Running over protesters on roadways could soon be legal in North Dakota

wkbw ^ | Jan 15 '17 | Justin Boggs

[proxy_user]

Many of the comments don’t seem to be in accord with that interpretation. Just because they can’t convict you doesn’t make it OK. To slay a man is a serious thing, and should only be done in self-defense or in a just war.

[SkyDancer]

If I’m surrounded by protesters through no fault of my own (i.e they poured out onto the roadway) I’m going through them slow enough to push them aside but if they start banging on my car and trying to get to me out comes Mr. Smith and Mr. Wesson and the pedal to the floor.

[Publius]

That was my first thought. 5 points for a hippie, 10 points for a liberal, 20 points for a feminazi, and 30 points for a communist.

[Strac6]

It’s let’s go to Fargo.

[SpaceBar]

How is this bill going to distinguish between “protestors” and people merely walking along the side of the road?

Obviously the language in the story teaser needs to be refined into actual legalese to distinguish a person who is intentionally blocking a road in an unlawful manner and an innocent pedestrian. So the answer to your question is through precise unambiguous wording within the actual legislation.

[SkyDancer]

Because if they’re in the middle of the road with signs and bricks and rocks then ....

[jackibutterfly]

"Is there a special provision in the bill to protect people who may be protesting for a worthwhile cause such as people at a Pro-Life Rally or Pro 2A Rally?"

They wouldn't be in the middle of the road blocking traffic.

[SkyDancer]

Oh? So busting out your windows and dragging you out of your car to be you to a pulp is morally correct. Okay, got it.

[DuncanWaring]

I can see the standard defense to any hit-and-run charge is now going to be “He was protesting and got in my way!”.

[Hugin]

The key word here is “obstructing”, not “protester”. Anyone standing in the roadway is to blame for the accident. If they are walking along the side of the road they aren’t obstructing traffic.

[DoughtyOne]

Not good enough darn it!

Where’s the bounty?

I’d say each pelt should be worth say... $125.00.

/s (well sort of)

[HerrBlucher]

I would rather see a law passed that makes it a felony to intentionally block a roadway. Considering that people have died when emergency vehicles were forced to stop, this is very appropriate.

[chud]

I think if you're on an interstate highway it's already legal, sort of.
There are no sidewalks, or stop lights for crossing, on an interstate highway, because there are not supposed to be pedestrians on a highway.
Occasionally on the morning news I hear about a pedestrian trying to cross a highway and getting run over; but I've never heard of the driver being charged in such a case.

[Castigar]

“Many of the comments don’t seem to be in accord with that interpretation. Just because they can’t convict you doesn’t make it OK. To slay a man is a serious thing, and should only be done in self-defense or in a just war.”

But it would only clear people who UNINTENTIONALY or NEGLIGENTLY ran over someone. That means they did not make the choice to do it. So there was no moral choice being made.

[bigbob]

Road trip!

[Secret Agent Man]

I would make sure that your vehicle doesn’t disable itself if the airbags deploy.

[gogeo]

It may be legal, but it’s still morally wrong.

I think that word "moral," does not mean what you think it means.

[elteemike]

“May not”, or “shall not”?

Big difference...

[Army Air Corps]

In such a situation, a surplus Crown Vic interceptor could be handy.

[Vaquero]

I would feel threatened for my life. Either I would ram them or get out and draw down on them till they moved out of my way.