Republican lawmakers in six states have pushed this year for legal protections for motorists who hit protesters blocking traffic. Fairly or not, they're facing an intense backlash now that violent images of a car ramming into a crowd protesting a white supremacist rally have been seen around the...
apnews.com
"Republican lawmakers in six states have pushed this year for legal protections for motorists who hit protesters blocking traffic - they’re facing an intense backlash now that violent images of a car ramming into a crowd protesting a white supremacist rally have been seen around the world. The driver immunity proposals have been labeled “hit and kill” bills that undermine free assembly and embolden extremists by suggesting they have a free pass to drive through protesters; by the American Civil Liberties Union.
A North Carolina state senator said Monday there are no plans to advance the measure in that chamber. In Tennessee, a committee rejected the bill. In Florida, Sen. George Gainer said the intent of his now-failed bill was to protect only those motorists who unintentionally strike protesters blocking traffic. He denounced “the reprehensible actions of the evil person in Virginia.”
The evil person the Florida Senator was referring to was the guy who ran over protestors in Charlottesville -- as if this guy didn't have a right to run them over...he feared for this safety....Some of these republican legislatures are starting to show weakness and not pushing hard enough to pass these bills...they are showing a reluctance to stand up for the call that "All Lives Splatter" .
Well he wouldn't have been convicted if he had this alleged right to run people over because he was scared.
False....unless you think the people who wrote this bill are lying when they said the guy in Charlottesville was evil and should have been convicted for murder
You seem to believe evil people like him would be shielded by this bill; thus giving other evil people an excuse to do what he did...which is PRECISELY the argument that is being made by folks like the ACLU....
Which is why proponents of the bill have to keep trying to convince us that the bill doesn't do that....
"Bill supporters have rejected that claim and denounced the Charlottesville attack. They note that the wording of their bills would not protect drivers who deliberately target protesters, and any intentional attackers would still face criminal and civil liability."
So why do you think this guy in Charlottesville would protected?