The Charlottesville Car Attack Might Have Been Legal Under These Republican Proposals

Several anti-protest bills would limit motorists’ liability if they injure or even kill protesters.

Ryan M. Kelly/AP Photo

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.

On Saturday in Charlottesville, Virginia, 20-year-old James Alex Fields Jr. plowed his Dodge Challenger into a crowd of protesters, killing one and maiming 19, before reversing out of the crowd and speeding away. Fields now faces one count of second-degree murder and three counts of malicious wounding, as well as one count of hit-and-run. His fate, though, could prove quite different if certain Republican legislators were to have their way.

Back in January, a state representative from North Dakota, Republican Keith Kempenich, started what would become a bleak trend: He proposed a piece of legislation that would waive a motorist’s liability for any damages caused by striking any person who was “obstructing vehicular traffic on a public road, street, or highway,” including injury or death. Kempenich’s proposal was born in the wake of the Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPLprotests and was a not-so-subtle jab at the anti-DAPL crowds that stalled construction on the pipeline, in part, by blocking area roads

Kempenich explained at the time how protesters on the road were catching drivers off guard—“This isn’t their issue,” Kempenich said of motorists—but lamented the fact that, “if something had happened, [motorists would] wind up being accused of it.” He added that when a protester “comes up on the roadway and challenges a motorist… that’s an intentional act of intimidation—the definition of terrorism.”

While Kempenich’s bill died on the House floor in February, it still managed to get 41 yea-votes and to inspire a litany of similarly ill-conceived, GOP-sponsored proposals in statehouses across country. The proposed laws are part of a broad array of anti-protest bills drafted in the wake of Black Lives Matter demonstrations and anti-Trump marches. 

Here, we breakdown some other equally short-sighted bills:

  • North Carolina: House Bill 330, introduced by Republican representative Justin Burr in March, sets aside civil liability penalties for any motorist who strikes and injures a protester with his or her car, so long as the protest doesn’t have a permit. The bill passed the North Carolina General Assembly 67-to-48 back in May and is currently waiting for action in the state Senate
  • Tennessee: Introduced in early February by Republican state Sen. Bill Ketron and Republican Assembly Member Matthew Hill, Senate Bill 944 and House Bill 668 would have excused any motorist who injured another person participating in a protest or demonstration on a public right-of-way from civil liability for such injury, so long as the motorist was “exercising due care” when the injury occurred. The assembly bill died in the civil justice committee in March, while Senate Bill 944 is still under committee consideration.
  • Texas: House Bill 250, introduced by Republican state representative Republican Pat Fallon, would similarly absolve drivers of civil liability should they crash into protesters while exercising “due care.” The bill is currently in committee in the state’s House of Representatives, though Fallon insists his bill would not apply to the “jackass” who mowed down protesters in Virginia.
  • Rhode Island: Justin Price, a Republican representative from Exeter, introduced H 5690 in the Rhode Island House on March 1. As you might expect, it waives civil liability for any injury or death caused when a car crashes into a protest occurring on a public roadway so long as the driver was exercising “due care.” The bill is on hold, pending further study
  • Florida: In late February, Republican state Sen. George Gainer introduced Senate Bill 1096. Had it not died in the state Senate’s criminal justice subcommittee, Gainer’s bill would have made protesting in the streets a second-degree misdemeanor and waived motorist liability for the unintentional injury or death of a protester. A parallel House-level bill, introduced by Republican Jayer Williamson, met a similar fate. 

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate