So, apparently, protesting is bad, mmkay, unless you’re invading the Capitol. So, the GOP is clamping down on protesters, making people convicted of unlawful assembly ineligible for student loans, government jobs, etc. Cancel culture against protesters!
But, violating first amendment protections for assembly aren’t the weird part. Apparently, some states are going further:
Republican legislators in Oklahoma and Iowa have passed bills granting immunity to drivers whose vehicles strike and injure protesters in public streets.
And that’s a very dumb argument. Right of way only means it’s your turn to move. It’s not an entitlement to knowingly cause harm. Imagine if, in driver’s ed, they told you to just plow into that car that went ahead of you in the stop sign.
I even remember being told that, in a sense, pedestrians always have a right of way, as it will be assumed to be your fault if you run over a pedestrian unless you can show you couldn’t stop or swerve. Looking out for people who might dart out was a big part of the lessons.
The thing is, these same people get mad about rioters and such. They argue that violence should only be used to defend oneself or others. Yet here they are condoning violence for the crime of inconvenience.
The way you deal with people illegally being on the street is that you give them a ticket, fine, or similar. Good luck trying to have laws that make it where you have to pay with your life or bodily harm, depending on why you were there or what you were saying.
Rarely are people ever truly debating whether a particular tactic used by protesters ought to actually be legal or not. Instead, running underneath all it is the undercurrent of “Are these protestors on my side or theirs?”
If they’re the ones protesting, then almost no protest tactic they use - no matter how peaceful - is “acceptable.” If one’s own side is protesting, then almost no tactic one uses is unacceptable, regardless of how blunt, obstructive or forceful.
Many of the Trumpers who stormed the Capitol on Jan. 6 probably decried the Black Lives Matters protestors last summer for ‘violence’.
And with that, then I fully expect the driver to be charged with murder for each protester they hit that happened to be standing in a crosswalk such that vehicles have to yield right of way to them.
These same people are the rioters. They rioted over the summer at the BLM protests, and then they rioted again in January because they were afraid of democracy. Let’s not pretend that the rioters were on the same side as BLM. Left-wing groups were holding peaceful protests, and then right-wing groups showed up at those protests and started rioting.
So now we have Mister Mercedes laws. How nice. How very nice. What the law looks like to me is a license to mow down BLM protesters. And I’m sure some are champing at the bit to do just that. The people who support this are the same ones who supported the attempt to end democratic rule in January. Principled protests mean nothing to them, democracy means nothing to them, all the matters is tribalism. Now they have carte blanche to commit mass murder against “them”.
In Oklahoma, Republican lawmakers last week sent legislation to Gov. Kevin Stitt that would criminalize the unlawful blocking of a public street and grant immunity to drivers who strike and injure protesters during a riot. Last June, a pickup truck carrying a horse trailer drove through a crowd of Black Lives Matter protesters on a Tulsa freeway, injuring several people and leaving one paralyzed. The driver, who said he had sped up because he feared for the safety of his family, was not charged…The bill’s author, state Sen. Rob Standridge, said the Tulsa incident had prompted him to seek immunity for drivers who strike protesters. He said Tuesday he wasn’t aware of any drivers who had been charged after striking protesters in Oklahoma. “My hope is that this law never is utilized,” he said in an interview. Carly Atchison, a spokeswoman for Stitt, declined to say whether he would sign the bill, which passed with veto-proof majorities.
The theory is that the drivers are afraid for their life thus it is a life saving measure.
It doesnt appear to exonerate those who deliberately crash into a crowd.
The law grants civil immunity to people who drive into protesters who are blocking a road, prevents people accused of rioting from bailing out of jail until after their first court appearance, and increases penalties for assaulting law-enforcement officers while engaging in a “riot.”
Another scenario - although statistically unlikely - would be if someone with a medical emergency is trying to get to the hospital ASAP, but a protest crowd is blocking the highway. In that case, given the urgency of the situation, they may find that charging at high speed is the only way (if, for instance, an additional delay of 5-10 minutes while being harangued by the crowd about the merits of their protest cause may prove fatal), especially if, if the crowd senses that the car is not going to stop, they may hurriedly clear out a path for it.
If you’re afraid for your life, I think a self-defense claim may protect you, especially if they are pounding on your car with baseball bats. So, I don’t see why they need to carve it out as a special protection in these laws.
If they are just surrounding you, no, I don’t think you’re allowed to run anyone over, until these pass.
If there is an accident that is blocking traffic, and you need to get to medical services, are you allowed to just plow past and potentially harm the victims of the accident further?
If there is a parade blocking the road, and you need to get through to medical services, can you just run down the marching band?
If there is a bridge out between you and the medical services you feel you desperately need, should you just Dukes of Hazard it?
I find these scenarios to be far more likely than the one that you posit, so unless someone say yes to all of them, then running over protestors becomes a choice, not a necessity.
Sure seems clear enough to me. In Oklahoma, Republican lawmakers last week sent legislation to Gov. Kevin Stitt that would criminalize the unlawful blocking of a public street and grant immunity to drivers who strike and injure protesters during a riot.
Does it say you have to be in fear for your life? I might have something less than utter contempt for the law if it didn’t appear to be simply carte blanche to deliberately running over and killing protesters.
It’s going to be fun when a protester pulls a gun and kills the motorist, with their lawyer citing the Stand Your Ground Doctrine (if it exists in that state).
Well, if the protester is white and the driver is black, then Stand Your Ground applies. However, if the protester is black and the driver white, then it doesn’t. Also, if the protests are for BLM, then SYG never applies. If the protests are in support of Confederate statues and the driver is black, then SYG applies. If the driver is white and the protesters are in support of the Confederacy, it’s not clear which law would apply.