You are arguing for a law that would make it extremely difficult, as a legal matter, to hold people who drive through a crowd accountable for their actions.
I think it’s pretty easy, in many cases at least, to accurately distinguish between deliberate and unintentional acts. I don’t foresee many people deliberately running over protesters and successfully claiming “it was an accident”.
It has to be proved that it was deliberate, right? If you were on the jury of a case like this, what sort of evidence would you consider enough to disbelieve a defendant that claims it was an accident?
You may have a point if he hadn’t evaded and ignored a cop’s instructions in order to run into the crowd. The protesters were not aggressive or provoking until he had already driven into them.
I like the “even in the case of a peaceful protest” part, as if the majority of protests are violent and a peaceful one is the exception.
Anyway, yes. The duty to retreat caveat is for when you are trespassing, not jaywalking. Are you saying that if someone is jaywalking, and they get assaulted in the street by a mugger, they have no right to defend themselves?
In any case, once again, as far as duty to retreat goes, that specifies times when you have no duty to retreat, it does not mean that you have a duty to retreat at all other times. One of the times you have no duty to retreat is when you are physically unable to. Being hemmed in between a crowd and an advancing car would be exactly one of those times. You not only don’t have to retreat when you are unable to, you are also allowed to protect others who are not able to, so even someone not in the way of the car may kill the car’s driver to protect the people the car is threatening.
And the difference between a swinging bat and 2 tons of advancing metal is?
“He provoked us by shoving us with 2 tons of metal. Crushing us against his bumper, running over Susie’s foot, and even though we were screming at him that a child had fallen down in front of his car that he was about to crush, he refused to stop.”
So, only unintentionally slowly pushing your way into the crowd is legal. If you push your car into a crowd on purpose though, that’s against the law.
Especially if you were looking down at your radio when you ignored the cop that was trying to prevent you from running into them.
You do realize that “I wasn’t paying attention to the road.” is not an affirmative defense against vehicular manslaughter, don’t you?
Tell you what though, we pass an amendment to this law that declares that jaywalkers are protesting traffic laws, and therefore you can run them down too, and I might get onboard. [/jk]
If you look at the video in the OP, there’s a white and a red car that nudge their way through the crowd. If they had run someone over, I would not require any additional evidence to prove that it was not unintentional. It’s pretty self-evident to me that it was deliberate and knowing. Does that answer your question?
My 70 y/o mother was there, so you better be really fucking careful about how you characterize the protesters. The vast majority of the protesters were more like her than like window-smashers.
The law doesn’t get them for intentionally driving through the crowd. It gets them for intentionally hurting someone. That is a much different thing and far harder to prove. You nudging your way through the crowd is legally fine with this law and if you run over anyone while doing so that is fine too as long as no one can prove you meant to hurt them.
From the law you cited a few pages back:
25 (2) A motor vehicle operator who unintentionally causes
26 injury or death to a person who obstructs or interferes with the
27 regular flow of vehicular traffic in violation of subsection (1)
28 is not liable for such injury or death. In any action brought
29 pursuant to this section, a person accused of violating
30 subsection (1) or his or her representative has the burden of
31 proving that he or she did not violate subsection (1) or that
32 the injury or death was not unintentional.
Apparently if even one person in that group damaged a side window, your mom is a goddamn rioter who deserves what she gets.
I missed where anyone said that.
Regards,
Shodan
I’ve read conflicting reports about how much evading and ignoring happened. I believe I mentioned that in an earlier post.
No, not aggressive or provoking, but also definitely not in a place they had lawfully entered or remained.
I’m glad you like it. The point was to contrast with the violent Portland protest, not make an allusion to “the majority of protests”. I know many are non-violent. The Tea Party protests were examples of that.
I suspect that incidents of mugging jaywalkers in the middle of the street are rare enough that our laws weren’t written to accommodate them. Sort of like if two separate burglars entered the same home and encountered each other. It’s an edge case that I don’t think this law was written in consideration of.
I suppose that’s one argument your lawyer could make if you chose to pursue that course of action. It would certainly be an uncomfortable level of legal jeopardy for me personally (mostly because of the “legally entered or remained” clause). I suspect here that if a car was slowly nudging it’s way through a crowd of protesters in the street like the video from the OP, and you decided to shoot the driver, you’d end up getting prosecuted and likely convicted. There are specific facts that could alter that assessment.
“legally entered or remained”
The law doesn’t say anything like “therefore you can run them down”. You apparently don’t understand what you’re talking about.
Not all of them a search on “tea party violence” on DuckDuckGo (which does not tailor your results) returns plenty of examples of tea-shirts being unruly assholes.
It’s naive of you to think so. Let’s take a recent case – the Charlottesville white supremacist terror attack on August 12, 2017. There exists video evidence proving unequivocally that James Fields, the Nazi nincompoop who conducted the car attack, deliberately targeted the crowd (his political opponents) and sped up whit intent to do harm. In the video, which I have seen, the murderer is completely clear of all foot traffic when he sizes up the crowd, reverses, and guns it toward the crowd of cheerful, smiling people walking in a pedestrian shopping area.
Yet this is denied not only by open advocates of white supremacy, but in fact by many apparently mainstream conservative people I have met. They insist that Fields was defending himself from violent rioters.
Their need to believe that the Other Side deserves rough treatment, even death, renders them completely immune to both eyewitness testimony and video evidence. And yet they present themselves as nice people. But if they formed the jury, there would be no chance of “accurately distinguish[ing] between deliberate and unintentional acts.”
They are nice to the right kind of people. If you are not the right kind of people and you disturb them or their right-kind friends, they will try to fuck you up.
Take a hike if you don’t want to have an adult conversation. I don’t have to be “really fucking careful” about any such thing. WTO protests are basically the poster child for a gathering of “general all around fuckwit[s] looking to start trouble.” That’s not a claim that everyone there fits that description, but many of them did. Certainly more than most of the other protests I can readily recall.
Provide some links. You have a golden opportunity here to change my understanding of the Tea Party rallies.
The self-defense claim is separate from the unintentional claim. Your post seems to muddle those two together. I have seen videos of the crash and have no problem believing it was not unintentional.
Was Fields successful in his claim that he was acting unintentionally, or will he be? Otherwise I don’t see how it affects this law, or the difficulty of establishing intent.
Regards,
Shodan
One of “Operation Rescue”, a anti-abortion terrorist group, frequent tactics was laying done in front of cars or otherwise blocking roadways to prevent people from entering abortion clinics (or sometimes merely Planned Parenthood clinics in general). I often encountered these fetus worshiping lunatics and often did want to run over them with my car. But you know what, I didn’t because I respect the law and value my freedom more than I was angered by their behavior.
Specific incident of Tea-Shirts attacking a moveon•org group. There are other incidents that are less clear-cut, but there was an undercurrent of violence in the movement.
Granted, most of the Tea-shirts were capable of breathing and making random mouth noises that sounded mostly like “baa” and “down with intelligence”, but not much else. They were convenient warm bodies for Armey, Koch and Ailes, unencumbered by genuine thoughts.
This is hilarious actually. Did you even read your own cite?
I think you just proved the point of that cite’s author.
TL;DR (which is apparently really needed in eschereal’s case) = WRONG!!!