jump to last post 1-1 of 1 discussions (13 posts)

NC House Passed HB 330

  1. colorfulone profile image88
    colorfuloneposted 4 months ago

    Allowing motorists to hit protesters with their vehicle legally if they are blocking roads.

    http://www.charlottestories.com/nc-hous … ock-roads/

    People on Twitter sure do like to speak their mind.  From what I have read they are hoping all states will pass such a law. 
    https://twitter.com/LeviSmithUSA/status … 69/photo/1

    https://usercontent2.hubstatic.com/13518799.jpg

    The BLM haven't been around blocking roads since Obama left the WH.

    1. Live to Learn profile image81
      Live to Learnposted 4 months ago in reply to this

      I certainly hope that means inching forward until they move and not mowing them down at 60 miles per hour.

      1. colorfulone profile image88
        colorfuloneposted 4 months ago in reply to this

        I hope so!  People with common sense would normally assume that.  I have seen videos where some protesters became road bumps though. 

        Throwing molotov cocktails and pointing guns could change the rules.

      2. wilderness profile image94
        wildernessposted 4 months ago in reply to this

        Doubt you can push them out of the way.  "Due Care" would seem to prohibit that.  The intention seems to be that if you are driving and suddenly come upon people intentionally standing in the road you won't be liable.

    2. promisem profile image94
      promisemposted 4 months ago in reply to this

      So happy to read that North Carolina Republicans are now legalizing the right for drivers to kill people exercising their Constitutional right to free expression.

      Mowing down protestors is a much better idea than simply calling the police and having them remove the protestors if they are breaking the law or endangering anyone.

      1. Live to Learn profile image81
        Live to Learnposted 4 months ago in reply to this

        Blocking a major thoroughfare does endanger others. I'm not for vehicular manslaughter but the right to free speech does not include denying others the right to go about their business.

        1. promisem profile image94
          promisemposted 4 months ago in reply to this

          I understand your point. If they are breaking the law, the police should arrest and remove them. Driving a car into them is not a safe or rational solution.

          1. Live to Learn profile image81
            Live to Learnposted 4 months ago in reply to this

            Kind of wondered about that myself.

          2. wilderness profile image94
            wildernessposted 4 months ago in reply to this

            But the police don't arrest them.  Over the span of hours (by which time you have been damaged financially and;/or socially, they remove them and let them go.

            I'm with you - the answer doesn't seem to be mowing down any protesters that can be found, but what IS it then?  This notion that "free speech" means interrupting the lives of other people in order to be on TV has gotten way out of hand.

    3. mike102771 profile image86
      mike102771posted 4 months ago in reply to this

      The article you provided seems to say that people accidentally hitting protesters who are blocking the street cannot be civilly liable as in sued for damages.  It does not say they can’t be held criminally liable. So, you can’t aim for the protesters. 

      Twitter is people speaking their minds not the facts.

      civil liability. n. potential responsibility for payment of damages or other court-enforcement in a lawsuit, as distinguished from criminal liability, which means open to punishment for a crime.

      http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictiona … +liability

      1. promisem profile image94
        promisemposted 4 months ago in reply to this

        As a long-distance cyclist, I can tell you that 99% of all drivers are safe and responsible. The 1% are not. They literally drive as close as possible to us just to make a point.

        But even when they hit someone, they often get away with it because it's so difficult to prove intent.

        1. mike102771 profile image86
          mike102771posted 4 months ago in reply to this

          That won't stop a criminal prosecutor wanting to make an example. I think it would be a little easier to prove intent or imply intent to a jury if a person hits a line of protesters (especially if there are no skid marks on the road) over a person  hitting a bicyclist on an open road (hitting one bicyclist hard to prove intent, hitting a flock of bicyclists a little easier).

          As a delivery driver I see some of the worst driving everyday. People driving 50 in a school zone, playing dodgem at 70 on the highway. I pass at least 2 accidents everyday.  We have to remind people about looking out for motorcycles and the 3 feet rule for passing bikes. Just look at the Amish being killed in their buggies by the people on the road today.

          I think it's more like 60% good 30% thoughtless 10% deranged

          1. colorfulone profile image88
            colorfuloneposted 4 months ago in reply to this

            That might be more accurate. So many with road rage.  I won't get in a car if I know someone is porn to road rage.  Healthy boundaries help.  Its too easy for some drivers to be triggered, I hope they understand this new law isn't a license for their rage.

 
working