TN Considering bill giving immunity to anyone who hits protesters with a car
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 01:39:02 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  U.S. General Discussion (Moderators: The Dowager Mod, Chancellor Tanterterg)
  TN Considering bill giving immunity to anyone who hits protesters with a car
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2]
Author Topic: TN Considering bill giving immunity to anyone who hits protesters with a car  (Read 1701 times)
(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31
Eharding
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,934


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #25 on: February 15, 2017, 01:45:37 PM »

For the record, I don't know if I support this, but I definitely support enforcing a strict "if you block traffic without a permit, you go to jail for a long, long time" rule with zero ambiguity.

What?!  That's insane.

-Not really.
Logged
Beet
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,804


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #26 on: February 15, 2017, 01:53:45 PM »

Probably not a good idea to pass this law, but why anyone thinks blocking traffic is a good way to protest is beyond me. I remember seeing pictures of some BLM protestors on a bridge in MN in 2016 and thought, "they probably aren't getting too much sympathy for their cause."
Logged
publicunofficial
angryGreatness
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,010
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #27 on: February 15, 2017, 02:04:50 PM »

Probably not a good idea to pass this law, but why anyone thinks blocking traffic is a good way to protest is beyond me. I remember seeing pictures of some BLM protestors on a bridge in MN in 2016 and thought, "they probably aren't getting too much sympathy for their cause."

The need to tell progressives/blacks that they're doing it wrong is massive among neolibs. No matter what method they choose.
Logged
politics_king
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,591
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #28 on: February 16, 2017, 04:26:03 AM »

Certainly a reaction to what's happening to their most famous city in Nashville, that is slowly becoming another Austin, Texas. It's cool though, 20 to 30 years politics will be different in this country after Trump being the most polarizing President in history.
Logged
Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself
omegascarlet
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,969


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #29 on: February 16, 2017, 12:38:05 PM »

Are we really at the point where conservatives try to legalize the murder of those that say things they don't like. The fact that a major chunk of our political system supports this is horrifying.
Logged
Mr. Reactionary
blackraisin
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,784
United States


Political Matrix
E: 5.45, S: -3.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #30 on: February 16, 2017, 02:18:21 PM »

Have they thought about what happens if they ran over BLM protestors would it be hate crime? What about a potential terrorist attack like Nice or any other mass murder. Does protection differer between premeditated and involuntary? They would have to immediately remove the law after the first case.

Yes, the bill actually says that you have to make your best effort not to hit them.

Of course this detail gets overlooked. If this is just to immunize drivers when someone else jumps in front of their car and causes an accident, I don't think this is a problem. Generally the rule for liability is that a driver is pretty much always liable to a pedestrian even if the pedestrian fails to use a cross walk or wait for the green light. If I am doing everything in my power to carefully inch along a busy road (which I have a right to do), and some chucklehead interposes himself in front of my car so as to cause unavoidable contact, I should not be liable for his douchebaggery just because I am the one driving. I find the whole "He hit my fist with his face" argument to be tiresome. But clearly this wouldn't let someone get away with flooring the gas and running over 15 protestors because of annoyance; this is basically just amplifying the rules so that there is more focus on the mental state of the driver rather than just assuming car bad person good. Consciously deciding to run over someone (including protesters) is still going to be a crime
Logged
Grumpier Than Uncle Joe
GM3PRP
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 45,081
Greece
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #31 on: February 16, 2017, 04:30:48 PM »

This guy may want to move to TN

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2017/02/driver-los-angeles-rams-pipeline-protest-video/
Logged
justfollowingtheelections
unempprof
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,766


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #32 on: February 16, 2017, 04:53:04 PM »

For the record, I don't know if I support this, but I definitely support enforcing a strict "if you block traffic without a permit, you go to jail for a long, long time" rule with zero ambiguity.

You want people to go to jail for a long, long time for ...blocking traffic?  Do you realize how insane that sounds?
Logged
publicunofficial
angryGreatness
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,010
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #33 on: February 16, 2017, 04:54:46 PM »

For the record, I don't know if I support this, but I definitely support enforcing a strict "if you block traffic without a permit, you go to jail for a long, long time" rule with zero ambiguity.

You want people to go to jail for a long, long time for ...blocking traffic?  Do you realize how insane that sounds?

Remember ER also thinks pro-choice politicians should be refused a seat in Congress.
Logged
The_Doctor
SilentCal1924
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,271


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #34 on: February 16, 2017, 05:11:45 PM »

Have they thought about what happens if they ran over BLM protestors would it be hate crime? What about a potential terrorist attack like Nice or any other mass murder. Does protection differer between premeditated and involuntary? They would have to immediately remove the law after the first case.

Yes, the bill actually says that you have to make your best effort not to hit them.

Of course this detail gets overlooked. If this is just to immunize drivers when someone else jumps in front of their car and causes an accident, I don't think this is a problem. Generally the rule for liability is that a driver is pretty much always liable to a pedestrian even if the pedestrian fails to use a cross walk or wait for the green light. If I am doing everything in my power to carefully inch along a busy road (which I have a right to do), and some chucklehead interposes himself in front of my car so as to cause unavoidable contact, I should not be liable for his douchebaggery just because I am the one driving. I find the whole "He hit my fist with his face" argument to be tiresome. But clearly this wouldn't let someone get away with flooring the gas and running over 15 protestors because of annoyance; this is basically just amplifying the rules so that there is more focus on the mental state of the driver rather than just assuming car bad person good. Consciously deciding to run over someone (including protesters) is still going to be a crime

Thanks for clarifying this. That definitely makes it better.
Logged
Badger
badger
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 40,237
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #35 on: February 16, 2017, 06:12:14 PM »

Have they thought about what happens if they ran over BLM protestors would it be hate crime? What about a potential terrorist attack like Nice or any other mass murder. Does protection differer between premeditated and involuntary? They would have to immediately remove the law after the first case.

Yes, the bill actually says that you have to make your best effort not to hit them.

Of course this detail gets overlooked. If this is just to immunize drivers when someone else jumps in front of their car and causes an accident, I don't think this is a problem. Generally the rule for liability is that a driver is pretty much always liable to a pedestrian even if the pedestrian fails to use a cross walk or wait for the green light. If I am doing everything in my power to carefully inch along a busy road (which I have a right to do), and some chucklehead interposes himself in front of my car so as to cause unavoidable contact, I should not be liable for his douchebaggery just because I am the one driving. I find the whole "He hit my fist with his face" argument to be tiresome. But clearly this wouldn't let someone get away with flooring the gas and running over 15 protestors because of annoyance; this is basically just amplifying the rules so that there is more focus on the mental state of the driver rather than just assuming car bad person good. Consciously deciding to run over someone (including protesters) is still going to be a crime

Horse$hit. There are already provisions to avoid civil liability when any pedestrian gets hit for not entering the road without looking, fails to use a crosswalk. This a completely political bill "inspired" by protesters in a crosswalk being run over.  This is ENTIRELY to single out protesters as having less legal rights and protections than ordinary pedestrians, because f#$k those liberals fighting President Trump. And every a$$hole posting support for this bill has either rationalized there support, or at least are overt about their hate.

The "don't do it intentionally" BS part reminds me of this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nt6kKhlX8vU
Logged
Badger
badger
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 40,237
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #36 on: February 16, 2017, 06:40:00 PM »

The saddest aspect of this legislation is that it's already relatively easy to get away with vehicular homicide in most of the United States. As long as you aren't noticably drunk, odds are that it'll be dismissed as an "accident" and even if you're penalized it's not likely to be treated with anything like the severity that any other homicide, even accidental ones, would receive.

Well, not to be pedantic, but causing a death by any negligent or "at fault" driving is generally a criminal offense. And not the simple "pay your ticket through the mail" kind, but rather one involving potential jail and mandatory license suspensions. Those are generally misdemeanor offenses. Once one kills another by "reckless" driving, then one is looking at potential prison time.
Logged
Mr. Reactionary
blackraisin
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,784
United States


Political Matrix
E: 5.45, S: -3.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #37 on: February 16, 2017, 08:03:58 PM »

Horse$hit. There are already provisions to avoid civil liability when any pedestrian gets hit for not entering the road without looking, fails to use a crosswalk.

The "don't do it intentionally" BS part reminds me of this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nt6kKhlX8vU

So I'm looking at the text of the proposed bill (bolding is mine). This is for torts only. It extends tort immunity to drivers when:

"(a) A person driving an automobile who is exercising due care and injures another person who is participating in a protest or demonstration and is blocking traffic in a public right-of-way ...

(b) A person shall not be immune from civil liability if the actions leading to the injury were willful or wanton."


So in order to claim the immunity, a driver would need to be both exercising due care as well as not acting in a willful or wanton manner during the tort.

Here is how the Tennessee code defines "due care" as applied to licensed drivers:

TCA 55-8-136(a) "Notwithstanding the foregoing provisions of this chapter, every driver of a vehicle shall exercise due care to avoid colliding with any pedestrian upon any roadway ...

(b) Notwithstanding any speed limit or zone in effect at the time, or right-of-way rules that may be applicable, every driver of a vehicle shall exercise due care by operating the vehicle at a safe speed, by maintaining a safe lookout, by keeping the vehicle under proper control and by devoting full time and attention to operating the vehicle, under the existing circumstances as necessary in order to be able to see and to avoid endangering life, limb or property and to see and avoid colliding with any other vehicle or person
[/b] ..."

Here is how the Tennessee courts define "willful and wanton" (Bolding mine again):

Schenk v. Gwaltney, 309 S.W. 2d 424 "To hold one guilty of ‘willful’ or ‘wanton’ conduct, it must be shown that he was conscious of his conduct and with knowledge of existing conditions that injury would probably result, and with reckless indifference to consequences, he consciously and intentionally did some wrongful act or omitted some duty which produced the injuries ..."

So criminal liability is not at issue, just allocation of damages in tort. I live in a contributory negligence State so we don't have to deal with this crock, but Tennessee is a modified comparative negligence State, so I'm guessing that may be an impetus for the change. My reading is that a driver cannot claim this tort immunity if they speed, if they aren't looking at what is in their path, if they aren't attentive enough to stop an avoidable mistake under the circumstances (like a crowd), or if they do any act with their car which will logically harm one of the protesters. Like I said, comparative negligence tort law is not my field, but it seems like this is just some GOP Tort reformers trying to codify a limited last clear chance defense; the common law one went bye-bye when the Tennessee Supreme Court adopted comparative negligence. I don't see this increasing the likelihood that any SA assholes are going to drive over White Rose protesters.   
Logged
dax00
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,422


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #38 on: February 17, 2017, 12:22:11 AM »
« Edited: February 17, 2017, 12:35:58 AM by (ω♂ )˛ »

My opinion: if a pedestrian (protester or otherwise) enters a street further than 10 feet away from the line beside a crosswalk (or 20 feet from an intersection where there is no crosswalk) or crosses a crosswalk during a 'do not walk' light, he should be entirely liable for any injuries he may suffer by oncoming traffic.
Logged
HAnnA MArin County
semocrat08
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,037
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #39 on: February 17, 2017, 01:14:45 AM »

Hey if this passes I'll be sure to hit all those "pro-life" protesters on the sidewalks next time I'm down south! Cheesy jaykay. I'd never want my beautiful car to be touched by such filth.
Logged
Badger
badger
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 40,237
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #40 on: February 17, 2017, 11:38:45 AM »

Horse$hit. There are already provisions to avoid civil liability when any pedestrian gets hit for not entering the road without looking, fails to use a crosswalk.

The "don't do it intentionally" BS part reminds me of this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nt6kKhlX8vU

So I'm looking at the text of the proposed bill (bolding is mine). This is for torts only. It extends tort immunity to drivers when:

"(a) A person driving an automobile who is exercising due care and injures another person who is participating in a protest or demonstration and is blocking traffic in a public right-of-way ...

(b) A person shall not be immune from civil liability if the actions leading to the injury were willful or wanton."


So in order to claim the immunity, a driver would need to be both exercising due care as well as not acting in a willful or wanton manner during the tort.

Here is how the Tennessee code defines "due care" as applied to licensed drivers:

TCA 55-8-136(a) "Notwithstanding the foregoing provisions of this chapter, every driver of a vehicle shall exercise due care to avoid colliding with any pedestrian upon any roadway ...

(b) Notwithstanding any speed limit or zone in effect at the time, or right-of-way rules that may be applicable, every driver of a vehicle shall exercise due care by operating the vehicle at a safe speed, by maintaining a safe lookout, by keeping the vehicle under proper control and by devoting full time and attention to operating the vehicle, under the existing circumstances as necessary in order to be able to see and to avoid endangering life, limb or property and to see and avoid colliding with any other vehicle or person
[/b] ..."

Here is how the Tennessee courts define "willful and wanton" (Bolding mine again):

Schenk v. Gwaltney, 309 S.W. 2d 424 "To hold one guilty of ‘willful’ or ‘wanton’ conduct, it must be shown that he was conscious of his conduct and with knowledge of existing conditions that injury would probably result, and with reckless indifference to consequences, he consciously and intentionally did some wrongful act or omitted some duty which produced the injuries ..."

So criminal liability is not at issue, just allocation of damages in tort. I live in a contributory negligence State so we don't have to deal with this crock, but Tennessee is a modified comparative negligence State, so I'm guessing that may be an impetus for the change. My reading is that a driver cannot claim this tort immunity if they speed, if they aren't looking at what is in their path, if they aren't attentive enough to stop an avoidable mistake under the circumstances (like a crowd), or if they do any act with their car which will logically harm one of the protesters. Like I said, comparative negligence tort law is not my field, but it seems like this is just some GOP Tort reformers trying to codify a limited last clear chance defense; the common law one went bye-bye when the Tennessee Supreme Court adopted comparative negligence. I don't see this increasing the likelihood that any SA assholes are going to drive over White Rose protesters.   

Good analysis, MR (are you also a lawyer?), but PLEASE don't kid yourself for a moment that this has diddly to do with tort reform and isn't completely about the right's intolerance for anti-Trump dissent. Limiting civil liability for marching dissenters is still fundamentally Putinesque.
Logged
Mr. Reactionary
blackraisin
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,784
United States


Political Matrix
E: 5.45, S: -3.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #41 on: February 17, 2017, 12:03:22 PM »

Good analysis, MR (are you also a lawyer?)

As of Dec. 7, 2016. So still a baby lawyer.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.058 seconds with 11 queries.