• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Tennessee House Bill 668

Solitaire said:
I'm going to have to think about this one for a bit.
Click to expand...

Depending on the situation, it might not be as as crazy as one would think at first glance.

IN SF we have the monthly Critical Mass bike protest, and not every peaceful protester is a peaceful protester.

Recent case in point:

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-bicyclists-attack-car-san-francisco-20150901-story.html

MO seems to be vehicle drivers perceived as not constituting a potential threat (Women. older folks, etc) get the treatment, drivers perceived as potential threats don't. Local PD advises relax and enjoy. My first hand experience is that less protest than excuse for group ******* behavior, and no I didn't find myself on the receiving end of the treatment.

ETA

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conflicts_involving_Critical_Mass
 
Last edited:
I suppose it sounds reasonable, except that one wonders why the bill, and why here. It kind of depends on what reasonable care is. I'm suspicious. Given the way Tennessee is these days, I suspect reasonable care will be defined as blowing your horn when you smash through picket lines.
 
bruto said:
I suppose it sounds reasonable, except that one wonders why the bill, and why here. It kind of depends on what reasonable care is. I'm suspicious. Given the way Tennessee is these days, I suspect reasonable care will be defined as blowing your horn when you smash through picket lines.
Click to expand...

I agree. It would seem that current law would cover such an incident. The fact that it's someone in a protest and not a Shriners' Parade should make no difference. If you exercise reasonable care in your driving, you won't be found at fault in an accident. By specifying protesters/right-of-way it's almost like they're giving a manual on "How to Run Down Black Lives Matter Protesters and Others Whose Views You Disagree With".

To me, "reasonable care" includes "not driving through the intersection while protesters are blocking it". Yeah, yeah.... they are poor hardworking folk who just want to get home to see The Voice, Blind Auditions and get understandably frustrated so running someone down should be cool.

The thing is... some judges in Tennessee may not agree with my version of "reasonable care". I'd think the town with the "Scary Nathan" statue might have a judge or two who'd think, "They got what was coming, blocking traffic and being black at the same time!"
 
I guess I'm disappointed that the modern protest movement has its head so far up its own butt that it actually needs this formally explained to them in a specific law.

It's like all those safety stickers you see on a ladder at the hardware store. Each one of them is there because some jackass did something obviously stupid and wrong, and now the ladder manufacturers have to put these intelligence-insulting stickers on their ladders to forestall jackass lawsuits.
 
Foolmewunz said:
I agree. It would seem that current law would cover such an incident. The fact that it's someone in a protest and not a Shriners' Parade should make no difference. If you exercise reasonable care in your driving, you won't be found at fault in an accident. By specifying protesters/right-of-way it's almost like they're giving a manual on "How to Run Down Black Lives Matter Protesters and Others Whose Views You Disagree With".

To me, "reasonable care" includes "not driving through the intersection while protesters are blocking it". Yeah, yeah.... they are poor hardworking folk who just want to get home to see The Voice, Blind Auditions and get understandably frustrated so running someone down should be cool.

The thing is... some judges in Tennessee may not agree with my version of "reasonable care". I'd think the town with the "Scary Nathan" statue might have a judge or two who'd think, "They got what was coming, blocking traffic and being black at the same time!"
Click to expand...


Reasonable care would be to not block traffic by standing in a roadway in the first place. Reasonable care should be practiced by those breaking the law and putting themselves and motorists in danger.

Not everyone is in a hurry to go home and watch TV. Some may have doctor appointments, job interviews, or some kind of emergency.

If I needed to get through and a mob started surrounding and banging on my car as I slowly tried to pass, I might feel very threatened. I saw a video recently of a driver doing just that - pushing slowly through. Nobody was injured, but if they were, whose fault is it? The driver was scared.

People need to take reponsibility for their own stupidity.
 
Last edited:
bruto said:
I suppose it sounds reasonable, except that one wonders why the bill, and why here. It kind of depends on what reasonable care is. I'm suspicious. Given the way Tennessee is these days, I suspect reasonable care will be defined as blowing your horn when you smash through picket lines.
Click to expand...

For blocking real roads that people could need to be using for hospitals/school problems related I am hard pressed to be against the bill - even if I support the cause. Do not block other people - it never helps your cause with the one's you block!!!!!!! Moreso if some real harm comes to a person who badly needed to get through. And, if it causes a child to be harmed the person who caused it may soon see me or someone like me.
 
mgidm86 said:
Reasonable care would be to not block traffic by standing in a roadway in the first place. Reasonable care should be practiced by those breaking the law and putting themselves and motorists in danger.

Not everyone is in a hurry to go home and watch TV. Some may have doctor appointments, job interviews, or some kind of emergency.

If I needed to get through and a mob started surrounding and banging on my car as I slowly tried to pass, I might feel very threatened. I saw a video recently of a driver doing just that - pushing slowly through. Nobody was injured, but if they were, whose fault is it? The driver was scared.

People need to take reponsibility for their own stupidity.
Click to expand...

Does stupidity not extend to people seeing a group of angry people, but still driving through them?

I love when "breaking the law" gets thrown out into the mix. It is literally the lowest possible bar that can be set as far as "breaking the law" goes. Jaywalking as a group? Obstructing traffic? It's basically condoning causing physical injury if, as you say, "you're scared" or "feel threatened". I thought libbys were the snowflakes around here.

Ironically, North Dakota already passed this, or it was introduced here. The bill was introduced by a guy whose Mommy drove head on into a mob of people and, as you put it, "felt threatened". So what better way to show Mommy you're a big man? Try and pass a law that allows her to straight run people over.
 
mgidm86 said:
Reasonable care would be to not block traffic by standing in a roadway in the first place. Reasonable care should be practiced by those breaking the law and putting themselves and motorists in danger.

Not everyone is in a hurry to go home and watch TV. Some may have doctor appointments, job interviews, or some kind of emergency.

If I needed to get through and a mob started surrounding and banging on my car as I slowly tried to pass, I might feel very threatened. I saw a video recently of a driver doing just that - pushing slowly through. Nobody was injured, but if they were, whose fault is it? The driver was scared.

People need to take reponsibility for their own stupidity.
Click to expand...

In Florida I can blow them away if I am afraid for my life. That is another point the people who think their problem is bad enough to play in traffic should be thinking about much harder. I am not a British soldier surrounded by Irish and afraid to shoot - and they should have shot. If I had been there would have been a dead Irish person for every round in my magazine - note, however the same would have applied to British under other circumstances. I have an equal opportunity rule.
 
I heartily recommend the HK VP9 even though it is lower power than my usuals. But it is very highly rated and came with two magazines each holding 15 rounds as well as modifiable grip pieces!!!! And the sights glow at night/in the dark.
 
plague311 said:
Does stupidity not extend to people seeing a group of angry people, but still driving through them?

I love when "breaking the law" gets thrown out into the mix. It is literally the lowest possible bar that can be set as far as "breaking the law" goes. Jaywalking as a group? Obstructing traffic? It's basically condoning causing physical injury if, as you say, "you're scared" or "feel threatened". I thought libbys were the snowflakes around here.

Ironically, North Dakota already passed this, or it was introduced here. The bill was introduced by a guy whose Mommy drove head on into a mob of people and, as you put it, "felt threatened". So what better way to show Mommy you're a big man? Try and pass a law that allows her to straight run people over.
Click to expand...

Did you read the bill? It doesn't address criminal liability, only civil. My guess is it's an attempt to stave off spurious lawsuits - "So-and-so caused me emotional harm by beeping excessively while I was trying to shout my slogans."
 
mgidm86 said:
Reasonable care would be to not block traffic by standing in a roadway in the first place. Reasonable care should be practiced by those breaking the law and putting themselves and motorists in danger.

Not everyone is in a hurry to go home and watch TV. Some may have doctor appointments, job interviews, or some kind of emergency.

If I needed to get through and a mob started surrounding and banging on my car as I slowly tried to pass, I might feel very threatened. I saw a video recently of a driver doing just that - pushing slowly through. Nobody was injured, but if they were, whose fault is it? The driver was scared.

People need to take reponsibility for their own stupidity.
Click to expand...

This bill is nothing less than a backdoor attempt at making protest more dangerous by encouraging drivers to "push on through" thinking they will be shielded by the new law.
 
marplots said:
Did you read the bill? It doesn't address criminal liability, only civil. My guess is it's an attempt to stave off spurious lawsuits - "So-and-so caused me emotional harm by beeping excessively while I was trying to shout my slogans."
Click to expand...

Judges get paid to decide if lawsuits are spurious or not. I would say they should continue to earn their money.
 
ChristianProgressive said:
This bill is nothing less than a backdoor attempt at making protest more dangerous by encouraging drivers to "push on through" thinking they will be shielded by the new law.
Click to expand...
Actually, this law is a front door attempt at making protest more safe by encouraging protestors to not block public right of way knowing their legal protections are limited there.
 
plague311 said:
Judges get paid to decide if lawsuits are spurious or not. I would say they should continue to earn their money.
Click to expand...

Judges and lawyers, both of whom read the law. If it passes it may very well shape the advice given to clients.
 
mgidm86 said:
Reasonable care would be to not block traffic by standing in a roadway in the first place. Reasonable care should be practiced by those breaking the law and putting themselves and motorists in danger.
Click to expand...
It doesn't matter why someone is in the street, you still have to try not to run them down. Sorry for the inconvenience.

mgidm86 said:
Not everyone is in a hurry to go home and watch TV. Some may have doctor appointments, job interviews, or some kind of emergency.
Click to expand...
Most of those things wouldn't even get you out of a speeding ticket.

mgidm86 said:
If I needed to get through and a mob started surrounding and banging on my car as I slowly tried to pass, I might feel very threatened. I saw a video recently of a driver doing just that - pushing slowly through. Nobody was injured, but if they were, whose fault is it? The driver was scared.
Click to expand...
That would depend on how they got injured and whether the driver was exercising due care. If "I was scared" isn't a good enough excuse for injuring someone outside a protest I don't see why it should be good enough for injuring a protestor.

mgidm86 said:
People need to take reponsibility for their own stupidity.
Click to expand...
What you choose to do with your car is your responsibility, no matter how stupid someone else is.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom