I find it telling that some are just ignoring your cite.
Yeah, they got pretty quiet, didn’t they?
“Will be”? I haven’t read your cite yet, but I think it demonstrates you MIGHT be found guilty. We have another one that shows you might not.
Hey, I do sleep sometimes.
It’s an argument one could certainly make. I don’t know if it would convince a jury, but one could try. “He provoked us by driving REALLY slowly through those of us that we’re standing on the street being assholes”. Good luck with that.
If you could find some examples of conservative protesters being violent or destructive or deliberately blocking traffic, I’d be delighted to condemn them too. The only reason you’re seeing “disdain for liberal protesters” is that they’re the ones I can think of ready examples of violence, destruction, or blocking traffic. If conservatives do it too, I wouldn’t condone it. Earlier Chronos’ (I think) claimed that the Tea Party blocked freeways too. I didn’t think they had (and no one had provided a cite to support that claim), but if they did, they’re no more deserving of legal protection for that stupid act than UCSD students IMHO.
We have to get all the protestors to fill out their protesting applications more carefully, correctly choosing between liberal, conservative or “general all around fuckwit looking to start trouble.” How many of each group would you think showed up at these events?
It’s up to you if you want to risk going to jail. A word to the wise is usually sufficient. YMMV.
The man in your cite did not go to jail.
So if I can find conservatives who acted like liberals you disdain, then you would condemn to conservatives to the same degree that you already are condemning liberals? That’s affirming my point, not disputing it.
And let’s get this perfectly straight, because you got this totally wrong: people on freeways are not “deserving of legal protection” as though they get special rights. They are deserving of not being killed or maimed to the extent that they are not threatening anyone with harm, on the same basis as everyone else in society.
What you, Shodan and a few others are arguing for is legal protection and special rights for motorists who injure people in furtherance of their impatience to get somewhere. You’re putting “being on time” as more important than “ending someone’s life.”
The numbers would vary widely from one protest to the next. At the Tea Party rallies, my impression is that there were very few of the first or last group. At the WTO protests, a whole lot of the last group, for example.
It sounds like you think only liberals are violent or destructive protesters or block traffic deliberately. If that’s true, then yes, my disdain is one-sided.
Wrong. SB 1096 applies exclusively to unintentional collisions. It does not authorize anyone to deliberately drive over people because they’re impatient.
I want to circle back on this though: first off, thank you for providing an additional cite. And even though neither of the two cases we have “went to jail”, I think you’re right that there is some risk of it (depending on the specific facts of one’s case) and I’d encourage people to punch the accelerator only in dire circumstances. If you can safely wait patiently, that’s the best option.
He was liable for up to three years, and only by the grace of a merciful judge did he avoid jail. He is a convicted felon, so there is that to consider. Your choice.
Nope, haven’t said that. As HurricaneDitka points out, you are also factually incorrect about the law.
Let us know when you are out of straw. I can drive to the store to get you more.
Unless the Tin Woodman is blocking the road.
Regards,
Shodan
“A person had fallen in front of his car. We were yelling and screaming for the driver to stop but he wouldn’t! He just kept rolling at her. He was going to run her over so we smashed his window in an effort to stop the car when he gunned it and ran over ten people!”
Driver: “Sorry, it was unintentional”
It has been asked but no one has answered:
Please distinguish between a kid playing in the street and a protestor in the street and why you can run one over but not the other.
One key difference I see is that some protesters have adopted the tactic of deliberately blocking traffic, like literally and deliberately jumping into the path of moving vehicles or onto their hood. That deserves a higher level of personal accountability (as in, you can’t sue the driver) than someone who is a minor - not fully aware of the consequences of their actions - and wasn’t deliberately striving to put themselves in the path of a moving vehicle.
ETA: Our legal system makes distinctions between actions based on the motives of the actor all the time (murder vs manslaughter for one obvious example) with distinct consequences. This is another example of that. Kid playing innocently happens to tragically get run over had a different motive than the college co-ed that deliberately marched onto the freeway at night.
If others are attacking me and I am in fear of my life, I’m justified in defending myself. Existing laws cover that and no new law are needed.
But I am not justified in killing myself because I imagine somebody might attack me. There are people who are always imagining people are attacking them.