Even if the driver knowingly drove through barriers closing the freeway? That would be a tough position to argue in court, counselor.
the freeway is designed and intended to be a “free way” for automobiles to drive at high speed, not intended for pedestrians to demonstrate and disrupt the primary intended use. all posted freeway signs reinforce the intended use, as used by the auto driver. more strikes against pedestrians’ side of the equation imho.
Let me see if I've got you correctly.
If the police erect barriers to close the freeway, for whatever reason, you're saying that anyone and everyone is free to drive around the barriers, no matter what the circumstances or consequences because the freeway is solely intended for driving. Good luck with that one, counselor.
> Even if the driver knowingly drove through barriers closing the freeway?
ahem. no one was supposed to be there. that means, no protesters were supposed to be there... so protesters by being there were violating the law, putting themselves and others at risk, and creating a drag on precious law enforcement and emergency resources. you do know what a “wash” is, dont you... counselor...
iirc, the protestors received multiple warnings from the police to leave the freeway, who told the protesters that they could not guarantee their safety if they stayed on the freeway. the protestors did not leave.
there is as of yet no proof of which manner the auto driver arrived on the scene, so you are presuming facts not yet in evidence in your argument.