You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

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.

0
5

[–] 0fsgivin 0 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago 

I don't think the 2nd driver should be charged either. They didnt swerve to plow into anyone.

0
3

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

Agreed, in neither case the driver should be charged, the dumbass in the second vid are running out in front of traffic, at night, on a highway. What the fuck did she think was going to happen?However, the person jumping up and down on the hood of the car in the first video like a goddamn orangutan should have the book thrown at him.

3
-1

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

If you legitimately thought they made it legal for you to go out and run over whoever you want, you are a complete idiot - and I will not dumb down my titles for your lack of intelligence. Don't be so gullible. Don't read headlines. Read articles. Put your brain to work.

0
3

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

The fact they haven't made it legal to run over pedestrians doesn't mean they shouldn't do so. I think it would be good for the economy, personally.

2
-1

[–] ShinyVoater 2 points -1 points (+1|-2) ago 

The only argument in your favor is that the misleading headline is taken directly from the article; if you'd chosen this title yourself, you'd be unable to claim it was anything but deliberately inaccurate editorialization. Whether or not I read the article has nothing to do with a defect in your post.