Running over protesters may soon be legal in North Dakota

[Deleted]

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?

No, because it is exactly about this kind of situation and people do indeed blame the drivers here. You yourself came in broadly painting anyone and everyone using a bunch of loaded but hollow phrases to justify it and try to turn the entire situation on it's head.

This is the type of riots currently becoming common in the US. This is what this is mostly about. This is what one side is talking about and the other one is pretending isn't happening. So no, we can not move on to some situation with peaceful and harmless protestors being run over by a frothing at the mouth angry person that was "slightly inconvenienced".

[Miztickow]

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.

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

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.

How about you stop pretending this is about BLM. This is about North Dakota lawmakers doing their big oil donors' bidding and trying to shut down protestors against their pipelines. It's the same thing they're trying to do in the state of Washington.

[Lenonis]

No, because it is exactly about this kind of situation and people do indeed blame the drivers here. You yourself came in broadly painting anyone and everyone using a bunch of loaded but hollow phrases to justify it and try to turn the entire situation on it's head.

I'll repeat myself since your reading comprehension seems a little off today. I was simply using the same words other posters used in this thread.

Self defense laws exist. They would cover injury done while escaping a harmful situation. Or do you think someone fleeing a carjacker is going to get sued?

You are being entirely disingenuous and your twisting of my words is pathetic.

So no, we can not move on to some situation with peaceful and harmless protestors being run over by a frothing at the mouth angry person that was "slightly inconvenienced".

Maybe you should tell that to the people who are posting that in this thread then.

[Kiri]

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.

Actually, that is not necessarily true. Streets used to be for both pedestrians and cars. Jay walking itself was something that automobile producers introduced as a bad thing in order to push people from the streets, eventually managing to turn it into a bona fide crime. Roads are not generally by design cars only, people just somehow decided they should be one day.

[Miztickow]

Actually, that is not necessarily true. Streets used to be for both pedestrians and cars. Jay walking itself was something that automobile producers introduced as a bad thing in order to push people from the streets, eventually managing to turn it into a bona fide crime. Roads are not generally by design cars only, people just somehow decided they should be one day.

[Kiri]

This is a pretty shitty one. The car is obviously a far superior means of transportation in a wide variety of situations and it's to be expected that society would reorganize around it. Jaywalking is a hazard to pedestrians and drivers alike and can create a lot of traffic problems that clog up roads. Regardless of how it came about (and if propaganda sponsored by soulless corporations is to blame, then thanks for the propaganda, soulless corporations), it's obviously preferable for jaywalking to be a crime over allowing any random oblivious asshole to insert themself into traffic wherever they feel like it and leave you responsible for what happens.

I would agree with that - outside of cities. The car is definitely superior on longer distances, that much is for sure. But inside cities, I would argue that it is not really superior at all. Most bigger cities do not need any protesters or the like to clog up, just the normal load of the millions of cars going through. If it had not been for that propaganda, the US in particular might have much more efficient public transport systems and better city planning. By being swallowed up by that propaganda people just accepted that you need a car for everything and everyone should have one, meaning that businesses can easily distribute themselves in ways that, in turn, necessitate cars.

Just look at countries that did not suffer from that much propaganda. I am perfectly capable to get pretty much everywhere in my city with a bus and a bit of walking. Even when I lived in Tokyo a car was far from necessary at all. Random oblivious assholes will always insert themselves into traffic, just like random oblivious assholes will speed around inside cities, cut lights or whatever.

[dextersmith]

Does blm protest there too?

[Stormspellz]

Just gotta yell "Whoops I didn't seem them!" as you run them over and you are covered.

or he wouldn't get out of the street

[SL1200]

I don't think this has a prayer when it hits the higher courts. First amendment rights and all that.

[May90]

I also think that it should be legal to shoot anyone who dares to speak out against the government in any form and shape. Line up those traitors who think they have some silly democratic rights!!!

[TITAN308]

I also think that it should be legal to shoot anyone who dares to speak out against the government in any form and shape. Line up those traitors who think they have some silly democratic rights!!!

Again, rights are not absolute.

Just because some people are asking for constraints on freedom of assembly (1st Amendment) (just like you can't yell fire in a crowded place) no one is advocating abolishing them.

Isn't this what you anti-second amendment people prattle on about all the time?

Oh wait, let me see if I can do it right...

"Muh free speech! Muh freedom of assembly!"

[Venant]

I also think that it should be legal to shoot anyone who dares to speak out against the government in any form and shape. Line up those traitors who think they have some silly democratic rights!!!

Damn it May, have you been reading /pol again?

[May90]

Again, rights are not absolute.

Just because some people are asking for constraints on freedom of assembly (1st Amendment) (just like you can't yell fire in a crowded place) no one is advocating abolishing them.

Isn't this what you anti-second amendment people prattle on about all the time?

Oh wait, let me see if I can do it right...

"Muh free speech! Muh freedom of assembly!"

No, you are wrong: I'm advocating for abolishing them! There was a protest on my campus a couple years ago, when students laid down on the floor protesting against abortions and asking the government to ban them... Bastards forced me to take a longer route. I should have been able to gun them all down, because I was late for the Starcraft stream!

[TITAN308]

No, you are wrong: I'm advocating for abolishing them! There was a protest on my campus a couple years ago, when students laid down on the floor protesting against abortions and asking the government to ban them... Bastards forced me to take a longer route. I should have been able to gun them all down, because I was late for the Starcraft stream!

lmao this guy

[Leyre]

Reminds me of the Oklahoma woman that just got life for killing 4 people during a parade. She was having personal issues and didnt exactly intend on killing 4 people, but she still acted negligently enough that it was worth a long prison sentence. One wonders how this law would apply to her.

- - - Updated - - -

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

the road is.for.fucking.vehicles

[May90]

lmao this guy

What, you disagree? You do not support smaller government?! Traitor! I should be able to deal with you too! *starts a motorcycle*

[TITAN308]

What, you disagree? You do not support smaller government?! Traitor! I should be able to deal with you too! *starts a motorcycle*

Joke is on you, I have a scooter with a jet engine. Fuck the EPA. *Vrooooooooooooooooom*

[May90]

Joke is on you, I have a scooter with a jet engine. Fuck the EPA. *Vrooooooooooooooooom*

Oh, well... GG!

[SherriMayim]

...I want this in California. God fuck. PLEASE LET THIS BE IN CALIFORNIA SOON

[Extremity]

If somebody is protesting and blocking a road and you mow them down, you're still liable under this change. Your subject is entirely wrong, you are *absolutely* still responsible and will be pretty fucked.

This just protects people who have hit somebody standing in the road GENUINELY by accident. If you are driving properly and somebody is protesting on an active roadway at their own risk, you are protected if a genuine accident, at no fault of your own, results in you hitting them.

If, however, you're late for work and haven't had your coffee... you can't just plow through the people trying to get another 50 cents an hour, sorry.