• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

"Four San Francisco protesters hit by car in ‘possible intentional act’..."

NolanVoyd said:
Nice try but you failed.

The bills make no such distinction.

"Republican legislators in Oklahoma and Iowa have passed bills granting immunity to drivers whose vehicles strike and injure protesters in public streets."

Maybe read before you comment
Click to expand...
This is to funny.
This is why you should probably read more than just the headline. Would save you the embarrassment.
I mean hell your own link proves you wrong. But then you would have had to actually read it to know that.

From you own link.
Republican-backed bill aimed at cracking down on protests by increasing penalties for blocking roadways and granting immunity to motorists who kill or injure rioters received final legislative approval on Wednesday.

Do you see the word rioters right there.

From the Oklahoma law text.
A motor vehicle operator who unintentionally causes injury or death to an individual shall not be criminally or civilly liable for the injury or death, if:
1. The injury or death of the individual occurred while the motor vehicle operator was fleeing from a riot,
as defined Section 1311 of Title 21 of the Oklahoma Statutes, under a reasonable belief that fleeing was necessary to protect the motor vehicle operator from serious injury or death;




Sorry you have been lied to and you happily swallowed it all
 
Absentglare said:
If you don’t want to support political violence then denounce it. Don’t play these shitty little word games. Nobody is buying it.
Click to expand...
Sorry but words have meanings. I get that it’s complicated for you but Google can help you with the ones you are stuck on.
 
braindrain said:
This is to funny.
This is why you should probably read more than just the headline. Would save you the embarrassment.
I mean hell your own link proves you wrong. But then you would have had to actually read it to know that.

From you own link.
Republican-backed bill aimed at cracking down on protests by increasing penalties for blocking roadways and granting immunity to motorists who kill or injure rioters received final legislative approval on Wednesday.

Do you see the word rioters right there.

From the Oklahoma law text.
A motor vehicle operator who unintentionally causes injury or death to an individual shall not be criminally or civilly liable for the injury or death, if:
1. The injury or death of the individual occurred while the motor vehicle operator was fleeing from a riot,
as defined Section 1311 of Title 21 of the Oklahoma Statutes, under a reasonable belief that fleeing was necessary to protect the motor vehicle operator from serious injury or death;




Sorry you have been lied to and you happily swallowed it all
Click to expand...
The article uses both terms.
 
braindrain said:
This is to funny.
This is why you should probably read more than just the headline. Would save you the embarrassment.
I mean hell your own link proves you wrong. But then you would have had to actually read it to know that.

From you own link.
Republican-backed bill aimed at cracking down on protests by increasing penalties for blocking roadways and granting immunity to motorists who kill or injure rioters received final legislative approval on Wednesday.

Do you see the word rioters right there.

From the Oklahoma law text.
A motor vehicle operator who unintentionally causes injury or death to an individual shall not be criminally or civilly liable for the injury or death, if:
1. The injury or death of the individual occurred while the motor vehicle operator was fleeing from a riot,
as defined Section 1311 of Title 21 of the Oklahoma Statutes, under a reasonable belief that fleeing was necessary to protect the motor vehicle operator from serious injury or death;




Sorry you have been lied to and you happily swallowed it all
Click to expand...
So you wanna play word games and split hairs over bullshit to defend political violence.
 
NolanVoyd said:
The article uses both terms.
Click to expand...
Wait you just got done saying the bill made no distinction. Now you admit your own link made that distinction and that was after you tried to pretend it was me that needed to read more before commenting. This must be rather embarrassing for you.

Like I said you have been lied to and you happily swallowed it all.
 
Absentglare said:
So you wanna play word games and split hairs over bullshit to defend political violence.
Click to expand...
Understanding that a riot is not the same thing as a protest is not splitting hairs.
That you can’t understand that is your own problem.
 
NolanVoyd said:
Nice try but you failed.

The bills make no such distinction.

"Republican legislators in Oklahoma and Iowa have passed bills granting immunity to drivers whose vehicles strike and injure protesters in public streets."

Maybe read before you comment
Click to expand...

Sounds like editorial comment.
 
braindrain said:
Wait you just got done saying the bill made no distinction. Now you admit your own link made that distinction and that was after you tried to pretend it was me that needed to read more before commenting. This must be rather embarrassing for you.

Like I said you have been lied to and you happily swallowed it all.
Click to expand...
No, it dorsnt distinguish. It uses both terms.

For example. "Iowa’s bill, SF 342, provides civil immunity to any driver who injures someone participating in a “protest, demonstration, riot, or unlawful assembly,” engaging in “disorderly conduct,” or blocking traffic so long as the driver is exercising “due care.” In Iowa disorderly conduct is defined very broadly and includes something as simple as obstructing a sidewalk, making this bill applicable to any protester on a public street or sidewalk that is deemed to be blocking it.
 
NolanVoyd said:
No, it dorsnt distinguish. It uses both terms.

For example. "Iowa’s bill, SF 342, provides civil immunity to any driver who injures someone participating in a “protest, demonstration, riot, or unlawful assembly,” engaging in “disorderly conduct,” or blocking traffic so long as the driver is exercising “due care.” In Iowa disorderly conduct is defined very broadly and includes something as simple as obstructing a sidewalk, making this bill applicable to any protester on a public street or sidewalk that is deemed to be blocking it.
Click to expand...

Goodness, it sure would be a shame if someone in an International Box Truck got a bit nervous and floored their accelerator through a Patriot Front march in Tulsa.
 
NolanVoyd said:
No, it dorsnt distinguish. It uses both terms.

For example. "Iowa’s bill, SF 342, provides civil immunity to any driver who injures someone participating in a “protest, demonstration, riot, or unlawful assembly,” engaging in “disorderly conduct,” or blocking traffic so long as the driver is exercising “due care.” In Iowa disorderly conduct is defined very broadly and includes something as simple as obstructing a sidewalk, making this bill applicable to any protester on a public street or sidewalk that is deemed to be blocking it.
Click to expand...

The Oklahoma bill only uses riots and the Iowa bill clearly states that if it is a legal protest then there is no immunity.

Sorry but you are failing here.


From the Iowa bill.
.366A Immunity from civil liability for certain vehicle operators.


1. The driver of a vehicle who is exercising due care and who injures another person who


is participating in a protest, demonstration, riot, or unlawful assembly or who is engaging in disorderly conduct and is blocking traffic in a public street or highway shall be immune from civil liability for the injury caused by the driver of the vehicle.


2. The driver of a vehicle who injures another person who is participating in a protest,
demonstration, riot, or unlawful assembly or who is engaging in disorderly conduct and is
blocking traffic in a public street or highway shall not be immune from civil liability if the
actions leading to the injury caused by the driver of a vehicle constitute reckless or willful
misconduct.
3. Subsection 1 shall not apply if the injured person participating in a protest or demonstration was doing so with a valid permit allowing persons to protest or demonstrate on the public street or highway where the injury occurred.


Tell me are you even mad that your media lied to you like this and embarrassed you so
 
braindrain said:
The Oklahoma bill only uses riots and the Iowa bill clearly states that if it is a legal protest then there is no immunity.

Sorry but you are failing here.


From the Iowa bill.
.366A Immunity from civil liability for certain vehicle operators.


1. The driver of a vehicle who is exercising due care and who injures another person who


is participating in a protest, demonstration, riot, or unlawful assembly or who is engaging in disorderly conduct and is blocking traffic in a public street or highway shall be immune from civil liability for the injury caused by the driver of the vehicle.


2. The driver of a vehicle who injures another person who is participating in a protest,
demonstration, riot, or unlawful assembly or who is engaging in disorderly conduct and is
blocking traffic in a public street or highway shall not be immune from civil liability if the
actions leading to the injury caused by the driver of a vehicle constitute reckless or willful
misconduct.
3. Subsection 1 shall not apply if the injured person participating in a protest or demonstration was doing so with a valid permit allowing persons to protest or demonstrate on the public .street or highway where the injury occurred.


Tell me are you even mad that your media lied to you like this and embarrassed you so
Click to expand...
Like i said.

"For example. "Iowa’s bill, SF 342, provides civil immunity to any driver who injures someone participating in a “protest, demonstration, riot, or unlawful assembly,” (key word OR) engaging in “disorderly conduct,” or blocking traffic so long as the driver is exercising “due care.” In Iowa disorderly conduct is defined very broadly and includes something as simple as obstructing a sidewalk, making this bill applicable to any protester on a public street or sidewalk that is deemed to be blocking it.
 
EnchantedMuggle said:
Making people mad about what's going on is.

And we see that already Taco has backed down from his "drag all the illegals out of the U.S." stance. Now he's passionately saying that we DO need illegals. If they're farmers.

LOL.
Click to expand...
And that explains the frequent failure of these events.

Again, the purpose is to promote your view, to convince people to agree with you. Or at least to be mad about whatever you are. Not to be mad at you.
 
Hamish Howl said:
Maybe that's your goal.
Click to expand...
It's the goal of any protest. Or at least any that are of value.

If your goal in protesting is to look like a fool and make people hate you and your cause, then causing chaos may be the way to go.
 
braindrain said:
Watching him whine about me needing to read more when it is obvious he didn’t read past the headline of his own link is rather hilarious.
Click to expand...

You gotta remember this is someone who tells tall tales about shooting snakes on his wooden deck and not harming so much as a splinter...with a shotgun! Tries to use that as support for his opinions. He lost all credibility with me long ago.
 
NolanVoyd said:
Like i said.

"For example. "Iowa’s bill, SF 342, provides civil immunity to any driver who injures someone participating in a “protest, demonstration, riot, or unlawful assembly,” (key word OR) engaging in “disorderly conduct,” or blocking traffic so long as the driver is exercising “due care.” In Iowa disorderly conduct is defined very broadly and includes something as simple as obstructing a sidewalk, making this bill applicable to any protester on a public street or sidewalk that is deemed to be blocking it.
Click to expand...
And again if it’s a legal protest there is no immunity. And short if after already being shown to not have a clue what you are talking about I am not taking your claims of what constitutes disorderly conduct with proof.

So no comment in the Oklahoma bill either huh.

And most importantly none of these bills are just allowing people to run over protesters. Which was the original claim.
 
EnchantedMuggle said:
Making people mad about what's going on is.

And we see that already Taco has backed down from his "drag all the illegals out of the U.S." stance. Now he's passionately saying that we DO need illegals. If they're farmers.

LOL.
Click to expand...
It's better to make people mad at what you are mad at. Not mad at the people protesting, when those protests turn into disruption, vandalism, etc.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom