Wait, what?
It is nothing like “an annoyed driver whose desired path of travel is being blocked deliberately by participants in a rally”
The key point is:
At that point you absolutely have what a reasonable person would consider an actual threat of bodily harm (unlike the videos in the OP). If if he had accelerated into them before then he absolutely would have been guilty of assault with deadly weapon.
Suppose they deliberately lay down in front of you in an act of civil disobedience. Will you roll over them at 1 mph?
I find these two paragraphs are inconsistent. The latter essentialy says, “Oh, I’m so worried about the well-being of protesters! God forbid they get injured; let’s take steps to see that doesn’t happen!” And the former is essentially, “Fuck 'em if they do something stupid.”
That’s why I’m saying that I think proponents of these sorts of bills have an axe to grind about protesters, and it is just being dressed up as concerns about safety.
I haven’t paid attention to that incident and I’ll go look at it. But it does not seem to me to be reasonable to say that because you disagree with the outcome in one case, that the law needs fixing… especially when the changed proposed is so radical. (See again my example of a driver’s liability for accidentally killing a kid playing in the street – who clearly didn’t have a permit to play there – versus accidentially killing a protester in the street who didn’t have a permit to be there.
Do you think that drivers should have blanket immunity if they kill jaywalkers, no matter what the circumstances may be of the accident?
It’s quite clearly assault with a deadly weapon and you should go to jail.
What you propose is no different than two kids getting in an argument, and one saying, “I’m going to walk toward you swinging this baseball bat back and forth… and if you get in the way, it’s your fault!” It’s a really childish, immature, reckless, and depraved tactic to try to justify doing something that will obviously end in unjustified harm to another person.
They were having a “rally”. Yes, it wasn’t a political one, but one could certainly make the case that they were exercising their right to assemble. And, AFAIK, until the driver’s wife’ threw the plum, they were doing so peacefully.
I don’t think they’re “all” assholes (but certainly some protesters are). This strand of the conversation has nothing to do with making character assessments. It has to do with identifying threats and reacting to them.
It usually does not end in harm to another person.
No.
I just looked at the video of the UCSD protester being hit by the car, and it appears to me from the descriptions of the incident, that the driver evaded the police attempting to control traffic, was traveling at approximately highway speeds, and didn’t apply his brakes until he was in the crowd of people on the freeway. I note that the crowd – while doing a stupid thing in walking onto the freeway – should have been visible from a good distance because they had their cell phone flashlights on and shining at the traffic.
I see nothing that lends itself to my concluding that the driver acted with the degree of caution that every other driver on the road is required to observe. Based on my quick look at the circumstances, I would say that it is plausible that the driver acted with malice, not just negligence. (But I do not believe that the university had any obligation to stop a protest before it reached a freeway.)
I could not find any articles on what happened to the driver. What happened to him, and why do you believe it is unfair?
Because the threat of unlawful battery on another person is effective? This is your justification? Or are you saying that assault is not “harm?”
As far as jaywalking, why do you view blanket immunity from killing a jaywalker to be justified if the jaywalker is holding a sign, but not if they are holding a ball?
As has been noted >1mph is anywhere from 1.01mph to as fast as your car can go.
I will assume you meant <1mph.
The problem is you are moving through a crowd of people. If the crowd is thick enough they may not be able to get out of the way (literally). Ever been to a concert and up in the press at the front? You move with the crowd and not of your own accord.
Also someone may have their attention elsewhere and not see you coming. Quite likely in fact.
Or what if there is a little kid who you cannot see as the crowd parts and is below your visual horizon over the hood and the kid gets run over.
Point is it is a potential problem depending on the circumstances. If the crowd is diffuse enough I can see giving it a go. If the crowd is shoulder to shoulder then no.
It’s not a “justification”, simply an observation: you said “will obviously end in unjustified harm to another person”, but that’s not at all obvious. It usually does not (see below for a clarification on “harm”).
I should have clarified that I meant physical injury, not whatever psychological trauma a special snowflake might feel by having to step out of the way of a vehicle that refuses to stop and listen to them whine.
I don’t. You’ve misunderstood what SB 1096 does. It does not provide “blanket immunity from killing a jaywalker if the jaywalker is holding a sign”. There are several conditions that have to be met for the civil immunity to be triggered, only one of which has anything to do with holding a sign.
What if they can but choose not to? Are you going to roll up and nudge them (at which point it can become battery)? Are you going to honk your horn? What if you are three inches from some guy, he decides you are too close (no way you cannot tell whether you have made contact) and he pounds on your hood (which could lead to escalation), what will you do then?
For reference, this video from the OP shows several vehicles doing what Shodan described.
In the first case, the driver of the car could have clearly exited the vehicle through the passenger side door and ran away.
How do you know that being pushed by a couple of tons of steel won’t hurt them?
There are several problems with this course of action. If you are sitting several feet back from the protest, they will go on by you. If you shove your way into the protest, they may start getting angry at your assault, and may then start doing something that is threatening.
Lets say you are on your way to a football game, and you have to cross a street. The crowd is moving slowly, so though you entered the intersection with the walk light, it is now a red hand, and the light for cross traffic has turned green. Not only that, but the people at the curb have decided that if the road is already crowded, they are not going to wait for the next light, and they are piled in behind you. Now, some guy who now has a green light gets impatient, starts honking, starts flashing his lights, and finally, starts shoving his car into the line of people. It is at this point that the people crossing the walk first take notice of this car. One slams his palm on the hood, screaming, “Hey, we’re walking here!”. The car pushes further into the crowd of people, now there are people next to the car, people who have had to shove and be shoved in order to avoid going under the car. They bang on the windows to show their frustration and anger at the callousness disregard towards their safety. At this point, he finds himself “fearing for your life”, because he has put himself into this position, so he floors it, critically injuring or even killing the people who are still in front of the car.
So, yeah, dick started at <1mph, but because his actions allowed him to then fear for his safety, he then goes more than 1mph.
IMHO, it does not matter for what reason someone is in the road, you don’t hit them, you don’t try to shove them out of the way with your car. It doesn’t matter if it is a protest I agree with, a protest I disagree with, or a non-political group of jaywalkers. You don’t hit pedestrians.
It is actually an easy rule to remember. It may be hard for some to remember, so here’s a mnemonic: ITIAPITR DHTWYC; If there is a person in the road, don’t hit them with your car.
It is my opinion that you #1 job as a vehicle operator is to not hit stuff. Not even stuff that pisses you off.
I am ok with what happened. The first driver started at a pointy between 2 people and nobody was hurt. They let the second car go thru with even less problems. Then they were letting a bicyclist thru.
Same with THIS VIDEO where the driver went thru until he was met by police. Nobody was harmed although the idiots jumping on his car almost were. What is also interesting is after the protestors learn drivers are not messing around they tell their people to clear off the streets.
Also in THIS VIDEO a van drives thru. Nobody is hurt.
How about this one: Don’t stand in the middle of the road and expect to be safe? or DSitMotRaEtbS?
I don’t think there is any doubt that in all those cases the drivers:
A - They could have injured someone (pushing people out of the way with tons of metal is inherently dangerous)
B - Would have committed a crime had they injured or killed someone, and presumably would have been prosecuted for assault or murder/manslaughter.
That seems completely correct to me. The law should protect you from being run over and killed by someone you have inconvenienced (but not by someone you are in the process of attacking).
Says the person whining to the point of trying to justify killing someone that is in the way of their car. :rolleyes:
That’s a piss-poor mischaracterization of my position. I’ve repeatedly said that protesters should not be deliberately run over for the annoyance they cause. Even in Shodan’s “Discuss” example, I stated “I don’t necessarily condone it”