• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Tennessee proposes bill to protect drivers who unintentionally hit protesters blocking streets

McBell

Resident Sourpuss
The Tennessee legislature is attempting to crack down on protesters by proposing a bill that would make it a felony to obstruct a highway and grant immunity to drivers who unintentionally injure or kill someone blocking a road.

Jamming a highway, street or sidewalk is a misdemeanor in the state, but the proposed legislation would up the punishment to a mandatory $3,000 fine. The proposal also would allow a driver who "unintentionally causes injury or death” to a person obstructing a roadway to be exempt from prosecution.

....

Additionally, the bill would make it a misdemeanor to throw an object at an individual with the intent to harm the person or "intentionally intimidating or harassing" someone who is not participating in a "riot" will result in a misdemeanor.

Brandon Tucker, policy director at the ACLU of Tennessee, called the proposal a "dangerous anti-protest" bill that "targets peaceful assembly."​


 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
The law actually sounds reasonable.
Note that "sounds" implies this judgement's being highly preliminary.
Blocking the free travel of others should indeed be punished.
 

The Hammer

[REDACTED]
Premium Member
The law actually sounds reasonable.
Note that "sounds" implies this judgement's being highly preliminary.
Blocking the free travel of others should indeed be punished.

Unless they are impeding emergency services, I say let them (protestors) block the highway/street.

Also, they are essentially attempting to make it legal to run over a protestor, while claiming it was "unintentional", this seems dangerous territory.
 

sun rise

The world is on fire
Premium Member
The law actually sounds reasonable.
Note that "sounds" implies this judgement's being highly preliminary.
Blocking the free travel of others should indeed be punished.
Great so I can crash into anti-Biden protesters and claim it was accidental. "Oh officer, I did not mean to hit them, my foot just slipped"

It is of course an effort by the extremist right to legalize a modern form of lynching - murder by car - to use against peaceful protesters. Because the authoritarians want to give terrorists a weapon to use against those they don't like.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Unless they are impeding emergency services, I say let them (protestors) block the highway/street.

Also, they are essentially attempting to make it legal to run over a protestor, while claiming it was "unintentional", this seems dangerous territory.
"Unintentional" seems critical.
I dislike the idea that protestors have the right to
detain other people. Try to detain me, & I'll resist.
Use force to do it, & I'll respond in kind, perhaps
with greater force if needed. To have some legal
protection for this is useful.
But remember....
With great power comes great responsibility.
 

The Hammer

[REDACTED]
Premium Member
"Unintentional" seems critical.
I dislike the idea that protestors have the right to
detain other people. Try to detain me, & I'll resist.
Use fo rce to do it, & I'll respond in kind, perhaps
with greater force if needed. To have some legal
protection for this is useful.
But remember....
With great power comes great responsibility.

Your violence at being inconvenienced is telling of your own irrational behaviour.

I got stuck behind protestors for 45 minutes last summer, I did not feel the need to get angry with them, or lash out. Seems a waste of energy.

Edit: I used the word unintentional because it's the language the law used "unintentionally causes injury or death”.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Your violence at being inconvenienced is telling of your own irrational behaviour.
To those who don't value liberty as much, it would
indeed seem irrational. It's about circumstances
& values. So I expect opinions to vary.
I got stuck behind protestors for 45 minutes last summer, I did not feel the need to get angry with them, or lash out. Seems a waste of energy.
That sounds like a de minimis inconvenience.
I'm thinking of more compelling circumstances
than a mere momentary traffic jam.
 

The Hammer

[REDACTED]
Premium Member
To those who don't value liberty as much, it would
indeed seem irrational. It's about circumstances
& values. So I expect opinions to vary.

That sounds like a de minimis inconvenience.
I'm thinking of more compelling circumstances
than a mere momentary traffic jam.

The laws aren't set for nuance they are set for black and white, if one version is wrong it all is. And it is irrational.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
The laws aren't set for nuance they are set for black and white, if one version is wrong it all is. And it is irrational.
In my experience, the law is full of nuance. Consider
that a law is much more than the legislation...the case
law is relatively voluminous, & drives decisions in court.
 

Twilight Hue

Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
Great so I can crash into anti-Biden protesters and claim it was accidental. "Oh officer, I did not mean to hit them, my foot just slipped"

It is of course an effort by the extremist right to legalize a modern form of lynching - murder by car - to use against peaceful protesters. Because the authoritarians want to give terrorists a weapon to use against those they don't like.
Call for car control regulation. Ban assault cars.

That will solve the problem.
 

SomeRandom

Still learning to be wise
Staff member
Premium Member
How does one “unintentionally” run somebody over? Am I to assume said driver is speeding or something? I understand accidents happen and pedestrians are sometimes injured on the road. But a protestor?
Aren’t protestors usually blocked by like gates or cops or something? Sounds like you’d have to go out of your way to run over a protestor. Like that guy in Charlottesville.
 

McBell

Resident Sourpuss
How does one “unintentionally” run somebody over?
If your brakes aren’t working or you can’t see someone in front of you whilst driving you shouldn’t be on the road in the first place.
And aren’t protestors usually blocked by like gates or cops or something? Sounds like you’d have to go out of your way to run over a protestor. Like that guy in Charlottesville.
A few years ago here in my neck of the woods a popular scam was to jump out in front of a moving vehicle with all intentions of getting hit.

It is one of the main reasons I now a dash cam.
 

SomeRandom

Still learning to be wise
Staff member
Premium Member
A few years ago here in my neck of the woods a popular scam was to jump out in front of a moving vehicle with all intentions of getting hit.

It is one of the main reasons I now a dash cam.
Ahh of course. I keep forgetting how many lawsuit scams there are in the US. Seriously you guys must have more lawsuits than citizens
 

Kooky

Freedom from Sanity
A few years ago here in my neck of the woods a popular scam was to jump out in front of a moving vehicle with all intentions of getting hit.

It is one of the main reasons I now a dash cam.
This has me wondering about how desperate I would have to be in order to literally risk life and limb for the slight chance of a payday.

EDIT: I'm also wondering what this comment has to do with protesters being hit by cars.
Would you like to elaborate on that particular association here?
 
Last edited:

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
New How does one “unintentionally” run somebody over?
I only know of one way - which actually happened to someone I know: a sucidal person jumped off a bridge over the freeway into the path of traffic. The first car didn't have time to stop.

Apart from that, it's hard to imagine a scenario where either:

- the driver was travelling too fast to see potential hazards, or
- the driver saw the hazard but failed to adjust their speed to be ready to stop if needed.

Both are wilful acts, IMO.
 

Kooky

Freedom from Sanity
I only know of one way - which actually happened to someone I know: a sucidal person jumped off a bridge over the freeway into the path of traffic. The first car didn't have time to stop.

Apart from that, it's hard to imagine a scenario where either:

- the driver was travelling too fast to see potential hazards, or
- the driver saw the hazard but failed to adjust their speed to be ready to stop if needed.

Both are wilful acts, IMO.
That seems an excessive conclusion, given that even when driving recklessly, the driver does not necessarily intend to hit anybody at all.
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
That seems an excessive conclusion, given that even when driving recklessly, the driver does not necessarily intend to hit anybody at all.
Reckless driving is generally illegal: depending on the jurisdiction, it's either a major moving violation or an outright crime.
 
Top