Archived Tennessee Passes Bill Allowing People To Hit Protestors (cscmediagroupus.com)
submitted ago by kytha
Posted by: kytha
Posting time: 3.8 years ago on
Last edit time: never edited.
Archived on: 5/13/2017 10:00:00 AM
Views: 1101
SCP: 104
105 upvotes, 1 downvotes (99% upvoted it)
Archived Tennessee Passes Bill Allowing People To Hit Protestors (cscmediagroupus.com)
submitted ago by kytha
view the rest of the comments →
[–] ShinyVoater 0 points 7 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.
To illustrate, it's more like this and not like this.
[–] 0fsgivin 0 points 5 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago
I don't think the 2nd driver should be charged either. They didnt swerve to plow into anyone.
[–] alternaterightality 0 points 3 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.
[–] kytha [S] 3 points -1 points 2 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.
[–] Thisismyvoatusername 0 points 3 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.
[–] ShinyVoater 2 points -1 points 1 point (+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.