I disagree with the essential message of this article. I know it's a very difficult issue however, I think if you protest along a street that's fine; in the street, no. People have been trapped, harassed, pulled from their cars and beaten. Look at the mob doing property damage in DC and other places today. That's what I believe we're talking about. How do you, an honest citizen going about your business or simply trying to get to your home and a mob surrounds your car; banging on it, gesturing threateningly. I have seen this done repeatedly by those who support HRC when they caused awful problems at Trump rallies. I do not believe this law is on the slippery slope to tyranny. On the contrary, the mobs have been allowed to run wild in the streets; literally, and that is not conducive to a civil society.

Spot on.

AGREE, Protest is one thing but turn into riot and I feel the gov should start shooting once turn violent. Have snipers ready to take out garbage, no question asked

Should Walmart install snipers in their stores to shoot shoplifters, following your logic?

Walmart is a private business on their OWN property, any protestors on Walmart property MUST, MUST have permission to be on that property or can be FORCEFULLY REMOVED by law enforcement! A shoplifter is NOT involved in a violent act--it IS a criminal act but is NOT targeted at harming others physically. ANY school kid understands that--DIDya' even go to school?

I guess I didn't go to the same law school that you did, or else, I didn't sleep through the module on private property law in public domains.

Even YOU have a 'right' to allow or disallow ANYBODY on your property unless they have a legal right to-that means a utility observing their right of way tolerance or law enforcement by warrant. The problem with these situations such as what happened in DC Friday, local officials are reluctant to act--leaving law enforcement taking the brunt of hostilities or someone unfortunate enough to be caught up in the violence without their intent. IT SHOULD NOT BE TOLERATED--violent attack should be MET WITH VIOLENT REACTION from law enforcement. IF the 'bully' isn't met with resistance, the bully only becomes a larger problem. Once a law is broken, 'protest' becomes an unlawful act requiring police action. Remember, the POLICE are not there to protect YOU particularly--THEIR DUTY IS TO UPHOLD LAWS OF COMMUNITY/CITY/STATE who employed them.

Right of way became passée with the introduction of exigent circumstances. Since police departments are standing armies, and they have been hung out to dry by too many pusillanimous courts, they have become reluctant to do anything that might be considered by some activist judge to be an application of excessive force. Once a crime has been committed, the right to protest is no longer an affirmative defence. The police have been held to never have a duty to defend anyone, just the power to enforce the will of the authorities by which they are employed, regardless of whether that will is lawful, or not. Such lawfulness is for subsequent judicial officials to determine. You have the absolute right to protect your life and property, but be careful about how vociferously you do so.

Well, I don't agree with police being a 'standing army', they exist for COMMUNITY and can only act in accordance with their legal districts and laws unless authorized by higher authority--Gov usually. And NO, police are NOT authorized to act outside of their authority, they are just as susceptible to punishment as civilians although they are somewhat protected by their agency IF they observe police dept training protocol. Acting outside of training jeopardizes legal protections from police unions and departments. Too bad some don't refrain from critical mistakes but IF their life in on the line, mistake is tolerable. It's those fools who don't have a believable reaction for situation that makes the rest look bad--the image comes to mind of the black teen getting shot in Chicago 16 times walking away from police--even IF the officer thought Laquan McDonald reached for a weapon--16 TIMES? Or the S.C. police officer who shoots a 50 yd old man in back EIGHT TIMES as he runs away. ONLY IF he's a "fleeing felon" who's on run for murder--would any consideration be made but EIGHT TIMES for somebody running from traffic violation? IDIOTS like this aren't 'real' police officers--they are mistakes that got into the system and make hard working, honest officers look bad.

http://www.constitution.org...

I'm just adverse to attempting to converse with those who prefer ad hominem to thoughtful debate.

^^100

With common sense we can enforce current laws...this can be done with
common sense law enforcement, attorneys, and judges. (I know) I know
what you are thinking....but we do not need more laws to bind us down we
need to enforce existing laws with the ability to do the right and
honorable thing.

Could it be we have become so morally corrupted
and mentally challenged we cannot govern ourselves unless there is a law
for every conceivable action or reaction? If that's the case....or
freedom is gone....I repeat our freedom gone...the elites have achieved
their goal...your are a number, a human resource, with a shelf life
determined by our Overloads who will evaluate the worthiness of your
existence terminating you at their pleasure.

Welcome to tomorrows Godless world of Technocracy

Daniel www.knowingforyourself.com

peaceful protest is constitutional and should not be abridged...

BLM and the Inauguration anarchistso were not peaceful. Blocking public events and roads should be illegal. Stand on the side of the road and hold your damn sign.

Protest is always peaceful. Rioting is not protesting.

WE the people cannot TOLERATE violence or protesting activity that obstructs the peaceful activity of others in same areas. That means NO SHUTTING DOWN TRAFFIC! That can only be legally done by PERMIT from city officials.

To: shavager, chameleon, cchandler above:
Posts make common sense to me.

You don't need a law for this. It's not the police or the government that lets the mobs run wild on the streets. It's you.
Hit a couple of these people going 65 or roll over them going 10 and there will never be another protest on the freeway. But everyone wants big daddy government to solve there problems for them.

Vehicular assault or homicide is the solution? I guess some of us are unaware of the prohibition of pedestrians on highways.

Yes.
Self defense, you were in fear of your life of an angry mob of pedestrians on the highway.

I define defensive driving that way, but pedestrians always have right of way.

No they don't.
Nineteen states require a motorist to yield when a pedestrian is upon any portion of the roadway. The rest of them you should be fine as long as there not in a crosswalk.

Either you don't understand what right of way is or you don't understand what a crosswalk is. If 19 states require you to yield right of way to a pedestrian, and the pedestrian is in a crosswalk, what makes said crosswalk not a part of the roadway?

The big white lines! https://uploads.disquscdn.c...

The white lines appear to be painted in the roadway. Do you know a roadway when you see one? If not, I hope that you do not drive.

That is a very keen observation. But why are they painted on the roadway?
Are you really claiming that the lines aren't specifically for designating a crosswalk from a roadway? Strange that they would just randomly paint lines on the road like that.
Good thing your retired.

If you had studied traffic control from the cab of a truck in all 48 states, in addition to having perused the national traffic control code, you would know that the purpose of the markings is to provide a indication where pedestrians should walk. Experience demonstrates that most pedestrians ignore them like they do the walk, don't walk signals. Retired is not dead or comatose. I spend more time learning than most people do working, now that I don't have to...

We now live in a world were people spend 10 years going to collage to be a doctor and believe gender is a social construct. The amount of time you speed learning is not really reverential to anything.
"indication where pedestrians should walk."Ok so the lines are a suggestion and there is no legal difference between inside and outside the lines.
Is blocking the indicated area with your vehicle legal?

It is legal to do anything that isn't prohibited by law, and laws vary by jurisdiction.

Thanks captain obvious, Now is blocking the indicated area with your vehicle legal outside jurisdictions such South Pole?

Apparently being obvious is not a guarantee that you will get it. I can block the indicated area legally any time I want, as long as I yield right of way to pedestrians in it first. Yielding right of way doesn't require being outside of the indicated area, just not running over or threatening the safe passage of pedestrians. I don't know of any pedestrian crossings at the South Pole, do you?

§ 1202. Stopping, standing or parking prohibited in specified places. (a) Except when necessary to avoid conflict with other traffic, or when

in compliance with law or the directions of a police officer or official

traffic-control device, no person shall:

1. Stop, stand or park a vehicle:

d. On a cross walk

I hope that you wouldn't present a "citation" like that in any court of competent jurisdiction.

I won't ever have to present that to a court because I don't consider the sidewalk or the crosswalk a part of the roadway and wont be parking my car there.
I also won't be parking my person in the middle of the road because pedestrians have the right of way.

Standing is not parking any more than paint on a roadway makes it a crosswalk.

So the paint on a road doesn't make it a crosswalk...
Ether your a truck driver who thinks all the lines on the road are arbitrary, or your just to dam stubborn to admit when your wrong.

Markings are advisory, not regulatory.
In addition to being a truck driver with a 40 year clean driving record, I am also a paralegal with an, apparently, much better understanding of law than yourself. There is no value in being stubborn when all of the law and all of the facts on on one's side.
You must be one of those non-truck drivers that thinks that trucks can be driven like four-wheelers without ramification. They can't. Much of driving a truck has to do with avoiding running over ignorants like yourself.
Maybe you should read the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, like I did, many years ago.

Tell me how having your car towed away for parking in a handicap zone is advisory, not regulatory.

If you aren't smart enough to know that you have to have a handicapped parking permit and/or plates to park in a handicapped spot, you should consider yourself advised. Signage never lists all of the ramifications of violating the appropriate law or ordinance. The enforcement of handicapped parking can be very draconian, depending on whose way you are in when they come to park there.
What does illegal parking in a handicapped space have to do with a crosswalk?

What makes it a handicapped parking spot? HAHAHAHA

Law and signage.

Thats just paint on the ground. There is no difference between that and anywhere ells you want to park your car.

Tell that to the judge that you'll wind up in front of if you don't comply with the summons that the police officer will write, which is just ink on a piece of paper.

What! I have it on good advice from a legal sectary that's the markings are advisory, not regulatory.
I'll win for sure.

Della Street probably knows more about the law than you do, even though she never went to law school.

Does she know more about the law than you?

Probably not because she was an imaginary character on Perry Mason, and legal secretaries were never paralegals in those days.

Well then were good.