There’s absolutely no way that this proposal will pass. And if the unlikely happens, there’s no way that the courts will uphold it. It’s deplorable that it even got down on paper, but I think it might be better to save our outrage for things that are actually happening than waste it on hair-brained proposals like this one.
3 Likes
You are 100% right, but if this discussion can help link the author’s names (Introduced by
Representatives Kempenich, Brandenburg, Laning, Oliver, Rohr
Senators Cook, Schaible) to their brain-dead, one-sided, vindictive and cartoonishly-evil legislation in future google searches, I’m all for it.
11 Likes
Mad Max: Fargo Road.
7 Likes
That sure simplifies that moral choice for self-driving cars of either killing pedestrians or killing the passenger.
Problem solved!
3 Likes
This is why god invented caltrops, polearms and jersey barriers.
1 Like
PAK CHOOIE UNF
COLLISION IMMINENT
TARGET: PEDESTRIAN
DATA: IS THE PEDESTRIAN HOLDING A SIGN?
Check here for yes [ ]
Check here for no [ ]
PAK CHOOIE
6 Likes
…isn’t this literally legalizing a terrorist tactic? Nice, Cologne…
2 Likes
Technically, I would say no as those places were already off limits to traffic.
Murder, possibly.
You forget that it’s only causing death negligently that is exempt - wilfully running someone over is still a crime. This allows selective application of the law so that only e.g. minorities are ever charged, whilst white people running over protesters get a free pass
11 Likes
That’s only for in testing. On the roads, they’ll peg the sign test as true for better performance.
1 Like
That is breathtakingly broad. 
The quote just says “obstructing vehicular traffic” - nothing about “intentionally”.
Really ought to be called the Death Race 2000 Enactment.
4 Likes
I mean come on he isn’t even inaugurated yet, and we’re already seeing steps to legitimise the maiming and killing of protesters. Free country my arse.
3 Likes
Please stand in the “Free Speech Zone” cages. They are there for your protection.
(Yes, that’s the 2008 Democratic Party convention.)
6 Likes
It seems like you’re not allowed to deliberately kill pedestrians. Better tell them that you were texting at the time.
5 Likes
Depends on who Donald Trump and the Republican Wingnut Brigade put into the Supreme Court, dunnit? That’s why they refused to let in Garland - now they can pick someone that will make this legal.
It’s the kind of setup that let Jim Crow exist.
6 Likes
This is the court that ruled money is speech, corporations are people, bribery is irrelevanf and racism is over. And, even before the current shittiness, it’s a court that has a long history of siding with power over people. USSC rulings tend to lag social change, not drive it.
The court will have absolutely zero value in restricting Trump’s abuses. Alito would cheerfully legalise Auschwitz.
6 Likes
This is brilliant news! Magnificent! I cannot imagine a more brutally efficient display of the moral bankruptcy of the American establishment, nor a more effective advertisement for its complete disestablishment. Soon, in order to fight against the regime all you will have to do is read out, dispassionately, precisely what it did that week.
8 Likes
I researched earlier on this and one of the lawmakers stated that it was directly in response to Standing Rock.
Not that Trump can’t benefit from it too.
1 Like
IANAL, but:
-
It says negligently. IIRC, the legal notion of responsibility ranges from negligence at one end to recklessness and deliberate action on the other. If you purposefully run someone down (rather than hit them because you weren’t paying attention), I don’t think this law would protect you.
-
It says may not be held liable for damages. Nothing about may not be sent to prison. It seems to be addressing civil actions rather than criminal prosecutions. [EDIT: see below.]
(Nothing in this post should be construed to mean that I think this law is a good idea.)
EDITED TO ADD: I completely missed the last para of the bill, which explicitly exempts the driver from criminal sanctions, too. But there, the word “unintentionally” is used instead of “negligently”. Are there any legal bods out there who could cast light on why that may be?
1 Like
There’s my problem with this, the need to prove intent. Outside of that issue, I find it difficult to want to punish people for hitting someone who put themself in danger intentionally.
