Running over protesters may soon be legal in North Dakota

[Protean]

I think the ultimate evolution of drone warfare will become similar to how firing squads once worked in this country where most of the squad had fake rounds and the real rounds were randomly distributed so nobody knew for sure if they were the person who actually did the killing. Drone pilots will essentially run video game like simulations that are identical to real missions, with real missions being randomly assigned without the pilots actually knowing that on that particular mission they are killing people. Such a program would pretty much remove the psychological burden of killing, and perhaps the only improvement over this will be fully automated hunter killers.

I don't think people can be so cavalier about assuming that in the very near future we won't see a massive expansion of programs like this.

Also, as far as the 'running over protesters' law goes, I wonder how automated cars will play into this.

The real problem is, have you seen how people play GTA?

Give them free roam and power, and you might end up with people having just a bit too much fun. And who knows, might someday be that guy who has a mission.


Still, I like the idea. Very Ender's Gameish.

[IIamaKing]

It's an existing bill. The underlined portions are new. The rest is already law.

I don't really think it will work for parades. I do think it could work for other situations that common sense might tell us should be the driver's fault, especially because it includes "negligently." I don't know what other laws they've got floating around in ND, but off the top of my head, if an officer can't get all the way off the road during a traffic stop and someone fucking around on their phone hits and kills the officer, I would think in my non-lawyerly way of interpreting this that they'd be covered by this.

Is a cop a pedestrian though? If not, then no, I dont see how this can be used to justify that. A pedestrian is a person traveling on foot, a cop at a traffic stop isnt traveling on foot, he is on foot preforming a function of his job. I expect that in the courts cops and other official personal (firefighters, paramedics and hte like) are not considered pedestrian. But This is a similarly non-lawyerly opinion.

Any lawyers around here to address this maybe?

[Dadwen]

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

Well as long as they don't stand in the road and voice that opposition (Franky even if it's a cause I'm on the side of I don't care if they get ran over pulling this crap) they can keep voicing it all they want so no silencing would occur. *I don't think voicing something requires you to stand in the middle of a road?

[Theinquisition]

All of the DoJ business with police departments and police behavior...?

The ones where it was found that claims of racism aren't usually accurate? Additionally, I don't think the highway protests spurred that on.

[Allerius]

You don't need to be in power to have authoritarian tendencies. You can still uphold the way of thinking in your personal life. In this case, that tendency is a desire to silence opposition through any means necessary, which is why they virtue signal to each other by talking about how great it would be to murder people who they hate for disagreeing with them.

Authoritarianism only relates to the use and scope of the state's power. While individuals can support authoritarian politics, they do not have individual authority. People being violent =/= authoritarianism.

What the protesters are protesting for is irrelevant as well. I don't care if you want eternal life and happiness for all, stay of the goddamn road.

[Theinquisition]

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?

I think that was a result of the Michael Brown investigation, not from highway protests. Also, It seems there would be better ways to bring light to exploitation by the city than to burn half of it down.

You don't get to justify a level of violence with a level of rage, otherwise I would be justified in burning the IRS down because I "make to much" for the EITC.

[Dadwen]

Dude, the text appears in two places. It's not specific to pedestrians.



- - - Updated - - -



It's a way of weakening protesters so that may be better ignored.

they are allow to protest but as far as I know they are not guaranteed a captive audience with that right.

just as it's their right to protest it's others right to ignore it.

[Theinquisition]

Dude, the text appears in two places. It's not specific to pedestrians.



- - - Updated - - -



It's a way of weakening protesters so that may be better ignored.

Not at all.

You have a right to protest, you don't have the right to a captive audience, the right to destroy private property, or the right to interfere with inter and intra state commerce

[Theinquisition]

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

Incorrect

roads by design, are for cars to travel, not pedestrians.

That's why (outside of "last chance" clauses) people in cars that hit jay walkers rarely face prosecution.

[GennGreymane]

Well its North Dakota... so I wonder which protesters this is meant for......

[Theinquisition]

Authoritarianism doesn't just spontaneously manifest from nothingness. It's built upon a way of thinking that inhabits individuals who manage to consolidate power. In explaining the behavior here as authoritarianism, I am quite obviously expressing that way of thinking is being demonstrated in some fashion, not calling them an authoritarian government.

- - - Updated - - -



So arrest them.

Agreed.

If someone however hits a protestor with their car by accident, they shouldn't be prosecuted.

Don't want to get hit by a car on the freeway, don't stand in it. If you do.....well...consider it Darwinism.

- - - Updated - - -

Well its North Dakota... so I wonder which protesters this is meant for......

As far as im aware of, they didn't block freeways.

[Dadwen]

So arrest them.

if I was in charge I would, right now the police are so scared of bad PR more than doing their jobs and that's part of why this law needs to come into effect (if the police would arrest them and not let them pull this crap this law would never have even been thought up.)

[GennGreymane]

Agreed.

If someone however hits a protestor with their car by accident, they shouldn't be prosecuted.

Don't want to get hit by a car on the freeway, don't stand in it. If you do.....well...consider it Darwinism.

- - - Updated - - -



As far as im aware of, they didn't block freeways.

Not hearing much about you know who in the Dakota's, but another group seems to be more prominent.

[primalmatter]

Its about time...

I am loving "current year" so far this year. No idea why the saying seems to of lost its favor.

[Lenonis]

Too many internet tough guys in here to have a useful discussion about the balance between right to protest and right to go about your life inconvenienced.

Can't have a serious discussion when people are cheering running down people in cold blood because "I've got shit to do."

None of you would do this and you know it.

[Venant]

Too many internet tough guys in here to have a useful discussion about the balance between right to protest and right to go about your life inconvenienced.

Can't have a serious discussion when people are cheering running down people in cold blood because "I've got shit to do."

None of you would do this and you know it.

And half the people here fail to realize that a bunch of lunatics dancing in the middle of a freeway is also a problem. Those in opposition to this type of legislation immediately jump to the idea that people want to legalize outright murder of protesters. On the other hand, perhaps if legislation like this is in place, protesters won't attempt to blockade roads.

Lots of people look at places like Chicago, Seattle and Los Angeles, and see that when protests are catered to it often results in anarchy and rioting.

[Arewn]

People who dedicate their lives to driving life-saving service vehicles are not going to run over someone on the street. Maybe you need to spend some time around people who work in emergency service industry, here is a hint. They believe in saving lives, not taking lives.

This is precisely why it would be the only time I think it's okay. They would be trained, they would be generally hesitant to do it, and they would only do it if there was a greater loss of life at stake.
Also, despite descriptions along the lines of "plowing people over in the streets" that abound in this thread, these don't necessarily have to be fatal hits. And the life of an innocent awaiting saving could very reasonably be viewed as more important then the injury (and perhaps life) of someone causing a protest related obstruction that would prevent emergency services from passing through.

Another point is that merely having such a law might encourage protesters to let emergency services through. The law doesn't necessarily even have to be used in most cases. (though I don't imagine it would do much for traffic caused by the protest).

[Miztickow]

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

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

Holy shit, that's insanely encompassing in what it lets people get away with in a car.

[Deleted]

right to protest and right to go about your life inconvenienced.

Can we stop pretending this is merely about "inconvenience", a lot of the current protestors aren't particularly peaceful. Calling it an inconvenience when often it rather ends in something that looks like a manhunt and violence is kind of dishonest.

Can't have a serious discussion when people are cheering running down people in cold blood because "I've got shit to do."

Then again, that seems very much intentional.
These poor people!

And half the people here fail to realize that a bunch of lunatics dancing in the middle of a freeway is also a problem.

I don't think they fail to realize that at all. They know fully well that dancing in the middle of the freeway is amongst the most harmless things these protestors do on the regular. The issue is, they tend to be on the side of the protestors and in general agree with them for the most part. Not necessarily the violent excesses but those are rather ignored, downplayed or seen as "necessary evil".

Looking at the language used to describe both sides involved, when it is pretty clear which side initiated force in the first place yet you would believe the opposite to be true if you listened to people like Leonis. You have people smashing in windows, dragging people out of cars and beating them or worse and Leonis is mostly worried about those engaging in these acts.

And no, I don't think one should have the option to run over any and all protestors. But if a mob is smashing the windows of your car in, trying to get at you, your spouse and possibly frightened and crying children in the backseat to do violence to you. Expecting the driver to be worried about not injuring those attackers is beyond ridiculous.

[Lenonis]

Can we stop pretending this is merely about "inconvenience", a lot of the current protestors aren't particularly peaceful. Calling it an inconvenience when often it rather ends in something that looks like a manhunt and violence is kind of dishonest.

Hey, I'm just using the exact words people said in this very thread.

I don't think anyone is going to fault someone for driving away if they are threatened or violence is ensuing. So can we stop pretending that this is about that sort of situation?