Culturecultureliberaldouchbaggery

Thu May 4, 2017, 09:58 AM

North Carolina Passes Law to Protect Drivers Who Hit Protesters





Didn't your Mother tell you not to play in the road?

You don't get to infringe on other people's rights just because you're "protesting".

This isn't your cowardly college administrators who indulge your adolescent nonsense


https://thenewswheel.com/north-carolina-passes-law-to-protect-drivers-who-hit-protesters/



20 replies, 782 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 20 replies Author Time Post
Reply North Carolina Passes Law to Protect Drivers Who Hit Protesters (Original post)
Gunslinger201 May 2017 OP
Konservative May 2017 #1
Squeek May 2017 #2
Banshee 3 Actual May 2017 #3
Troll2 May 2017 #4
i verglas May 2017 #10
Troll2 May 2017 #15
i verglas May 2017 #16
i verglas May 2017 #13
Jake May 2017 #5
WhiskeyMakesMeHappy May 2017 #6
Carlos W Bush May 2017 #7
Bored er collie May 2017 #8
smoke check May 2017 #9
i verglas May 2017 #11
smoke check May 2017 #12
i verglas May 2017 #14
smoke check May 2017 #17
southernwriter May 2017 #18
smoke check May 2017 #19
Argentina May 2017 #20

Response to Gunslinger201 (Original post)

Thu May 4, 2017, 10:05 AM

1. Let's go bowling!

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gunslinger201 (Original post)

Thu May 4, 2017, 10:20 AM

2. Had trouble

opening the link, but anyway...

I agree with the premise that protesters should not infringe on the rights of others to travel unhindered on roads and such.

But I'm hoping that the law specifies that drivers shouldn't just barrel through them. Going slowly and maybe honking the horn to move them, yeah. If someone wants to ignore that, then I guess they pretty much get what they deserve.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Squeek (Reply #2)

Thu May 4, 2017, 10:36 AM

3. seems logical

The bill protects drivers who are exercising “due care” and hit someone who is “participating in a protest or demonstration and blocking traffic in a public street or highway,” with a provision that this protection doesn’t extend to anyone who is “willful or wanton” in hitting someone, or anyone hitting a pedestrian with a valid permit to protest in the street where the injury occurred.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Banshee 3 Actual (Reply #3)

Thu May 4, 2017, 11:25 AM

4. Civil damages should be disallowed due to the contributory negligence of the protester.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Troll2 (Reply #4)

Fri May 5, 2017, 10:21 AM

10. and this is a question for a court

 

not the legislature.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to i verglas (Reply #10)

Fri May 5, 2017, 11:02 AM

15. The legislatures write the laws concerning civil torts - the courts rule according to the law

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Troll2 (Reply #15)

Fri May 5, 2017, 12:08 PM

16. duh

 

I'm sure you have seen my second post.

This kind of law ... one shakes one's head. Bizarre.

Only in the USofA ...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contributory_negligence

Turns out I invented the classic case:
For example, a pedestrian crosses a road negligently and is hit by a driver who was driving negligently. Since the pedestrian has also contributed to the accident, they may be barred from complete and full recovery of damages from the driver (or their insurer) because the accident was less likely to occur if it hadn't been for their failure to keep a proper lookout.
Why the unlicensed drunk speeding driver of a stolen car should be relieved of all liability for their contribution to the pedestrian's damages is beyond me. Just more of that finger-pointing victim-blaming Puritan stuff, I guess.

But actually, only in some states of the USofA:

In the United States, the pure contributory negligence {doctrine} only applies in Alabama, Maryland, North Carolina, and Virginia. Indiana applies pure contributory negligence to medical malpractice cases and tort claims against the state government. In the other 45 states in the U.S., plaintiff's recovery is simply diminished by the extent to which he or she contributed to the harm: this doctrine is known as comparative negligence.
I can't even imagine what was in the minds of a legislature that did this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Troll2 (Reply #4)

Fri May 5, 2017, 10:37 AM

13. well, except in North Carolina

 

(Firefox did not like the linked site, but fortunately google had cached the page so I was able to read it.)

Opponents like state Rep. Henry Michaux, however, say that the legislation doesn’t give any protection that people {don't?} already have and may give drivers the bad impression that they could just run over activists. Michaux pointed out that North Carolina has a “pure contributory negligence” rule, which makes it legally impossible to sue and collect a payout if the injured party is even partly at fault for the accident. Another opponent of the bill, state Rep. Graid Meyer, said that the bill would just invite jokes about “those dumb rednecks” in North Carolina.

The weird things one doesn't learn on the internet.

So if you step off a curb without looking and are run down by an unlicensed drunk driving at 100mph in a stolen car when any sober and reasonably careful driver would have avoided hitting you with ease ... no wheelchair for you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gunslinger201 (Original post)

Thu May 4, 2017, 12:51 PM

5. While I approve of the bill

Stopping so that an angry mob of people can surround you and do whatever they want is just stupidity. Protesters all over the world proven that they can turn violent at the drop of a hat. If you come upon protesters my advice is to keep the car moving no matter what. From the guy in the trucks perspective he already had a bunch of people pounding on the car with hands and sticks while screaming at him and others where throwing things at him. Raise your hand if you think it is a good idea to stop for that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gunslinger201 (Original post)

Thu May 4, 2017, 01:35 PM

6. The intent of the law seems clear. I like it!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gunslinger201 (Original post)

Thu May 4, 2017, 01:49 PM

7. Support.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gunslinger201 (Original post)

Thu May 4, 2017, 05:48 PM

8. Why you never, ever, ever stop...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gunslinger201 (Original post)

Fri May 5, 2017, 10:17 AM

9. I told someone that supported the protesters once that I wouldn't stop.

In fact, I told them that I would slow down to 25 flash my lights and honk my horn, but that last 100 feet or so I would be accelerating as hard as I could. I pointed out that I would feel in danger if forced to stop.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to smoke check (Reply #9)

Fri May 5, 2017, 10:23 AM

11. and you would have driven into the middle of a protest because ...

 

Being surrounded by a crowd without warning is one thing.

Choosing to drive into it is another.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to i verglas (Reply #11)

Fri May 5, 2017, 10:28 AM

12. Don't stand in the middle of the road.

My mom taught me that when I was like 4. It isn't my fault if their mothers failed them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to smoke check (Reply #12)

Fri May 5, 2017, 10:38 AM

14. my post was so short and so easy to understand

 

You must have been reading some other post.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to i verglas (Reply #14)

Fri May 5, 2017, 02:12 PM

17. Yes, unusually so.

Standing in the middle of a highway is a stupid thing to do.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to smoke check (Reply #17)

Fri May 5, 2017, 11:45 PM

18. That's my thing.

If you stand where the speed limit is 55 mph or over, then it's unreasonable to expect drivers to stop in time. I crossed the highway one time and knew I better be very careful for that reason.

I don't see what the point was in passing this law. It's stupid and we don't need it. I'd like to hope there's already protection for people who didn't mean to hit a protester. I disagree with the idea that it's okay to keep going when a protester won't move. The protester might be in the wrong, but that's a human life. It comes before being right.

And to be clear, I don't think this bill gives people a right to hit protesters.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to southernwriter (Reply #18)

Sat May 6, 2017, 04:45 PM

19. Nope.

If your mom failed to teach you to stay out of the highway, she needs to receive a letter informing her of her failure.

I'll say it again, protesters have no right to block roads, highways, or their access. If it takes a few of them getting into grease spots, so be it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gunslinger201 (Original post)

Sat May 6, 2017, 06:35 PM

20. That's a terrible law. If someone is taking advantage of their First Amendment right to protest and

some driver runs into them, the driver should be found at fault.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Culturecultureliberaldouchbaggery