Protecting Drivers From Protestors

[Ben]

Props to this ND state rep for creating this bill. It's about time. Sadly, a bill like this likely wouldn't fly in many of the states where this is an ongoing problem. I also don't think it's "negligent", as the story text suggests, to hit people in your way if you are escaping violent protestors. I see it as similar to "stand your ground" laws.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/01/17/north-dakota-lawmakers-bill-protects-drivers-who-negligently-hit-someone-obstructing-traffic.html


EDIT: I should clarify that by "hit people in your way" I mean protestors, not innocent bystanders, though I'm not sure how many innocent bystanders are in the middle of this kind of planned protest.

[Hawkmoon]

:sigh:

It must be nice to live in a state with sane legislators

[MillCreek]

I read the source article, and I was pleased to see that the sponsoring legislator is doing it right: not only criminal immunity but also civil immunity from damages.  So they cannot sue you into the poorhouse.

[230RN]

Sounds good. I wonder how many of our unlawfully in residence residents might use this as an escape clause for doing deliberate hit and run incidents.

Seems to me an ingenioso attorney could use this as a defense.

 

[KD5NRH]

Seems to me an ingenioso attorney could use this as a defense.

Would take a fair amount of creativity to just go running normal (i.e. the sort who don't walk out in traffic) down without consequences.

1. Where a sidewalk is provided and its use is practicable, it is unlawful for any pedestrian to walk along and upon an adjacent roadway.
2. Where a sidewalk is not available, any pedestrian walking along and upon a highway shall walk only on a shoulder, as far as practicable from the edge of the roadway.
3. Where neither a sidewalk nor a shoulder is available, any pedestrian walking along and upon a highway shall walk as near as practicable to an outside edge of the roadway, and, if on a two-way roadway, shall walk only on the left side of the roadway.
4. Except as otherwise provided for in this chapter, any pedestrian upon a roadway shall yield the right of way to all vehicles upon the roadway.
5. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 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.

IOW, follow the same rules of walking down the street that mommy and daddy (should have) taught you, and it's still illegal to run over you.  AFAICT, it's essentially just codifying that the driving surface of a roadway is primarily for vehicular traffic and anyone using it improperly for pedestrian traffic does so at their own risk. 

[T.O.M.]

So here's what the argument back will be...

"Your honor, my client was not protesting anything or intentionally obstructing traffic.  Poor Johnny Smith was trying to get home after his volunteer hours at the church/doing his homework at the library/helping elderly ladies home from the grocery store when Mr. Driver negligently ran him down with his Ford Truck that allegedly had a Confederate flag on the bumper and what appeared to be a white hood in the back seat.  For those reasons, this matter should proceed to trial."

 

On a serious note, what the issue will end up coming down to is whether the determination of protest/impeding traffic will be an issue of law (judge to decide) or an issue of fact (jury to decide).  If they make it a factual issue, then the suits will still be filed, and the drivers will be forced to defend.

(As an aside, the way the statute is written, it appears that it will be a factual determination.)

[230RN]

Wul, I wuz jist specerlatin'.

[KD5NRH]

"Your honor, my client was not protesting anything or intentionally obstructing traffic."

Irrelevant; the proposed statute makes no distinction as to intent, or existence of any protest.

On a serious note, what the issue will end up coming down to is whether the determination of protest/impeding traffic will be an issue of law (judge to decide) or an issue of fact (jury to decide).  If they make it a factual issue, then the suits will still be filed, and the drivers will be forced to defend.

(As an aside, the way the statute is written, it appears that it will be a factual determination.)

The only flaw I can see is that it does essentially declare any small child playing in the street (or adult rushing out to save said child, or anyone directing/blocking traffic for safety reasons such as at an accident scene) to be totally fair game.  While I would assume there are (or would soon be) exceptions elsewhere in the code to cover first responders, there should be consideration of good samaritans legitimately and appropriately helping out before they arrive when the situation warrants it.  (i.e. I've blocked traffic at a serious wreck before, and IMO, in that situation, I would hope drivers aren't given carte blanche to flatten me while I'm standing in the lane in a class II reflector vest waving a flashlight trying to prevent a pileup.)

[wmenorr67]

Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 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.

That is the key word, prove intent.

[MechAg94]

Irrelevant; the proposed statute makes no distinction as to intent, or existence of any protest.

The only flaw I can see is that it does essentially declare any small child playing in the street (or adult rushing out to save said child, or anyone directing/blocking traffic for safety reasons such as at an accident scene) to be totally fair game.  While I would assume there are (or would soon be) exceptions elsewhere in the code to cover first responders, there should be consideration of good samaritans legitimately and appropriately helping out before they arrive when the situation warrants it.  (i.e. I've blocked traffic at a serious wreck before, and IMO, in that situation, I would hope drivers aren't given carte blanche to flatten me while I'm standing in the lane in a class II reflector vest waving a flashlight trying to prevent a pileup.)

Just start a points system and then set up a race........a Race of Death!....no that doesn't sound right.......

[wmenorr67]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_Race_2000

Guidelines are already set.

[MechAg94]

One thought occurs to me:  Does this law protect the drivers of the local snow plows?  My imagination drifting off the deep end.   

[230RN]

That is the key word, prove intent.

Does intent to get the hell out of there count?

[KD5NRH]

Does intent to get the hell out of there count?

That becomes the important question; if you're unarmed, but the only shot I have at your armed accomplice is through you, is it intentional that you also get shot?  Same seems to apply if my escape route is through a protestor.

[MechAg94]

That becomes the important question; if you're unarmed, but the only shot I have at your armed accomplice is through you, is it intentional that you also get shot?  Same seems to apply if my escape route is through a protestor.

Also, the 30 people near you might be threatening you.  The guy at the end of the block that is just crossing the street isn't, but might still get run over.

[Doggy Daddy]

Also, the 30 people near you might be threatening you.  The guy at the end of the block that is just crossing the street isn't, but might still get run over.

Injury or death during the commission of a crime.  All of those involved in committing the crime share the guilt, whether the injured was an innocent pedestrian or another protester.

[MechAg94]

Injury or death during the commission of a crime.  All of those involved in committing the crime share the guilt, whether the injured was an innocent pedestrian or another protester.

How do you assume they are involved in the crime?  And I am not sure it works for self defense deaths.  At least I haven't heard of it working that way.

[Doggy Daddy]

How do you assume they are involved in the crime?  And I am not sure it works for self defense deaths.  At least I haven't heard of it working that way.

I'm talking about the protesters. Hell, I don't think it would be much of a stretch to call blocking traffic like that kidnapping.  Twenty of them form a human chain to hold a number of commuters hostage.  One commuter runs down and kills a link in the chain, prosecute the other 19 for the killing.