I thought that this was a given? People in power don’t NEED to protest. And they want protesters to go away. Making it legal to run down protesters would go a long way to making protesters go away, since outlawing protesting itself might be blocked by pesky civil rights judges that haven’t been replaced yet.
Generally speaking, we’ve already done this. The problems usually arise when the protesters ignore the law and protest in the street anyways.
Your supposition seems speculative to me. I don’t have any way of verifying the secret motives behind the proposal (unless you’ve got a quote from the sponsor that confirms it, or something like that) and don’t even really know what the professed purpose was.
FWIW, I see your first proposal (“why not make a law making it illegal to protest in the street”) as more directly “trying to make the protesters … at least to stop protesting in a way that might be inconvenient to [me]” than the civil immunity bill.
Not that I’m exactly disagreeing with your main point here, but It’s even more stupidly counter-productive if no one even notices you are protesting in the first place.
I’d recommend protesting at the state capitol or governor’s mansion, or city council meeting, or otherwise appeal to whatever entity might be able to directly effect the change one seeks, not delay random people going about their lives.
Think about how you would have felt if legislators in liberal areas were talking about making laws to stop Tea Partiers from protesting back then. I have a feeling you’d be taking a very different position on those proposed laws. The cries of ‘first amendment’ and ‘chilling free speech’ would be endless from right wing media I’d imagine.
Yes this is speculation, and I’m not a big fan of this kind of “if only things were different” kind of argument, but I feel like there’s a big blind spot here so I’m trying to see if I can shed some light on the possible unintended consequences of these kinds of laws. Remember that your party is not always going to be in charge, so silencing protests may not always be to your advantage the way it would be right now.
If you are driving down the road and suddenly you see a person in your way, you are required to not hit them. This is an important rule of the road. It does not fucking matter why that person is in the road. You may not hit them, or even drive so close to them that they could touch your car. Shit happens all the time while you are trying to do stuff. Just deal.
Nope. If a loved one is having a heart attack, stroke, or similar life-threatening emergency and I am driving them to the hospital, and my car is being blocked by demonstrators, I am not going to let my loved one die in the name of social justice or animal rights or gun control or Westboro Baptist or [insert cause].
You’d be wrong. I don’t have a problem with reasonable, content-neutral time, place, or manner restrictions on protest activities (which is exactly what a “stay off the freeway” sort of law is).
I know they’re not always going to be in charge. I don’t want anyone “silencing protests”, but I do want them arresting and prosecuting the violent ones, and I accept reasonable time, place, or manner restrictions and would like to see those enforced as well.
Isn’t this the argument against gun laws though, since criminals will ignore the laws, there is no point in passing any? Why does this same logic not hold for this?
Yes, of course, I’m not really advocating that approach, just saying that would be more directly in line with the goals of these “run them over” laws without actually legalizing killing people with your car.
My way of knowing that this is the motive is that this is only becoming an urgent issue that needs dealing with now, when the protests are all anti-Trump, anti-NRA, or other things that conservatives don’t want to hear.
I don’t think that protests have changed much. What has changed is who is in power, and what they don’t want to have to listen to.
When should we be able to kill people because it satisfies a present anger? Just spitballing? I like it. I’ve got one, when should family members of dead, still bleeding people be able to shoot cops that have killed their family members?
Never?
By the way, the first link in the OP is from August and the second on (Portland is not “Seattle”) is 14 months old. Has anything changed since then?
I’ve got to run now, but perhaps you’d like to elaborate on this point a bit more. It’s not clear to me what you are referring to here or how it would relate to this civil immunity bill.
I think you’re wrong here. I think the protests have changed significantly. Tea Partiers did not, to my knowledge, make a regular habit of disrupting traffic or blocking freeways. OWS / Antifa / BLM seem to though. The nature of the protests has changed. They’ve decided to ignore the reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions in place. When they do that, there’s the potential for injury (just like the late-night freeway collision I posted earlier), but the driver should not be liable for the bad acts of the protesters. Thus, a clarification in the law seems appropriate.
Is the idea that
- Driving through protestors and hitting them is only justified in extreme situations (i.e., one is having a life-threatening emergency and will die unless one gets to the ER), but never justified any other time? If so, I can agree with that.
Or is it
- ***Never ***justified - even if you’re having a heart attack, and demonstrators block your way, you should just sit there with the car stopped and die?
If your car was stopped due to construction work, would you be allowed to run over the construction workers because your granny might be having a heart attack?
If that is that is the case then you are unlikely to be able to hit the accelerator and run people over to escape. You are stuck in traffic so the best you will do is a violent lurch a few feet forward till you hit the car in front of you and stop.
And now you have really pissed the crowd off.
You should identify the event at least by time.
You can’t possibly claim that blocking a car and a bus justifies lethal assault by the drivers.
Suggesting that a nonviolent protest that blocks people from driving through justifies lethal assault is just plain ridiculous.
I dont think your errand is what justifies driving thru, and I dont think anyone is claiming that. That is a strawman argument.
The justification is being caught up in a demo and fearing for your life.
In Texas you can shoot people in the back because they are stealing a neighbor’s TV.
Ah, but the person was an anti-Trump protester. Therefore it is highly unlikely that the protester was a libertarian, and thus is not responsible to jump out of the way.
Better to be tried by 12 then carried by 6, well if you consider a life behind bars worth living, perhaps a early exit is better for all involved.