Profile image
By Voice of Reason
Contributor profile | More stories
Story Views

Last Hour:
Last 24 Hours:

States Passing New Laws Making it Legal to Kill Protestors “Unintentionally” (Video)

Saturday, February 4, 2017 6:38
% of readers think this story is Fact. Add your two cents.

(Before It's News)

It did not take long after Barack Obama was elected President in 2008 for most Americans to realize that the “fundamental transformation of America” that Obama and his far-left liberal allies sold the voters on was a total sham. For proof, look no further than the shellacking Democrats have taken in every single election since 2008, gradually losing an unprecedented 1,000+ seats at the state and federal level combined. 

Despite getting pummeled in every election, and at every level for eight years straight, and despite the fact that Republicans have the largest legislative majority nationwide since the 1920’s, Democrats and their lackeys in the mainstream media still think they have some type of mandate to tell the rest of America what is, or is not, “mainstream.”

Well, based on some of the new laws being passed in several states, it appears that “mainstream” America has had it with the far-left.   Earth to Democrats: “No one is listening to you!”

Dating back to long before Donald Trump became president, the far-left has been engaging in acts of domestic terrorism under the guise of “demonstrating,” and as you’re about to learn, lawmakers in several states have had enough. The First Amendment of the Constitution reads:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

The definition of Terrorism is:

“The unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.”

Is it any wonder such harsh new laws are being passed? The following video explains why most, if not all of the new laws WILL pass constitutional scrutiny. It does so by explaining the elements of the constitutional test used to determine if a law prohibiting free speech in a public forum has been met in the following 10 instances…





Claire Bernish writes:

President Donald Trump’s first week in office has seen a tumultuous mix of sweeping executive actions peppered with a few pleasant surprises; but if one thing proves true — as with the first term of any new president — there will be cause for someone to protest something.

Indeed, before Trump even took the oath of office, protesters descended on Washington, D.C. — marching en masse down the middle of typically congested roadways, chanting, screaming, and generally causing the sort of disruptions demonstrators seek in order to draw attention to a cause.

But that most basic right — to air one’s grievances to elected leaders in a public forum, often through disruption — might soon be a risky endeavor in at least ten states, as protest is gradually being criminalized in rather astonishing ways.

Lawmakers from North Dakota and Minnesota, to Virginia and the state of Washington, have proposed or passed legislation levying hefty penalties against anyone who dares to exercise the basic right to protest against — ironically enough — legislation and policy found to be untenable.

At the rate such laws have rapidly come to fruition, even if legislators in your state have yet to propose obstacles to protesting, the following list should serve as a guide for potential future strictures regarding your right to speak out.


North Dakota lawmakers have proposed arguably the most crushing measures against protesters — seemingly specifically targeting water protectors opposing construction of the Dakota Access Pipeline.

Under House Bill 1203, drivers would be permitted to run down protesters — literally — so long as they claim they didn’t intend to do so. As the proposed bill states,

“Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a driver of a motor vehicle who unintentionally causes injury or death to an individual obstructing vehicular traffic on a public road, street, or highway, is not guilty of an offense.”

In other words, if a protester in a roadway were to be struck by a vehicle and killed, the driver would not be charged with a crime if they claimed, for example, accidentally hitting the accelerator instead of the brakes.

House Majority Leader Al Carlson proffered a second bill criminalizing wearing masks to protests; and, though the legislation would allow exceptions for harsh weather conditions and holidays wear face coverings are traditional, it’s an open question how police might interpret those exemptions.

“I would be the first to defend your right of free speech and freedom of assembly,” Carlson told a state legislative committee hearing on Tuesday of House Bill 1304, according to the Billings Gazette. “I’m always concerned when there’s a reason that, I believe, may be used to hide your identity when you’re creating some kind of disturbance.”

Should the legislation pass, masks would not be permitted at demonstrations on public property or roadways — nor on private property, unless the owner gives explicit, written consent.


Missouri legislators are also hoping to criminalize mask-wearing at protests in a bill that would make intentional concealment of one’s “identity by the means of a robe, mask, or other disguise” at any gathering deemed an “unlawful assembly” punishable as a Class A misdemeanor — with a penalty of up to one full year behind bars.

In the following video, Marc Dice provides several examples of the lunacy that “mainstream, and sane” Americans are tired of. In the following video, liberals are crying, protesting, and going completely insane over the inauguration of President Trump. Have a look at some of their sad and hilarious reactions to President Trump now officially being the President of the United States. Media analyst Mark Dice has the story. It’s always nice to see such grateful Americans is it not?





As alarming as it might be that a mask could land you in jail in Missouri or that North Dakota drivers can run down protesters without facing charges, Minnesota lawmakers took the criminalization of demonstrations in an equally shocking but wholly different direction — the wallet.

Minnesotans whose protests force police to intervene would be financially liable for the cost of the intervention should Rep. Nick Zerwas’ legislation by written into law.

As the Star Tribune reports, a committee meeting on Tuesday “ended abruptly after a House panel passed Zerwas’ proposed legislation that would give cities authority to charge protesters for police services if the demonstrators are convicted of illegal assembly or public nuisance. The measure would also give cities the option of suing convicted protesters to recoup expenses from policing the demonstration.”

Furious residents disrupted that meeting, rightly questioning the measure’s constitutionality and what the bill would mean for future ability to demonstrate against acts of police violence, as in the shooting death of Philando Castile in 2016 — or in any instance where complaint falls on deaf ears and public assembly stands as the only option.

Zerwas and the bill’s supporters, however, side with Minnesotans who resent large demonstrations, and say the financial onus of policing protests should fall on those participating.

“I have an entire constituency that feels as though protesters believe that their rights are more important than everyone else’s,” Zerwas explained in an interview cited by the Guardian. “Well, there is a cost to that. Rosa Parks sat in the front of the bus. She didn’t get out and lay down in front of the bus.”

He added, “The meters are running and the taxpayers are holding the bag.”

And as the Intercept reports, “In addition to the highway-protesting bill, Minnesota lawmakers also proposed a separate piece of legislation that greatly increases penalties for nonviolent cases involving ‘obstructing the legal process.’ Under the bill’s language, nonviolent obstruction of authorities would carry ‘imprisonment of not less than 12 months’ and a fine of up to $10,000.”


Where North Dakota legislators want to permit, in essence, vehicular homicide to curb the blockage of roadways, and Minnesota lawmakers seek to make such protests too costly, politicians in Iowa would rather throw demonstrators who block highways in jail for five years.

Senator Jake Chapman proposed Senate File 111 in response to an incident in November in which some 100 protesters blocked Interstate Highway 80 and brought eastbound traffic to a standstill for around 30 minutes — much to the consternation of drivers caught in the unexpected jam.

“Look, we have the right to protest. No one disputes that,” the lawmaker explained in defense of his controversial bill, which, incidentally, isn’t without opposition. “We encourage that. But there is an appropriate time and an appropriate place to do so. Interstates are not one of those places. That is what this bill does. It aims to stop that.”

As COO of Midwest Ambulance Service, Chapman claims to be concerned such spontaneous highway blockages obstruct access for emergency services, as well as free commerce and travel.

If passed, Chapman’s law “would apply to people blocking the travel portion of Iowa highways with speeds posted at 55 mph or higher. Violators could be charged with a Class D felony, which includes a sentence of prison time and a fine of at least $750 and up to $7,500,” the Des Moines Register reports.

The following video is far less amusing or comical as the previous one. In this video, Lauren Southern of was in DC for Trump’s swearing in, and witnessed one of the more violent demonstrations. “Protestors,” aka DOMESTIC TERRORISTS are throwing hammers, smashing windows, etc. 





In line with aforementioned proposals, Indiana State Senator Jim Tomes introduced the “Block Traffic and You Die” bill — or, at least, that’s how opponents are characterizing the Hoosier State’s anti-protest legislation.

Senate Bill 285 would require public officials to dispatch all available law enforcement to clear roadways — using “any means necessary” — if at least 10 protesters have attempted to obstruct traffic without first obtaining a permit.

Although indeed vague, it is the ‘any means necessary’ portion of Tomes’ proposed law that worries activists who have traditionally worked with police. Often officers will escort marchers in roadways, blocking cross traffic for them to pass, ensuring both protesters and drivers remain safe. Thus, opponents of the legislation find it frivolous and curiously worded — and far too open to interpretation.

And there are still more proposed laws restricting the constitutional right to protest.


“In Colorado,” the Intercept reports, “Republican state Sen. Jerry Sonnenberg has introduced a bill that would greatly increase penalties for environmental protesters. Under the proposed law, obstructing or tampering with oil and gas equipment would be reclassified from a misdemeanor to a ‘class 6’ felony, a category of crime that reportedly can be punished by up to 18 months behind bars and a fine of up to $100,000.”


Washington State Senator Doug Ericksen proposed creating a new crime to facilitate charging protesters with a felonies for blocking roads and other assorted activities — he hopes to deem them “economic terrorists.”

Ericksen seeks to allow felony prosecution “of those who intentionally break the law in an attempt to intimidate or coerce private citizens or the government by obstructing economic activity.” However, the broad brush language in his proposed legislation deeply concerns civil and constitutional rights advocates, like Doug Honig of the Washington ACLU, who noted in a statement quoted by Q13 FOX,

The statement throws out a lot of broad rhetoric, and we’ll need to see an actual bill.  But we’re already concerned that some of its loose terms  appear to be targeting  civil disobedience as ‘terrorism.’  That’s the kind of excessive approach to peaceful protest that our country and state do not need.

Let’s keep in mind that civil rights protesters who sat down at lunch counters could be seen as ‘disrupting business’ and ‘obstructing economic activity,’ and their courageous actions were opposed by segregationists as trying to ‘coerce business and government.’

Lawmakers in two states have taken a more unusual route to combat protests.

The 2016 presidential elections made a lot of people do stupid things. From provocative slogans and political thoughts to confrontations between republicans and democrats: The following video contains footage from the 9 deadliest leftist/anti-Trump attacks. 





North Carolina Senator Dan Bishop wants to provide controversial Governor Pat McCrory — and incidentally any politician — an official safe space away from hecklers who might approach to, well, scream unpleasant words.

Bishop, reports the News & Observer, decided verbal criticism of politicians was worthy of legal protection after witnessing McCrory being followed and yelled at over inaugural weekend in Washington, D.C. Should the proposed legislation pass, it would thus be “a crime to threaten, intimidate, or retaliate against a present or former North Carolina official in the course of, or on account of, the performance of his or her duties.”


Rather than worrying about political or environmental protesters, Michigan lawmakers turned their attention to union workers with two proposed pieces of legislation aimed to sharply curtail the right to picket for grievances such as pay or safety conditions.

“One bill would increase fines against picketers to $1,000 per person per day of a picket and $10,000 per day for an organization or union involved in the picket that is deemed to be an illegal mass picket,” the Detroit Free Press reported last month.

“The other would repeal a law that requires employers to include information about an ongoing strike when they advertise to hire employees who will replace existing, but striking employees at a company.”


Only in Virginia did a lone lawmaker stand in opposition to their party’s proposed legislative crackdown on protest, as the Daily Press reports

Senate Bill 1055 would have increased penalties for failing to disperse when police declare an unlawful assembly, upping a misdemeanor that brings only a fine now to one with potential jail time. It was one of four bills on protest punishments filed this session by state Sen. Richard Stuart, R-Montross, and the last of the four to die.

* * *

All told, this collection of anti-protest legislation constitutes an overarching attempt to quash the right of the people to demonstrate when the government errs against them — and the result will only increase near unbearable police state conditions already choking out First Amendment protections in the United States.

With division at unprecedented levels over politics, police violence, and, really, any nameable issue, such extraneous laws can only be attempting one thing.

As Lee Rowland, a senior staff attorney at the American Civil Liberties Union, warned in a statement to the Intercept,

This trend of anti-protest legislation dressed up as ‘obstruction’ bills is deeply troubling. A law that would allow the state to charge a protester $10,000 for stepping in the wrong place, or encourage a driver to get away with manslaughter because the victim was protesting, is about one thing: chilling protest.

Claire Bernish writes for, where this article first appeared.








Charles, Nobody Is Listening to Your Nonsense Anymore! (Video)

Look What Group Plans to “Massively” Resist Voter Fraud Investigation… (Video)​

Investigation Launched into Obama’s DHS Hacking State Election Systems (Video)

New Study Reveals Shocking Information About Trump’s Voter Fraud Claims (Video)

Michelle Obama Just Bailed on Barack and Girls; Off to Billionaire’s Island Alone (Video)

Case Closed! Trump Was Right, Obama’s Birth Certificate A Fake …

You Won’t Believe What CNN and the Mainstream Media Are Doing Now… (Video)

Celebutards Call for ‘Total Hollywood Strike’ Until Trump Resigns (Video)

Look Who’s Really Behind Snopes, Facebook’s New “Fact Checkers” (Video)

Old Soviet Union 45 Goals to Destroy America Perfectly Match Liberal Ideology!?!? (Video)

Child Abuse? 9-Year-Old Transgender Girl Makes History on Magazine Cover??? (Video)

George Soros Funding Facebook’s New “Fake News Fact Checking” Group (Video)

“Fake News!” Donald Trump Just Exposed CNN in a Massive Scandal (Video)

Americans Reject Their Continued Brainwashing Via Political Correctness (Video)

Tucker Carlson Chews Up, and Spits Out Privileged Liberal Student On Live TV (Video)

Tucker Carlson Ruthlessly Annihilates Liberal Reporter on Live TV (Video)

12 Liberals Who Absolutely Deserve the Karma of a Trump Presidency (Video)

Veterans Are Dying Everywhere; VA Wants To Perform Sex-Change Operations


Scientists: 40% Of People Have Newly Discovered Brain Parasite (Video)

Disbarment Charges Are Filed Against Baltimore State Attorney Mosby (Video)

News Flash: Being Offended Doesn’t Make You Right (Video)

Black Lives Matter Do The Unthinkable To War Heroes Graves

Top 10 Liberal Lies About The Constitution

Florida Drunken College Students ‘Urinate and Spit’ On Wounded Veterans

“Americans Going Over the Cliffs of Insanity” (Video)

Peter Schiff: This Is Who Really Determines U.S. Presidents

Google +
Tea Party Community
Before it’s News /contributor/pages/405/008/stories.html​









Report abuse


Your Comments
Question   Razz  Sad   Evil  Exclaim  Smile  Redface  Biggrin  Surprised  Eek   Confused   Cool  LOL   Mad   Twisted  Rolleyes   Wink  Idea  Arrow  Neutral  Cry   Mr. Green

Total 6 comments
  • CORRECTION…know the difference between “protest” and “vandalism”. A real protester has a Permit, stands where allowed, quietly holds a sign, and is registered with the law enforcement divisions whereby protection comes for the activity.

    In contrast… a vandal never has a permit for protest, destroys public property, and performs a crime.

    Now, the clever Progressive movement used the wrong word for their declaration to destroy property by calling it a “right to protest”. It is not. It never was. It never will be. What those people do is criminal.

    R.E. Sutherland, M.Ed./ sciences
    Freelance Investigative Science Reporter since 1996

    • No permit is required to exercise America’s right to assemble and redress under the US Constitution! These permits make American citizens beg for permission very often from the same entity they intend to demonstrate against. Standing there quietly may be appropriate at the library, or in a hospital setting however it would not be when voicing concerns of policy or power abuse. Sounds like you are a troll, did I hit the nail on the head?

  • The answer for the violent demonstrations and the fools that are committing the crimes is:
    18 U.S. code chapter 115, Sedition. Charge them and end the problem for the next 10 years by giving them a room in a federal pen.

    Their actions have created a building and hiring boom for the prison system! We can build more prisons, hire more prison guards, and hire more staff, putting many American workers back to work. YEAH!!!

    We should be thanking the retarded protesters, they are creating many new jobs for the American people!

    Everyone say “Thank you” for the new jobs they provided for us all.

    But on a personnel note, we must remember that they will lose their jobs and have a lot of legal problems and many of them will loss their federal grants for school (convicted Felons don’t qualify for federal and state grants for higher education) which will create economic problems for themselves and their families for years to come from state and federal fines, personnel injury law suites, insurance claims, government liens on their properties, foreclosure on their home loans, auto repossessions, they will be in prison and not able to pay the bills, and of course be sued for criminal damage, stripped of their drivers licence, and have to wear a federal ankle bracelet monitoring device for years, etc, etc, etc…the list goes on and on…

    But I’m sure they’ll problems will be cleared up within 8 to 10 years once they are released from prison.

    On the positive side, seeing they like costumes, they’ll be happy to know that they will be provided with a new costume, but it doesn’t come with a hoody, sorry regulations,

    I hope their stay in the federal dormitory has a nice and pleasant view and they will soon meet many interesting people that will LOVE to be their closest new friend.

    Always look at the positive side guys…pay back is a bitch.

  • THE AUTHOR FOOLISHLY WROTE: “Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a driver of a motor vehicle who unintentionally causes injury or death to an individual obstructing vehicular traffic on a public road, street, or highway, is not guilty of an offense.” In other words, if a protester in a roadway were to be struck by a vehicle and killed, the driver would not be charged with a crime if they claimed, for example, accidentally hitting the accelerator instead of the brakes.”

    MY RESPONSE TO IT: The violence exhibited by these paid protesters and provocateurs must be curtailed. This is not freedom of assembly or redress. If we look back in history at protest/rioting like during the Watts riots and the aftermath of the Rodney King beating we can recall innocent people being drug from cars and trucks beaten, robbed and maimed. With that vision fresh in mind one can easily recognize the possibility of a motorist being hurt or killed during one of these frenzies is a modern reality.

    What the author misses is that when these violent crowds commence on a citizens vehicle such drivers have a legitimate fear of loosing their life as well as their liberty. Things can rapidly get out of control. Being in fear of their life, they need no new supportive legislation, they currently have the legal right to protect themselves using deadly force. I personally would not condone it but if the victim of a violent attack fearing for their life preferred they could legally shoot their way through the crowd without violating legal statute.

    The bottom line here. I know I wouldn’t stop, or even slow down for a violent group blocking the roadway. If I had my family with me I would gas it right through the crowd. I honestly do not want to hurt anyone, however the moment these retards believe the value of my families lives are worth less than their communist plot I go into the protection mode. I would never advocate violence, but I have the moral, legal and scriptural right/obligation to defend my family. In gassing it through the crowd it would never be my intention to hurt anyone, but make no mistake about it, if you punks attack my vehicle on a public roadway you’ll be a hood ornament dead or alive.

    Put that in your communist pipe and smoke it!


    • I know that if I were in a situation like you just described with someone trying to reach in MY vehicle window to pull me out I’d roll the window up on their neck or arm and Quickly take them out on the hiway for the Joy Ride From HELL (being CHEERFULLY Beaten to a Freakin’ Pulp along the way and let loose at around 100 miles an hour in the middle of the hiway) !!! THAT’S True Road Warrior JUSTICE !!! As old Clint Eastwood would say ; “Do yuh feel LUCKY Punks ? Well DO Yuh” ???!!! :twisted:

  • While nice not to be charged with a crime for a situation that you’re in fear of losing life or limb, they are going to have to include drivers NOT being able to be sued by people they hurt or killed, or their family members, or others that try to represent them.
    “The good news is, they’re not going to charge you with murder.”
    “The bad news, is that Jonny Onthe Road’s family is suing you for 10 million dollars.”
    “And with all the Left wing judges in our court system these days…Well I suggest you get a forth job to make your settlement payments.”

Top Stories
Recent Stories



Email this story
Email this story

If you really want to ban this commenter, please write down the reason:

If you really want to disable all recommended stories, click on OK button. After that, you will be redirect to your options page.