Sometimes a crucial distinction lies merely on the tactic, and not the sentiment.
[A bill that state GOP Rep. Keith Kempenich introduced would exempt drivers from liability if they accidentally hit a pedestrian, according to the Bismarck Tribune. House Bill 1203 was written up in direct response to groups of protesters blocking roadways, Kempenich told the paper. He claims protesters were seen jumping out in front of vehicles.
“It’s shifting the burden of proof from the motor vehicle driver to the pedestrian,” Kempenich said. “They’re intentionally putting themselves in danger.
Another measure would make it a crime for adults to wear masks nearly across the board, while another would allow the state to sue the federal government over millions in extra police costs, according to ABC News.”] Read the full report | The Huffington Post
Now, let’s draw an analogy (with a practice poorly documented and sensationalized):
[Beginning in the 1830s, two Mexican states (Sonora and Chihuahua) authorized scalp bounties against Apache Indians, but these were as controversial in Mexico as they had been in the British colonies.
In New Mexico and Arizona, the state governments never approved scalp bounties, but some county officials revived and increased the old Apache scalp bounties that had been used by the former Mexican states. A report from the New York Times in 1885 (the most recent source I know of that documents scalp bounties) offers the following passage that shows the mentality of those who justified the practice:
From time immemorial all border countries have offered bounties for bear and wolf scalps and other animals that destroyed the pioneer’s stock or molested his family. Why, therefore, asks the Arizona settler, should not the authorities place a reward upon the head of the terrible Apache, who murders the white man’s family and steals his stock like the wolves?
Some colonial governments in the British North American colonies enacted scalp bounties early in the 1700s, in the context of war between Britain and France. They wanted to create an incentive for frontier settlers to kill Indians who were allied with the French enemy. In practice, though, colonial Indian killers were careless about the distinction between “friendly” and “hostile” Indians. As the white population expanded, so did demand for land, and this was the material motive behind most killing of Indians, whether sanctioned by authority or not…. ] Read the full article | Quora