Is it ok to run over protesters blocking the road?

You may not run over a protester(s) unless it's by accident. Me? I place on the blindfold immediately before the point of impact.

If Police Won’t Back Up ‘Mr. Brooklyn,’ Maybe a Lawyer Will

How to hold anti-Israel protesters accountable for breaking the law by disrupting traffic.

By Jason L. Riley, WSJ

Jan. 23, 2024

Did you know you have a right to snarl traffic? Me neither. But the communications team at Washington’s Reagan National Airport seems to think it’s embedded in the U.S. Constitution.

A traffic alert sent out by airport officials last weekend warned travelers to expect delays “due to a group in vehicles exercising first amendment rights in roadway.” The vehicles were occupied by opponents of Israel’s war against Hamas, and for the past several months demonstrators have been throttling highways and byways across the nation to draw attention to their cause.

They’ve also drawn the ire of millions of Americans who simply want to go about their daily commutes. A New York City motorist, dubbed “Mr. Brooklyn” by the local tabloids, caused a sensation recently when a video of him confronting protesters who were blocking a bridge was posted on social media. “You’re disrupting traffic, idiots!” he shouts at demonstrators before exiting his car and shoving several of them out of the way. “You can’t do that! It’s against the law!” They eventually let the man through, and good for him. But why should he have to stick his neck out when maintaining public order is the responsibility of city officials and law enforcement?

In December protesters blocked access to Los Angeles and John F. Kennedy international airports, two of the country’s busiest. On a Thursday morning in November, they orchestrated a five-hour shut down of the Bay Bridge connecting San Francisco and Oakland. Earlier this month, demonstrators blocked Interstate 5 in Washington state, which goes through downtown Seattle and is used by more than quarter-million drivers on a typical day. The protests lasted more than four hours and caused a 6-mile backup. “The level of fury was such,” Axios reports, that a spokesman for the Washington State Patrol “said people asked police to use water cannons, sticks, hoses and dogs to clear the road.”

Arrests have been made in some instances, but few of the cases are prosecuted. Police officers know that the people they detain will be set free a few hours later, and demonstrators know that they can continue to violate laws with few if any repercussions. Ted Frank, an attorney with the nonprofit Hamilton Lincoln Law Institute, said in an interview that if prosecutors refuse to pursue criminal charges in these cases, there are possible civil remedies. “Somebody who was trapped in their car during a protest was the victim of a tort, a civil wrong, and they have the right to sue over that,” he said.

Sure, but sue whom?

“You could go after the protesters, but more important you could sue the organizations that facilitated the protests, organized the protests, conspired,” Mr. Frank said. “We have press releases from the protesters acknowledging the participation of several organizations, none of whom have said, ‘No, we didn’t do this, and we condemn this.’ ”

Rules for bringing such lawsuits vary depending on the state. In some, private citizens could bring public-nuisance claims and seek an injunction or damages. In others, a municipality adversely affected by traffic backups or that lost business due to protests might sue. “If that happens,” Mr. Frank said, “I would imagine insurance companies would tell these organizations, ‘Stop doing this. You’re committing intentional torts, and your insurance policy doesn’t cover that.’ There would be consequences.”

Mr. Frank concedes the approach would be novel but argues that the current situation justifies trying something different. “It’s a very recent development that protesters have blocked public roads and inconvenienced everyday citizens,” he said. “Over the last four years we’ve seen a sea change in the way cities are run and prosecutions are run, and they’re less willing to protect the public at large.”

The hope is that the civil-justice system, through class-action lawsuits brought by nonprofits acting in the public interest, can do what the government isn’t doing. No one is going to get rich bringing such claims. The litigation is likely to cost more than any potential proceeds, which is why the private bar has shown little interest in getting involved. Why sue unemployed activists when you could be suing multibillion-dollar corporations?

“We’re interviewing people who might want to be plaintiffs, but the problem is you need a plaintiff to have standing to bring the suit,” Mr. Frank said. “And people don’t want to expose themselves to be the point person for the anger of the left. They don’t have confidence that their homes and workplaces aren’t going to be picketed, or that they’re not going to be harassed, or that their tires aren’t going to be slashed.”

Maybe Mr. Brooklyn is available.