Tennessee Passes Controversial Law Allowing Drivers to Injure Protesters Without Civil Liability

originally posted by: TheBulk

originally posted by: daryllyn

originally posted by: TheBulk

originally posted by: daryllyn
While I can agree that people should absolutely not be blocking roadways, I also think hitting them, is much much worse.

Personal responsibility be damned, you are still responsible for your actions and reactions. Other people's irresponsibility isn't a free license to throw your own personal responsibility, of you know, not hitting people with your car, out the window.

If they're surrounding your car and being threatening, that's their own fault and deserve whatever they get. I'm so tired of you extremist leftists constantly justifying and rationalizing your violent actions. People are tired of it and they're going to start fighting back.

Nope, sorry. Not going to trade my morality in, over political beliefs.

Justify it all you like, it's still not okay.

What's really bothering me about this, is the way that some seem almost eager and excited at the prospect of protesters being hit by cars, as if their justification makes it totally okay.

And, I am far from a "violent, extremist, leftist".

Im glad people can defend themselves from the violent alt-left. If you're justifying or excusing their violence in place of blaming those just trying to go about their day, then you are.

Where did I say I support the protests? Or the actions of the protesters?

Oh, right.... I didn't.

a reply to: seasonal

In middle of the road
dead rioters behind me
spattlerd in the middle of the riot
with their plans to harm me

well i gotta smile
for everyone i squish
i chased em for a mile
to fulfill their death wish

now come now baby
get in the road
oh come now
In the middle of the road, yeah

In the middle of the road
you see the damnist things
playin it up for the msm's and the paparazzi
dressed like some green little toad
sayin that peppe is not a nazi

One...two...three...four...

well i gotta smile
for everyone i squish
i chased em for a mile
to fulfill their death wish

now come now baby
get in the road
oh come now
In the middle of the road, yeah

their even in the brubs
on my private cul-de-sac
can't get from the cab to the curb
without some little dreamer on my back

Don't harass me, can't you tell
I'm going home, and if you do i'll send you to hell

now come now baby
get in the road
oh come now
In the middle of the road, yeah

originally posted by: Natas0114
a reply to: seasonal

Good, I for one have been an advocate of removing all warning labels on all products for years. If people think it's the world's duty to keep them safe, perhaps breaking their arms and legs is a great way to keep them from harm. You know, for safety.

On a side note, want to start a buisness? We can make helmets with a stick attached, that way when they're in a body cast, they can still use their phones.
The medi-texter head apparatus, now available for 59.95$

You forgot to add,,, But If you order before midnite tonite we will include a second one for free yes,, that's right absolutely free. Just pay separate shipping and handling charges

The major reason I believe they are doing this is to let police off the hook. Police are no longer controlling riots, they can't. Leftist want Police to hit back, they want to be martyrs, they want millions to watch a video of them getting arrested.
Police are denying this.

All these BLM and now today's butthurt protest could be easily shut down. But then it would be a political firestorm. Instead Police are standing letting the children burn down the cities in order to prevent a martyr event.

This law allows citizens take over their own safety since the Political climate is not allowing police to. This is a very important law for when people are beating on your car and you are in it. At that point I believe a person is fully in their right to slam on the gas. Screw those people.

a reply to: generik
interesting that you brought up insurance.

if you get in a vehicle with a drunk driver and you are injured in an accident the insurance company WON`T pay for your medical bills because you knew or should have known that there was high risk that a drunk driver could be involved in an accident,by getting into the car you accepted that risk and liability for your injuries.

The same goes for people who enter a roadway, they know or should know that there is a high risk of being struck by a vehicle and they have accepted the risk and liability to themselves by entering the roadway.
I guarantee that the drivers insurance company WON`T pay any claims made by a protestor who gets hit.

What if a driver feels threatened? Wouldn't it be okay to run over a BLM "person" if you felt they were a danger to you?

If I see a group of crazies try to stop me on the highway I'm going to be scared. I have a right to defend myself, don't I?

originally posted by: Tardacus
a reply to: generik
interesting that you brought up insurance.

if you get in a vehicle with a drunk driver and you are injured in an accident the insurance company WON`T pay for your medical bills because you knew or should have known that there was high risk that a drunk driver could be involved in an accident,by getting into the car you accepted that risk and liability for your injuries.

The same goes for people who enter a roadway, they know or should know that there is a high risk of being struck by a vehicle and they have accepted the risk and liability to themselves by entering the roadway.
I guarantee that the drivers insurance company WON`T pay any claims made by a protestor who gets hit.

That's not true. Well, sort of.

If you get into a car with an intoxicated driver and they crash you're most likely going to go after the drivers ibsurance, not your own.

And they will pay out. Happened to my sister.

People who block traffic are infringing on the rights of the person driving.

Hit 'em.

I guarantee that if the shoe was on the other foot where conservatives were the ones protesting and not liberals then the people defending this bill in this thread would be complaining about it.

The only reason that people try to rationalize this insane law is because it's the enemy political party that is the one who will be the ones being run over.

If someone decides to drive through a crowd of people with this law as their excuse then don't cry about it because you defended their right to do it in this thread.

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
I guarantee that if the shoe was on the other foot where conservatives were the ones protesting and not liberals then the people defending this bill in this thread would be complaining about it.

The only reason that people try to rationalize this insane law is because it's the enemy political party that is the one who will be the ones being run over.

If someone decides to drive through a crowd of people with this law as their excuse then don't cry about it because you defended their right to do it in this thread.

Dude, read. People need a way to deal with this.

a reply to: seasonal

So, the bill says the following--and this is literally the entirety of the bill:

SECTION 1. Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 29, Chapter 34, Part 2, is amended by adding the following as a new section:
(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 is immune from civil liability for such injury.
(b) A person shall not be immune from civil liability if the actions leading to the injury were willful or wanton.
SECTION 2. This act shall take effect July 1, 2017, the public welfare requiring it.

So, if the idiots--err...protestors--are blocking a road where vehicular traffic has the right of way, and someone exercising due care whilst having said right of way injures one of the idiots--err...protestors--then they are immune from civil liability for the injuries that said idiot--err...protestor--received from acting a fool and playing in the middle of the street.

If said driver is shown to have injured said idiot--err...protestor--willfully or with wanton disregard, then the driver can is not immune from civil liability.

Basically saying, if a driver is carefully trying to get through the idiots--err...protestors--and happens to injure one because that idiot--err...protestor--decides that it's better to challenge a 3,500-lb vehicle with their own fragile body, then the idiot--err...protestor--is in the wrong, not the driver.

I'm failing to see how this is "an insane piece of legislation that would have our Founding Fathers rolling over in their graves," as your linked story suggests. I'm willing to bet that the FF would tell the idiots--err...protestors--to get their dumb asses out of the way of oncoming traffic.

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
If someone decides to drive through a crowd of people with this law as their excuse then don't cry about it because you defended their right to do it in this thread.

Didn't take the time to read the actual bill, did you? I'm uncertain that your doing your username justice in this case.

a reply to: ausername

I don't think due care includes running through police barricades or driving up on sidewalks. Anywhere else? Hit as many as you can!

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

I guarantee you have no idea what you're talking about

I wonder why they even had to think this up. My cousin who was exactly the same age as me to the day was murdered by being run over. Then they took his body and dumped it on train tracks.

This was in Lawrence County, where I'm from, a decade ago.

The men responsible are free.

More words...

Still again, as a conservative Christian type, I disagree with this idea wholeheartedly. Anyone for this only wants to justify murder.

And I can see this as becoming precedent to hit Christians on street corners holding signs, or even to justify the many accidents that involve hitting Amish and Mennonite carriages - especially on Highway 43 and in Summertown.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

Yes, I read it. If someone purposely runs another person over then they are not immune to civil liability... but who is to say it was intentional or not? If it goes one way or the other you're going to have witnesses denying that way.

I may have over-exaggerated by saying 'driving through a crowd' but my point still stands. If someone is doing their due diligence of driving safely then they will either avoid the area or find another way around. It sucks but sometimes assholes are assholes and they block the roadway, that's no reason to sink to their level by trying to drive through them and risk running someone over though, in my opinion.

I think this law is dangerous because it may give some 'closet extremists' an excuse to run someone over at a protest and then claim it was an accident and get away with it. That was my meaning, sorry for not being more clear.

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1


Well if a crowd on the highway stops your car, have fun getting beat in to a brain dead state.

I would not want to hurt anyone, but being in that situation right after the Rodney King verdict I drove through a red light to avoid a group of angry young men who were running to my car. And they were not going to ask how the mileage on my car was.

that's no reason to sink to their level by trying to drive through them and risk running someone over though, in my opinion.

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
a reply to: SlapMonkey
I think this law is dangerous because it may give some 'closet extremists' an excuse to run someone over at a protest and then claim it was an accident and get away with it. That was my meaning, sorry for not being more clear.

All laws still apply to whoever runs someone over... All this does is prevent the protesters from suing the driver.

It doesn't provide an excuse to run anyone over. It does not provide any sort of legal out for hurting anyone.

a reply to: seasonal

That's self defense which is a completely different situation to what I'm talking about which is someone intentionally running someone over just because they're in a hurry.

Please stop bringing up irrelevant issues and scenarios because the hyperbole and sensationalized rhetoric isn't conducive to an honest discussion. I'm talking about someone using this law as an excuse to hurt or kill someone and getting away with it. Please keep up.

Nevermind, these sorts of discussions never go anywhere productive so I'll quit while I'm ahead. You guys have your opinions and I have mine. Agree to disagree.