if it's committed in a vehicle on a roadway due to negligence? Apparently some members of the North Dakota legislature, and some members of this forum, think there should be no legal consequences for killing someone with your car if they are obstructing traffic. Here's the bill they want passed. It's supposed to be a direct response to pipeline protesters. How many of them do you think would have taken such a position in 2009, after Obama had been elected, when TEA party protesters were out and about.
This bill also outlines pedestrian safety and only is for unintentional death. Unintentional road deaths are not really punishable widespread in the first place unless there was a substance involved. Are you whining for the sake of whining?
I think it is an example of decriminalization, not legalization. There is an important distinction. "Negligently causing injury or death" negligence is still against the law and illegal, but you cannot be guilty of an offense.
It doesn't outline pedestrian safety. It amends 39-10-33 only by adding the wantonly worded clause 5. Clauses 1 through 4 were already there and would not be changed by the bill. The difference between the code as it stands and the effect of this bill is the requirement that drivers exercise due care. Here's the existing legal requirement in ND that the bill would lift: " Notwithstanding other provisions of this chapter or the provisions of any local ordinance, every driver of a vehicle shall exercise due care to avoid colliding with any pedestrian and shall give warning by sounding the horn when necessary and shall exercise proper precaution upon observing any child or any confused, incapacitated, or intoxicated person. " Every state has a similar requirement. It's just common sense when your operating a heavy, hard, fast moving thing that can kill people The bill would legitimize negligent homicide.
I don't think that's right in this case. We have a natural obligation to try not to kill people for getting in our way. Since natural prohibitions can't be created, the acts they prohibit can't be criminalized as they're already criminal in a null state of affairs. Besides, using precise wording on a discussion forum is a waste of effort.
Meh, I see what you're saying, but I'm just thinking about the waste of time and money it is to send it to court, when the outcome is the same. If someone accidentally hits someone, it's an accident. If someone intentionally hits someone, it's a crime. It someone accidentally hits someone yet they are under the influence, it's a crime. Should be very cut and dry.
I agree that law should be very cut and dry, but there are so many possibilities in the actual world that running into cases where liability is hard to determine can't be avoided over time even where the law is crystal clear. Criminal negligence, for example, could be stuff like failure to clean a dirty windshield, failure to align headlights, or even forgoing a judgement call like pressing the brake pedal on the assumption that the person will get out of the way in time.
A driver shouldn't have to expect pedestrians to be intentionally blocking the road. There are blind turns and blind areas after bridges. This bill removes the legal right to obstruct traffic intentionally. It removes the criminal liability from the driver for the stupidity of the protester. If you are driving down the interstate at night and somebody runs across the freeway wearing dark clothes, how can a driver be found negligent if he runs the guy over? Do we need to lower all speed limits to 20mph or outlaw cars altogether? Idiots were blocking I35 in Dallas last year at night.
