Tennessee Apparently Passes Law Allowing Drivers To Run Over Protesters

[Pogo]

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!

No reference to making coffee for NPR? Yer slipping.

 

[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.

 

[Montrovant]

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.

 

[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"?

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.

Nor did anyone anywhere suggest anything of the kind, so take your strawman back out to pasture where he can be out standing in his field.

 

[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.

 

[Auld Phart]

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.

If you're standing in the middle of the road, you're liable to get hit by a car.

"THINK about it"

 

[SassyIrishLass]

You have to some window licking dope to stand in the road protesting and then wonder why in the hell someone loses it and runs over your dumbass

 

[Pogo]

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.

Apparently what the (Tennessee) law says, and what posters here are salivating over ---- see post 17 and post 20 ---- are two different things.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

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.

If you're standing in the middle of the road, you're liable to get hit by a car.

"THINK about it"

Most of us had parents that taught us that valuable lesson at a very early age

 

[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!

 

[Montrovant]

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.

 

[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!

You're kidding right? The ones "protesting" are leftist loons that faint at the site of a poptart gun

 

[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.

 

[Montrovant]

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!

You're kidding right? The ones "protesting" are leftist loons that faint at the site of a poptart gun

Not all people on the left and not all protesters are anti-gun.

 

[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.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

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.

 

[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!

You're kidding right? The ones "protesting" are leftist loons that faint at the site of a poptart gun

Not all people on the left and not all protesters are anti-gun.

You're severely outnumbered snowflake...and would be wise to remember that

 

[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.

 

[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.

 

[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.