Yes, that would be insane.
No, that’s not what they’re (attempting) to do.
As standard, ignore the click-bait headline.
Gotta disagree with you. The headline “Running over protesters on roadways could soon be legal in North Dakota” is true. It doesn’t say “under any and all circumstances.” Plus, even though the bill doesn’t say “go ahead and murder protesters” this bill gives people legal cover to do just that, and all they have to do is say it wasn’t on purpose to get away with it.
3 Likes
What are they attempting to do?
1 Like
“Accidentally running over protesters on roadways could soon be legal in North Dakota” is completely true.
Certainly, without the word “accidentally” (or something similar) the headline is still true, but it is also click-bait because it is misleading.
The language of the statute doesn’t say “accidentally”. Perhaps you could live with " ‘Accidentally’ running over protesters will be legal in North Dakota if bill passes"?
1 Like
We were discussing the quality of the headline, not the bill. However, last I checked, “accidentally” and “unintentionally” are usually considered synonymous. Also, no, I’m not in favor of this bill at all, and I will be letting the appropriate people know. Negligence is seldom be a valid excuse (and most often it’s the exact reason for guilt), and laws that require proof of intent are generally useless.
I never assumed you were in favor of the bill. By “live with” I meant would the headline I wrote accurately represent the story within your requirements.
Sorry, my fault. No, I would have no problems with the headline you wrote. While it’s still click-baity (rather unavoidably so) it is still, hopefully, enough to keep people from jumping to silly conclusions.
1 Like
If you steer your car at protestors in the firm expectation that they will jump out of the way and not be hit, then the resulting deaths are not intentional – or such is the purpose of the bill’s proponents, anyway – but nor will they be accidental.
Again, “negligence” – expressly protected by the bill – is neither accidental nor intentional.
2 Likes
Sure, but why is the intention, which the driver can lie about, the only metric that matters here. If you go and talk to someone and you have a gun with you, get into an argument, and you end up shooting them, does it matter what your intentions were at the outset? The result is still the same. Plus, a person can lie about not meaning to run a protestor over.
I guess I’m saying that intention shouldn’t matter, but the material outcome of an incident should.
1 Like
Because white drivers in North Dakota are being obstructed by less-white people.
2 Likes
And liberals. Don’t forget liberals.
I think your hypothesis is correct, though, that by some amazing co-incidence the law will work in the favor of whites over non-whites. I also think that it will work similarly, though perhaps not as much since you can’t just look at their skin color, against liberals.
4 Likes
Please update the article to list the names of the despicable evil sonofabitch senators and representatives who want to legalize the murder of protestors.
Representatives Kempenich, Brandenburg, Laning, Oliver, Rohr
Senators Cook, Schaible
4 Likes
Someone who understands this properly needs to explain the legal difference between negligence and recklessness.
I think if you deliberately choose to drive into a crowd of protestors, knowing that it might injure them, that would be reckless and still illegal. If however, you claimed you didn’t spot them, that would just be negligent and thus ‘OK’
Yeah, usually protesters do their best to blend in. Very hard to spot.
2 Likes
Given the stated intentions and known history of the people introducing this law, do you think there is the slightest chance that they intend or expect it to be enforced in what we would recognise as a just and reasonable manner?
1 Like
I have no idea what you mean by “known history of the people introducing this law”, but I don’t think they really expect it to go anywhere. It plays very well with the conservative mindset of the majority of that areas voters though, and ultimately that’s all they really care about. If it did pass, there’s not much to do in enforcing it, it’s just an easy way for district attorney’s to not have to press charges in the face of public opinion. That’s part of why I don’t like it, in that it’s too easy to abuse. The current system will exonerate an innocent driver well as-is.
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
