# When should a person have the right to drive thru a crowd of demonstrators? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 3, 2018, 5:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-should-a-person-have-the-right-to-drive-thru-a-crowd-of-demonstrators/811732 "2018-04-03T17:20:06Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2018, 1:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-should-a-person-have-the-right-to-drive-thru-a-crowd-of-demonstrators/811732/121 "2018-04-04T01:33:25Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > It is weird that Texas state law would define a theft of under $1500 as a misdemeanor subject to up to a year in prison and up to a $4000 fine but it is ok with its citizens being judge, jury and executioner and meting out the death penalty for that very same crime. > > These two things do not square well. One more thought: My understanding (admittedly imperfect) is that Texas’ “shoot the burglar” law only applies to nighttime burglaries. That’s a bit of a different situation from the simple theft you describe above, in the same way that, if someone steals a bike left unlocked leaning against a street lamp pole it is quite a bit different from if someone were to break into your home at night to steal the bicycle out of your garage. ---
**Author:** ![DavidwithanR](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/3bc359/32.png) [@DavidwithanR](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DavidwithanR)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2018, 1:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-should-a-person-have-the-right-to-drive-thru-a-crowd-of-demonstrators/811732/122 "2018-04-04T01:34:37Z")
I think the original post is disingenuous. In fact, I hope it is, because if it isn’t disingenuous then the OP is actually proposing to murder a bunch of people to satisfy an abstract notion of liberty. ---
**Author:** ![Chingon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chingon/32/17645_2.png) [@Chingon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chingon)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2018, 1:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-should-a-person-have-the-right-to-drive-thru-a-crowd-of-demonstrators/811732/123 "2018-04-04T01:37:29Z")
Depends, are the protesters workers from a federal office building? ---
**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:** [April 4, 2018, 1:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-should-a-person-have-the-right-to-drive-thru-a-crowd-of-demonstrators/811732/124 "2018-04-04T01:40:00Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > One more thought: My understanding (admittedly imperfect) is that Texas’ “shoot the burglar” law only applies to nighttime burglaries. That’s a bit of a different situation from the simple theft you describe above, in the same way that, if someone steals a bike left unlocked leaning against a street lamp pole it is quite a bit different from if someone were to break into your home at night to steal the bicycle out of your garage. Joe Horn, which I cited earlier, shot two burglars (not robbers) stealing from Horn’s neighbor’s house. The events occurred around 2pm so it was not dark at all. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2018, 1:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-should-a-person-have-the-right-to-drive-thru-a-crowd-of-demonstrators/811732/125 "2018-04-04T01:40:34Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > From your link of the law in question: > > So it seems the person has to prove their innocence which is a flip of the innocent till proven guilty bit and then must prove that the driver intentionally hit them. > > That is a tough bar to get over giving great leeway to people running demonstrators over. > > “Oh, my foot slipped off the brake! I didn’t mean to! Oops! Prove otherwise…double dare you!” :rolleyes: The motorist would presumably be the defendant in this case. The norm in our system is for the plaintiff to bear the burden of proof. I don’t see how it is “a flip of the innocent till proven guilty bit”. The motorist is innocent until proven guilty. In this case, part of that “proven guilty” would require that the person injured / killed demonstrate that they did “not obstruct or interfere with the regular flow of vehicular traffic on a public road, street, or highway during a protest or demonstration for which a public assembly permit or other applicable special event permit has not been issued by a county or municipality.” It would have protected the driver from the lawsuit from that dumb bitch from UCSD. I see that as good public policy. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2018, 1:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-should-a-person-have-the-right-to-drive-thru-a-crowd-of-demonstrators/811732/126 "2018-04-04T01:41:48Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > Joe Horn, which I cited earlier, shot two burglars (not robbers) stealing from Horn’s neighbor’s house. The events occurred around 2pm so it was not dark at all. In his case, I believe the grand jury no-billed him because he reasonably feared for his life (the burglars moved towards him when they exited the home), not because of Texas’ law about nighttime burglaries. I’m certainly open to correction if you or others think I have that bit wrong. ETA: in other words, I think Joe Horn’s case was basically one of simple self-defense. ---
**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:** [April 4, 2018, 1:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-should-a-person-have-the-right-to-drive-thru-a-crowd-of-demonstrators/811732/127 "2018-04-04T01:43:32Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > None of those appear to be “freeways”. Several of them are surface streets. My (admittedly vague and layman’s) impression is that in this day and age at least, protests are allowed to obtain permits to follow a route (even through the street sometimes), in which case police will typically close the streets along the route to vehicular traffic for the duration of the protest. That’s quite a bit of a different animal from wandering onto I-8 at night because your ass is chapped that Trump won. It is blocking roads to protest and inconveniencing people to do so. Permit or no permit. In many of the photos I linked to the surface streets were major thoroughfares and arguably more disruptive of traffic than blocking a freeway. You are nitpicking details when the upshot is roughly the same in all cases. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2018, 1:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-should-a-person-have-the-right-to-drive-thru-a-crowd-of-demonstrators/811732/128 "2018-04-04T01:49:54Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > It is blocking roads to protest and inconveniencing people to do so. Permit or no permit. In many of the photos I linked to the surface streets were major thoroughfares and arguably more disruptive of traffic than blocking a freeway. > > You are nitpicking details when the upshot is roughly the same in all cases. I don’t think it is “nitpicking details”. I see a huge difference between a protest that is planned ahead, notifies and obtains a permit from the municipality, allowing police time to plan and close the roads to vehicular traffic (and allowing drivers time to plan alternate routes to avoid the closed roads and protesters) vs [a spontaneous protest that springs up and tries to march onto the freeway and block traffic](http://abc7news.com/news/all-lanes-of-i-880-in-oakland-reopen-after-protest-blocks-highway/1418202/). The former is relatively safe for all involved, the latter is dangerous as hell. ---
**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:** [April 4, 2018, 1:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-should-a-person-have-the-right-to-drive-thru-a-crowd-of-demonstrators/811732/129 "2018-04-04T01:53:04Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > In his case, I believe the grand jury no-billed him because he reasonably feared for his life (the burglars moved towards him when they exited the home), not because of Texas’ law about nighttime burglaries. I’m certainly open to correction if you or others think I have that bit wrong. > > ETA: in other words, I think Joe Horn’s case was basically one of simple self-defense. Yes. That is what the grand jury did. Of course it is almost unheard of for a DA in the US to not get an indictment from a grand jury if they want one. At a federal level they get indictments in 99.99% of all cases ([over 162,000 and lost 11 of them](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/11/24/the-single-chart-that-shows-that-grand-juries-indict-99-99-percent-of-the-time/?utm_term=.060af1882063) in 2010). I doubt Texas is much different in this regard. Grand jury trials are nothing like a regular trial. The DA has all the power, the defense none. The burglars were in Horn’s neighbor’s house. Horn called police and was told not to go outside, that they’d take care of it. Horn was worked up about not letting them get away and saying as much so left his home with a gun. He confronted the burglars shouting a warning and mere moments later fired. Supposedly they ran towards him so he “feared for his life” but somehow the burglars managed to get shot in the back (both of them). In short, had he listened to the police he would have been safe and no shooting would have occurred. Either the DA threw the case or this is just good ole boy justice looking out for their own, southern style. ---
**Author:** ![Lemur866](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lemur866/32/434_2.png) [@Lemur866](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lemur866)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2018, 1:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-should-a-person-have-the-right-to-drive-thru-a-crowd-of-demonstrators/811732/130 "2018-04-04T01:53:42Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > Is every not-guilty verdict an example of “jury nullification” and a continuation of the that “tradition” with regard to lynchings in your eyes? No, but jurors who acquit a guy who intentionally plows through a group of protesters because they’re blocking the street would be. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2018, 2:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-should-a-person-have-the-right-to-drive-thru-a-crowd-of-demonstrators/811732/131 "2018-04-04T02:00:48Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > Yes. That is what the grand jury did. Of course it is almost unheard of for a DA in the US to not get an indictment from a grand jury if they want one. At a federal level they get indictments in 99.99% of all cases ([over 162,000 and lost 11 of them](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/11/24/the-single-chart-that-shows-that-grand-juries-indict-99-99-percent-of-the-time/?utm_term=.060af1882063) in 2010). I doubt Texas is much different in this regard. Grand jury trials are nothing like a regular trial. The DA has all the power, the defense none. > > The burglars were in Horn’s neighbor’s house. Horn called police and was told not to go outside, that they’d take care of it. Horn was worked up about not letting them get away and left his home with a gun. He confronted the burglars shouting a warning and mere moments later fired. Supposedly they ran towards him so he “feared for his life” but somehow the burglars managed to get shot in the back (both of them). > > Either the DA threw the case or this is just good ole boy justice looking out for their own, southern style. Every now and then juries, and even grand juries, will ruin a prosecutor’s plans, but I agree, it’s quite rare. And sometimes I feel that prosecutors may present a weak case to a grand jury, expecting / hoping to “lose” so that they can wash their hands of an unattractive / politically volatile case and tell the masses “i did the best I could, but aww shucks, that mean ole grand jury just wouldn’t let me do my job”. Whatever it was in this case, there are several useful lessons that can be drawn from the case: #1) don’t break into people’s homes and steal stuff in Texas. #2) if you’ve ignored #1, and you get caught by a neighbor wielding a shotgun, you should sure as hell not run towards him. It would not surprise me if something like that was the message the grand jury wanted to send to would-be burglars, more than it wanted to send a message to the Joe Horns of the world to not shoot criminals running towards them. I don’t find it terribly unreasonable. That doesn’t mean that “simple theft deserves the death penalty”, but it might mean that one should exercise caution to not make reasonable people fear for their life / safety. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2018, 2:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-should-a-person-have-the-right-to-drive-thru-a-crowd-of-demonstrators/811732/132 "2018-04-04T02:02:01Z")
> [@Lemur866](#): > > No, but jurors who acquit a guy who intentionally plows through a group of protesters because they’re blocking the street would be. Even in the hypothetical example I gave in post #20 (quoted below for your convenience)? > [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > I never claimed anything about “possible damage” to a vehicle, or was talking about scratches and dents. I’m explicitly talking about a genuine threat of great bodily harm. Maybe some members of the crowd have tire irons, bricks, or baseball bats, and are yelling “we’re gonna get you!” while smashing the side windows and reaching into the vehicle to unlock it. In a case like that, a reasonable person might conclude their life is in danger. The vehicle, while stationary, is no longer offering adequate protection. ---
**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:** [April 4, 2018, 2:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-should-a-person-have-the-right-to-drive-thru-a-crowd-of-demonstrators/811732/133 "2018-04-04T02:02:13Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > I don’t think it is “nitpicking details”. I see a huge difference between a protest that is planned ahead, notifies and obtains a permit from the municipality, allowing police time to plan and close the roads to vehicular traffic (and allowing drivers time to plan alternate routes to avoid the closed roads and protesters) vs [a spontaneous protest that springs up and tries to march onto the freeway and block traffic](http://abc7news.com/news/all-lanes-of-i-880-in-oakland-reopen-after-protest-blocks-highway/1418202/). The former is relatively safe for all involved, the latter is dangerous as hell. It is dangerous. It was also dangerous for civil rights protestors to protest even with permits. Do you want photos of the police attacking civil rights protestors? Heck, police attacked peaceful, not blocking anything [Occupy Wall Street protestors.](https://youtu.be/rIccco4PRRk?t=6) Plenty of danger to go around. ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2018, 2:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-should-a-person-have-the-right-to-drive-thru-a-crowd-of-demonstrators/811732/134 "2018-04-04T02:05:40Z")
Whatever the case permitting murder is a ridiculous outcome. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2018, 2:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-should-a-person-have-the-right-to-drive-thru-a-crowd-of-demonstrators/811732/135 "2018-04-04T02:12:15Z")
> [@Acsenray](#): > > Whatever the case permitting murder is a ridiculous outcome. The bill in question would not “permit murder”. You don’t appear to understand what we are discussing here. SB 1096 would only have applied to “A motor vehicle operator who unintentionally causes injury or death to a person who obstructs or interferes with the regular flow of vehicular traffic in violation of subsection (1)”. I emphasize, for your sake, the word “unintentionally”. ---
**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:** [April 4, 2018, 2:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-should-a-person-have-the-right-to-drive-thru-a-crowd-of-demonstrators/811732/136 "2018-04-04T02:17:59Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > The bill in question would not “permit murder”. You don’t appear to understand what we are discussing here. SB 1096 would only have applied to “A motor vehicle operator who unintentionally causes injury or death to a person who obstructs or interferes with the regular flow of vehicular traffic in violation of subsection (1)”. I emphasize, for your sake, the word “unintentionally”. I emphasize, for your sake, that the burden of proof to show intention is on the person who was injured (or their representative). That is a very hard thing to do. Honestly it looks like the same bar needed to prosecute first degree murder and there is no lesser charge that can attach (near as I can tell). ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2018, 2:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-should-a-person-have-the-right-to-drive-thru-a-crowd-of-demonstrators/811732/137 "2018-04-04T02:19:48Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > I emphasize, for your sake, that the burden of proof to show intention is on the person who was injured (or their representative). That is a very hard thing to do. … Just as it should be. That person is the plaintiff. The defendant is innocent until proven guilty. ---
**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:** [April 4, 2018, 2:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-should-a-person-have-the-right-to-drive-thru-a-crowd-of-demonstrators/811732/138 "2018-04-04T02:24:13Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > Just as it should be. That person is the plaintiff. The defendant is innocent until proven guilty. Yes but the burden of proof is dramatically higher. Vehicular manslaughter charges (or equivalent) are a far lower burden. [“Even if the death was the result of a mistake or accident, it is still possible to be charged with vehicular manslaughter.”](https://www.matthoraklaw.com/criminal-defense/traffic-crimes/vehicular-manslaughter/) Now you have to prove the person meant to run you over. Premeditation. Barring a smoking gun admission a very difficult burden of proof to manage. ---
**Author:** ![griffin1977](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/977dab/32.png) [@griffin1977](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/griffin1977)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2018, 2:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-should-a-person-have-the-right-to-drive-thru-a-crowd-of-demonstrators/811732/139 "2018-04-04T02:26:46Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > We’ve got a test case in Sacramento, from recently. A protester got struck by a police vehicle. I’m willing to accept, for the sake of argument at least, that other than being in the roadway she was an innocent bystander to the violence being directed against the vehicle. Do you think the DA will charge the driver in this case? I’m dubious. If (s)he does, do you think a jury will convict? I’m doubly dubious of that. I guess we’ll see though. If we wait for a case involving the police, like this, to be a test case, we’ll be waiting a LONG time, regardless of what the law says. Besides that is not really a test for the case I was talking about. If that hadn’t been a cop driving, it would be an open and shut case (the inclination, or otherwise of the authorities to charge and successfully prosecute cops in the US is a whole different issue). The protesters (and the woman who was run over specifically) were clearly not threatening the car’s occupants, and the car accelerated into her. I was specifically talking about a case where the cars occupants did have a reasonable reason to fear for their safety. I cannot believe they would have legal carte blanc to run over whoever they want (even if the people being run over are not ones doing the threatening) ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2018, 2:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-should-a-person-have-the-right-to-drive-thru-a-crowd-of-demonstrators/811732/140 "2018-04-04T02:30:08Z")
:smack: Of course! I can see how this perfectly fits into historical tradition. When those uppity folks got to asserting themselves too much, sometimes they needed a good old hanging. Trouble with that was it was too easy to prove intent. This way is much more convenient. (Of course, this idea of intent is ridiculous from a legal standpoint. If there’s folks in front of you and you’re controlling a motor vehicle and you move forward, then that’s really good enough to establish intent in any normal case. You intend to move the vehicle forward with full knowledge of the likely outcome. That there is legal intent.) [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-should-a-person-have-the-right-to-drive-thru-a-crowd-of-demonstrators/811732.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-should-a-person-have-the-right-to-drive-thru-a-crowd-of-demonstrators/811732.md?page=8)