But but but - wait - the police aren’t there merely to protect privilege, are they? I thought Lady Justice was blind to such things, seeking only to establish equity throughout the land!
2 Likes
The North Carolina bill passed the House a few months ago. The Senate says they do not plan to consider the bill, and the governor says he will veto it.
The intent with North Carolina’s bill was to provide civil and criminal immunity to drivers who unintentionally hit protestors after exercising due care. They put the bill together after protesters in Charlotte blocked the interstate last year. They say the North Carolina bill would not apply to drivers who intentionally hit protestors, or in instances where protestors had permits to occupy streets.
What a stupid law, though. Hopefully it will just die off, although it would be nice if the Senate would kill it outright. Republicans are supposed to be in favor of smaller, limited government, but they just pass law after damn law.
5 Likes
You should be responsible, and more often than not motorists are held responsible for striking pedestrians. So why support this law? At best it’s unnecessary grandstanding, and more likely it’s a way to make it easier to let murderers off of the hook. A new law with deliberately vague wording will be open to establishing new court precedents in the current judicial climate. Courts are not apolitical.
Clearly not, the proposal predates this past weekend.
It was proposed shortly after right-wing pundits called for motorists to run over BLM protestors who were blocking a highway, and critics pointed out that said motorists would be held liable for murder if they did so. Are you seriously suggesting there’s no connection?
8 Likes
Once this passes, I bet it will give rise to the defense: “I only ran that person over because I thought they were in a right-of-way”.
2 Likes
Consider four cases:
- There is a crowd lined up to get tickets to a long-awaited movie. Car runs into person near ticket line. Law finds driver liable.
- There is a crowd lined up protesting controversial movie. Car runs into protester near protest line. Law finds driver not liable.
- There is a crowd lined up protesting controversial movie. Car runs into person near protest line on the way to the ticket line. Law … well, that’s a good question.
- There is a crowd lined up protesting controversial movie. Car runs into protester near protest line. Law finds driver not liable, protester appeals on the grounds that the only difference between (4) and (1) is the Constitutionally protected right to protest, so the law in effect sanctions a Constitutional right.
IANAL, and in any case it’s risky betting on what a court would do but … If I had to bet, I’d go with #4 finding in favor of the injured party.
6 Likes
My smug POS state representative Matthew Hill started this in Tennessee. Yeah, so proud to live in one of the least diverse parts of the country.
3 Likes
5 Likes
Aha! So if you run down a lonely pedestrian, plant some leaflets on them and put a protest sign in their hand.
“He was protesting; it was self-defense!” /s
5 Likes
How about “It’s wrong if I do it, it’s wrong if the fascists do it, it’s wrong whoever does it”?
2 Likes
I was thinking about these bills yesterday. I propose that we refer to them as “Death Race 2000 bills.”
Texas’ version of this bill (which got introduced during our current special session) looks like it’s going to die, at least for now.
3 Likes
Due care in this context probably involves some combination of
- alignment of the politics of the protesters relative to those of the state attorney
- presence or absence of camera footage of the crash
4 Likes
3 Likes
Sigh
If this passes, someone will probably have to die before its constitutionality can be legally questioned…
2 Likes
You’d think that, but Black people with guns who are following the law might have some stories to disabuse you of that notion.
8 Likes
Yup. Funny (not in a funny way) how sci-fi is now reality.
2 Likes
I was a little harsh in reply to you. I do think you’re being unrealistically optimistic, but I shouldn’t have been so belligerent. Sorry for that.
5 Likes
Do you think that there is the slightest chance that a state that would pass a law such as this has a legal system that is genuinely committed to impartial truth and justice?
The whole point of this law is to give a minimally-plausible justification for right-wing murder. Reality is irrelevant.
7 Likes
Because - politicians?
I don’t know if existing laws do already say that but there is certainly no shortage of examples of politicians introducing a new law when all they really needed to do was enforce the old law properly.
Works better on the news -
Media: “Horrible thing™ has happened”.
Politicians: “Well, we clearly couldn’t have done anything about the horrible thing™ which is entirely new and unprecedented. We’ll immediately pass a new law to prevent the horrible thing™. Look how pro-active and effective we are!”.
Lawyers: “Um, I think you mean ‘reactive’. And the horrible thing was already illegal under the Prevention of Horrible Things Act 1865, section 16. You just cut police funding and numbers and told them to concentrate on Other Horrible Thing to the point that they don’t have the interest or ability to do anything about the Horrible Thing.”
Politicians: “Shut up, fat cats. Will of the people”.
Bitter, moi?
5 Likes
While the reality is yes there are lawyers and judges in the legal system who are NOT committed to impartial truth and fair and balanced interpretation of the law for all people…I think it is not all nor is it most.
I think it’s insulting as hell to the majority of those who enforce these laws.
6 Likes
