0
1

[–] 8007764? 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

I wish someone would change protestor to the othe p word pedestrian

0
3

[–] wgtt911 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

Some folks will be looking for protests to punch peoples..

0
3

[–] alternaterightality 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

Yeah, got my hopes up that i'd be able to hit them with my fists, guess I'll just have to settle for hitting them with my car instead.

0
13

[–] TychoVoats 0 points 13 points (+13|-0) ago 

I'm torn about this.

On one hand, I don't have an issue with peaceful protests.

On the other hand, the left has started to call outright riots and terrorism "protesting".

I'm all for fucking up rioters and terrorists.

0
3

[–] totes_magotes 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

Nah, it's pretty simple on two fronts:

  1. The street is not a safe space. You shouldn't expect to go out on a road and be safe. That's why you look both ways before crossing. If you expect to be able to protest on a road, you are selfish, stupid, and borderline retarded.

  2. Streets are for cars... That's why there's plenty of regulations already about No Pedestrians on a freaking highway.

This bill gives the laws that exist teeth since police can't be everywhere and moving protestors takes time. People are trying to get to work or to the hospital. There's no way you can tell me that a protest is more important than someone getting to the hospital before they die. Now people need weigh whether or not their protest is important enough to die for without restricting the rights to protest.

0
1

[–] ThisOtherGuy 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

You have the right to protest. You don't have the right to force it upon others. Stopping traffic is life threatening to all involved on the highway. It's dangerous. Those involved should be treated as any other deadly threat.

0
14

[–] Thisismyvoatusername 0 points 14 points (+14|-0) ago 

Anyone who stands in a road on purpose with the intention of impeding traffic flow deserves to get hit. Period.

0
1

[–] WeekendBaker 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

It's a fine edge. You cant just say "oh, there's a protestor, ram him!" But you also want to protect the guy who got stuck in traffic, and now rioters are smashing his windows, and he hits someone in the crowd NOT rioting as he tries to escape. Legal protection for the guy running for his life, but not for the guy who wants to go psychopathic.

0
6

[–] TychoVoats 0 points 6 points (+6|-0) ago 

Well, they're breaking the damn law when they do that, so, alright.

0
6

[–] kytha [S] 0 points 6 points (+6|-0) ago 

I do have a problem with peaceful protests when they interfere with people's lives. Thinking it's your right to stand on a highway is absurd..

Also protesting doesn't accomplish anything.

0
4

[–] TychoVoats 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

Protests can absolutely accomplish things. It's just that the New Left has no fucking idea how to actually do it to positive effect.

[–] [deleted] 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

[Deleted]

2
2

[–] kytha [S] 2 points 2 points (+4|-2) ago 

Other people's lives should never be in danger because some idiots want to hang out and accomplish nothing in the middle of the road. Protesting is seriously pointless. For the most part it's just one person yelling and a bunch of braindeads repeating it. And nobody ever listens to them. It's not like some sort of intellectual conversation.

[–] [deleted] 0 points 6 points (+6|-0) ago 

[Deleted]

0
9

[–] Sikozen 0 points 9 points (+9|-0) ago 

That's kind of misleading. The bill will prevent people stupid enough to play in the street from suing people who might injure them due to their own stupidity.

1
2

[–] kytha [S] 1 point 2 points (+3|-1) ago 

It's about a protestor standing in the middle of the road, you don't see them, and hit them. Same thing as a child playing in the road, you don't see them, and hit them. How is one misleading and the other isn't?

0
1

[–] Sikozen 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

It's about a protestor standing in the middle of the road, you don't see them, and hit them. Same thing as a child playing in the road, you don't see them, and hit them. How is one misleading and the other isn't?

These are not children playing in the street being hit by a car. These are idiots putting themselves in danger deliberately and then attempting to sue because they're fucking stupid. And you shouldn't be allowed to do it because it's fucking scummy.

0
7

[–] ShinyVoater 0 points 7 points (+7|-0) ago 

The title implies that the bill gives the all clear for drivers to compete for the highest score. All this does is remove any liability if a non-negligent driver hurts someone attempting to get their car out of the illegal thicket.

SECTION 1. Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 29, Chapter 34, Part 2, is amended by adding the following as a new section:
(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.
(b) A person shall not be immune from civil liability if the actions leading to the injury were willful or wanton. SECTION 2. This act shall take effect July 1, 2017, the public welfare requiring it.

To illustrate, it's more like this and not like this.

2
5

[–] pinkmagnet 2 points 5 points (+7|-2) ago 

Punch a commie. A long and beautiful history in America.