Back in October we shared the story of Mark Dickerson, the man arrested for allegedly driving his truck through a crowd of protestors on SW 4th Avenue. Now his wife Janelle Dickerson is distributing a video that shows the protestors violating several laws. She says one man purposely walked in front of the truck and is now trying to “scam” their family via insurance fraud.
Prior to the collision, family and supporters of Patrick Kimmons, who was fatally shot by a Portland Police Officer, were standing in the street outside the Multnomah County Courthouse. Mark Dickerson, 55, was on his way to an appointment at the Courthouse. As he drove his truck northbound on 4th a group of people were standing in the street holding signs at the intersection of 4th and Main.
Advertisement
When the light turned green Dickerson drove through the intersection (his wife says he was going about 7 mph which, a speed that, “gave him permission to drive safely through the crowd”) and didn’t stop for people that were still standing in the street in front of him. He drove his large truck forward and the crowd parted. As he passed, one of the protestors pounded on the hood of his truck. Another protestor (in the lead photo), seems to have purposely walked into the path of Dickerson’s truck and was struck. The man who was on foot was not seriously injured. Dickerson eventually found a parking spot and was later found by police and arrested on charges of Assault in the Fourth Degree, Reckless Endangering, and Reckless Driving.
Yesterday we were contacted by Janelle Dickerson. She shared the video above and said, “Here’s what happened via his dashcam.” As you can see when you watch the video, Dickerson claims the protestors “attacked” the truck and violated several laws while doing so.
Now Mrs. Dickerson wants to the people in the video to be “exposed” for what she says is attempted insurance fraud. According to Dickerson, her husband has received death threats, faces a year in jail, is the subject of a civil lawsuit, has been slandered by the media and has racked up $5,000 in legal fees, “All because he was trying to park.”
— Jonathan Maus: (503) 706-8804, @jonathan_maus on Twitter and jonathan@bikeportland.org
Never miss a story. Sign-up for the daily BP Headlines email.
BikePortland needs your support.
Thanks for reading.
BikePortland has served this community with independent community journalism since 2005. We rely on subscriptions from readers like you to survive. Your financial support is vital in keeping this valuable resource alive and well.
Please subscribe today to strengthen and expand our work.
Is it possible to not like ANY of the people involved?
You misspelled probable.
Oh yeah brother, this is the correct analysis. All the hyperbolic responses are just that. The protesters were in violation of 814.020 by remaining in the crosswalk and not obeying traffic control devices specific to pedestrians. Regardless of the green light, or the traffic clearing, the driver should not have moved from a stopped position until the intersection cleared, thus violating, 811.028. Approaching at a slow speed is fine, but he needed the protesters to move from his lane and the adjacent lane before he could legally proceed. Pretty sure the initial charges will get downgraded a bit, but everybody should be getting tickets here.
One of the disturbing aspects of car culture that is made clear by this video is that many people see 814.020 and 811.028 as equivalent. Also, intentionally driving your car at or into someone is much more than “not stopping and remaining stopped for a pedestrian at a crosswalk.” It is assault with a weapon.
This backwards idea is so prevalent in the way that drivers “think” about their responsibility to drive safely, “the person did something wrong- not wear the right clothes, not cross at the right place, move too slow, move too fast- therefore it’s ok that I drove into them. Actually, it is my right to hit them with my car.”
The police think that too.
But, but, a video! With music and stuff!
Dramatic music. And slow-motion and text overlays. This is top notch video production.
I wasn’t sure what to think, but the soundtrack really won me over.
So, explain to me how the man driving the truck is in the right for intentionally driving into a group of pedestrians.
Regardless of their intent, his conduct is not permitted. Under no circumstances can a motorist be allowed to proceed from a full stop to charging through a crowd of pedestrians. Had he not done so, his vehicle would not have been “attacked”.
True that two wrongs do not make a right, but by no means is this man on any moral high ground. He is an aggressive and violent operator of a deadly weapon.
You’re seeing a pretty standard reaction from a motor vehicle user. They think that if they see someone doing something they don’t like, they’re allowed to respond to it in any way they see fit. They feel especially superior if they can claim that someone broke a law, and seem to be of the belief that if one law is broken then all bets are off and any subsequent law breaking on their part is justified.
I agree in principle, but can you cite Oregon law to support? I haven’t looked yet.
It occurs to me that girdlocking laws may apply.
One should not proceed into an intersection without a clear path out of it, right?
There’s certainly a lot of cars blocking the intersection here. But not sure why cross-traffic is so backed up, either due to normal traffic or from protesters.
You’re talking about ORS 811.290 Obstructing cross traffic. This would apply if the light had turned red and the protesters hadn’t jumped out of the way for fear of their life and allowed the vehicle to clear the intersection.
I think that ORS 811.550 (Places where stopping, standing and parking prohibited) would apply more because they stopped in the crosswalk. I don’t think any of the exemptions can be applied due to the driver’s intentional actions.
Though I’m not a lawyer. I’ve just read way too many statutes.
Looks like he drove into a bunch of people knowing they were there… Hard to argue he was driving with “due care” and couldn’t have avoided that outcome considering he was fully stopped, aware of the people in front of him, then drove into them. Makes it hard to empathize at all and looks like he tried to use his vehicle as a weapon/to intimidate
Looks like they blocked a bunch of people and knew they were in the intersection illegally… Hard to argue he was walking with “due care” and couldn’t have avoided that outcome considering he was fully stopped, aware the intersection light had changed and the right of way was for people in the adjacent direction, then walked back into that path of travel. Makes it hard to empathize at all and looks like he tried to use his body as a weapon/to intimidate.
No one wins here…. just sayin’.
“…looks like he tried to use his body as a weapon/to intimidate…”
Wait, seriously??! Using his body as a weapon/to intimidate a multi-ton vehicle?! There’s no way that you can swap “vehicle” with “body” in this instance and have remotely make sense.
Maybe there is some sort of bizarro connection in that person’s mind with the Rodney King Riots in LA in 1992 when that one truck driver was pulled from his vehicle and beaten. Who knows.
Wow. He didn’t even turn the wheel to go around or avoid the protester.
And he was driving dangerously close to them in the first place.
This is assault. The story demonstrates the incredibly intoxicating effect of “car head,” in that one would post an incriminating video of their partner and expect sympathy.
That’s what stands out to me–that anyone would think they’re so right that they’d WANT people to see the video.
I think he’s made a good case for the charges that were filed against him. Clearly, he drove into a crowd. He even video’d himself doing so. He’s lucky he didn’t kill anyone.
It seems that this ” auto user” and many others claim for themselves a kind of twisted version of medieval feudal law. In this bizzaro legal system the lords of the manner (motorists) have special rights above and beyond the peasants ( pedestrians) . In their view ,all the lord must do is signal his intention to proceed and if the peasants to not clear out of the way they are fair game to be run down by the lord on his steed, and woe to the peasant that so much as lays a hand on the lords steed as he stumbles out of the way, he is in for even more punishment at the hands of his masters henchmen.
“You can’t expect to yield supreme executive power just cuz some watery tart threw a Ford at you!” (https://youtu.be/-8bqQ-C1PSE?t=159)
Pedestrians, as ALL drivers know…dart out into traffic…like moths to a flame…
This says more about the source of the comment than it does about pedestrians.
That’s why in driving school they drill it into you that you need to be extra cautious in urban areas where there could be people (or pets) darting into the roadway and that as a driver you need to avoid those very predictable obstacles.
People and animals “darting into the roadway” are the opposite of predictable. That’s kind of the whole point of being cautious, and why we use words like “darting”.
It’s entirely predictable that pedestrians and animals move in what you consider an unpredictable manner. But now I understand why you have so much sympathy for drivers who are unable to anticipate this kind of movement.
You may be concerned with the predictable unpredictables, but it’s the unpredictable unpredictables that keep me awake.
Pedestrianize downtown Portland.
Reasonable people would also get out of the way of a moving vehicle and not attack it.
Reasonable people would not have deliberately stepped in front of an oncoming vehicle.
I am NOT defending the driver, only pointing out that no one looks good here.
Looked at another way, everyone pretty much got what they wanted.
For some definition of reasonable.
Reasonable people cower and run away from tanks.
But you ARE defending the driver by stating that the person deliberately stepped in front of them.
The pedestrian did this.
“That’s just like, your opinion, man.”
“there is zero possibility of an open, soft hand causing damage to the hood of his 4,000 pound steel battering ram.”
Trucks have feelings and interests and when we stereotype and label them, it not only shows our bias but damages out relationship with them. IMO, when a truck accidentally threatens you it’s best to just smile and wave. And if you can’t do this for some reason, we should always remember that these negative interactions also impact the truck as well — even if there is no visible sign of damage.
/s
“Reasonable people would also get out of the way of a moving vehicle and not attack it.”
You mean that reasonable people run for fear of their live when somebody attacks them?
Many people that are attacked fight back. It’s called self-defense. If you attack me with your vehicle then you can expect to get attacked.
Truck head!
Regardless of if someone is violating a traffic law as a driver you are still required to try to avoid a collision. Like if someone driving a car were to turn the wrong way down a one way street people going the right way are supposed to stop, not gun it and intentionally hit them head on because “they were going the wrong way”.
Also it is pretty telling that the video portion appears to lead off with a slow motion version of the guy hitting the protester, like if it you really believe the protester was completely at fault why not show it full speed?
Has a civil suit actually been filed? I’m not seeing anything when I search for it, and I’m very interested in the “insurance fraud” issue among other things.
That driver tried to run into a bunch of people. He deserves what our legal system metes out.
I think your description is just a wee bit oversimplified. But I agree with you in that I trust the legal system to come to the appropriate conclusion.
I agree, “That driver tried to run into a bunch of people” isn’t quite accurate. “That driver tried to clear a path for himself by driving right at a bunch of people, hoping they’d scatter before he hit them” seems more accurate.
“I trust the legal system to come to the appropriate conclusion.”
When have we seen this?
I don’t trust them as far as I can/could throw them but I guess we can cross our fingers.
When looking for justice, given the choice between the courts and “people on the internet”, I’ll go with the courts every single time.
Why would those be the (only) two options?
As we have discussed in the past, just because our society is so bad at delivering justice to all strata of society doesn’t mean other countries haven’t figured out better ways of accomplishing this.
They’re not. There’s also pundits on CNN and Fox.
CNN & Fox are false equivalencies, much like the .01 hp human and the 200 hp truck
Sometimes your penchant for humor devolves into irrelevant nonsense.
Here’s something for you to ponder, or, I suppose, make fun of:
https://www.usnews.com/news/best-countries/articles/2016-10-20/us-is-no-18-in-global-rule-of-law-ranking
More like 400hp, but yes.
These were PROTESTERS not Pedestrians. They do NOT benefit from Pedestrian laws and are in fact violating ORS by interfering with vehicle traffic. These are clear laws. The driver had two options: stop at their resistance line and see what was going to happen or get through the gauntlet. Remember Reginald Denny(sp?) He stopped and was nearly killed. He couldn’t turn right, he couldn’t turn left and he couldn’t go backwards. So, he should have just stopped and waited for their… for what? Yeah, right.
The driver was at an intersection, stopped, before entering the block with the protesters. He could have turned, but chose not to. And given the rather sparse nature of the “mob”, I don’t think any reasonable person would have presumed a Reginald Denny type of situation. (And if they did, no reasonable person would have chosen to drive into the middle of it.)
So many overwrought, exaggerated narratives on offer. I’m choosing None of the Above.
You’re lying and bloviating. Anyone who is on foot is a pedestrian. Your whole response is naked whataboutism.
I recall the reports saying the protesters were there for some time. So dozens or hundreds of other people managed to turn or drive around them without incident. Everyone but this one guy, who felt he should drive right into them to get them to scatter out of his way.
But then you’d have to, you know, drive a whole block out of your way. /s
It’s not just one block. If you have to go around a block that’s 3 block faces. Then considering that the next street is probably one-way that’s an extra 2 block faces. That’s likely 5 traffic lights. Much easier to plow through a few soft targets that risk being late by going at least 5 blocks out of your way and dealing with traffic at 5 more lights. At that point drivers might need to sip their latte, change the radio station, or mess with the climate control. Way too much effort for a driver in the face of citizens standing in the cold rain protesting government oppression.
Oh, the indignity of having to sit in my heated leather seats for 1 more minute! I love to drive, as long as I get it over with as soon as possible.
[quote]Now Mrs. Dickerson wants to the people in the video to be “exposed” for what she says is attempted insurance fraud. [/quote]
I don’t understand what is being stated here. Insurance claims are not conducted anonymously. Anyone making a claim is identified and thus exposed by default. The sentence doesn’t parse with the assertion being made here.
I read this as one or more of the protesters is filing an insurance claim, and that the video poster wants to demonstrate those claims are fraudulent.
It’s pretty clear that the person posting the video is really dumb. Posting this will do nothing to help their case. That they think it will shows how stupid they really are.
The first rule in litigation is don’t throw fuel on fire. Posting this video is one of the most foolish things she could have done. If they *do* wind up in court I’m sure their insurance company will *not* be happy with her actions.
What gets me is, why is it so hard for drivers to understand that a blocked road means stop. Not.”drive slowly through”. ?
@John Lascurettes – You simply don’t understand the law. Laws are written with “intent” and how it is applied. Pedestrian laws were not written for protesters and in no way would they be considered as such. By your logic, anyone in the road regardless of intent, is protected by ORS? So, the Protesters that pulled Reginald Deny out of his truck were just Pedestrians? How about Car Jacker’s or a plethora of other people pulled out of cars by protesters, are they simply Pedestrians?
I love this comment “why is it so hard for drivers to understand that a blocked road means stop. Not.” You’re actually serious aren’t you? Since when do Protesters have the legal right to stop vehicles on the road? According to the law, you’re simply wrong.
Starting to wonder if you’re simply a protester arguing for a just cause. So, who would ORS 814.040 actually apply to? I guess was just written with no intent, right?!
Do you think every human in the road is about to yank you from your vehicle and beat you to death? You might want to see someone about this irrational fear. For every Reginald Denny there are probably 100,000 pedestrians who have been killed by someone driving without due care.
“Since when do Protesters have the legal right to stop vehicles on the road? ”
I’m not sure where you are going with this, but what do you see as the legal right of the driver in this instance? A legal right to mow the protesters down?
“…the Protesters that pulled Reginald Deny out of his truck were just Pedestrians?”
They were until they started pulling people out of trucks. Then they became assailants. Same with your random carjacker. Or mugger, “gangbanger”, whatever you want to use for an example—until the shooting starts, they’re “just pedestrians”.
“Since when do Protesters have the legal right to stop vehicles on the road?”
They don’t, but since when do drivers have the legal right to run over anyone, or even menace people to move out of the way under threat of being run over? Remember, drivers are on the road by privilege (having a license is a revocable privilege, not a right), so technically there is no legal right to drive anywhere. There is almost no way a pedestrian, no matter how illegally they might be behaving, to infringe on the rights of a driver, unless—as in your hyperbolic example of Reginald Denny—they start pulling people out of cars.
Also, if the road is blocked by standing water, does it mean “stop”? What’s the intent there? What if it’s blocked by sheep? A fallen tree? What are the legal rights of boulders?
>>> Since when do Protesters have the legal right to stop vehicles on the road? <<<
They absolutely don't, which is why people generally get arrested when they do this. The proper course of action if you are illegally stopped is to call the police. It is not your job to clear the road of protesters. It is not your job to enforce the law. In fact, it's not even your right.
Protesters don’t have a legal right to stop drivers. However, drivers absolutely do NOT have a legal right to drive into them just because they’re in the road.
And by your logic, all of the drivers breaking the speed limit near my home (which appears to be most of them) are no longer drivers but are criminals. It should therefore be OK for me to shoot at their cars from my roof since, you know, any one of them could potentially lose control, drive through my fence and crash into my house. I mean really, it’s their fault for driving too fast. But I guess that’s silly, not like they’re endangering people nearly as much as people standing in the street…
Id me much more impressed with people blocking the streets that are attempting to keep cars frfom coming into downtown. Slowing folks down that are basically stuck on one ways in a congested area is bullying. There are so many ways to protest, why block down town traffic??? It gets nothing done but picks on people in cars. Plus slowing down combustion vehicles just seems to be against anything positive. It’s literally doing damage to the earth. Come on now.
“There are so many ways to protest, why block down town traffic??? It gets nothing done but picks on people in cars.”
I don’t think we-who-are-not-protesting are in a good position to tell those who are how to do it/not do it. I think they get to decide that for themselves. Lunch counters?
“Plus slowing down combustion vehicles just seems to be against anything positive. It’s literally doing damage to the earth. Come on now.”
Damage to the earth?!
Rose Quarter widening… For EARTH!
A similar thing happened a couple years ago when the Portland Spirit tried to ram its way through a crowd of boats moored to watch the Red Bull Flugtag event at Waterfront Park.
Similarly to this driver, the captain apparently believed that since the boats were blocking the channel, they were violating this or that rule, so therefore he had the right to mow them down.
He was found to be in the wrong by a Coast Guard investigation, because (as in this case) there’s an overriding law that you have to avoid crashing into others.
It’s weird seeing people thinking that regulations will allow bizarre outcomes, to the point they feel comfortable running people over. Where are their internal moral regulators?
ORS 814.040 Period!
Everyone knows that traffic statutes trump the first amendment. Ask anyone.
What aspect of the first amendment gives you the right to violate traffic law? If you think traffic law conflicts with your constitutional rights, you should absolutely file a challenge. If your claim has merits, I’m sure you’ll prevail because, as you say, traffic law does not trump the first (or any) amendment.
I HAVE done this.
Dismissed!
(Not you, Hello, Kitty…I’m just fondly recalling the judge’s response to the “charges”.)
Can I rephrase that?
What aspect of the constitution gives it the right to trump state law?
I’m just happy we’ve moved from Oregon law to US law. This story has it all!
The 10th Amendment: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
So any law explicitly stated in the US constitution trumps state law, for example, free speech and assembly. Is a truck a weapon of war like a horse? If so, might it fall under the militia and right to bear arms amendment?
“To the people” is a gray area that presumably includes Magna Carta items and British common law that would have still been familiar to the writers of the constitution and most Americans in 1787 but are a bit obscure now. I’m guessing that “public right-of-way” falls into this category.
You seem to be missing the point about laws. Because one individual breaks one does not give you the right to break a related one as you see fit. If we follow the logic that a pedestrian breaking ORS 814.040 is fair game to be run over then it would follow that a car that passes too close to me in the bike lane ( another ORS law) is fair game for me to whack with my trusty sledgehammer that I keep holstered on my bike for just such circumstances. After all ,according to your logic that motorist is no longer a legal user of the roads and has become a criminal and action on my part that makes me feel safer is justified.
Exactly. If motor vehicle users are justified in using deadly force to protect their paint jobs, I’m absolutely justified in doing so to protect my life.
Which, in many cases, you are.
Please. If I shot someone for trying to run me over with their car I’d go to prison. Yet if I were to run someone over with my car I’d get a citation for failure to yield, if that.
how does any of this have anything to do with cycling? Not one bit of this has to do with a bicycle at all, has this web site jumped the shark? Stay in your bike lane ….
Stay in your bike lane? Doesn’t seem like a helpful comment to post on a bike blog.
It’s not suppose to be helpful, this is a BIKE blog not a platform for unrelated Bike issues. with all that’s going on in Portland related to bikes we dwell on this?
What makes you think you get to dictate the stories this blog covers?
Johnathan is a SJW so he just posts whatever will get a reaction and clicks. Sad really, has nothing to do with bikes.
Showing that there are people driving around thinking they have a right to run into you if they believe you’re breaking a law has EVERYTHING to do with bikes.
Like I said in another comment, that’s what was behind my closest call on a bike–someone who felt fine turning directly into my path because they felt I should be riding on the sidewalk. Many people who bike (or walk) have had similar experiences, and they’re especially dangerous because standard practices like using lights, riding defensively, etc. become almost useless.
Violent acts by motorists are relevant to cycling. The outcome of this event has a great deal of relevance for me as a cyclist . Since this will set the tone for future legal matchups.
Hi Terry,
This is an update to a previous story I published. I think it’s important because of how people use their cars/trucks as weapons against vulnerable road users. That is an issue I believe we need to track and I felt like this incident was worth noting. Note that the previous story I did on this had its own context — it came after I’d shared thoughts about people joking about driving over bikers/walkers.
I strongly disagree with your “stay in your bike lane” comment. Bike lanes are not bubbles. I think there are a ton of other issues that impact our bicycling and we need to understand and highlight them as necessary. Thanks for your input.
I’d second that motion.
The “Stay in your bike lane” response shows why this article IS so relevant. When people drive with the idea they have a right to hit someone else, they are proving that staying in your lane (or in your crosswalk, or on your path, or whatever) isn’t going to protect you.
The closest I ever came to being hit while biking, the driver saw me coming down a hill, and made a left turn directly in front of me. I confronted her when she pulled into a gas station. She didn’t say she didn’t see me, or misjudged my speed. She said she had the right of way because I was on a bike, and I should have been on the sidewalk.
This idea that there are people driving around thinking they have a right to hit people, EVER, is a huge problem.
I always thought the same thing when I was new to biking and I started reading this site religiously. They I started walking and taking transit more than biking and I realized how connected they all were. They’re all forms of transportation for vulnerable road users. Many of the pedestrian incidents pertain to all vulnerable road users. It’s more about transportation equity than biking.
You sound like a person who likes to have control of others.
This person really should have consulted an attorney before posting this. I’m sure the prosecutor will use it against the driver.
It really shows you how sick people are in this country, that they can watch this video and see at as completely exonerating the driver. Even to the point of posting it publicly. It’s quite amazing, actually. We’re surrounded by sociopaths.
I think the word for it—as was already mentioned above—is Car Head.
BP is getting more bold.
Apparently, the video I’m seeing is different than the one most of you are seeing. I’m a cyclist with no love of big trucks, but I have more sympathy for the motorist here. When I’m riding, and I sense an impending collision, I take action to avoid it even if I have the right of way. That fella the got “hit” very intentionally and very obviously moved INTO the path of the truck.
As has been stated clearly before, the truck driver chose to intentionally insert himself in an obviously risky situation thereby risking lives. He had the last clear chance of avoiding a possibly fatal collision, a clear legal principle in both civil and criminal determinations.
“When I’m riding, and I sense an impending collision, I take action to avoid it even if I have the right of way.”
Could also read as: When I’m [driving], and I sense an impending collision [with people in the road], I take action to avoid it [not start driving at them] even if I have the right of way.
Yep. This ^^
“That fella the got “hit” very intentionally and very obviously moved INTO the path of the truck.”
How are you so sure? Are you him? He states that he was talking to somebody, then turned to cross the street and the truck struck him. I’m not 100% sure that he saw the truck coming or knew that the street was no longer completely blocked (because people jumped out of the way for fear of their life). To him all traffic was blocked and nobody should have been coming through that line of protesters. Then he turns and suddenly there’s a driver coming through a crowd of people.
Did you watch from 1:36? There is no attempt by the driver to avoid hitting the man a 2nd time, and then he continued pushing through him. Was there a problem with his steering?
The truck that was only in a position to hit the last guy because a few seconds earlier, he drove straight towards the group of people, hoping they’d scatter before he hit THEM? The only reason he didn’t hit several people was because several people scrambled out of his way. Once he did that, it’s almost irrelevant whether the one who was hit tried to get hit or not. The driver had already established his belief that he has the right to plow through people in front of him.
Everybody is screaming ORS this and ORS that. Why hasn’t anybody been screaming Freedom of Movement and Right to Assemble? Those are actual RIGHTS, as opposed to the PRIVILEGE of driving. People have irrevocable rights. Drivers have an allowed privilege that can be taken away.
The take-away here is that a driver is NEVER allowed to steer their vehicle into a crowd of people. It doesn’t matter if those people are breaking state laws and you want to go where they’re at. As a driver you have to find another way.
All these freedoms are merely limitations on what the government can do. Since there is no government actor in this little melodrama, I’m not sure how the constitutionally protected rights of the protesters and those of the truck driver interact or are even relevant.
did you miss the video in the original post where oregon revised statutes were cited?
The point being that the protesters did not violate the truck driver’s constitutional rights, and the truck driver did not violate the protesters constitutional rights, and until the police arrested the driver, constitutional rights were not at play.
The truck driver violated the protester’s constitutional right to assemble. I don’t believe the Constitution says “…only as long as you don’t block traffic.” Blocking traffic is a constitutional assembly. No one was getting hurt. It seems to me that blocking the traffic is constitutionally protected speech. Perhaps Soren can give us some quotes from his court case!
The truck driver could not violate any of the protester’s constitutional rights unless he was acting as an agent of the government. The constitution only restrains the government from acting; it does not bind or obligate individuals.
Oh, the protesters have a constitutional right to protest. But the driver does not have a constitutional right to drive into them. They were not blocking his way. He could have exited his vehicle and walked on his way. They were blocking a large vehicle, which is a very pointed protest.
According to the US Constitution, “We the People” are the government. Since the incident took place in public right-of-way, and that we, all of us, constitute our government, the “government” is therefor a party to this incident, even if the police weren’t there.
“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
It’s also worth noting that free speech comes before the freedom to assemble (both in the 1st Amendment), which itself is before the right to bear arms (or to use trucks as weapons for a well-regulated militia, 2nd Amendment.)
And yes, federal constitutional law can trump state law, but only within the context of the 10th Amendment. “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
I will add that Oregon also has a constitution too. And the Oregon’s Supreme Court interpretation of free speech has often been more expansive than that of the US Supreme Court.
David: Is it possible for me, as a private actor, to violate your constitutional rights?
No doubt, and vice versa, and it probably happens all the time.
A constitution, be it national, state, or local code, is essentially a social contract, the rules in which we engage. It’s never perfect nor ever will be.
For example, the US constitution never spells out that you have a right to life, liberty, nor the pursuit of happiness. Nor does it prohibit your access to government buildings and military bases at an hour on any day. Nor does it restrict your use of wilderness areas. Nor does it even mention public right-of-way. That fact that you do have a basic right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and that we all recognize that you do, means that our basis for government and our social contract is built upon far more than the US Constitution, that other documents and laws come into play, such as state and local codes and constitutions, the Declaration of Independence (life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness), the Articles of Confederation (our constitution from 1775-1789), the Magna Carta of 1215 (land restrictions), and various other documents of British law from before 1789, as well as tradition.
I am a driver, a cyclist and a pedestrian and I believe that the protesters were in the wrong. They were clearly obstructing the flow of traffic while loitering in a crosswalk against the light (law). The driver slowly approached the protesters giving them plenty of time to move out of his way, which they did, although not without attacking his vehicle afterward. But then one protester decided that he should not get through so easily and purposely moved into harms way. One person’s freedom ends where another person’s freedom begins, and the protesters were clearly purposefully infringing on his freedom to move through the city in accordance with the traffic control devices.
Is it possible they were both in the wrong?
“There are fine people on both sides” Quote, enquote, trump.
Thems without sin may throw the first pieces of winter road grit.
You’re right. We must balance the freedom of movement with the freedom to crush people with your 5000lb farm vehicle in a dense city.
And thanks for your “I have friends who are black”-style preface.
This is an anti car blog
I have a feeling that if, instead of someone driving a truck aiming towards people to scare them out of his or her way, it was someone on a bike, nobody would be defending him, either. And that’s even though the potential for injuries would be much less.
I’d call it anti-bad behavior, not anti-car.
If it had been a bicycle, no one would have stepped in its path and tried to block it. We wouldn’t even be talking about it.
What if it was a horse?
It’s fairly obvious the driver had no intention of hitting anyone, encourage them to move which they did. He was going a whole 6-7mph if you look at the video. At fist glance it might look like that but if you see him slam on his brakes as soon as the guy walks backward into his path, why would he do that if he intended to hit anyone? Illogical. As they were beating on his truck it looks like he was trying to get out of there as fast as possible. The driver stated he was going to the court house so he had a right to travel there. The protesters had absolutely no right to block the court house or the road leading there. This isn’t anything new… cars try to get through protesters all the time, all across the country. Some states have absolutely no sympathy for people blocking the roads even though some people in Oregon do. Glad I don’t live there.
I agree — the driver may have been a bully and likely committed assault, but he was not a homicidal maniac.
We’re also glad you don’t live here. Blocking the movement of vehicles is constitutionally protected speech. Our country was formed through such “illegal” actions. Having the road blocked for your vehicle is the price of freedom.
Constitutionally protected speech? Please.
Please stay where you are. We don’t want you here either.
Some people are not emotionally mature enough to drive.
Brandishing an oversized truck (or any large metal object) is equivalent to brandishing a weapon. “Your honor, I didn’t INTEND to kill that person, the weapon just went off by itself”.
So if I were not protesting, but simply crossing the street more slowly than a driver wanted, would he have the right drive straight towards me right up to within a few feet of me (at 6-7 mph or whatever) to “encourage” me to get out of his way? What if it were kids in a school crossing? Old person who didn’t get across before the light changed?
And some people aren’t emotionally mature enough to realize that not everyone cares about their cause and that being aggressive and disrespectful will never win anyone’s support. The guy simply wanted to get to court on time.
And the guy who wanted to get to court on time should have accepted that life just isn’t always fair, and even if the people blocking him were totally out of line, and certain to make him late, he still didn’t have the right to drive into them.
‘wanting to get to court on time’ and ‘using your 6000lb vehicle to physically move someone out of your path’ are not equivalent. An emotionally mature person would know the difference.
Yeah, I frequently find myself wanting to get someplace on time. And frequently there are other people knowingly or unknowingly preventing me from doing so. Thus far I haven’t resorted to the use of even so much as a baseball bat in order to move those inconvenient people aside.
GeeZus some of you people just think protesters blocking the road is A ok with you. It is illegal. Protesting on the street, blocking traffic is simply illegal. https://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/814.040
This comment “Blocking the movement of vehicles is constitutionally protected speech.” is so ignorant I can only assume you’re a pro protester. You’re wrong, itis illegal and a class D Traffic violation.
What does this have to do with someone driving their truck through a line of protesters?
The Two Wrongs Make a Right statute, in the case of someone violating 814.040 (or any other statute) allows the second party to take the law into their own hands and violate a statute of their choosing (the one against running people over in this case).
Wasn’t that one of the Lon Mabon ballot initiative from the early 1990s, along with the Eye for an Eye measure?
Two wrongs don’t make a right, but three lefts do. Maybe that would have avoided the whole sitch.
And some of you people apparently believe that motorists are entitled to enforce pedestrian violations with the death penalty. You are advocating for sociopaths. Are you one yourself?
Where did he run over people? If he intended to run over people, why did he slam on his brakes the moment someone moved into his path? It’s kinda’ obvious the driver was trying to create an opening of the illegal protesters…had they not moved, looks like he would have stopped since the moment someone did get in his path, he SLAMMED on the brakes. Who had the right to be in the road? Only the driver. Interfering with traffic in Oregon is illegal
Personally when I ride, there are some drivers that are just jerks and so are there some pedestrians that are jerks. Mostly however, I actually like seeing people out, moving about, bike riders, cars, dogs being walked, creates a good feeling. However, I have ZERO tolerance for any “pedestrians” that interrupt that normal flow. The ones that think they’re special and the law doesn’t apply to them are abhorrent.
He had no right to “create an opening”, no matter how illegal the actions of the protesters were, or how little tolerance he (or you) had for them.
With your “zero tolerance” policy, when you see a pedestrian interrupting the flow, do you aim your car or bike at them and proceed towards them so close that if they don’t move you have to slam on your breaks? The driver came so close to one that the guy could hit the hood of his car with his hand.
And since when is it ever appropriate to drive in a manner that you have to slam on your breaks to avoid hitting someone because they don’t get out of your way? The group of protesters didn’t jump in front of him, he drove right at them.
In any event, I’m not claiming the protesters weren’t violating any law. But whether they were or were not, the driver shouldn’t have driven at them, and the police apparently concur.
You’re so biased… Did you even read the law? https://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/814.040
You call them “Pedestrians” when they couldn’t be any further from that definition. You said “The group of protesters didn’t jump in front of him…” Are you blind? That’s EXACTLY what the protester did. When the path was clear from the protesters that were violating the law, the guy walked BACKWARDS, like he was doing the moon dance or something with eyes on the driver, INTENDING to get in his clear path when the others finally complied with the law. Did you not hear them beating on the drivers truck? Did you not see them doing so? GeeZus, if the protester pulled out an axe and started swinging it at the driver, you would defend that as well, obviously.
Your comment, “GeeZus, if the protester pulled out an axe and started swinging it at the driver, you would defend that as well”, is odd, given that I wrote, “I’m not claiming the protesters weren’t violating any law.”
Your comment, “You call them “Pedestrians…” is odd because I didn’t call the protesters pedestrians. I used “pedestrians” because I was asking you a question about pedestrians, which you didn’t answer.
Your comment, “The group of protesters didn’t jump in front of him…” Are you blind? That’s EXACTLY what the protester did” is odd, because I was referring to the protestors (plural) that he drive right at, not the individual protestor that he hit after he made the whole group scramble. Look at the video at 0:56. They are all lined up in front of him as he drives towards them. They didn’t jump in front of him.
Your comment “Did you even read the law?” is odd because it’s irrelevant to what the driver did, and was charged with. Even if they were blatantly breaking the law, other laws prohibit the driver from responding as he did.
The Police agreed he didn’t do anything wrong. Did you hear the cop that first came to the driver? Saying “I’m not excited about anything, I understand the frustration., I saw the whole thing, otherwise you’d be in handcuffs.” The cops apparently shot the protesters brother weeks before and on this day, the crowd was gathering, screaming for justice. It was the subsequent cops that arrested thee driver as said “our safety and your safety, were going to arrest you.” Did you protester defenders just not watch the whole video?
Oh, you mean the same cops that were recently exposed chumming with PP/PB leaders and failed to report a sniper’s nest incident to the Mayor’s office for two months? Yeah, I totally trust their ability to remain impartial while playing judge and jury on the street.
If the police agreed he didn’t do anything wrong, why haven’t all the charges been dropped?
Lick those boots.