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

[McBell]

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.

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.

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?

I answered the question posted by SomeRandom:

How does one “unintentionally” run somebody over?
​

 

[Kooky]

Reckless driving is generally illegal: depending on the jurisdiction, it's either a major moving violation or an outright crime.

My argument was about intentionality, not legality.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

My argument was about intentionality, not legality.

A driver who sees people on or near the road and chooses not to slow down has committed an intentional act.

A driver who chooses to drive so fast that they can't see people on or near the road in time to avoid a collision has committed an intentional act.

They may not have thought to themselves "yes - I think I'll kill someone with my car," but they've made deliberate choices that a reasonable person would recognize have the potential to kill.

 

[Revoltingest]

Ahh of course. I keep forgetting how many lawsuit scams there are in the US. Seriously you guys must have more lawsuits than citizens

A country run by lawyers for lawyers.
Losers don't have to pay the legal costs of winners in suits,
so plaintiffs have no risk other than their own time & miniscule
filing fees. Money is made by extracting settlements.
The defendant pays because it's cheaper than winning.

But some of us never settle a frivolous suit, & fight it all
the way. It's the principle....& it discourages such scams.
Yes, it's costly.

 

[SomeRandom]

A country run by lawyers for lawyers.
Losers don't have to pay the legal costs of winners in suits,
so plaintiffs have no risk other than their own time & miniscule
filing fees. Money is made by extracting settlements.
The defendant pays because it's cheaper than winning.

But some of us never settle a frivolous suit, & fight it all
the way. It's the principle....& it discourages such scams.
Yes, it's costly.

Maybe you guys should get the losers to pay. Seems like a good incentive not to be frivolous. Though maybe that would leave all your lawyers bored lol

 

[Revoltingest]

Maybe you guys should get the losers to pay. Seems like a good incentive not to be frivolous. Though maybe that would leave all your lawyers bored lol

I'd love a loser pay system.
But with lawyers comprising the majority
of legislators, it'll never happen.

 

[SomeRandom]

I'd love a loser pay system.
But with lawyers comprising the majority
of legislators, it'll never happen.

Oh I see.

 

[Kooky]

A driver who sees people on or near the road and chooses not to slow down has committed an intentional act.

A driver who chooses to drive so fast that they can't see people on or near the road in time to avoid a collision has committed an intentional act.

They may not have thought to themselves "yes - I think I'll kill someone with my car," but they've made deliberate choices that a reasonable person would recognize have the potential to kill.

Sure, but that is a highly unlikely version of most road accidents involving pedestrians.

The more likely version would be a driver reacting too late to the sudden or unpredictable appearance of said pedestrian. Your mileage (and your laws) may vary here of course, but from such a situation, I personally would not always infer an intention on the driver's part to kill the other person.

 

[McBell]

Sure, but that is a highly unlikely version of most road accidents involving pedestrians.

The more likely version would be a driver reacting too late to the sudden or unpredictable appearance of said pedestrian. Your mileage (and your laws) may vary here of course, but from such a situation, I personally would not always infer an intention on the driver's part to kill the other person.

It will certainly have to be determined on a case by case basis.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Sure, but that is a highly unlikely version of most road accidents involving pedestrians.

What's unlikely?

Every driver in every circumstance has the ability to adjust their speed based on the conditions around them, whether that's the presence of pedestrians, sight line limitations, or anything else. Every driver has the responsibility to exercise due care.

The more likely version would be a driver reacting too late to the sudden or unpredictable appearance of said pedestrian. Your mileage (and your laws) may vary here of course, but from such a situation, I personally would not always infer an intention on the driver's part to kill the other person.

Not an intention to kill, but certainly a willful decision to drive with something less than due care... and a decision that a reasonable person would recognize increases the risk of death for others.

How short an interval would be "too late" depends on the driver's decision about how fast they're going to drive. The likelihood of killing a pedestrian if they happen to hit one also depends on their decision about how fast they're going to drive.

If you as a driver are going so fast that you wouldn't be able to stop if a dog, child, protestor, or whatever darts out from behind a parked car or the like along the street, then you have made the decision that increases the risk of a collision.

If you as a driver are going so fast that a collision with a pedestrian is likely to be fatal, then you have made a decision that increases the likelihood of death for anyone you hit.

 

[Kooky]

Not an intention to kill, but certainly a willful decision to drive with something less than due care... and a decision that a reasonable person would recognize increases the risk of death for others.

"Less than due care" is how most people drive, if we're being honest.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

"Less than due care" is how most people drive, if we're being honest.

So at last you see why the proposed law is garbage, then.

 

[Stevicus]

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."​

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

Sounds similar to the law they proposed in Oklahoma, with a few variations. There was an incident in Oklahoma where some protesters were blocking an interstate highway, and some guy with his kids was in fear for his life and plowed through the crowd surrounding his vehicle in order to get away.

I think there are other ways of protesting apart from blocking an interstate highway.

 

[Kooky]

So at last you see why the proposed law is garbage, then.

I was never argueing otherwise.