purpose is murder,even if they are standing in the middle of a roadway protesting. Just because a state sanctions it doesn't make it right. And the right to peaceful assembly doesn't prohibit roadways as assembly points.
A vehicle can be a deadly weapon and if used as such, deadly force can be used against the driver of such a conveyance. Let the courts decide.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

There are plenty of ways to protest without blocking the road. People who do that are being EXTREMELY obnoxious and selfish.

Stop right there, because that ain't the issue at all.

The issue is whether you can kill them for doing so via assault with a motor vehicle. I asked why you like that idea. I got no answer.

If someone is dumb enough to stand in traffic to protest, I'd rather see them weeded out of the gene pool. I must have missed your question, because that's a rather easy answer to give.

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.

 

[Uncensored2008]

[


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"?

Even you aren't this dumb, Huffer. You are this partisan.

Peaceably assemble. When you block traffic, you are assaulting drivers through the threat of restricting their ability to escape.Same reason that anti-abortion protestors cannot block the entrance to abortion mills. I get that you have WAY different standards depending on which side is offending, but really...

So....blocking someone so that they are late somewhere deserves it being ok to assault them with a deadly weapon?

So.... blocking someone so they consider their action when getting an abortion deserves to be put in jail?

You can't have it both ways, Shortbus. Your right to protest ends when it interferes with my right to move freely.

 

[Uncensored2008]

I couldn't quite find the page where I was reading about North Dakota but did find this page from a few weeks ago:

Republican Lawmakers in Five States Propose Bills to Criminalize Peaceful Protest

>> “This trend of anti-protest legislation dressed up as ‘obstruction’ bills is deeply troubling,” said Lee Rowland, a senior staff attorney at the American Civil Liberties Union, who views such bills as violations of the First Amendment. “A law that would allow the state to charge a protester $10,000 for stepping in the wrong place, or encourage a driver to get away with manslaughter because the victim was protesting, is about one thing: chilling protest.” <<

Interestingly Tennessee is not one of the five states cited, so this makes SIX.

It's not "peaceful" when you intentionally arrest the ability of others to leave.

 

[JQPublic1]

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

THINK about it.

Oh I do not think that there is anything wrong with the gene pool. You'll be amazed how quickly they wise up and get out of the road once the stories begin to roll in about street protesters being run over. The problem will disappear overnight. Count on it.

And once stories begin to circulate that road warriors are being shot in self defense...makeshift detours will abound.

There are no grounds for self defense. You shoot at a moving car and your going to prison for attempted murder. Republican House / Republican Senate /Republican White House / Republican Judges...... expect to spend some serious time in prison. Obama is gone and the party is over. It's time you wake you.

If a car barreled towards a crowd of people with an obvious intent to injure or kill shoot first and ask questions later just like a cop would do. Let the courts decide, all the way up to the US Supreme Court if necessary.

That isn't the scenario. Reverse it. If a crowd of people come barreling toward your car with the obvious intent to injure or kill put your hand on the horn, your foot on the pedal and drive with both hands on the wheel.

I see no problem with that if you have no reverse gears or cannot turn around.