Running over protesters may soon be legal in North Dakota

[ati87]

Is that really called for? Calling people who disagree with you "terrorists"?

Seriously with this kind of laws, what do they hope to achieve? They hope to scare away future protest by potentially legging murder or in other cases by calling the protestors economic terrorist (google it if you forgot)

I will use the same rhetoric as those that defend this kind of laws since, no need to be PC now do I

[Aeluron Lightsong]

I don't think the implication is that people are going to kill them because they are protesting, I think many are taking the position that
1. Protesters stopping and surrounding your car can be a grave threat to your person
2. People blocking traffic are putting themselves at danger

Also, we can't forget the case that happened in New York City:

The situation in the video is completely different then people protesting in the street. I remember that video and to be honest, I'd be shitting my pants so I can't 100% blame the driver doing what he did. It was wrong but it was still understandable.

[schwank05]

I assume that ND has snow plows just as we do in MN. I say just have some old dude hop in a snow plow drop the wings down and barrel through the worthless fucks that think standing in the middle of a busy road or interstate is more important than working.

[endersblade]

The law does specify that it has to be unintentional. You can't just go run over people.

Naw, you just need to yell, 'They're coming right for us!' and plow through. :-)

[ati87]

What change is that?

All it did was piss people off and made the protesters look juvinelle

So when the justice department discovered that the city of Ferguson was using it's citizens as a cashcow it was because the city reported itself?

[endersblade]

Seriously with this kind of laws, what do they hope to achieve? They hope to scare away future protest by potentially legging murder or in other cases by calling the protestors economic terrorist (google it if you forgot)

I will use the same rhetoric as those that defend this kind of laws since, no need to be PC now do I

If you want to protest, don't fucking stand in the middle of the road blocking traffic. End of story. It's never NORMALLY a good idea to stand in the middle of the road, holding a picket sign and complaining about your mangina hurting isn't an excuse either.

[Milchshake]

Bet some people forgot today is Martin Luther King day. Which helps to remind us why racists and authoritarians dislike marches and civil disobedience.

[Miztickow]

How stupid would one have to be to not understand the wording of that law? I'd say pretty stupid.


Clearly it says "if you accidently run someone over (who is on a road they aren't supposed to be on) you aren't held liable".

I haven't seen the actual proposed bill linked yet in this thread and I think the original article actually said it wasn't even introduced to their state legislature yet, so how do you know that's what it says exactly?
If you have a link to the bill, that would be super helpful.

[ati87]

If you want to protest, don't fucking stand in the middle of the road blocking traffic. End of story. It's never NORMALLY a good idea to stand in the middle of the road, holding a picket sign and complaining about your mangina hurting isn't an excuse either.

And still how the bloody hell does this potentially justify murder?

Really because the whole ''accidentally'' hitting protestors seems kind of a disgusting way to make sure people don't protest on the roads.

in the end a protest means some discomfort for those that believe everything is fine. Do you think that the protest organized by MLK in their time wasn't pissing off allot of people?

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2012/01...dy-Sunday-1965

You would probably also think to hit them with a car or something because they caused you discomfort? How dare they not take into account you're feelings when they want to fight against something that they really believe in and hope that it be bring a better future.

[Noradin]

Roads are for cars, not people

No, roads are for people.
Cars do not need roads, because they do not have needs.

[IIamaKing]

What kind of savage barbarian would propose that type of legislation? Does that mean we can run over cops who have people pulled over on the side of the road? Or we can speed up to hit people crossing? This is the dumbest thing I've ever seen.

Standing in traffic is far dumber IMO.

- - - Updated - - -

What if someone kills people during parades though? Parades technically obstruct street use, even though they are allowed to be there because permits.

Thats some epic level shit posting, from a mod no less.

[Deleted]

Haha this genuinely tickled me. I cannot wait to see if this goes live and just sit back with popcorn.

Incredible. I wonder what other laws allowing physical harm would start to slowly creep in to our lives following this one.

[IIamaKing]

...parade people? marathons? emergency services? Accidents covering all lanes?

I mean I hate unlawful road protestors too, but the law needs to be sper super SUPER specific and not vague as all hell.

Lol, yeh I'm sure no one thought to include event specific language.

[Moralgy]

I always wonder what the connection between "pro-life" views and pro-running-people-over-with-the-intent-to-murder-them tend to be.

[IIamaKing]

http://www.legis.nd.gov/assembly/65-...0351-01000.pdf

The modification to the existing law is exactly what the article said.

Use of the word "pedestrian" would preclude cops and other officials, would it not? "Notwithstanding any other provision of law" used as well, meaning things that are disallowed now are still as such.

As for parades, I dont think a " I accidentally drove through the marked routes and barricades" defense will actually work, if some one decides to GTA one. Already laws against that sort of thing and I am not sure a person walking or on a float in a parade would be a pedestrian in this sense. They are walking but its for a designated purpose, so maybe? IDK, not a lawyer.

And while protesters are likely the impetus for the law, it takes blame away from the driver if some dip shit walking in black at 2 am in the middle of a road gets hit also, and I am fine with such a provision. More than once have I almost struck a person through no fault of my own in situations like I just mentioned.

[Crissi]

Standing in traffic is far dumber IMO.

- - - Updated - - -



Thats some epic level shit posting, from a mod no less.

Know as many lawyers as my family does, and you wouldnt be surprised at this stuff.

[Protean]

The way that is worded it would be legal to "unintentionally" drive over a police officer who crosses the street to help in an accident on the roadside.

- - - Updated - - -



So your front door is assaulting potential burglars?
Or does that count as "armed assault" on the burglars? (Armed with a door that is.)

Which part of the word "cause" is difficult for you to comprehend?

[Allerius]

Authoritarianism, honestly.

Nope, making something legal and thus giving choice to the individual is the opposite of authoritarianism.

[Protean]

People who state they would love to kill people for doing X are usually just talking shit and would never actually do it themselves, they just have small intellect, smaller penises and are just crowing loudly in hopes that someone else is psychotic enough to do it for them so they don't have to get their hands dirty.

My overly conservative co-worker was crowing about how the military should shoot people coming across the border, and when I pointed out that soldiers don't like killing unarmed people, women and children he maintained that it didn't matter. So I handed him my pistol (I have a concealed weapon permit) and told him to prove it, go shoot a Latino woman or child. He spun around and fumed silently, an hour later he said he would at least shoot at their feet. Again I offered him my gun and told him to prove it. "Well I wouldn't do it myself but soldiers could do it." And I told him that no one wants to shoot anyone they don't have to and anyone who says they would are either psychopaths with no understanding of right or wrong or just very loud cowards who hope someone else will do it for them."

Mind you I am not for protesting to block highways, people need to get home or get to work, people have children they have to get to and emergency vehicles need to get places to save lives.

But people who advocate killing others are usually just loud mouthed cowards with very little brain power who just hope that some psychopath hears them and acts out on the cowards infantile desires.

*snippy snip*

infracted - minor spam

[Allerius]

Allowing the use of force to silence opposition is basically as authoritarian as it gets.

No one is being silenced. You can write and speak of the change you want to your heart's desire. Just don't block the roads.

Authoritarianism implies some kind of authority is yielding power. In a modern context that is the state as the state has a monopoly on violence. Random individuals have no authority.