It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Motorist liability introduced in response to pipeline protests

page: 1
18
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 17 2017 @ 11:28 PM
link   
So it seems there is an attempt to make it legal to run over protesters.
bismracktribune

“It’s shifting the burden of proof from the motor vehicle driver to the pedestrian,” said Rep. Keith Kempenich, R-Bowman, who admitted the bill is in response to the Dakota Access Pipeline protests in southern Morton County.



He said a response, in the form of House Bill 1203, was needed after groups of protesters blocked or gathered close to roadways and caused problems as motorists tried to drive by.



“They’re not there for the protesters,” said Kempenich of public roadways as a staging point. “They’re intentionally putting themselves in danger."


I always thought that if I came upon a BLM protest I wouldn't stop. Not because I would want to hurt someone, but because I've seen some of the things these supposed peaceful protesters are capable of!

I remember the video of Reginald Denny during the Rodney King riots I would not want to be in his shoes for simply driving down the road.link

Link to actual bill

What are your thoughts on this?

Just for the record I'm not comparing the Dakota access protesters to BLM protesters. I was just using that as an example.
edit on 17-1-2017 by Diisenchanted because: to add

edit on Wed Jan 18 2017 by DontTreadOnMe because: bismarcktribune link added IMPORTANT: Using Content From Other Websites on ATS

edit on Wed Jan 18 2017 by DontTreadOnMe because: fix link

edit on Wed Jan 18 2017 by DontTreadOnMe because: title edit to use source title



+12 more 
posted on Jan, 17 2017 @ 11:29 PM
link   
Stand in the middle of a highway, get hit, die, FU!!

Yeah I'm ok with that, Darwin Award given....
edit on 1 173217 1717 by WUNK22 because: Add



posted on Jan, 17 2017 @ 11:31 PM
link   
Nothing short of repulsive. I'd like to see what North Dakotans think of it, also why do they have someone like that as a lawmaker. He needs to find a new day job when he can't impose threats on people.


edit on 17-1-2017 by dreamingawake because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 17 2017 @ 11:32 PM
link   
a reply to: Diisenchanted

There are some places that already have something as you've described. If a cop asks why the pedestrian was hit, you might want to guess it was probably "Pedestrian Error". And, of course, if you were driving ... you make sure you keep your yap shut.




posted on Jan, 17 2017 @ 11:36 PM
link   
If Clinton had won, Obama would already have used his little pen and phone to have made this bill happen.



posted on Jan, 18 2017 @ 12:24 AM
link   
Im reminded of that idiot who got hit on a freeway screaming something about Trump after he won the election



Theyre in the wrong and as someone else pointed out its not safe to stop



Run em over and the ones who arent hit should be charged with obstruction or something

EDIT: I know the 2 above options are Trump related but I would support this law regardless of the protest, if it was people protesting Hillary Id be just as much for running them over
edit on 18/1/2017 by IkNOwSTuff because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 18 2017 @ 12:25 AM
link   
I work in a town where pedestrians and bike riders do not follow traffic laws.
As much as I do not want to see anyone hurt, I have little issue with laws giving motorists extra protections when the rest of the population acts unlawful.



posted on Jan, 18 2017 @ 12:41 AM
link   
Run em over .



posted on Jan, 18 2017 @ 01:00 AM
link   
a reply to: Diisenchanted

Is there a provision to at least give offenders demerit points off their license?



posted on Jan, 18 2017 @ 01:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: D8Tee
a reply to: Diisenchanted

Is there a provision to at least give offenders demerit points off their license?


Yes, but only in Death Race 2000.



posted on Jan, 18 2017 @ 02:02 AM
link   
I think how it works is you get prizes for mowing down as many as you can per year.
Then there's a ceremony at the Motor Vehicle office with the Mayor of your district giving a speech and commendations.



posted on Jan, 18 2017 @ 03:07 AM
link   
When people wants to make legal to run over you, you might need to ask yourself what did you do to be hated that much.



posted on Jan, 18 2017 @ 03:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: Diisenchanted
So it seems there is an attempt to make it legal to run over protesters.
...
What are your thoughts on this?


I entirely support the idea. I have an issue with it being "protestors", though, as this immediately narrows the scope.

Any time a group of people are blocking the road with questionable intent - and especially where they start surrounding cars - drivers should feel free to interpret this as a threat and take whatever steps they consider necessary to get out of the area, including driving straight through/over them.

Although this should be obvious enough that it doesn't need to be said, I'll say it anyway because there's always "that person" on ATS: this clearly does not apply to official events (ie parades and carnivals), pedestrians crossing at crosswalks, etc etc.



posted on Jan, 18 2017 @ 03:31 AM
link   
At the FIRST kill the people at the pipeline MIGHT open fire.
Scouts are armed and ready as well as other vets.
any AGENT is at a loss against a combat deployed warrior in a direct gun fight,they rely on numbers and tech.



posted on Jan, 18 2017 @ 04:34 AM
link   
There's a reason your parents told you not to play in the street..... they just figured after you made it past 12yo you got the message..... little did they realize they needed to keep telling you once you became an adult.
"But mom I wasnt playing in the street..I was protesting"

I hate to say it...I enjoy watching them get hit by cars. Every video I have seen so far put a smile on my face and made me giggle at their expense.
I hope to see even more during the inauguration and I encourage them to continue providing me with more videos so that I can laugh at them getting caused great bodily injury.
edit on 18-1-2017 by Zimnydran because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 18 2017 @ 05:56 AM
link   
This isn't limited to protesters, there are people who will get in the road trying to stop cars so they can rob them.

The worst idea in the world is to stop. They get out of the way.



posted on Jan, 18 2017 @ 06:37 AM
link   
Why hit them with your car, it could cause damage to it, or at the very least it will get messy blood and guts on it that you will have to clean off. Might as well pull out the gun I know you all have in your cars and shoot them. That way, your car remains pristine.



posted on Jan, 18 2017 @ 06:41 AM
link   
Such a law would seem sensible. A protester blocking a road or threatening a driver is not a protester.
It's better for everyone, even the protester as it will either put them out of their misery or teach them a lesson, that they be run over.
I would not allow the driver to reverse over the body though, that would be too much and would go beyond the need to just get where you want to go without some halfwit blocking you or abusing you.
edit on 18/1/2017 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 18 2017 @ 07:19 AM
link   
a reply to: Diisenchanted

Nope.

Protest has to affect something, in order to be effective. The assertion by the law enforcement community that "These people are not here for the protestors" is not worth the air it was spoken into. People may be putting themselves in danger, but there is absolutely no way that the law enforcement community can suggest that these actions are not directly related to the pipeline protests.



posted on Jan, 18 2017 @ 07:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: Diisenchanted

Nope.

Protest has to affect something, in order to be effective. The assertion by the law enforcement community that "These people are not here for the protestors" is not worth the air it was spoken into. People may be putting themselves in danger, but there is absolutely no way that the law enforcement community can suggest that these actions are not directly related to the pipeline protests.


A protester does not have the right to impinge on another persons freedom of movement.
Protests DO affect something - public opinion. This can ultimately bring about change.
Peaceful protest that does not adversely effect other citizens, or no protest at all.
Anything else should be punished.

edit on 18/1/2017 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
18
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join