Oklahoma bill to protect drivers who run over protesters signed into law

[Huckleberry 32702]

9 hours ago, Poolflood said:

Surely you understand the difference between civilians and cops?  

Yes, civilians are far smarter on average and are consequently typically held to a much higher standard. 

[Dahobbs 17447]

10 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

Actually, poolflood does have a point.  The circumstances under which "immunity" is granted pretty much exclude everything but good faith accidents.

And to washpark's point about discretion, there's enough fact questions in that statute that a goodly number of cases could be prosecuted where there's questions about the "good faith" of the driver (necessary fleeing, due care).

So the media is rather mischaracterizing it.  And Oklahoma Rs fucking love it.

Because this is another law that's more about symbolism than good policy.  And that's about all the GOP is good for.  Kudos, I guess, for actually passing a law, that's different.

Yeah, I agree. It doesn't seem like the bill really changes anything. I also think the definition of riot is missing from this discussion.

Oklahoma Statutes §21-1311 (2019) - Riot defined. :: 2019 Oklahoma Statutes :: US Codes and Statutes :: US Law :: Justia

"Any use of force or violence, or any threat to use force or violence if accompained [sic] by immediate power of execution, by three or more persons acting together and without authority of law, is riot."

I really have no idea what "immediate power of execution" means. But this is going to be a difficult set of a conditions to meet. I guess the main practical change this law may accomplish is some shifting of the burden of proof in this rare set of circumstances. And it isn't even clear that it does that. Hell, I would think that even if a defendant was in the position of potentially taking advantage of this defense that it would be far easier to argue normal self-defense. Otherwise, the defense attorney would spend a bunch of time distracted by whether there was actually "three or more persons acting together" using or threatening violence with "immediate power of execution."

Edited April 26, 2021 by Dahobbs

[wildcat09 29256]

The point of these laws is to encourage more Charlottesvilles by making terrorists think they can get away with it.

[Dahobbs 17447]

2 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

The point of these laws is to encourage more Charlottesvilles by making terrorists think they can get away with it.

I assume the point is to get somebody re-elected. I don't think the law is actually going to do much to change behavior. If somebody actually wanted to encourage more dangerous conduct, they would create a law that actually provided some additional protection for that conduct. This law doesn't do that. It is mere "virtue signaling," which the DT crowd so often rails against. 

[DonkeyCigars 144]

I almost wonder if the law is passed to deter people from blocking the highway and roads as the normal folks without a dog in the fight of whatever protest du jour can be unencumbered and unmolested and that the silent majority was really just annoyed, and this was their lawmakers pushing back. Makes you think, at least.

Edited April 26, 2021 by DonkeyCigars

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

11 minutes ago, DonkeyCigars said:

I almost wonder if the law is passed to deter people from blocking the highway and roads as the normal folks without a dog in the fight of whatever protest du jour can be unencumbered and unmolested and that the silent majority was really just annoyed, and this was their lawmakers pushing back. Makes you think, at least.

That can't be it....  but the tragic results will come as people think they have immunity to drive thru a crowd, and cry wolf.

Edited April 26, 2021 by Onboard 2.0

[WhatTheBuck 28712]

2 hours ago, Poolflood said:

I can differentiate between a stupid headline and what the bill says.  Where did I excuse the cops?  The bill is aimed at civilians.  You really that obtuse?

Your honor, it was an accident! I swear! I feared for my life! Honestly!

I’m pretty sure I’ve got a read on you. 

[Dahobbs 17447]

27 minutes ago, DonkeyCigars said:

I almost wonder if the law is passed to deter people from blocking the highway and roads as the normal folks without a dog in the fight of whatever protest du jour can be unencumbered and unmolested and that the silent majority was really just annoyed, and this was their lawmakers pushing back. Makes you think, at least.

The portion that grants immunity doesn't have any real connection to the portion that criminalizes blocking the street. 

19 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

That can't be it....  but the tragic results will come as people think they have immunity to drive thru a crowd, and cry wolf.

This is actually a good point. People may think the law says something that it does not. You may actually see a murder conviction come out of this at some point because an idiot thinks this law allows him to drive through some protestors. 

Edited April 26, 2021 by Dahobbs

[gmr548 16513]

Can someone explain to me how this isn’t a clear violation of the first amendment?

[Dahobbs 17447]

1 minute ago, gmr548 said:

Can someone explain to me how this isn’t a clear violation of the first amendment?

I don't see much implication of the first amendment at all. It doesn't outlaw protests. It just adds more criminal penalties to blocking the street, which was likely already illegal.  

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

3 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

The portion that grants immunity doesn't have any real connection to the portion that criminalizes blocking the street. 

This is actually a good point. People may think the law says something that it does not. You may actually see a murder conviction come out of this at some point because an idiot thinks this law allows him to drive through some protestors. 

Oh you know that'll happen. Somebodies gonna come out with the don't start shit won't be shit defense. Or the popular you mess with the horns you get the bull defense.

[RomaVicta 29793]

On 4/24/2021 at 11:45 PM, Beau Vine said:

You left off Texas.

Ouch!

[gmr548 16513]

I don't see much implication of the first amendment at all. It doesn't outlaw protests. It just adds more criminal penalties to blocking the street, which was likely already illegal.  

That makes sense from a legal standpoint. The spirit of the law is obviously to curb protests/assembly, though. Despite posting on surly, I’m no lawyer and am not an expert on where that line is drawn. I assume it’ll be tested in court.

[Dahobbs 17447]

Just now, gmr548 said:

That makes sense from a legal standpoint. The spirit of the law is obviously to curb protests/assembly, though. Despite posting on surly, I’m no lawyer and am not an expert on where that line is drawn. I assume it’ll be tested in court.

Facially, the law is neutral and there is a reasonable basis for regulating conduct on public roadways. Here is the actual law:

• "Every person who shall unlawfully obstruct the normal use of any public street, highway or road within this state by impeding, hindering or restraining motor vehicle traffic or passage thereon, by standing or approaching motor vehicles thereon, or by endangering the safe movement of motor vehicles or pedestrians traveling thereon shall, upon conviction, be guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment in the county jail for a term not exceeding one (1) year, or by a fine of not less than One Hundred Dollars ($100.00) and not exceeding Five Thousand Dollars ($5,000.00), or by both such fine and imprisonment. In addition, the person shall be liable for all damages to person or property by reason of the same. As used in this paragraph, "obstruct" means to render impassable or to render passage unreasonably inconvenient or hazardous."

I don't see much of a basis for a challenge under the first amendment. Now, the law may be impermissibly vague. And it could have some interesting unintended consequences. For instance, the guy collecting donations for the fire department or the police may violate this provision due to "impeding motor vehicle traffic" by "approaching motor vehicles thereon" such that it renders "passage unreasonably inconvenient." 

Constitutionally, a related provision might be more problematic:

• "If an organization is found to be a conspirator with persons who are found to have committed any of the crimes described in Sections 1311 through 1320.5 and 1320.10 of Title 21 of the Oklahoma Statutes, the conspiring organization shall be punished by a fine that is ten times the amount of said fine authorized by the appropriate provision."

 

[RomaVicta 29793]

4 hours ago, wildcat09 said:

The point of these laws is to encourage more Charlottesvilles by making terrorists think they can get away with it.

 

4 hours ago, Dahobbs said:

I assume the point is to get somebody re-elected. I don't think the law is actually going to do much to change behavior. If somebody actually wanted to encourage more dangerous conduct, they would create a law that actually provided some additional protection for that conduct. This law doesn't do that. It is mere "virtue signaling," which the DT crowd so often rails against. 

 

3 hours ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

That can't be it....  but the tragic results will come as people think they have immunity to drive thru a crowd, and cry wolf.

 

3 hours ago, Dahobbs said:

This is actually a good point. People may think the law says something that it does not. You may actually see a murder conviction come out of this at some point because an idiot thinks this law allows him to drive through some protestors. 

You guys nail it as far as I'm concerned.

I look at this in the context of the Second Amendment not the First. It's very much, "you can have the bloody bumper on my pick-up when you pry my cold, dead hand from the steering wheel."

The government will come to your home. The Second Amendment was created to you could blast your way out and join the other Freedom Fighters in the hills. (Stupid, macho, gun-mythology appeal to unfounded fears)

You and your family will be surrounded by a mob of Antifa, murderin'/rapin' Mexicans, and BLM rioters. YOUR FAMILY!!!! By God, you have every right to protect your family and take down a couple of commie-libs at the same time!

Idiot World: The Movie*

*Not founded in reality or even sanity. Side effects include threatened masculinity, childish worldviews, and undetermined consequences for the perineum. Consult AM Radio about how Idiot World can include you.

[RomaVicta 29793]

3 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

Facially, the law is neutral and there is a reasonable basis for regulating conduct on public roadways. Here is the actual law:

• "Every person who shall unlawfully obstruct the normal use of any public street, highway or road within this state by impeding, hindering or restraining motor vehicle traffic or passage thereon, by standing or approaching motor vehicles thereon, or by endangering the safe movement of motor vehicles or pedestrians traveling thereon shall, upon conviction, be guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment in the county jail for a term not exceeding one (1) year, or by a fine of not less than One Hundred Dollars ($100.00) and not exceeding Five Thousand Dollars ($5,000.00), or by both such fine and imprisonment. In addition, the person shall be liable for all damages to person or property by reason of the same. As used in this paragraph, "obstruct" means to render impassable or to render passage unreasonably inconvenient or hazardous."

I don't see much of a basis for a challenge under the first amendment. Now, the law may be impermissibly vague. And it could have some interesting unintended consequences. For instance, the guy collecting donations for the fire department or the police may violate this provision due to "impeding motor vehicle traffic" by "approaching motor vehicles thereon" such that it renders "passage unreasonably inconvenient." 

Constitutionally, a related provision might be more problematic:

• "If an organization is found to be a conspirator with persons who are found to have committed any of the crimes described in Sections 1311 through 1320.5 and 1320.10 of Title 21 of the Oklahoma Statutes, the conspiring organization shall be punished by a fine that is ten times the amount of said fine authorized by the appropriate provision."

 

Heh heh. He said facial.

[elfenix 34171]

On 4/25/2021 at 7:01 AM, Nice Guy Eddie said:

Several states are also looking into denial of govt benefits if convicted of illegal protesting or participation in protests that result in property damage. Talking unemployment, state based welfare, housing assistance, etc. 

the message is clear to poor people, protest at your own economic risk. You don’t have a right to protest if you ever want assistance.  Very vindictive of certain govts.

oklahoma has been at this shit a while:

https://law.justia.com/codes/oklahoma/2019/title-21/section-21-1792/

[lmao 178]

On 4/24/2021 at 9:02 PM, UDontKnow said:

I can't see how the Federal Supreme Court will allow it to stand as it is currently constructed. I get the blocking a public street (and actually agree with it - should only protest in designated areas to prevent fire, EMS, and police from getting blocked or delayed in responding to emergencies). But automatic criminal and civil immunity is over the top - where is the burden of proof of intent to flee a so-called riot? 

What about when they block public buses & regular working class people? They're trying to get home from a long day at work, they got kids, obligations, they're barely scraping by. Why fuck with these ppl? Protest those with actual power.

[UDontKnow 10439]

Just now, lmao said:

What about when they block public buses & regular working class people? They're trying to get home from a long day at work, they got kids, obligations, they're barely scraping by. Why fuck with these ppl? Protest those with actual power.

Re-read my post - specifically the parenthetical text.

['stache 21774]

1. It's unnecessary because, as written, you could make this argument already if you were exercising due care, felt legitimately threatened, and unintentionally made contact with someone blocking a street. The purpose of putting this on the books is to say "fuck you" to BLM and anyone else who wants to protest injustice. You know goddamned well this doesn't apply if the protest is a right wing mob (sorry, "patriots").

2. It is dangerous because, like someone said, the headlines reflect the intent (fuck you BLM) but not what it actually says, so I guarantee you someone very soon will plow through a BLM protest thinking that it is allowed. So people will die unnecessarily, which also is the legislatures intent (BLM protesters deserve to die, you know, because any black person or liberal that delays your trip to arby's is a capital offense).  

3. They wrote it so it probably is constitutional, but I guarantee you it will be applied incorrectly. A racist prosecutor will misrepresent the statute and refuse to indict a murderer for killing a BLM protester in the streets. Or a trial will misapply it and when the murderer is acquitted there can be no appeal by the state. 

This has a very obvious purpose, and it is purely racist and an attack on anyone who dares question police power and inequalities facing minorities.

[TexasEd 8064]

On 4/24/2021 at 9:17 PM, Satchel said:

Republicans want to outlaw everything they don’t like. 

 

On 4/24/2021 at 9:37 PM, BrickHorn said:

These fascist MAGA dipshits sure went from “A Berkeley student disagreeing with me violates my sacred free speech rights!” to “We should be allowed to brutally murder anyone at a public assembly!” in record time. 

 

On 4/24/2021 at 11:05 PM, Pato del Muerto said:

Is it any different than the self defense castle shooting laws to scotus?

 

18 hours ago, Satchel said:

How is claiming you ran protesters down because you feared for your life different from shooting someone because you were told in your gun class to always claim fear before unloading into your target?

 

I think the real test of this is going to be when a group of these guys gets run over for truly scaring the crap out of a motorist.