6 ms·

You should provide proof of actual law/bill, penal code and case law where what you claim was applied before posting bigoted comments on entire state. Edit: Di

You should provide proof of actual law/bill, penal code and case law where what you claim was applied before posting bigoted comments on entire state. Edit: Did you even bother to read the law before you commented?, the first fkin line, and (b), Line (1) burden of proof is on the defendant, not the prosecution, it will be judged by his peers. The (2) will fail if protestors are on allowed/blocked road ways and will only apply if protestors are illegally on non-permitted road ways. (1) the person operating the motor vehicle was exercising due care; and (2) the person injured was blocking traffic in a public right-of-way while participating in a protest or demonstration. (b) This section does not affect a person's liability for an injury caused by grossly negligent conduct.

dylan604 5y ago
https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/851/billtext/html/HB00250I.htm https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/851/billtext/html/HB00250I... what else can I google for you? While I agree the "whole state" is a really big brush to be painting with, it's not an inaccurate description of what the state legislature is doing.
- barbacoa 5y ago
  >what else can I google for you? I don't think asking for clarification was an unreasonable ask. Too many people today use emotional charged rewordings to describe things. It's honestly hard at times to know what people are referring to anymore.
  - dylan604 5y ago
    I'm glad that the cat is no longer being killed by curiosity. You can dismiss anything because no proof, or you can prove to yourself yay/nay. It took seconds to find the specific texas legislation. It's not like it was hidden. You can then come back and say, "hey i tried looking for this in a websearch, but it was too muddled. got something more definitive?" vs "i don't believe you so the onus on you."
    - benchaney 5y ago
      The onus is inherently on the person making the claim to support it with evidence. That is just how burden of proof works. That aside, people supporting their own claims with evidence provides a whole host of secondary benefits. It makes it more clear makes it more clear who is claiming what, it pushes back somewhat on the problem of "it takes an order of magnitude more effort to produce bullshit than to refute it", and it prevents some obnoxious debate tactics that reduce discussion quality. To be honest it don't understand why anyone would advocate any other convention on a discussion board. It seems super short sighted to me.
      - dylan604 5y ago
        Because the person doing the claiming is only going to provide links that support their claim. Only a bad debater would make the other person's argument for them. Do your own searching would allow exposure to both sides of an argument.
        benchaney 5y ago
        That is backwards, because the second person has their own biases, so that person is going to give evidence that is biased against the original claim. The only way to get strong evidence on both sides of the argument is for both participants to supply evidence that supports their own arguments.
        lolinder 5y ago
        That someone is likely to provide biased sources when asked for them isn't a reason to just shrug and allow unsourced claims to go unchallenged. It doesn't matter whether or not djanogo could have found the bill on their own (from their edit, it looks like they did read it), the point is that it was irresponsible for the original poster to have made unsourced claims in such an inflamatory tone. If the sources they provide are biased and therefore suspect, that is a separate concern that can then be addressed. But having some source for your claims is table stakes for an intelligent discussion.
- refurb 5y ago
  “Legal to mow down protestors” is about as disingenuous of a take on that law as one could imagine. It basically says if someone is protesting in the middle of the road and a driver taking reasonable precautions hits them they aren’t liable. Seems entirely reasonable to me.
decebalus1 5y ago
Here's one: http://www.oklegislature.gov/BillInfo.aspx?Bill=HB1674&Session=2100 http://www.oklegislature.gov/BillInfo.aspx?Bill=HB1674&Sessi... > It was introduced in response to a widely publicized incident in Tulsa last May when a pickup truck drove through a crowd that had gathered on an interstate to protest the police killing of George Floyd. > The truck, which was pulling a horse trailer, hit and injured three people, including a 33-year-old man who was left paralyzed from the waist down after falling from an overpass. > The Tulsa County District Attorney's Office announced in July it would not press charges against the driver, writing in a memo that he, his wife and two children were all "in a state of immediate fear for their safety" and had been the victims of a "violent and unprovoked attack by multiple individuals who unnecessarily escalated an already dangerous circumstance by obstructing an interstate highway."
- HelixEndeavor 5y ago
  The DA made the right call.
  - decebalus1 5y ago
    Sure, whatever, thanks for the valuable and really well argumented input. I, however, don't know much about the specifics of the case in order to have an opinion about what the DA did. My only opinion is that the new laws are risky, as anyone can claim they were scared for their lives, especially in places where black people are considered 'scary'. I'm not a law expert but I'd be willing to bet that if a black dude ran over a pack of armed proud boys would have resulted in a completely different law. And for anyone asking why I say that, look up the Mulford Act.
mint2 5y ago
Out of curiosity were all the 60’s civil rights marches permitted or would this law have, if passed earlier, allowed segregationists to run the marchers down if an all white jury (keeping with the times) was “convinced” the driver was “exercising due care”
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- HelixEndeavor 5y ago
  They would have been protected under this legislation because if the road has been appropriately blocked off by the police then the law doesn't apply.
  - markdown 5y ago
    So in order to stop protesters, all the police would have to do is not provide a venue (not block off the road). "Go ahead and march without police support if you want, while people will legally slaughter the lot of you with their cars."
    - rsj_hn 5y ago
      > So in order to stop protesters, No, in order to stop protesters from blocking traffic, then that is all the police need to do. The protestors can always protest in a park or literally anywhere other than in the middle of roads. In a just society, some group's right to protest does not take priority over everyone else's right to travel and use roads. Roads do not belong to activists, and no activist group has a right to shut down public roads without arranging this with police ahead of time so that appropriate detours can be made for normal traffic.
      - prosody 5y ago
        A society in which civil rights protesters unlawfully marched over the Edmund Pettus Bridge, interrupting traffic, and withstood the violent attempts at suppression by Alabama state troopers, forcing the nation to confront its fundamental injustice and pass the Voting Rights Act of 1965, is _in every single way_ a more just society in which the 'right' of travelers to pass over that bridge on March 7, 1965 is kept sacrosanct.
Sebguer 5y ago
You realize that most protests that block roads are on roads that they're not permitted to be on, right?
MadeThisToReply 5y ago
What does "due care" mean here? Does it have a specific legal meaning? How is it possible to kill someone with your car while exercising "due care"?
- 8note 5y ago
  I imagine due care means choosing the correct people to run down. Some people's lives are less valuable to society than others
- s1artibartfast 5y ago
  What if some one is protesting in all black on a highway bind turn?
  - ryan_lane 5y ago
    No one protests in a highway at night, alone, in a blind turn. When people protest on the highway, they do it in numbers large enough to stop the traffic. Your argument is disingenuous.
    - s1artibartfast 5y ago
      I disagree that it never happens, but take it as a hypothetical test case. what then?
      - ryan_lane 5y ago
        The devil doesn't need an advocate.
        s1artibartfast 5y ago
        Im not playing devils advocate, I was answering a question. >How is it possible to kill someone with your car while exercising "due care"? It is extremely easy to kill someone with a 2 ton piece of metal traveling 70+ miles an hour. Surely, even if you don't believe a protestors has ever been on a low visibility road, you can understand that they could be. There are limitations to how fast cars can react to pedestrians being where they aren't supposed to be.
Thorrez 5y ago
>only apply if protestors are illegally on non-permitted road ways. You say that as if it's uncommon for protesters to be protesting on non-permitted roadways. I think it's quite common. Also, is there a difference between being "illegally on non-permitted road ways" and jaywalking?

dylan604 5y ago

https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/851/billtext/html/HB00250I.htm https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/851/billtext/html/HB00250I... what else can I google for you? While I agree the "whole state" is a really big brush to be painting with, it's not an inaccurate description of what the state legislature is doing.

barbacoa 5y ago
>what else can I google for you? I don't think asking for clarification was an unreasonable ask. Too many people today use emotional charged rewordings to describe things. It's honestly hard at times to know what people are referring to anymore.
- dylan604 5y ago
  I'm glad that the cat is no longer being killed by curiosity. You can dismiss anything because no proof, or you can prove to yourself yay/nay. It took seconds to find the specific texas legislation. It's not like it was hidden. You can then come back and say, "hey i tried looking for this in a websearch, but it was too muddled. got something more definitive?" vs "i don't believe you so the onus on you."
  - benchaney 5y ago
    The onus is inherently on the person making the claim to support it with evidence. That is just how burden of proof works. That aside, people supporting their own claims with evidence provides a whole host of secondary benefits. It makes it more clear makes it more clear who is claiming what, it pushes back somewhat on the problem of "it takes an order of magnitude more effort to produce bullshit than to refute it", and it prevents some obnoxious debate tactics that reduce discussion quality. To be honest it don't understand why anyone would advocate any other convention on a discussion board. It seems super short sighted to me.
    - dylan604 5y ago
      Because the person doing the claiming is only going to provide links that support their claim. Only a bad debater would make the other person's argument for them. Do your own searching would allow exposure to both sides of an argument.
      - benchaney 5y ago
        That is backwards, because the second person has their own biases, so that person is going to give evidence that is biased against the original claim. The only way to get strong evidence on both sides of the argument is for both participants to supply evidence that supports their own arguments.
      - lolinder 5y ago
        That someone is likely to provide biased sources when asked for them isn't a reason to just shrug and allow unsourced claims to go unchallenged. It doesn't matter whether or not djanogo could have found the bill on their own (from their edit, it looks like they did read it), the point is that it was irresponsible for the original poster to have made unsourced claims in such an inflamatory tone. If the sources they provide are biased and therefore suspect, that is a separate concern that can then be addressed. But having some source for your claims is table stakes for an intelligent discussion.
refurb 5y ago
“Legal to mow down protestors” is about as disingenuous of a take on that law as one could imagine. It basically says if someone is protesting in the middle of the road and a driver taking reasonable precautions hits them they aren’t liable. Seems entirely reasonable to me.

decebalus1 5y ago

Here's one: http://www.oklegislature.gov/BillInfo.aspx?Bill=HB1674&Session=2100 http://www.oklegislature.gov/BillInfo.aspx?Bill=HB1674&Sessi... > It was introduced in response to a widely publicized incident in Tulsa last May when a pickup truck drove through a crowd that had gathered on an interstate to protest the police killing of George Floyd. > The truck, which was pulling a horse trailer, hit and injured three people, including a 33-year-old man who was left paralyzed from the waist down after falling from an overpass. > The Tulsa County District Attorney's Office announced in July it would not press charges against the driver, writing in a memo that he, his wife and two children were all "in a state of immediate fear for their safety" and had been the victims of a "violent and unprovoked attack by multiple individuals who unnecessarily escalated an already dangerous circumstance by obstructing an interstate highway."

HelixEndeavor 5y ago
The DA made the right call.
- decebalus1 5y ago
  Sure, whatever, thanks for the valuable and really well argumented input. I, however, don't know much about the specifics of the case in order to have an opinion about what the DA did. My only opinion is that the new laws are risky, as anyone can claim they were scared for their lives, especially in places where black people are considered 'scary'. I'm not a law expert but I'd be willing to bet that if a black dude ran over a pack of armed proud boys would have resulted in a completely different law. And for anyone asking why I say that, look up the Mulford Act.

mint2 5y ago

Out of curiosity were all the 60’s civil rights marches permitted or would this law have, if passed earlier, allowed segregationists to run the marchers down if an all white jury (keeping with the times) was “convinced” the driver was “exercising due care”

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
HelixEndeavor 5y ago
They would have been protected under this legislation because if the road has been appropriately blocked off by the police then the law doesn't apply.
- markdown 5y ago
  So in order to stop protesters, all the police would have to do is not provide a venue (not block off the road). "Go ahead and march without police support if you want, while people will legally slaughter the lot of you with their cars."
  - rsj_hn 5y ago
    > So in order to stop protesters, No, in order to stop protesters from blocking traffic, then that is all the police need to do. The protestors can always protest in a park or literally anywhere other than in the middle of roads. In a just society, some group's right to protest does not take priority over everyone else's right to travel and use roads. Roads do not belong to activists, and no activist group has a right to shut down public roads without arranging this with police ahead of time so that appropriate detours can be made for normal traffic.
    - prosody 5y ago
      A society in which civil rights protesters unlawfully marched over the Edmund Pettus Bridge, interrupting traffic, and withstood the violent attempts at suppression by Alabama state troopers, forcing the nation to confront its fundamental injustice and pass the Voting Rights Act of 1965, is _in every single way_ a more just society in which the 'right' of travelers to pass over that bridge on March 7, 1965 is kept sacrosanct.

Sebguer 5y ago

You realize that most protests that block roads are on roads that they're not permitted to be on, right?

MadeThisToReply 5y ago

What does "due care" mean here? Does it have a specific legal meaning? How is it possible to kill someone with your car while exercising "due care"?

8note 5y ago
I imagine due care means choosing the correct people to run down. Some people's lives are less valuable to society than others
s1artibartfast 5y ago
What if some one is protesting in all black on a highway bind turn?
- ryan_lane 5y ago
  No one protests in a highway at night, alone, in a blind turn. When people protest on the highway, they do it in numbers large enough to stop the traffic. Your argument is disingenuous.
  - s1artibartfast 5y ago
    I disagree that it never happens, but take it as a hypothetical test case. what then?
    - ryan_lane 5y ago
      The devil doesn't need an advocate.
      - s1artibartfast 5y ago
        Im not playing devils advocate, I was answering a question. >How is it possible to kill someone with your car while exercising "due care"? It is extremely easy to kill someone with a 2 ton piece of metal traveling 70+ miles an hour. Surely, even if you don't believe a protestors has ever been on a low visibility road, you can understand that they could be. There are limitations to how fast cars can react to pedestrians being where they aren't supposed to be.

Thorrez 5y ago

>only apply if protestors are illegally on non-permitted road ways. You say that as if it's uncommon for protesters to be protesting on non-permitted roadways. I think it's quite common. Also, is there a difference between being "illegally on non-permitted road ways" and jaywalking?