Posted on 01/16/2017 2:02:58 PM PST by Drango
Protesters may want to think twice about blocking roads in North Dakota.
Republican lawmakers in the state introduced a bill last week in the legislature that would not hold motorists liable for negligently running over someone obstructing a roadway. The bill was introduced in response to a year of protests over a proposed pipeline near the Standing Rock Indian Reservation.
"A driver of a motor vehicle who negligently causes injury or death to an individual obstructing vehicular traffic on a public road, street, or highway may not be held liable for any damages," the bill reads. "A driver of a motor vehicle who unintentionally causes injury or death to an individual obstructing vehicular traffic on a public road, street, or highway is not guilty of an offense."
Lawmakers told the Bismarck Tribune that the bill is needed after protesters blocked traffic during oil pipeline protests.
"It’s shifting the burden of proof from the motor vehicle driver to the pedestrian,” Rep. Keith Kempenich told the paper. (Roads) are not there for the protesters. They’re intentionally putting themselves in danger."
The bill will be heard by the North Dakota's House Transportation Committee on Friday.
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.
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.
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.
It’s let’s go to Fargo.
Because if they’re in the middle of the road with signs and bricks and rocks then ....
They wouldn't be in the middle of the road blocking traffic.
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.
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!”.
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.
Not good enough darn it!
Where’s the bounty?
I’d say each pelt should be worth say... $125.00.
/s (well sort of)
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.
“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.
Road trip!
I would make sure that your vehicle doesn’t disable itself if the airbags deploy.
I think that word "moral," does not mean what you think it means.
“May not”, or “shall not”?
Big difference...
In such a situation, a surplus Crown Vic interceptor could be handy.
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.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.