One man beat the odds and is now dead. Talk to his family about chances.You've probably got a bigger chance of getting killed by an asteroid. Better go buy some asteroid insurance.
One man beat the odds and is now dead. Talk to his family about chances.You've probably got a bigger chance of getting killed by an asteroid. Better go buy some asteroid insurance.
My guess would be the right to not be falsely imprisoned.1st Amendment covers protests. Which one covers your right to drive unimpeded?
In fact, any person who intentionally restricts another's freedom of movement without their consent (and without legal justification) may be liable for false imprisonment, which is both a crime and a civil wrong. It can occur in a room, on the streets, or even in a moving vehicle—just as long as the subject is unable to move freely, against his or her will.
Similarly, "false arrest" is when someone arrests another individual without the legal authority to do so, which becomes false imprisonment the moment he or she is taken into custody.
Maybe right now. But if we allow interstate protests to become the norm the chances increase drastically.You've probably got a bigger chance of getting killed by an asteroid. Better go buy some asteroid insurance.
I would say the IX Amendment.1st Amendment covers protests. Which one covers your right to drive unimpeded?
Because the two scenarios are EXACTLY alike.You snowflakes are right. Impeding traffic has no place in protests. Someone impedes traffic , they should be shot. Just like they probably did to tank man.
So you guys are the only ones that get to sit here and say 1+1=3. Got itBecause the two scenarios are EXACTLY alike.
Who exactly are "you guys"? You are the only person making absurd comparisons here.So you guys are the only ones that get to sit here and say 1+1=3. Got it
If I'm driving and have to choose which one lives and which one dies, guess who loses?You're right. Here's to hoping we get stuck in traffic from these great American citizens during a medical emergency and get to watch a family member die in our car. :cheers2:
If you're dead, it won't do you much good.This is awesome, I can hop in front of a moving car, and when you hit me, it will be your fault.
LOL, that's an impressively dense comparison. I applaud you.You snowflakes are right. Impeding traffic has no place in protests. Someone impedes traffic , they should be shot. Just like they probably did to tank man.
Even the ACLU acknowledges that blocking streets without a permit is illegal. Do you believe just because one is protesting they can do whatever they wish?1st Amendment covers protests.
Whoa now. That's making it as simplistic as possible.1st Amendment covers protests.
We are not endorsing anyone running over a person with a car, whether it is protestors or anyone else. If someone intentionally harms a person, they are going to be charged with a crime, period.
It doesn't mean a person can't be sued if they hit a protester; it just shifts the line where responsibility meets, so to speak. Now the protester has to show not only that he was struck, but also that the person driving was being negligent in some manner. It does not permit or protect negligence except accidentally if the protester can't show it. I don't have a problem with that, though. The flip side is the driver would have to show this person was in fact a protester and not a normal pedestrian.By the way, I misread "civil" as "criminal" in my mind multiple times. This isn't as sick obviously...I think it sends the wrong message though. Someone will make the same mistake I did and think they can run over protesters with impunity now.
No, not for me. At the same time, being "civilized" automatically assumes that you conduct yourself according to the rules of society. In this case I think it means it means "If you'll stay out of the roadway, I agree to not drive on the sidewalk."Protestors shouldn't block streets.
Protestors blocking streets shouldn't be run over.
Is that too hard to understand in a civilized society?