Neither do I.
I would certainly hope so. That dumb bitch sued UCSD for allowing her to enter the freeway.
If I block your car from going forward, I am not violating your constitutional rights because the constitution does not protect you from me, it protects you and me from the government. When my rights collide with your rights, we try to resolve the conflict somehow, or we beat each other up. Like, if I need to walk up this narrow road to get home, and you want to drive up it, we have to work something out, because neither one of us has a right of priority over the other.
Yes, you probably shouldn’t steal TVs in Texas.
Not if I’m on your jury.
Jury nullification for lynching has a long and respectable tradition behind it, that’s certainly true.
Assuming that the “someone else” wasn’t breaking any laws, potentially yes, although I personally wouldn’t take the risk of third-party self-defense in that situation unless the driver was a close friend or family member.
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.
My impression is that they were pretty close.
Which one(s)? When? Cite? (I’m genuinely unaware of this having happened. If it did, in fact, I’d love to know some details.)
If 100 people in the crowd of tens of thousands committed some (violent) crimes, I would not call it a peaceful protest, regardless of the reason for the protest.
I think the problem here is that you (and other posters here) have fundamentally misunderstood what SB 1096 did. It did NOT authorize motorists “to run people over because you’re annoyed”.
Likewise it does not embody the idea that “protesters in the streets may be killed free of civil or criminal penalty regardless of the nature of the “threat” or the proportionality of driving through them”
It also does not authorize drivers to run people over because they’re going to miss a dentist appointment.
I am unaware of any freeways shut down by the Tea Party but they did manage to get the whole federal government to shut down a few times and got the US perilously close to defaulting on its debt obligations.
I think the freeway is the lesser of those two but YMMV.
And yet, we’ve already covered some exceptional circumstances where it is, in fact, legal to do so.
As I’ve said before, I don’t think a mere inconvenience is a justification. I think it’s a stupid protesting tactic, but need not result in anyone’s harm. If physical violence is involved however, my tune changes.
Yes, it’s one of our cherished freedoms and protesting should continue to be legal, within reasonable, content-neutral time, place, or manner restrictions.
A “right to run over a protester with a car” is a strawman argument. Try harder.
IDGAF what you say there.
At the very least, traffic laws require drivers to yield to pedestrians, *even when the pedestrians are in the roadway illegally. *
I generally find lawful self-defense laws to be good public policy. Texas has taken things a bit farther than other states with their laws against night-time burglary, but I have no plans to expend much time, energy, or money trying to change that. Nighttime burglars would be well-advised to do their burgling in states other than Texas.
Is every not-guilty verdict an example of “jury nullification” and a continuation of the that “tradition” with regard to lynchings in your eyes?
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:
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.
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.
If they have a permit to protest in the street, then the police probably have closed the street to vehicular traffic. If they don’t, the protesters are probably violating the law.
I offered some recommendations in post #44 (ETA: but their church parking lot suits me fine too)