# Can the North Dakota Legislature legalize murder? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 16, 2017, 10:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-the-north-dakota-legislature-legalize-murder/777354 "2017-01-16T22:58:19Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 19\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Happy\_Fun\_Ball](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/happy_fun_ball/32/17664_2.png) [@Happy\_Fun\_Ball](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Happy_Fun_Ball)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2017, 10:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-the-north-dakota-legislature-legalize-murder/777354/1 "2017-01-16T22:58:19Z")
[North Dakota bill would exempt liability in cases where motorists “accidentally” kill or injure protesters by running them down with their cars.](http://bismarcktribune.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/motorist-liability-introduced-in-response-to-pipeline-protests/article_27bfbbe1-40b3-53ab-a620-3b6e0225fb59.html) The legislator who sponsored this bill, Keith Kempernich, is just worried that some people might panic if the see people with signs in the road: [QUOTE=Bismark Tribune Article] Kempenich said one should consider what might happen if someone panics when coming upon a group of people gathered along a public roadway. He said an unintentional tragedy may occur “if they’d have punched the accelerator rather than the brakes.” [/QUOTE] I feel the I understand the moral (or lack thereof) basis of this law, but perhaps **Bricker** or somebody with some legal chops could comment on whether a law like this would actually stand up in court. I am not clear if they are limiting the criminal or the civil liability, but I would guess the civil as an accident is not a criminal offense, right? I have no legal training, but it is hard for me how you can limit legal liability for maiming or killing a certain class of pedestrian. Would this law let me “accidentally” run down operation rescue protesters, or is it only oil pipeline protesters that are fair game? I thought that people who accidentally injure another while driving were already relatively protected against legal and financial sanctions. Are they not? Why is this law needed? I thought about putting this in the pit or in MPSIMS, but on the off chance some debate on the sanctity of life starts I put it here in GD. Mods, please move it if you feel it is appropriate. ---
**Author:** ![Evan\_Drake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/b487fb/32.png) [@Evan\_Drake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evan_Drake)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2017, 11:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-the-north-dakota-legislature-legalize-murder/777354/2 "2017-01-16T23:01:56Z")
That’s very amusing. Still, perhaps panicky people should not be allowed to drive. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2017, 11:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-the-north-dakota-legislature-legalize-murder/777354/3 "2017-01-16T23:39:38Z")
thread title is a bit inflammatory, but I don’t see any reason why a state legislature can’t say “Person X has no civil liability in circumstances such as \_\_\_\_\_”. Just for one example, Florida has done so in some cases where a defensive gun use (or really any defensive use of force) is found to be justified. See [Florida statute 776.032](http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0700-0799/0776/Sections/0776.032.html): > [@](#): > > A person who uses or threatens to use force as permitted in s. 776.012, s. 776.013, or s. 776.031 is justified in such conduct and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use or threatened use of such force by the person, personal representative, or heirs of the person against whom the force was used or threatened, unless the person against whom force was used or threatened is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who was acting in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using or threatening to use force knew or reasonably should have known that the person was a law enforcement officer. As used in this subsection, the term “criminal prosecution” includes arresting, detaining in custody, and charging or prosecuting the defendant. > (2) A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use or threatened use of force as described in subsection (1), but the agency may not arrest the person for using or threatening to use force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force that was used or threatened was unlawful. > (3) The court shall award reasonable attorney’s fees, court costs, compensation for loss of income, and all expenses incurred by the defendant in defense of any civil action brought by a plaintiff if the court finds that the defendant is immune from prosecution as provided in subsection (1). ETA: This amounts to a giant middle finger to the Martin family’s hopes of suing George Zimmerman. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2017, 11:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-the-north-dakota-legislature-legalize-murder/777354/4 "2017-01-16T23:43:17Z")
This bill could be considered reason #726 why ‘protesting’ by standing on the freeway is a shitty idea. [Here is an instructional video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vMZeJLm-xnw) for the TL;DR crowd. ---
**Author:** ![Evan\_Drake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/b487fb/32.png) [@Evan\_Drake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evan_Drake)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2017, 11:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-the-north-dakota-legislature-legalize-murder/777354/5 "2017-01-16T23:53:26Z")
And when the excited motorist, dazzled by all these signs waved in the air, presses down hard by accident, and plows into a group of policemen monitoring a protest, leaving them killed and maimed, this happy little politician can absolve him. “_Drive away and sin no more_.” ---
**Author:** ![madsircool](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/madsircool/32/3432_2.png) [@madsircool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/madsircool)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2017, 12:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-the-north-dakota-legislature-legalize-murder/777354/6 "2017-01-17T00:23:07Z")
> [@Evan\_Drake](#): > > And when the excited motorist, dazzled by all these signs waved in the air, presses down hard by accident, and plows into a group of policemen monitoring a protest, leaving them killed and maimed, this happy little politician can absolve him. > “_Drive away and sin no more_.” Do you understand the difference between civil and criminal liability? ---
**Author:** ![Evan\_Drake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/b487fb/32.png) [@Evan\_Drake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evan_Drake)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2017, 12:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-the-north-dakota-legislature-legalize-murder/777354/7 "2017-01-17T00:43:29Z")
I don’t understand your question: the OP stated he wasn’t sure if it referred to limiting the criminal or the civil liability. Are you saying either liability is qualified by whether the victims are wearing uniforms ? ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2017, 2:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-the-north-dakota-legislature-legalize-murder/777354/8 "2017-01-17T02:12:56Z")
Is it still criminal to run them down? (really asking) ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2017, 3:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-the-north-dakota-legislature-legalize-murder/777354/9 "2017-01-17T15:44:46Z")
This bill does not appear to affect the criminal code. HB1203, introduced by provides in pertinent part: > [@](#): > > Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a driver of a motor vehicle who negligently > causes injury or death to an individual obstructing vehicular traffic on a public road, street, or > highway may not be held liable for any damages. It goes on to amend existing code sections to make clear that where a sidewalk is provided and its use is practicable, it is unlawful for any pedestrian to walk along and upon an adjacent roadway; where a sidewalk is not available, any pedestrian walking along and upon a highway shall walk only on a shoulder, as far as practicable from the edge of the roadway; where neither a sidewalk nor a shoulder is available, any pedestrian walking along and upon a highway shall walk as near as practicable to an outside edge of the roadway, and, if on a two-way roadway, shall walk only on the left side of the roadway; and any pedestrian upon a roadway shall yield the right of way to all vehicles upon the roadway. Finally, it provides that a driver of a motor vehicle who unintentionally causes injury or death to an individual obstructing vehicular traffic on a public road, street, or highway is not guilty of an offense. This last may have criminal implications, but since it applies only to unintentional results, its criminal application is limited – as a general rule, a crime must be intended. ---
**Author:** ![Happy\_Fun\_Ball](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/happy_fun_ball/32/17664_2.png) [@Happy\_Fun\_Ball](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Happy_Fun_Ball)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2017, 4:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-the-north-dakota-legislature-legalize-murder/777354/10 "2017-01-17T16:20:40Z")
Huh. It sounds like this bill would absolve people who ran over school children crossing the street assuming the did not run a red light, stop sign, or ignore a crossing guard. Jay walkers also seem to be fair game. **Bricker** , do you agree? It really sounds like this is a stupid and unneeded law that is being crafted to send a political message. I would bet there are already statutes and precedents that protect motorists of liability when they accidentally hit somebody walking down the middle of the street. Am I right? ETA: I find it highly doubtful that somebody would face no legal repercussions after this law is passed if they ran through a crowd of protesters at speed. **Bricker** , since you have commented once, do you care to comment again on the hypothetical? ---
**Author:** ![Pantastic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3bc359/32.png) [@Pantastic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pantastic)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2017, 5:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-the-north-dakota-legislature-legalize-murder/777354/11 "2017-01-17T17:02:25Z")
I’m going to go back to the subject line, and it’s a senseless question. By what I’d consider the standard definition murder is illegal killing, so if something is legal then it isn’t technically murder, and ‘legalizing murder’ is semantically nonsense. Some people label a legal killing they disagree with is murder, but here’s no legal issue with a state making it legal to kill in self-defense, in an execution, in military action, or for euthanasia, even though a lot of people will call some or all of these ‘murder’ depending on context. So, putting aside what the specifics of this bill says, it’s definitely accepted practice for a state to legalize or decriminalize killing under some circumstances, which could be called ‘legalizing murder’. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2017, 5:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-the-north-dakota-legislature-legalize-murder/777354/12 "2017-01-17T17:54:07Z")
> [@Happy\_Fun\_Ball](#): > > **Can the North Dakota Legislature legalize murder?** In no way shape or form is this bill trying to “legalize murder”.:rolleyes: Have your heard the expression “poisoning the well”?:rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![DrCube](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a3d4f5/32.png) [@DrCube](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrCube)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2017, 6:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-the-north-dakota-legislature-legalize-murder/777354/13 "2017-01-17T18:34:54Z")
Here’s the text of the [bill in question](http://www.legis.nd.gov/assembly/65-2017/documents/17-0351-01000.pdf): > [@](#): > > **Notwithstanding any other provision of law** , a driver of a motor vehicle who negligently causes injury or death to an individual obstructing vehicular traffic on a public road, street, or highway may not be held liable for any damages. That first part that I bolded there sounds to me like a legalese way of saying “this law will have no actual effect”. But I’m not a lawyer. ---
**Author:** ![Tom\_Tildrum](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e95f7d/32.png) [@Tom\_Tildrum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tom_Tildrum)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2017, 6:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-the-north-dakota-legislature-legalize-murder/777354/14 "2017-01-17T18:47:56Z")
On the civil side, the old rule (i.e., pre-modern common law) might very well have exempted the driver from monetary liability. The old rule was called “contributory negligence,” and it held that one party (the driver) could not be liable for a negligent injury if the other party (the pedestrian) was even the least bit negligent himself. So if the protesters were in or carelessly close to the road such that they were partly at fault, the old rule would have held that they receive no compensation for their injuries. The modern rule that has taken hold in most states is called “comparative negligence,” and it requires the jury to apportion damages by apportioning fault between two negligent parties. So if the jury found the protesters to be 50 percent at fault in an accident, they could only recover 50 percent of the damages for their injuries. Essentially, I think the proposed law would return ND to the old rule in the specific area of motor-vehicle cases involving an obstructed road. All this goes out the window if the driver’s bad conduct is intentional. ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2017, 7:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-the-north-dakota-legislature-legalize-murder/777354/15 "2017-01-17T19:22:07Z")
> [@DrCube](#): > > That first part that I bolded there sounds to me like a legalese way of saying “this law will have no actual effect”. But I’m not a lawyer. No, quite the opposite - it means that this law takes priority over any previous law on this issue. ---
**Author:** ![Happy\_Fun\_Ball](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/happy_fun_ball/32/17664_2.png) [@Happy\_Fun\_Ball](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Happy_Fun_Ball)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2017, 7:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-the-north-dakota-legislature-legalize-murder/777354/16 "2017-01-17T19:22:39Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > thread title is a bit inflammatory, \ > [@DrDeth](#): > > In no way shape or form is this bill trying to “legalize murder”.:rolleyes: > > Have your heard the expression “poisoning the well”?:rolleyes: Mea culpa. I don’t know about poisoning the well, but I do think that it could be considered trolling. There are several times it has served me well, but the majority of time it just gets in the way, this being one of those times. I am so fed up with politics in this country that I have an almost unconscious reaction where I am snarky and inflammatory when I create threads or reply to posts; granted I don’t think I am the only one that has this problem as I see the behavior in many other dopers… Still, I am rightly chastised I will try to refrain from this behavior in the future especially in GD… Anyway, this is the answer I was looking for: > [@Tom\_Tildrum](#): > > On the civil side, the old rule (i.e., pre-modern common law) might very well have exempted the driver from monetary liability. The old rule was called “contributory negligence,” and it held that one party (the driver) could not be liable for a negligent injury if the other party (the pedestrian) was even the least bit negligent himself. So if the protesters were in or carelessly close to the road such that they were partly at fault, the old rule would have held that they receive no compensation for their injuries. > > The modern rule that has taken hold in most states is called “comparative negligence,” and it requires the jury to apportion damages by apportioning fault between two negligent parties. So if the jury found the protesters to be 50 percent at fault in an accident, they could only recover 50 percent of the damages for their injuries. > > Essentially, I think the proposed law would return ND to the old rule in the specific area of motor-vehicle cases involving an obstructed road. > > All this goes out the window if the driver’s bad conduct is intentional. Thank you Tom. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2017, 8:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-the-north-dakota-legislature-legalize-murder/777354/17 "2017-01-17T20:19:22Z")
> [@Happy\_Fun\_Ball](#): > > Mea culpa. I don’t know about poisoning the well, but I do think that it could be considered trolling. There are several times it has served me well, but the majority of time it just gets in the way, this being one of those times. I am so fed up with politics in this country that I have an almost unconscious reaction where I am snarky and inflammatory when I create threads or reply to posts; granted I don’t think I am the only one that has this problem as I see the behavior in many other dopers… Still, I am rightly chastised I will try to refrain from this behavior in the future especially in GD… > > Anyway, this is the answer I was looking for: > > Thank you Tom. Thanks you for this post, dude. All is forgiven.😃 ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2017, 11:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-the-north-dakota-legislature-legalize-murder/777354/18 "2017-01-19T23:07:45Z")
> [@Happy\_Fun\_Ball](#): > > Huh. It sounds like this bill would absolve people who ran over school children crossing the street assuming the did not run a red light, stop sign, or ignore a crossing guard. Jay walkers also seem to be fair game. **Bricker** , do you agree? > > It really sounds like this is a stupid and unneeded law that is being crafted to send a political message. I would bet there are already statutes and precedents that protect motorists of liability when they accidentally hit somebody walking down the middle of the street. Am I right? > > ETA: I find it highly doubtful that somebody would face no legal repercussions after this law is passed if they ran through a crowd of protesters at speed. **Bricker** , since you have commented once, do you care to comment again on the hypothetical? I’m not Bricker, but so long as the driver did not intentionally hit the jaywalker or school children, why should the driver be civilly or criminally liable? ---
**Author:** ![John\_Bredin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/96bed5/32.png) [@John\_Bredin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Bredin)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2017, 8:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-the-north-dakota-legislature-legalize-murder/777354/19 "2017-01-20T20:00:10Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > I’m not Bricker, but so long as the driver did not intentionally hit the jaywalker or school children, why should the driver be civilly or criminally liable? (Emphasis added.) You are aware of the concept of civil liability for negligence, right? :rolleyes: