Republican lawmakers double-down on legalizing the vehicular murder of protesters

Originally published at:

1 Like

Heather Heyer hasn’t even been buried yet.

We’ve gone past cartoon supervillainy into…into I don’t even know what.


OK, “immune from civil liability” would imply they can’t be sued, but does that mean they would be immune from criminal charges?


The penalty for obstructing traffic while protesting shall be: death by blunt force trauma, said trauma to be applied by a speeding automobile.

No police or judicial involvement is necessary, the sentence shall be applied summarily.

The executioner shall be any licensed driver who is inconvenienced by the demonstration.


“person driving an automobile who is exercising due care”

I get the point here which is to say that if I as a driver am moving well below the speed limit and a protestor were to jump in front of me; that I not be held liable. This would be a rationale point of view as I could not predict nor control the person’s actions.

What happened this past weekend is not even remotely the same. The individual driving that Dodge Charger sped forward and willfully used his vehicle as a weapon with intent to harm. He is directly responsible for that girl’s death as well as every injury caused there.


I’m done…



That’s already the law in most places. This is a proposal to legalize running over protestors blocking a right-of-way.


There’s no reason to believe this will escalate clashes. Right?


No what I quoted is directly from the proposed piece.

Why would they propose a new law if it did exactly what existing laws do? The language is vague for a reason. It’s the automobile equivalent of stand your ground. Believe otherwise of you want, but this will be used to dismiss charges for running into and over protestors who block your way. It might not be used to let off someone who goes in search of protestors like James Alex Fields Jr. did, but it would if he’d already been there when the crowd he struck assembled.


Oh, I wonder what the snarky name for this courageous legislation is? Oh, let me! Let me!

The Thinly Veiled Attempt to Curtail Free Speech Act.



Pretty much. You, Me, anyone who cares to actually look at what happened will see an asshole in a car running people over. Yet the wording is vague enough that this can be considered ‘fine.’


If it’s going to be legal to run over people who are protesting Nazis, then it’ll also be legal to run over people who are Nazis protesting.


Death Race 2017


Another reason they left the wording vague. Just like many other laws. Certain people will suffer no penalty as the judge describes them as “good people” while other people will go to jail for murder as the judge brags about putting away another “thug” or “Liberal terrorist”.


That is a very generous interpretation. Thing is, it’s one interpreation. Yours. Bear with me.

the point is not “to say” that if you as a driver (and then all the rest of what you said, stuff that makes sense to you and I as humans possessed of some humility, beating hearts, and senses of fair play).

The point is “to all but say” all those things you have helpfully added, but which are NOT the text of the law. “Due care” can evolve, and is a state by state thing.

Motorists that kill bicyclists are often/usually found to have exercised ‘due care’.

I don’t want to say you’re wrong, but by making a rounding error between what the words ARE and what YOU WANT THEM TO BE - there is a gray area, a shadow in which all the things we want to see stopped - happen.

My point is that this law just offers another point of argument, to slow justice, specifically around a new class of pedestrian (a ‘protestor pedestrian’) struck by cars.

This literally says, you can be less careful around protestors. With your 3 ton pickup truck.

What does -that- help? What rights does that protect or further?




So - a free pass to Isis - hey they were driving with due care - it was an accident!


I didn’t expressly state this; however I shall now, I am completely of the mindset that as the driver of a vehicle you are ultimately responsible for what happens when you are behind the wheel save for only the instances wherein the vehicle is entirely beyond your control (I.e. The accelerator is stuck fully on like in the case of Toyota. Essentially a mechanical/functional error that renders you no longer the driver but just an occupant). Now I know adding that on is sort of the asterisk much like you are reframing to me. It’s about interpretation.

Yes. It is. Because that’s what the law is about. The reason these things get argued and adjudicated at various court levels is wholly around “ok what does this law mean. How do we interpret its wording, meaning, and ultimate ruling.”

All my point was simply that based on the wording it’s what we already see as common sense law. That doesn’t mean there won’t be those that attempt to translate and bend the meaning to their own benefits. Law is not B&W. it’s a whole ton of grey with at times far too much room for loose interpretations.

Anywho. I am not sure those proposing it nor LEO are in fact trying to back what happened in VA this past weekend or to allow vehicular manslaughter as a legal means to “deal with protestors”. I tend not to view most lawmakers as openly evil like that. Call me an optimist.

1 Like