Senator Dahm, whose SB560 cleared committee, issued the following press release:

Public Safety Committee approves measure to allow drivers to defend themselves from riots

OKLAHOMA CITY – The Senate Public Safety Committee has given approval to Senate Bill 560, which would provide criminal and civil protections for drivers who feel threatened by riots or crowds of people circling a vehicle.

Authored by Sen. Nathan Dahm, R-Broken Arrow, the measure would protect a person who makes a reasonable effort to escape from a crowd unlawfully blocking the road and surrounding the vehicle from criminal or civil prosecution. The bill is in response to the 2020 riots, where protesters were witnessed numerous times surrounding vehicles, rendering them unable to move without possible injury.

“Most of us are aware of the riots that happened throughout the summer last year on highways, blocking traffic and even rolling through neighborhoods and along people’s private property,” Dahm said. “Drivers in these situations should not be held liable or responsible for injury by trying to escape a threatening and dangerous situation. I strongly support the right to peacefully protest, but when these protests turn violent, citizens should have every right to protect themselves and their property.”

The measure now moves to the full Senate for consideration.

For more information, contact:

Sen. Nathan Dahm at 405-521-5551, or email Nathan.Dahm@oksenate.gov

The measure seems to extend the immunity from prosecution for physically resisting a home invasion, business invasion, or place of worship invasion to resisting protesters blocking a street blocking cars. It appears to provide drivers of cars blocked protection from lawsuits or criminal prosecution if the driver deems the protesters to be violating the law and, without using the words, drives through the gathered protesters. It cleared committee today with no changes and only one negative vote.

I would love to hear thoughts from others on whether (1) This means violent responses are warranted to simply blocking a street without any further hostile action and (2) Whether this greatly restricts the definition of peaceful protest (with serious freedom of expression implications) by green lighting those who differ with the protestors to use a deadly weapon (a vehicle) to silence them, with absolute immunity from civil or criminal liability.

The committee report moves the bill forward without change and it appears the bill stands for the propositions above. I have an instinctive reaction, but I haven't really heard the detailed arguments on either side other than the language in the press release below. I think a change this major deserves more conversation than this on both sides.