Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
Fact check: Did ron desantis say it's okay to run over protesters
1. Summary of the results
The claim requires significant context. Ron DeSantis did not explicitly state it's "okay to run over protesters" [1] [2]. Instead, he stated that:
- Drivers have a right to flee if they feel threatened [1]
- Under the "Combatting Public Disorder Act," drivers can claim civil legal immunity if they injure someone while fleeing protesters blocking a roadway [3]
- These comments were made during an appearance on The Rubin Report [4]
2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints
Several crucial pieces of context are missing from the original statement:
*Legal Nuances:
- The law does **not provide blanket immunity** for drivers [5]
- Drivers could still face both civil lawsuits and criminal prosecution [5]
- Legal experts emphasize that hitting non-violent protesters could result in criminal charges [5]
Protest Context:
- Protest organizers are specifically planning **non-violent demonstrations** [4]
- The legal situation is complex and depends on whether protesters were genuinely threatening the driver [5]
**3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement**
The original statement oversimplifies a complex legal and political situation:
- It presents DeSantis's position in absolute terms, when the reality is more nuanced
- It omits the crucial distinction between self-defense and intentional harm
- The framing benefits:
- Political opponents: By presenting the policy in its most extreme interpretation
- Protest groups: By highlighting potential threats to peaceful assembly
- DeSantis supporters: By focusing on the self-defense aspects while downplaying legal limitations
- Legal professionals*: Who benefit from the complexity of interpreting and litigating these cases
The statement requires significant context to be properly understood, as the legal reality is far more complex than the simple yes/no question suggests.