Tenn. considers bill to protect drivers who run over protesters

[jimithyashford]

I fought for your right to protest, among other things. I did not fight so you could violate the rights of others with your protests.

I fought for your right to protest, among other things.

I very much doubt that is true. I mean I have no idea how old you are, but it has been a very long time since the US fought a war against any enemy that posed an existential threat to the homeland or to the domestic rights of US citizens. Maybe you are are WW2 Vet, there are a few still alive, but unless you are, you have in point of absolute fact never fought for my rights. Well maybe that's not true, maybe you personally did fight with that motivation, but you have certainly never been part of an operation or war or engagement or plan that had anything at all to do with defending my right to protest.

I did not fight so you could violate the rights of others with your protests.

Is there a right to drive down highways? I must have missed that one. Please do tell me where in the Constitution or in any later legislation the right to unencumbered vehicular conveyance is stated. I suspect you are making that up.

So wait, you are seriously comparing Ghandi's "nonviolent cooperation" with snowflake tantrum artists blocking roads? got hubris? :lol:

Um....non violent obstruction and disobedience was Gandhi's jam. Things like pickets lines and sit ins and human chains are like civil disobedience 101, it's not a matter of hubris or frozen precipitation or whether or not a person is an artist (what the **** does snow and painting even have to do with this....what a bizarre thing to even bring up), it's very well documented. This is not obscure knowledge....Did Gandhi ever specifically block a highway? I don't know. But he did a lot of things like that, disrupting normal operations of things to draw attention to an issue, yeah, that is a very common and generally well respected form of protest. You're the weird one here for vilifying it.

I support your right to assemble and protest anywhere

As long as its over to the side and out of the way and easy to ignore and carry on with your regular life.

as long as you don't infringe on the rights of another.

Again, you keep referencing this mysterious right to unobstructed highways. I missed that in Social Studies class. I am going to need you to please tell me where you are getting this. Is this the same place that people back in the 60s got their "right to have my kids go to school with who I want" and their "right to ride the bus with who I want" and their "right to share a water fountain with who I want?" Your sure you're not just making this up?

You can't decry a loss of "rights" if you are suppressing rights at the same time.

Man.....apparently the right to drive down a highway without stops or delays is like a REALLY big deal to you. Next time highway construction causes delays on my commute I'll be sure to file a lawsuit for the infringement of my rights.



So, if we pretend for just a moment that there is no right protecting anyone's ability to drive unobstructed down a highway, and if we pretend for just a moment that nonviolent disruption and civil disobedience are long standing and well respected forms of protest, and if we set aside for a moment whether or not you personally agree or disagree with the cause that is being protested, or whether or not there is snow, or whether or not the protesters like to paint........do you have any other justification for gleefully endorsing that these people be run over?

 

[rabbitcaebannog]

Where were the protests over the 26,000 bombs dropped in 2016?



Why no answer?

...because this thread is about a bill being consider in Tenn. and has absolutely nothing to do with Obama vs. Trump and protest. You really shouldn't hijack a good thread. Start another if you desire.

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

I fought for your right to protest, among other things. I did not fight so you could violate the rights of others with your protests.

Impeding the travel of others does just that.

I very much doubt that is true. I mean I have no idea how old you are, but it has been a very long time since the US fought a war against any enemy that posed an existential threat to the homeland or to the domestic rights of US citizens. Maybe you are are WW2 Vet, there are a few still alive, but unless you are, you have in point of absolute fact never fought for my rights. Well maybe that's not true, maybe you personally did fight with that motivation, but you have certainly never been part of an operation or war or engagement or plan that had anything at all to do with defending my right to protest.

It's the fact that I signed on that line willing to lay my life down for the country, and constitution my man, Gulf war combat vet, also part of numerous other operations and former contractor.

Is there a right to drive down highways? I must have missed that one. Please do tell me where in the Constitution or in any later legislation the right to unencumbered vehicular conveyance is stated. I suspect you are making that up.

There is a right to travel by feet, bike, car, etc, unmolested, yes. you want to suggest that because a person is in a car, other people have a right to stop them? you would have to explain that.

Um....non violent obstruction and disobedience was Gandhi's jam. Things like pickets lines and sit ins and human chains are like civil disobedience 101, it's not a matter of hubris or frozen precipitation or whether or not a person is an artist (what the **** does snow and painting even have to do with this....what a bizarre thing to even bring up), it's very well documented. This is not obscure knowledge....Did Gandhi ever specifically block a highway? I don't know. But he did a lot of things like that, disrupting normal operations of things to draw attention to an issue, yeah, that is a very common and generally well respected form of protest. You're the weird one here for vilifying it.

Skimmed. you can't impede on another persons rights for your temper tantrum protest.

As long as its over to the side and out of the way and easy to ignore and carry on with your regular life.

Indeed. you have a right to protest, I have a right to ignore you, mock you. I do not have a right to lay hands on you unless you are denying me my rights.

Again, you keep referencing this mysterious right to unobstructed highways. I missed that in Social Studies class. I am going to need you to please tell me where you are getting this. Is this the same place that people back in the 60s got their "right to have my kids go to school with who I want" and their "right to ride the bus with who I want" and their "right to share a water fountain with who I want?" Your sure you're not just making this up?

see above. you cannot impede another, deny thier rights. sorry. snowflake logic here is not reality.

Man.....apparently the right to drive down a highway without stops or delays is like a REALLY big deal to you. Next time highway construction causes delays on my commute I'll be sure to file a lawsuit for the infringement of my rights.

I am going to assume you are smart enough to realize how stupid this argument is. if you are serious, let me know and I'll answer if u r serioz.

So, if we pretend for just a moment that there is no right protecting anyone's ability to drive unobstructed down a highway, and if we pretend for just a moment that nonviolence disruption and civil disobediance are long standing and well respected forms of protest, and if we set aside for a moment whether or not you personally agree or disagree with the cause that is being protested........do you have any other justification for gleefully endorsing that these people be run over?

You created a strawman. you miss the point. you do not have the right to impede another engaged in a lawful activity. you sir, by blocking me and my travel, are engaged in the illegal act.

How difficult is this for you?

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

...because this thread is about a bill being consider in Tenn. and has absolutely nothing to do with Obama vs. Trump and protest. You really shouldn't hijack a good thread. Start another if you desire.

:lol:


sure I will start one later tonight or tomorrow, if you promise to take part. you promise?

 

[VanceMack]

Not according to this TN law trying to be pushed. I don't see where it says you are safe with a permit. I see it says if you are in a public area where cars travel and someone hits you they will not be liable if it was not intended. So, blocking off areas where traffic travels will not keep you safe from a car that may sway into an area where people are standing given them safety from being liable for hitting someone if it was an accident. You are leaving people open to being hit without any kind of consequence. Not a good tone to set.

(a) A person driving an automobile who is exercising due care and injures another person who is participating in a protest or demonstration and is blocking traffic in a public right-of-way is immune from civil liability for such injury.

Guess the facts throw you a little bit.

 

[VanceMack]

That was only one example. I answered that because to me food safety is a huge issue and this particular problem can not be addressed by local or even federal government due to trade laws. Should people just say, "too f*cking bad?"

No...you should just address your statement that peoples rights are being eroded. Is there some sort of food safety right that is being eroded in your example or is that more a political stance of a heretofore unresolved issue?

 

[ecofarm]

You can't be serious. Are you suggesting that protesting continued at the same levels under obama as it did bush, and now with trump?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_protest_marches_on_Washington,_D.C.

That's just on Washington. Plenty.

 

[jimithyashford]

Impeding the travel of others does just that.



It's the fact that I signed on that line willing to lay my life down for the country, and constitution my man, Gulf war combat vet, also part of numerous other operations and former contractor.




There is a right to travel by feet, bike, car, etc, unmolested, yes. you want to suggest that because a person is in a car, other people have a right to stop them? you would have to explain that.




Skimmed. you can't impede on another persons rights for your temper tantrum protest.




Indeed. you have a right to protest, I have a right to ignore you, mock you. I do not have a right to lay hands on you unless you are denying me my rights.



see above. you cannot impede another, deny thier rights. sorry. snowflake logic here is not reality.





I am going to assume you are smart enough to realize how stupid this argument is. if you are serious, let me know and I'll answer if u r serioz.





You created a strawman. you miss the point. you do not have the right to impede another engaged in a lawful activity. you sir, by blocking me and my travel, are engaged in the illegal act.

How difficult is this for you?

Again, where is this right to access roads coming from. I know of no amendment, act, bill, ordinance, writ, or ruling that guarantees unencumbered access to roadways, or sidewalks, or to the sea, or the air, or to any other methods of transportation for that matter. I feel like you are making this right up, pulling it out of your ass. BUT, I am completely willing to be wrong. Please go ahead and tell me where in US law I can find this right you are referring to.

Or do you just FEEL like it should be a right but actually have no idea what you're talking about.

And for the record, the Gulf War was most certainly not fought to protect US rights. Nobody thinks it was, even the generals and leaders at the time didn't claim that. You're making that up too
.

 

[rabbitcaebannog]

(a) A person driving an automobile who is exercising due care and injures another person who is participating in a protest or demonstration and is blocking traffic in a public right-of-way is immune from civil liability for such injury.

Guess the facts throw you a little bit.

It's not throwing me at all. I just think it goes beyond the pale.

 

[VanceMack]

It's not throwing me at all. I just think it goes beyond the pale.

So...you just disagree with it. Its not that you dont understand it...you just disagree with it.

 

[rabbitcaebannog]

No...you should just address your statement that peoples rights are being eroded. Is there some sort of food safety right that is being eroded in your example or is that more a political stance of a heretofore unresolved issue?

One major issue in a nut shell is the right to know where is food is coming from should be a right for US citizens.

 

[rabbitcaebannog]

So...you just disagree with it. Its not that you dont understand it...you just disagree with it.

I never said I didn't understand it. My stance throughout this thread is I disagree with it .

 

[VanceMack]

One major issue in a nut shell is the right to know where is food is coming from should be a right for US citizens.

Buy local. Buy organic. Seems to me you have plenty of rights there.

 

[VanceMack]

I never said I didn't understand it. My stance throughout this thread is I disagree with it .

Well...except for that part where you were pretending to think that it might be applied to legal parades and marches.

 

[haymarket]

What part of "protecting vehicular manslaughter" do you not get?

lets peel this back and see what is at its core. This is motivated by right wing extremism manifesting itself in the emotion of hate to give legal license to kill leftists under a thin pretense of not being able to exercise their rights. Of course, they could just go down another street and avoiding somebody over but if you are a right wing libertarian why would you do that when you can invoke LIBERTY and kill or injure a leftist protester at the same time? Its too tempting to pass up.

 

[dorsai]

I would cite the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the United States Constitution. Although the right to travel was primarily intended to permit free travel from state to state, one could easily argue that impeding travel does actually violate that right. Granted, an argument can be made that they are not impeded once they get to a border or state line but honestly, Tenn applying that to protestors is not nearly as far as a stretch as Roe v Wade in terms of the "right to privacy".

 

[rabbitcaebannog]

Buy local. Buy organic. Seems to me you have plenty of rights there.

Great, but that does not protect US citizens right to know where their food is coming from when you do buy in your local grocery store.

 

[rabbitcaebannog]

Well...except for that part where you were pretending to think that it might be applied to legal parades and marches.

Yes, it does apply. Barriers could be used but are no guarantee for safety of a vehicle hitting someone. It appears that they may not have to worry about hitting someone in their way.

 

[VanceMack]

Yes, it does apply. Barriers could be used but are no guarantee for safety of a vehicle hitting someone. It appears that they may not have to worry about hitting someone in their way.

Thats just silly.

 

[VanceMack]

Great, but that does not protect US citizens right to know where their food is coming from when you do buy in your local grocery store.

I look forward to your protest and march.

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_protest_marches_on_Washington,_D.C.

That's just on Washington. Plenty.

So you are saying those are equivalent to what we see now and under bush?

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

Again, where is this right to access roads coming from. I know of no amendment, act, bill, ordinance, writ, or ruling that guarantees unencumbered access to roadways, or sidewalks, or to the sea, or the air, or to any other methods of transportation for that matter. I feel like you are making this right up, pulling it out of your ass. BUT, I am completely willing to be wrong. Please go ahead and tell me where in US law I can find this right you are referring to.

You are being far to simplistic in order not to "be wrong".

You ask the wrong question.

The correct question is where in the US Constitution is there a right of person A. to block the lawful Journey of person B.

Or do you just FEEL like it should be a right but actually have no idea what you're talking about.

Are you familiar with John Locke?

And for the record, the Gulf War was most certainly not fought to protect US rights. Nobody thinks it was, even the generals and leaders at the time didn't claim that. You're making that up too
.

You miss the point. I did not sign up saying I would only fight wars if they meet a certain criteria, I signed up saying I would defend the US constitution. I've left blood on enemy sand under that agreement.

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

...because this thread is about a bill being consider in Tenn. and has absolutely nothing to do with Obama vs. Trump and protest. You really shouldn't hijack a good thread. Start another if you desire.

:lol:


sure I will start one later tonight or tomorrow, if you promise to take part. you promise?

So by your continued posting and non answer to this, the answer is "no"?

 

[haymarket]

The correct question is where in the US Constitution is there a right of person A. to block the lawful Journey of person B.

So for the driver to simply avoid a slight detour of a block or two to go around the demonstration, you advocate for the driver to run over a human being?

The values behind such advocacy are deplorable and should never be part of a civilized society.

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

So for the driver to simply avoid a slight detour of a block or two to go around the demonstration, you advocate for the driver to run over a human being?

The values behind such advocacy are deplorable and should never be part of a civilized society.

That's a stupid post, bro. I have advocated no such thing. if you were honest, you would retort to what you quoted, not quote me then make up a lie....