Responses: 6
CPT Jack Durish
This incident (and others like it) would be avoided if the police enforced the law. Sadly, in some places (think "Bezerkely") the powers that be encourage law-breaking when it conforms with their ideological bent
(0)
(0)
SSG(P) (Join to see)
"Obstruction of Traffic" is a crime in many, if not most states and municipalities.
(0)
(0)
SSG Tom Pike
SSG(P) (Join to see) - It's a misdemeanor here in Virginia. IIRC $500 fine for blocking traffic.
(1)
(0)
Everywhere in the states I have lived the Law is pedestrians are not allowed on the Highways or allowed to cross the roads out side of a cross walk. That's is why they have Jaywalking tickets.
If they are lawfully allowed to assemble in a street the police are required to block off the street and place detour signs up. That is why Permits are handed out for marches, street carnivals, and such.
Due to these types of Morons many states are now passing laws to make it 100% legal to run them over. (not joking) TN just past one that if you do not have a permit and are blocking traffic the driver CAN run you over with out any threat of criminal charges being pressed. OH already had it. People are tired of this BS, they are tired of SJW who refuse to get jobs, refuse to do anything productive with their lives stopping them from going to work, going home, living their lives, simply because a bunch of losers are pissed off at the fact they are losers. As for me I wont ever stop should I encounter them, I have zero sympathy if I cause them pain. Play froger the live version if you want, but don't cry when you don't get to respawn.
If they are lawfully allowed to assemble in a street the police are required to block off the street and place detour signs up. That is why Permits are handed out for marches, street carnivals, and such.
Due to these types of Morons many states are now passing laws to make it 100% legal to run them over. (not joking) TN just past one that if you do not have a permit and are blocking traffic the driver CAN run you over with out any threat of criminal charges being pressed. OH already had it. People are tired of this BS, they are tired of SJW who refuse to get jobs, refuse to do anything productive with their lives stopping them from going to work, going home, living their lives, simply because a bunch of losers are pissed off at the fact they are losers. As for me I wont ever stop should I encounter them, I have zero sympathy if I cause them pain. Play froger the live version if you want, but don't cry when you don't get to respawn.
(2)
(0)
CPT Jack Durish
You are correct. Every Right comes with Responsibility, a responsibility to exercise your rights without infringing on the exercise of those rights by others. Still, there's also another curious legal principle of "last clear chance". You can't run into a car just because they violated the law (for example, running a stop sign or traffic light). If you had the last clear chance to avoid the accident, you should have avoided it or may be found liable or at least partially liable. Giving permission to drivers to run over protesters doesn't seem the wisest of choices, does it?
(0)
(0)
SSG Tom Pike
CPT Jack Durish - I agree you shouldn't pass a law that say you can run somebody over. We don't have the death penalty for blocking traffic, although here in Virginia it is a misdemeanor to do so.
(0)
(0)
CPO (Join to see)
CPT Jack Durish - While I agree it is not the "wisest" course, it will make people standing in the road understand they no longer have the right to well be A-holes. Its always interesting how the left use their Constitutional protected freedoms to take others freedoms away.
The Liability part is removed from the drivers under the assumption they are doing the speed limit and or slow down to push / give the people time to move. Point in case the above video the people were given plenty of time to move out from in front of the vehicle yet refused and in fact kept trying to get in front of it, any of them that were injured or run over would have no criminal or civil case / claim in TN or OH. My understanding the local police witnesses this and when asked told the protesters they would not be charging the driver as he had not broken any laws... unlike the protesters.
The Liability part is removed from the drivers under the assumption they are doing the speed limit and or slow down to push / give the people time to move. Point in case the above video the people were given plenty of time to move out from in front of the vehicle yet refused and in fact kept trying to get in front of it, any of them that were injured or run over would have no criminal or civil case / claim in TN or OH. My understanding the local police witnesses this and when asked told the protesters they would not be charging the driver as he had not broken any laws... unlike the protesters.
(0)
(0)
SSG(P) (Join to see)
NC has a bill in process that would give a driver immunity if s/he hits a "protestor" who was in the street illegally. I hope it passes!
(1)
(0)
Consider this too. Blocking traffic either with or without political purposes is now considered "Domestic Terrorism." So these idiots can be arrested, held, and sent to GITMO for blocking traffic.
Section 802 of the USA PATRIOT Act (Pub. L. No. 107-52) expanded the definition of terrorism to cover ""domestic,"" as opposed to international, terrorism. A person engages in domestic terrorism if they do an act ""dangerous to human life"" that is a violation of the criminal laws of a state or the United States, if the act appears to be intended to: (i) intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination or kidnapping.
Section 802 of the USA PATRIOT Act (Pub. L. No. 107-52) expanded the definition of terrorism to cover ""domestic,"" as opposed to international, terrorism. A person engages in domestic terrorism if they do an act ""dangerous to human life"" that is a violation of the criminal laws of a state or the United States, if the act appears to be intended to: (i) intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination or kidnapping.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next