Tennessee Apparently Passes Law Allowing Drivers To Run Over Protesters

[Pumpkin Row]

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.

 

[Pogo]

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"?

 

[deannalw]

If u simply can't be sued, but can still be charged criminally... how does that mean it's legal?

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

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"?

Nonsense. You have no right to restrict the rights of others in the exercise of your own rights.

 

[Pogo]

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.

 

[saveliberty]

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"?

The only way this makes sense is if you feel in imminent danger from the protestors. You shouldn't have to give up your life for freedom of assembly (illegal location) or speech (although violence is not an accepted form).

Tennessee State Sen. Bill Ketron introduced the bill. In a statement he said:

“We believe that citizens have the right to protest. There is a procedure for peaceful protests and the purpose of that process is to protect the safety of our citizens. Protesters have no right to be in the middle of the road or our highways for their own safety and the safety of the traveling public.”

Seems to be the intent.

 

[deannalw]

Pogo... you have the right to free speech, the right to protest, the right to assemble sect. What you do not have the right to do is trample on the rights of others while doing so. You can't break the law to make your opinion known.

 

[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...

 

[bodecea]

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

 

[Pogo]

Pogo... you have the right to free speech, the right to protest, the right to assemble sect. What you do not have the right to do is trample on the rights of others while doing so. You can't break the law to make your opinion known.

And what "trampling on the rights of others" might this be then?

Here's one slant from my link:

>> Republican state Rep. Keith Kempenich, has said that some accidents might occur if motorists “punched the accelerator rather than the brakes,” according to the Bismarck Tribune.

“If you stay off the roadway, this would never be an issue,” said Kempenich. “Those motorists are going about the lawful, legal exercise of their right to drive down the road.” <<
​

Get that? The "right to drive down the road".

Can somebody point out exactly where in the Bill of Rights that is?

Btw ---- notice how "if somebody punched the accelerator rather than the brakes" looks a lot like "he repeatedly attacked my fist with his face"?

​

 

[HenryBHough]

You'll be pleased to learn, Pogo, that along about the time you return from the welfare office this afternoon your residence will be surrounded by a double cordon of peaceful protesters with arms locked denying you passage. If you raise a finger against any one of them you'll be charged with assault and each protestor will file a civil suit against you for denying their constitutional right. Oh, some will be Muslims; some will be "of color" so some "hate crime" charges will be forthcoming, too.

I do hope you'll enjoy what you just encouraged!

 

[Auld Phart]

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"?

Restrictions of Freedom of Assembly - Lawyers.com

"The law can restrict when you gather. Your group might have freedom of assembly, but law enforcement can prevent you from exercising that right in the wee hours of the morning when you're likely to wake others, or at rush hour when you might interfere with traffic flow. You must usually notify your local police department that you'll be gathering, in advance of the scheduled date."

 

[The Irish Ram]

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"?

We have the right to assemble, but not the right to obstruct, to riot, to burn down, to assault people, destroy property....
Peaceably assembling, doesn't mean stopping ambulances and putting lives at risk.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

Pogo... you have the right to free speech, the right to protest, the right to assemble sect. What you do not have the right to do is trample on the rights of others while doing so. You can't break the law to make your opinion known.

And what "trampling on the rights of others" might this be then?

Here's one slant from my link:

>> Republican state Rep. Keith Kempenich, has said that some accidents might occur if motorists “punched the accelerator rather than the brakes,” according to the Bismarck Tribune.

“If you stay off the roadway, this would never be an issue,” said Kempenich. “Those motorists are going about the lawful, legal exercise of their right to drive down the road.” <<
​

Get that? The "right to drive down the road".

Can somebody point out exactly where in the Bill of Rights that is?

Btw ---- notice how "if somebody punched the accelerator rather than the brakes" looks a lot like "he repeatedly attacked my fist with his face"?

​

There are plenty of ways to protest without blocking the road. People who do that are being EXTREMELY obnoxious and selfish. They're making people late for whatever events they have scheduled, including work. People don't have the right to hold people against their will. This is not just traffic, it's people intentionally going out of their way to BLOCK traffic.

People who are okay with doing that simply because protesting on the sidewalks, or just off the road in general, is apparently not good enough for them, deserve to be run down. Nobody has a right to just block traffic, there's no reason for that.

EDIT: Not only that, but we've been having people assaulted, and protestors have been climbing on and stomping cars. Protestors have been WAY out of hand, and something needs to be done. Better this than restricting your freedom to protest.

 

[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.

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

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"?

Nonsense. You have no right to restrict the rights of others in the exercise of your own rights.

This man was stopped by a couple of thugs in broad daylight, dragged from his car and beaten up while others went through his car to rob him of valuables. Their reason? They said he was a Trump supporter. This man has rights. The right to drive down the road without being stopped by people in the street. The street is for cars. Sidewalks are for protesters. Stay on the sidewalk and there won't be a problem with the new laws.

Video: Trump Voter Dragged from His Car, Brutally Beaten, and Robbed by Gang of Hillary Supporters

 

[1stRambo]

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"?

Yo, """"PEACEFUL ASSEMBLY,"""""" Yo, you want to ACT like an ANIMAL? I say KILL your STUPID ASS!!!

"GTP"
USA, USA, USA:

 

[SassyIrishLass]

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

Stay out of the fucking road! It's not rocket science....well maybe for you

 

[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. As eloquently just expressed in post 17..

I asked why you like that idea. I got no answer.

 

[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.

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.