It's now legal to run over protesters in some states

[theIowaHawk]

Again as I said before, the anticipated outcome of being in a road is to get hit by a car. Find a better place to protest.

Your legal standard for killing is now "anticipated outcome"?

Surely it might be now, since you agree with passing a law notifying people of the ability to do so.

Sleeping with another person's wife would have an "anticipated outcome" of death, possibly, but for laws outlawing, you know, murder. But Andy Dufresne was still convicted, albeit wrongfully.

 

[theIowaHawk]

It is about rights. You do not have the right to block the road. In some states, if you do block the road, I have the right to run your ass over.

So your stance is based entirely on the new law? As in, a year ago, you had a different stance?

Me thinks that is a lie.

 

[unIowa]

It's as honest as when talking about abortions someone brings up; 1. The life of the mother being endangered or 2. Rape Baby


I'm just using the most extreme circumstance to take a position just like we hear in that argument.

No, those aren't similar - at all. When people bring up "life of the mother" or "rape baby" they are pointing out that there are not specific exceptions within the proffered laws.

Here, the complaint is that this could give carte blanche, as opposed to following the already-legal standard of self defense/of others. Your specific scenarios need not apply, because they are already covered under other justification laws.

So in my scenario if I go through people like bowling pins bc I am rushing someone to emergency services (who really needs it) I will not be placed under any charges?

If that is indeed the case then the law is unnecessary. It is the only situation that I can see that would make this sort of action justifiable (outside of the protestors starting to violently bang/jump on or trying to enter your car...if they do that then they get what they deserve).

However if we are being honest the protestors being on a street or worse a highway is the real problem as they are putting themselves and others in danger. It is dangerous, childish and they should really start using their heads instead of letting their emotions get the best of the.

 

[DyerHawk]

It is about rights. You do not have the right to block the road. In some states, if you do block the road, I have the right to run your ass over.

So your stance is based entirely on the new law? As in, a year ago, you had a different stance?

Me thinks that is a lie.

Good for you. Stay out of the road .

 

[Pinehawk]

Good to see you are a complete idiot on every board you post on. What a moron

Try to run me over Mikey...

 

[unIowa]

So? What's your point? Get out of the road.

You seem to misunderstand. You specifically asked a question about rights. I answered that question.

Now you seem to admit that your stance is not about rights - at all. That is fine, stick to your position.

Why won't the police arrest these protestors who are breaking the law (I don't believe protesting on highways is legal)? Are you in favor of mob rule or are you just wanting to choose which mob gets to ignore the laws on the books?

The benefit that may come out of this type of law, besides some Darwin Awards being handed out is that those wanting to shut down highways will now have to think twice before they break the law bc the law won't be on their side at all now.

This seems like a cheaper way to deter these illegal protests vs putting everyone in jail.

 

[Pepperman]

Try to run me over Mikey...

Nobody's going to drive into a tree, and anyway trees aren't in the road. So you're good.

 

[terrehawk]

Why do you keep repeating this? Every time you do I quote it.

I know your stance, I've repeated your stance word for word.

You start with: "It doesn't matter if you are a threat," which is your admitted stance, but then you always flip flop and claim, their action "is a threat."

Either a) it doesn't matter, which is what you redundantly claim or b) it does, which you lie about.

Your two statements bolded above can not both be used at the same time. It is a or b.

JFC

I'm talking about whether or not I decide to leave with my car or not. The fact that I want to leave doesn't matter whether I feel threatened or if I do not feel threatened.

Once I decide to leave if they will not allow me to leave that is a threat. Jesus ****ing Christ you are stubborn and stupid

 

[terrehawk]

What would be your position if the car had room to turn around and travel back the other way. Still appropriate to drive into the crowd?

I remember a "riot" back in college. A bunch of college kids ended up in the middle of a intersection near campus. If a car would have drove through them, I'm sure a few people would have held their ground until making contact with the car. You good with that car then driving over the rest of the kids? Kids that didn't do anything to your car? Because they stopped traffic with a bunch of other college kids on a random Tuesday night, they deserve to die?

You are comparing apples to baseball bats.

 

[BABiscuit]

You are comparing apples to baseball bats.

How so? I have the right to get into that intersection. So I should be able to run over the college kids.

 

[terrehawk]

Like the freedom to, uh, stay alive?

All "freedoms" and "rights" are balanced with those of others.

If someone steals from you, you can't kill them (absent self-defense, as discussed ad naseum in here).

If someone enters your bedroom, f***** your wife, fathers your children (all with her permission, of course), you can not kill him.

Your stance is that a person inconveniences you, you may put them down, under your wheels to be exact.

That is one shitty balance, all because Terre was late for Game of Thrones.

Again, you are painting a false picture.

But of course you are because that's the only way your failed argument holds any water.

Once I want to leave and you try to stop me from leaving it's on you if you get hurt. It does not matter why I want to leave and whether I feel a threat from you at the time I decide to leave. It not does not matter.

But once you restrict my car from leaving that is a threat and if you get run over it's on you.

Just get the **** out of the road and let my car go through and there will be no issues.

Try to stop my car at that point or get in my car or restrict me and you may get run over.

 

[terrehawk]

How so? I have the right to get into that intersection. So I should be able to run over the college kids.

Are those kids physically trying to stop you from leaving with your vehicle or not?

If they are and they get run over that is on them.

 

[BABiscuit]

Are those kids physically trying to stop you from leaving with your vehicle or not?

If they are and they get run over that is on them.

Do I have any obligation to seek an alternative route?

 

[Kenneth Griffin]

Again, you are painting a false picture.

But of course you are because that's the only way your failed argument holds any water.

Once I want to leave and you try to stop me from leaving it's on you if you get hurt. It does not matter why I want to leave and whether I feel a threat from you at the time I decide to leave. It not does not matter.

But once you restrict my car from leaving that is a threat and if you get run over it's on you.

Just get the **** out of the road and let my car go through and there will be no issues.

Try to stop my car at that point or get in my car or restrict me and you may get run over.

How hard are you at the thought of running people down?

 

[terrehawk]

Do I have any obligation to seek an alternative route?

Are they or are they not restricting your desire to leave with your vehicle? Because again, they have no right to try and restrict me from leaving in any way whatsoever

By the way, you and I both know in almost every instance of these left-wing professors blocking highways that traffic is backed up. So you can keep trying with your made up scenarios, the bottom line is get the **** out of the road and if someone tries to leave you do not restrict them or you may get run over

 

[terrehawk]

How hard are you at the thought of running people down?

It depends. Are you standing in the way? If so I'm like Johnny freaking holmes

 

[terrehawk]

Do I have any obligation to seek an alternative route?

By the way, let's say I backup because I'm looking for an alternative route and I run over you. You're going to want to sue me for running over you.

The bottom line is get the **** out of the road and if you are in the road and I want to leave with my car get the **** out of the way and do not touch my vehicle or try and restrict me in any way.

Got it? Good

 

[BABiscuit]

Are they or are they not restricting your desire to leave with your vehicle? Because again, they have no right to try and restrict me from leaving in any way whatsoever

By the way, you and I both know in almost every instance of these left-wing professors blocking highways that traffic is backed up. So you can keep trying with your made up scenarios, the bottom line is get the **** out of the road and if someone tries to leave you do not restrict them or you may get run over

Okay, I think you are wrong about how legally sound you right is to travel on roads unimpeded. Which state law do you think supports this?

 

[terrehawk]

Okay, I think you are wrong about how legally sound you right is to travel on roads unimpeded. Which state law do you think supports this?

So which person is acting more within the law?

You and your leftist professor friends blockading a highway and stopping traffic and then physically trying to stop me from passing through with my vehicle once I decide I am not going to sit there any longer

Or

I'm driving down the road minding my own business and come up on a blockade of left-wing professors. I stop my car and decide I'm not sitting here any longer I need or want to leave. I start pulling forward and all of you crazy people start surrounding my vehicle and try to block me from leaving. So you are now threatening me period so I just simply keep going and push my way through.

You actually think the second scenario is supported by the law less than the first one?

 

[BABiscuit]

So which person is acting more within the law?

You and your leftist professor friends blockading a highway and stopping traffic and then physically trying to stop me from passing through with my vehicle once I decide I am not going to sit there any longer

Or

I'm driving down the road minding my own business and come up on a blockade of left-wing professors. I stop my car and decide I'm not sitting here any longer I need or want to leave. I start pulling forward and all of you crazy people start surrounding my vehicle and try to block me from leaving. So you are now threatening me period so I just simply keep going and push my way through.

You actually think the second scenario is supported by the law less than the first one?

Protesters are wrong. They are wrong before anybody else does anything wrong. They are breaking the law before anybody else but that alone doesn't give the driver the right to run over them.

Nobody here is even arguing that a person doesn't have the right to take off if they have surrounded the car and the driver feels threatened. But some where a line needs to be drawn where the driver faces consequences for his choices. I have no idea where you are getting the idea that your right to drive down a specific road is the ultimate right that legally trumps all other rights or laws.

 

[terrehawk]

Protesters are wrong. They are wrong before anybody else does anything wrong. They are breaking the law before anybody else but that alone doesn't give the driver the right to run over them.

Again, if someone is trying to impede the progress of me in my car trying to leave and they are injured or killed because they were physically trying to impede my progress that is their fault not mine.

 

[terrehawk]

Nobody here is even arguing that a person doesn't have the right to take off if they have surrounded the car and the driver feels threatened. .

Sure they are. Numerous people have said you just need to sit there and wait.

The protesters around the car once you tried to leave becomes a threat. Most of you are trying to make it sound like because you want to leave with your vehicle and you start to pull forward that you are the threat in the car.

That couldn't be further from the truth you are simply wanting to leave and the threat is the people approaching your car and then physically trying to stop you from leaving

 

[BABiscuit]

Again, if someone is trying to impede the progress of me in my car trying to leave and they are injured or killed because they were physically trying to impede my progress that is their fault not mine.

Do you think you are legally correct about that? So in my college scenario when you have the opportunity to turn around and drive around the crowd, you think you will be okay driving through them. Especially if you admit you didn't feel threatened but instead approached the crowd because it's your right to drive unimpeded and they were in the wrong?

And I don't recall seeing anybody claiming you don't have the right to go if you feel threatened by a crowd surrounding your car. If you don't feel threatened and take off because you have a right to the street, I think you may find some diagreements.

 

[terrehawk]

I have no idea where you are getting the idea that your right to drive down a specific road is the ultimate right that legally trumps all other rights or laws.

Show me the law that says i am required to sit and wait until protesters are through protesting and blocking the traffic.

Protesters do not have the right to impede progress or be on the highway blocking traffic.

There's no law that says I cannot leave. And if I try to leave and the protesters try to stop me I am still doing nothing wrong. They are. If someone gets hurt because they continue to try and stop my car as it's moving that is not my fault that is theirs. Them physically trying to stop my car is a threat

 

[terrehawk]

Do you think you are legally correct about that? So in my college scenario when you have the opportunity to turn around and drive around the crowd, you think you will be okay driving through them. Especially if you admit you didn't feel threatened but instead approached the crowd because it's your right to drive unimpeded and they were in the wrong?

And I don't recall seeing anybody claiming you don't have the right to go if you feel threatened by a crowd surrounding your car. If you don't feel threatened and take off because you have a right to the street, I think you may find some diagreements.

The problem with your scenario or argument is that you are calling the car the aggressor in the situation once the car starts to move forward and wants to leave.

The people approaching the car are the aggressor and as soon as they approach the car and as soon as they put their hands on the car the whole situation changes because that becomes a threat. Again, the threat is not the car pulling slowly forward showing that they want to leave.

It is simply amazing that you take the side of people trying to restrict someone else from moving or leaving.

If you do not want to get run over do not put your hands on someone else's vehicle and try and stop them from leaving. Step aside or get run the **** over

 

[terrehawk]

Do you think you are legally correct about that? So in my college scenario when you have the opportunity to turn around and drive around the crowd, you think you will be okay driving through them. Especially if you admit you didn't feel threatened but instead approached the crowd because it's your right to drive unimpeded and they were in the wrong?

And I don't recall seeing anybody claiming you don't have the right to go if you feel threatened by a crowd surrounding your car. If you don't feel threatened and take off because you have a right to the street, I think you may find some diagreements.

Furthermore, your talking about a scenario of trying to find an alternative Escape Route. The problem with that is you are in a car and likely other cars behind you not to mention all of the people standing around everywhere. The only safe alternative if you are going to move your car is to move forward. Sure if you can just take a right turn into a empty Street at an intersection and be about your way that would obviously be great.

But we both know that's not the scenario we are talking about here. Interstates and highways clog up quickly and there really isn't anywhere to go but forward if you want to leave. So if I want to leave get the **** out of the way or risk being run over

 

[BABiscuit]

The problem with your scenario or argument is that you are calling the car the aggressor in the situation once the car starts to move forward and wants to leave.

The people approaching the car are the aggressor and as soon as they approach the car and as soon as they put their hands on the car the whole situation changes because that becomes a threat. Again, the threat is not the car pulling slowly forward showing that they want to leave.

It is simply amazing that you take the side of people trying to restrict someone else from moving or leaving.

If you do not want to get run over do not put your hands on someone else's vehicle and try and stop them from leaving. Step aside or get run the **** over

You seem to think the protesters have to come at the car, what if they don't? What if they simply stay where they are?

You seem to think I (and others) believe a driver never has a right to take off. That is simply not the case. There is just a disagreement of whether not scenarios exist when they don't have the right.

Take the example when the car could turn and avoid the crowd. Are you faulting that guy if he drives through the college kids and kills a few?

 

[Pepperman]

You seem to think the protesters have to come at the car, what if they don't? What if they simply stay where they are?

You seem to think I (and others) believe a driver never has a right to take off. That is simply not the case. There is just a disagreement of whether not scenarios exist when they don't have the right.

Take the example when the car could turn and avoid the crowd. Are you faulting that guy if he drives through the college kids and kills a few?

I'm curious what the legalities of driving a car the wrong direction on an expressway are? Or even driving the wrong way (against stopped traffic no less) on a normal road?

If there is an easy "escape" route like you're suggesting, then professor lefty and friends didn't block the road now did they?

 

[terrehawk]

There is just a disagreement of whether not scenarios exist when they don't have the right.

When people are blocking a highway there is no scenario where protesters have the right to prevent someone from leaving with their vehicle.

You are saying that the protesters blocking the freeway have the right to prevent cars from leaving and traveling down the freeway and the car does not have the right to leave

Wrong

 

[Pinehawk]

Worst. Thread. Ever.

 

[BABiscuit]

When people are blocking a highway there is no scenario where protesters have the right to prevent someone from leaving with their vehicle.

You are saying that the protesters blocking the freeway have the right to prevent cars from leaving and traveling down the freeway and the car does not have the right to leave

Wrong

They don't have the right to prevent cars but that doesn't mean a citizen has the right to do whatever they want in response. You apparently don't understand how rights work in the country.

 

[terrehawk]

They don't have the right to prevent cars but that doesn't mean a citizen has the right to do whatever they want in response. You apparently don't understand how rights work in the country.

"Do whatever they want"

You have no right to prevent someone from leaving. If you don't want to get hurt take your hands off their vehicle and move out of the way

 

[terrehawk]

You know damn well if someone in their car tried to slowly drive left or right towards a spot where there weren't as many people or there was a small Gap that the rest of the protesters would rush in trying get in front of the car or physically try and stop it. Once that happens it's on. That is a threat. You better move or you're going to get run the **** over

 

[BABiscuit]

"Do whatever they want"

You have no right to prevent someone from leaving. If you don't want to get hurt take your hands off their vehicle and move out of the way

Oh, thanks for explain it that way. Now I get what you are saying.

 

[theIowaHawk]

Once I want to leave and you try to stop me from leaving it's on you if you get hurt. It does not matter why I want to leave and whether I feel a threat from you at the time I decide to leave. It not does not matter.

 

[theIowaHawk]

"Do whatever they want"

You have no right to prevent someone from leaving. If you don't want to get hurt take your hands off their vehicle and move out of the way

 

[theIowaHawk]

Take the example when the car could turn and avoid the crowd. Are you faulting that guy if he drives through the college kids and kills a few?

Did you notice his response to this was essentially, "that scenario doesn't exist, therefore I'm not answering it - nanananana"?

 

[theIowaHawk]

Again, if someone is trying to impede the progress of me in my car trying to leave and they are injured or killed because they were physically trying to impede my progress that is their fault not mine.

 

[theIowaHawk]

By the way, you and I both know in almost every instance of these left-wing professors blocking highways that traffic is backed up. So you can keep trying with your made up scenarios, the bottom line is get the **** out of the road and if someone tries to leave you do not restrict them or you may get run over

 

[theIowaHawk]

Why won't the police arrest these protestors who are breaking the law (I don't believe protesting on highways is legal)? Are you in favor of mob rule or are you just wanting to choose which mob gets to ignore the laws on the books?

The benefit that may come out of this type of law, besides some Darwin Awards being handed out is that those wanting to shut down highways will now have to think twice before they break the law bc the law won't be on their side at all now.

This seems like a cheaper way to deter these illegal protests vs putting everyone in jail.

Generally they do arrest them. But discretion in law enforcement has always been a contentious issue.

"Mob rule" is quite literally the history of our great nation.

The "law" was only "on their side" if they weren't a danger/threat to others. Seems to me that is a law that should be on everyone's side.

I haven't looked, but I'm guessing Terre was on "United's side" in the whole removal from the plane incident. Further, I would guess he believed it was a civil issue that should've been taken up by the passenger in court. Yet, here, killing could be the appropriate response, not a civil suit.

All rights are balanced, all of them. Some more than others. Rushing home to watch Game of Thrones - which was Terre's example scenario - NOT MINE - is being balanced with another's life. And Terre has landed on their death. Based on your post you probably disagree. Good for you.