• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Tenn. considers bill to protect drivers who run over protesters

ReverendHellh0und said:
IF you read the bill it does not advocate this..... see above post. if I try to break the line by driving 2mph and you don't get out of the way in time I can't be sued. I think it's appropriate.
Click to expand...

While you're sitting in your Denali, strapped in upside down, you can think "Hey, I can't be sued". Get out quick when you see the man with the red can.
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
So you believe some people have more rights than others. Why is your right to protest more important than my right to peaceably travel?
Click to expand...

It's not and I'm quite supportive of firmer punishments for blocking traffic in that manner, but running someone over just because? Nope, not going for that either.

Standing in the road is not constitutionally protected.
Click to expand...

Neither is running them over.
 
Ikari said:
I don't. That's assault with a deadly weapon and I don't think it's reasonable for situations in which you are not in threat.
Click to expand...

If you're going to suggest that's assault with a deadly weapon (which, I definitely see the logic there), than shouldn't the protestors who are forcibly keeping your in place with their illegal activity potentially be viewed engaging in unlawful imprisonment?

I mean, you're basically proposing that an individual in their vehicle should be 100% at the mercy of these individuals engaging in an illegal activity, with no recourse other than to simply wait for the cops while you're forcibly kept in a specific location. Which, I'm fine with that being the only recourse, if that recourse is actually going to be followed through on in a substantive way that it would actually active as a deterrent.

I'd be perfectly fine with forgoing REACTIVE laws like this in Tennessee if we are instead acting PROACTIVE in actually sufficiently punishing those violating the law in a way that forms an actual deterrent.
 
d0gbreath said:
While you're sitting in your Denali, strapped in upside down, you can think "Hey, I can't be sued". Get out quick when you see the man with the red can.
Click to expand...



Why would it be upside down? are you saying that the peaceful protesters would try to flip my truck and would have gas to light someone's vehicle on fire?


And I'm the "violent one". :lol:
 
Ikari said:
It is, we have a police force for this.



Certainly should.



Well fix that end then, the solution is not to run them over.
Click to expand...

I agree with you. Nobody is advocating running the protesters down. The bill excludes willful and wanton.
 
Zyphlin said:
That said, if you're coming around a bend and am suddenly confronted with a protest, and you don't slam on my breaks in time, that shouldn't be on you.
Click to expand...

depends, that is why we have speed limits especially in the city limits. You SHOULD be able to slam on your breaks in time, assuming you're not putting on your makeup, eating a sandwhich, texting, etc. General you of course, not you personally.

If traffic is slowed to a crawl and some idiot moves in front of your vehicle suddenly, causing you to hit him, that shouldn't be on you.
Click to expand...

Again, if you are following the speed limit and paying attention, then chances are you are able to slow down in time. And there already are jay walking laws.

If you are in the middle of a protest that is acting violently towards your vehicle, you should have the ability to remove yourself from said situation in the safest possible fashion, without it being legally on your head if that causes someone to be injured.
Click to expand...

There are already protections for this.
 
Zyphlin said:
Nor does this law. "Run them down" implies an intent, which would mean it's therefore wilfull and wanton.

That said, if you're coming around a bend and am suddenly confronted with a protest, and you don't slam on my breaks in time, that shouldn't be on you. If traffic is slowed to a crawl and some idiot moves in front of your vehicle suddenly, causing you to hit him, that shouldn't be on you. If you are in the middle of a protest that is acting violently towards your vehicle, you should have the ability to remove yourself from said situation in the safest possible fashion, without it being legally on your head if that causes someone to be injured.

No, you shouldn't be able to just see a protester and go run them down for the hell of it. Which is why this bill explicitly exempts cases of willful harm.
Click to expand...
like i said, this proposed law is intended to scare and deter people from using their right to free speech...you come out here, you protest, and you should just 'happen' to get in my way, and whoops! my widdle car hits you, tough luck for you i suppose....as i long as i don't 'throw' the wheel to oneside and make it obvious, sorry about your luck. i can let the car just 'drift' a little bit, so long as i don't make it obvious, i can say that i didnt do it intentionally....now tell me this won't embolden some to try it like i described.
 
rabbitcaebannog said:
So what would you have done with those pesky protesters on the Edmund Pettus Bridge?
Click to expand...



:lol: I forget which forum It was, but back in when the left was anti-war, Protesters blocked rt 4 in paramus, I did not have any law on my side, but I got through with a baseball bat and some negotiation skills. ;) I had pictures and the newspaper article posted.


as for these people on the bridge. I dunno, depends on my move, but if I was feeling like my rights were being violated, I would get through.
 
randel said:
like i said, this proposed law is intended to scare and deter people from using their right to free speech...you come out here, you protest, and you should just 'happen' to get in my way, and whoops! my widdle car hits you, tough luck for you i suppose....as i long as i don't 'throw' the wheel to oneside and make it obvious, sorry about your luck. i can let the car just 'drift' a little bit, so long as i don't make it obvious, i can say that i didnt do it intentionally....now tell me this won't embolden some to try it like i described.
Click to expand...

good then they can go to jail.

you can protest all you want. you don't have the right to impede other peoples ability to travel.
your rights end where others begin. right to safe travel is just that.
 
randel said:
like i said, this proposed law is intended to scare and deter people from using their right to free speech...you come out here, you protest, and you should just 'happen' to get in my way, and whoops! my widdle car hits you, tough luck for you i suppose....as i long as i don't 'throw' the wheel to oneside and make it obvious, sorry about your luck. i can let the car just 'drift' a little bit, so long as i don't make it obvious, i can say that i didnt do it intentionally....now tell me this won't embolden some to try it like i described.
Click to expand...




FOR THE LOVE OF GOD AND ALL THAT IS HOLY you do NOT have a right to impede the rights of another.


BLOCKING ROADS IS NOT CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED


IT IS NOT FREE SPEECH


what part of that are you struggling with?
 
Zyphlin said:
You ignoring a key part of the rule to throw out hyperbolic inaccurate assertions is not the same as someone else hinting at something.
Click to expand...
no, he is definitely ok with it
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
:lol: I forget which forum It was, but back in when the left was anti-war, Protesters blocked rt 4 in paramus, I did not have any law on my side, but I got through with a baseball bat and some negotiation skills. ;) I had pictures and the newspaper article posted.


as for these people on the bridge. I dunno, depends on my move, but if I was feeling like my rights were being violated, I would get through.
Click to expand...

Ah, a baseball bat- Sunday bloody Sunday.
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
FOR THE LOVE OF GOD AND ALL THAT IS HOLY you do NOT have a right to impede the rights of another.


BLOCKING ROADS IS NOT CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED


IT IS NOT FREE SPEECH


what part of that are you struggling with?
Click to expand...
glad to see that you 'love god and all that is holy', perhaps you should discuss your seeming support of harming some of his creations with him.
 
rabbitcaebannog said:
Ah, a baseball bat- Sunday bloody Sunday.
Click to expand...


I chose not to be the victim of another that day. basically they were using pvc pipe to connect arms. one wack on the middle of one and they all freaked out. County cops actually laughed. Great times.
 
I'm guessing that the same people who want to run over and kill peaceful protesters are the same people who would be screaming MURDER if the Feds went in gun blazing when the ARMED with weapons Bundy's took over that wildlife refuge and did $1,000's in damage to that refuge.

Anyway Compassionate Conservatism now long gone in this country.
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
The law does miss the mark as already said. It should be a felonty to block a road as a "protest" and it should be negligent homicide if someone dies because of your ****ty protest.
Click to expand...
Don’t change the subject. You said the interpretation of this bill as permitting you to drive in to pedestrians blocking the highway, albeit at a slow speed, without any legal for injuries (or deaths) that might result would be “appropriate”. I put to you that is a legally questionable interpretation of the bill, a morally questionable desire in the first place and logically questionable to limit the exclusion for injuring or killing protesters anyway.

None of this addresses the legality of the protests in the first place, indeed if anything it’s an unnecessary distraction to clarifying and if necessary legislating for that actual problem.
 
randel said:
glad to see that you 'love god and all that is holy', perhaps you should discuss your seeming support of harming some of his creations with him.
Click to expand...


It's an expression, if there is a god, he ****ed up on a lot of you.... :lol:


You ignored what I posted.



BLOCKING ROADS IS NOT CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED


IT IS NOT FREE SPEECH


So why are you acting as it is?
 
SenorXm/Sirius said:
I'm guessing that the same people who want to run over and kill peaceful protesters are the same people who would be screaming MURDER if the Feds went in gun blazing when the ARMED with weapons Bundy's took over that wildlife refuge and did $1,000's in damage to that refuge.

Anyway Compassionate Conservatism now long gone in this country.
Click to expand...




No one is advocating running over or killing anyone.
 
Ikari said:
I don't. That's assault with a deadly weapon and I don't think it's reasonable for situations in which you are not in threat.
Click to expand...

Yeah right because the protesters are known for being kind and polite to motorists trapped in their midst. :roll:

Anarchistic think this way...that their endangering others is just, but others protecting themselves from their dangerous actions are illegitimate.

Typical and expected
 
randel said:
like i said, this proposed law is intended to scare and deter people from using their right to free speech
Click to expand...

Are you under some kind of misconception that your right to free speech is absolute, including instances where you impede upon other peoples rights?

Yes, people SHOULD be deterred from engaging in their "right to free speech" when their method of utilizing said right infringes upon the rights of others.

It's the same reason why I support harsher penalty for crimes when a gun is used. Because while you have a right to keep and bare arms, if you exercise that right in a manner that infringes upon the rights of another I'm fine with punishing you harshly for it.

Now admittedly, as I said in another post, I'd MUCH prefer to deter it via much stricter and/or harsher enforcement of laws for those who create a public safety threat and stifle other peoples rightful use of public roadways for travel by forcibly preventing their ability to vacate the given area.
 
HonestJoe said:
Don’t change the subject. You said the interpretation of this bill as permitting you to drive in to pedestrians blocking the highway, albeit at a slow speed, without any legal for injuries (or deaths) that might result would be “appropriate”. I put to you that is a legally questionable interpretation of the bill, a morally questionable desire in the first place and logically questionable to limit the exclusion for injuring or killing protesters anyway.

None of this addresses the legality of the protests in the first place, indeed if anything it’s an unnecessary distraction to clarifying and if necessary legislating for that actual problem.
Click to expand...




What the bill says that if you drive through a protest, and you do it with care, etc, you can't be held civilly responsible for any injuries. I agree with that.


if we are in a club. and a woman comes out of the bathroom, and I block her from leaving the hallway, is that assault? who's in the wrong here?
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
It's an expression, if there is a god, he ****ed up on a lot of you.... :lol:


You ignored what I posted.



BLOCKING ROADS IS NOT CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED


IT IS NOT FREE SPEECH


So why are you acting as it is?
Click to expand...
i'm not the one saying that i support 1000% a bill that could potentially cost someone their life....you seem to be the one getting butthurt here snowflake....boo hoo you might be inconvenienced a little bit by a protest
 
randel said:
i'm not the one saying that i support 1000% a bill that could potentially cost someone their life....you seem to be the one getting butthurt here snowflake....boo hoo you might be inconvenienced a little bit by a protest
Click to expand...



You ignored what I posted.



BLOCKING ROADS IS NOT CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED


IT IS NOT FREE SPEECH


So why are you acting as it is?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom