Negligently hit a protester in the street = protected?

[mjr]

http://www.startribune.com/north-dak...est/410860535/

A bill sponsored by state Rep. Keith Kempenich, R-Bowman, would protect drivers from legal consequences if they inadvertently hit, injure or kill pedestrians who are obstructing traffic.

also

Kempenich said he wants to shift the blame for a crash from drivers to the people who choose to protest in traffic. The legislation, he said, would not protect someone who deliberately tries to run down a protester, and it would not let drivers off the hook if they hit a jaywalker or a child chasing a ball into the street.

I get what they're trying to do...but I can see all sorts of problems coming out of this...

[Greenday]

I get it. It's hard to blame someone if some idiot runs in the street to block their path on purpose or if a group of protesters are protesting when it's pitch black out and if they are dumb enough to wear dark clothing.

But yea, this is totally the kind of legislation that will result in people trying to run down protesters thinking they are protected.

[TheHuckster]

Aren't there already laws that grants this protection? If I shot out from nowhere onto a street and got hit by a car as a result, assuming they're able to prove that's what happened using witness testimony and whatever, the driver would not be at fault.

It sounds like this is the kind of thing that is essentially the same idea.

[victory sabre]

A similar proposal has passed out of committee in the Minnesota State House.
http://knsiradio.com/news/local/prot...out-committee/

There's a difference between peaceful protesting (which is protected), and rioting (which isn't protected. Blocking roads would fall under rioting.

Besides: I learned when I was a little kid that if I were stupid enough to stand in the middle of the road, I should expect to get run over.

[Gravekeeper]

"Negligently" "Inadvertently"

>.>

[s_stabeler]

I'd say that fundamentally, while there is some validity to it, they need to write the bill to be far more explicit, and it needs to be narrower than it sounds like it is. Specifically, the way it sounds like it's written, it does in fact protect people who deliberately run down protesters. ( the example given by the sponsor is of a driver who sped up on sighting people blocking the road)

basically, for it to be acceptable:
1) if protestors are blocking the road, then you have to stop- or otherwise try to avoid them. Trying to push through would count as negligence at best.
2) if protesters rush out in front of you, if you could realistically have seen them, you are expected to make a reasonable effort to stop or otherwise avoid hitting them. If you couldn't see them, it's on them. if you tried to avoid colliding, it's on them, as well as any damage to our car.

[TheHuckster]

2) if protesters rush out in front of you, if you could realistically have seen them, you are expected to make a reasonable effort to stop or otherwise avoid hitting them. If you couldn't see them, it's on them. if you tried to avoid colliding, it's on them, as well as any damage to our car.

Problem is these cases almost always end up with he-said she-said testimony that's hard to get straight. If the driver's got a dashcam, it would be more evident, but besides that, even witness testimony is going to be hazy, since it often happens very quickly.

[mjr]

The other question I have here is what if you're trying to get to work, and protesters are blocking the street? If you gently nudge them out of the way with your car (say, you're going just 2 or 3 MPH), what happens then? How would the law apply in that case? You did technically hit them.

[s_stabeler]

The other question I have here is what if you're trying to get to work, and protesters are blocking the street? If you gently nudge them out of the way with your car (say, you're going just 2 or 3 MPH), what happens then? How would the law apply in that case? You did technically hit them.

no protection, and indeed, may actually expose you to attempted murder charges. ( regardless of what speed you are going at, if they are truly blocking the road, the chances are too high someone will go under your vehicle. if they do, you would be rolling your vehicle over them, crushing them.)

Oh, and depraved heart murder- the actual charge ( basically that you didn't care you might kill someone)- is often capital murder where the death penalty is allowed. In short, it's not worth the risk.

[Tanasi]

Personally unless it's an emergency I'd just let them ya-ya until they get tired. If they try to assault me or mine then all bets are off, I will defend myself and I don't need a new law to give that right.
If someone wants to protest then I'll let them as long as they afford me the same right. I'll even turn around and try to go around. When I see and hear of these types of protest this saying comes to mind "It's better to remain silent and be thought of as a fool, than to open one's mouth and confirm it." (or something to that accord.)
Killing someone is hard thing to live with even if it's justified, a little time wasted while the foolish blather on could save a life time of torment.