ARIZONA--infringes on Free Speech--Protest we'll seize your property.

[GaryDog]

Comparison fail. He did not de-legitimize the SCOTUS. He criticized an opinion.

Get a fucking brain.

Of course he did, Jackbooted little fool. So bad was Ohwhatafuckup that Roberts mouthed "not true" to Obammys moronic lie.

Oh wow, totally on the level of trump referring to a justice as a "so-called judge"

People Who Never Grew Up Look for Father Figures

You love authority figures, if not all of them. We can attack the high and mighty lowlife according to the contempt they have for us. They are nothing special, and their contempt for the will of the people shows that we must not allow them to judge us.

You're speaking of Trump, I presume?

 

[CatInTheSplat]

Oh that diabolical Trump has taken over the Arizona state legislature.

I detest forfeiture laws which allow the police to seize assets when an arrest is made though. Seems to violate due process to me.

 

[oreo]

Comparison fail. He did not de-legitimize the SCOTUS. He criticized an opinion.

Get a fucking brain.

Of course he did, Jackbooted little fool. So bad was Ohwhatafuckup that Roberts mouthed "not true" to Obammys moronic lie.

Oh wow, totally on the level of trump referring to a justice as a "so-called judge"

People Who Never Grew Up Look for Father Figures

You love authority figures, if not all of them. We can attack the high and mighty lowlife according to the contempt they have for us. They are nothing special, and their contempt for the will of the people shows that we must not allow them to judge us.

You're speaking of Trump, I presume?

Everyone knows that the goal posts were moved on Hillary Clinton's side of the field. No one believes that Trump would be POTUS today, without Vladimir Putin, and FBI director James Comey's unprecedented failure to follow long standing DOJ protocol of not releasing information within 60 days of an election. Millions of people voted during those 7 days believing that charges were imminent against Hillary Clinton. 7 days later Comey gave birth to his nothing burger.

Add to this that Clinton clocked Trump by 3 million more popular votes, makes Trump the most Illegitimate President ever to be sworn into the Oval office.

Eric Holder and 100 other former Justice officials sign letter blasting Comey’s ‘breach of protocol’
DOJ to Investigate James Comey and the FBI
Meet Donald Trump’s Top FBI Fanboy--(this one involves Rudi Giuliani and James Kalstrom both frequent flyers on FOX News that will certainly be involved in this investigation.)

There is an ongoing investigation into the Russia Hacking, I imagine Sessions will block investigations of James Comey--but Democrats are certain to investigate when they take over in 2018.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Oh that diabolical Trump has taken over the Arizona state legislature.

I detest forfeiture laws which allow the police to seize assets when an arrest is made though. Seems to violate due process to me.

I do thing forfeiture can only be legitimate upon CONVICTION and when there is a direct correlation to the crimes involved.

But in the case of Soros and his paid brown shirts, can it be said that the the ENTIRE Soros fortune is used to support a criminal enterprise that is engaged in subverting the Constitutional Republic?

 

[CatInTheSplat]

Comparison fail. He did not de-legitimize the SCOTUS. He criticized an opinion.

Get a fucking brain.

Of course he did, Jackbooted little fool. So bad was Ohwhatafuckup that Roberts mouthed "not true" to Obammys moronic lie.

Oh wow, totally on the level of trump referring to a justice as a "so-called judge"

People Who Never Grew Up Look for Father Figures

You love authority figures, if not all of them. We can attack the high and mighty lowlife according to the contempt they have for us. They are nothing special, and their contempt for the will of the people shows that we must not allow them to judge us.

You're speaking of Trump, I presume?

Everyone knows that the goal posts were moved on Hillary Clinton's side of the field. No one believes that Trump would be POTUS today, without Vladimir Putin, and FBI director James Comey's unprecedented failure to follow long standing DOJ protocol of not releasing information within 60 days of an election. Millions of people voted during those 7 days believing that charges were imminent against Hillary Clinton. 7 days later Comey gave birth to his nothing burger.

Add to this that Clinton clocked Trump by 3 million more popular votes, makes Trump the most Illegitimate President to be sworn into the Oval office.

Eric Holder and 100 other former Justice officials sign letter blasting Comey’s ‘breach of protocol’
DOJ to Investigate James Comey and the FBI

What does this ^ have to do with the topic at hand?

 

[CatInTheSplat]

Oh that diabolical Trump has taken over the Arizona state legislature.

I detest forfeiture laws which allow the police to seize assets when an arrest is made though. Seems to violate due process to me.

I do thing forfeiture can only be legitimate upon CONVICTION and when there is a direct correlation to the crimes involved.

But in the case of Soros and his paid brown shirts, can it be said that the the ENTIRE Soros fortune is used to support a criminal enterprise that is engaged in subverting the Constitutional Republic?

Personally I'd start charging people with aiding rioters and possibly with RICO laws since there is little doubt that these riots are organized.

 

[busybee01]

Oh that diabolical Trump has taken over the Arizona state legislature.

I detest forfeiture laws which allow the police to seize assets when an arrest is made though. Seems to violate due process to me.

I do thing forfeiture can only be legitimate upon CONVICTION and when there is a direct correlation to the crimes involved.

But in the case of Soros and his paid brown shirts, can it be said that the the ENTIRE Soros fortune is used to support a criminal enterprise that is engaged in subverting the Constitutional Republic?

Personally I'd start charging people with aiding rioters and possibly with RICO laws since there is little doubt that these riots are organized.

That is why we have a constitution thank God. People have a right to protest and what you are discussing is Gestapo tactics.

 

[CatInTheSplat]

Oh that diabolical Trump has taken over the Arizona state legislature.

I detest forfeiture laws which allow the police to seize assets when an arrest is made though. Seems to violate due process to me.

I do thing forfeiture can only be legitimate upon CONVICTION and when there is a direct correlation to the crimes involved.

But in the case of Soros and his paid brown shirts, can it be said that the the ENTIRE Soros fortune is used to support a criminal enterprise that is engaged in subverting the Constitutional Republic?

Personally I'd start charging people with aiding rioters and possibly with RICO laws since there is little doubt that these riots are organized.

That is why we have a constitution thank God. People have a right to protest and what you are discussing is Gestapo tactics.

Oh for God sakes that is hilarious. What Gestapo tactic have I suggested?

 

[FA_Q2]

Anyone claiming they will TAKE YOUR SHIT for PROTESTING is a straight up fucking liar.

Guess you missed this little news article from the Arizona Capital Times.........

Claiming people are being paid to riot, Republican state senators voted Wednesday to give police new power to arrest anyone who is involved in a peaceful demonstration that may turn bad — even before anything actually happened.


SB1142 expands the state’s racketeering laws, now aimed at organized crime, to also include rioting. And it redefines what constitutes rioting to include actions that result in damage to the property of others.


But the real heart of the legislation is what Democrats say is the guilt by association — and giving the government the right to criminally prosecute and seize the assets of everyone who planned a protest and everyone who participated. And what’s worse, said Sen. Steve Farley, D-Tucson, is that the person who may have broken a window, triggering the claim there was a riot, might actually not be a member of the group but someone from the other side.


Sen. Martin Quezada, D-Phoenix, acknowledged that sometimes what’s planned as a peaceful demonstration can go south.


“When people want to express themselves as a group during a time of turmoil, during a time of controversy, during a time of high emotions, that’s exactly when people gather as a community,’’ he said. “Sometimes they yell, sometimes they scream, sometimes they do go too far.’’


Quezada said, though, that everything that constitutes rioting already is a crime, ranging from assault to criminal damage, and those responsible can be individually prosecuted. He said the purpose of this bill appears to be designed to chill the First Amendment rights of people to decide to demonstrate in the first place for fear something could wrong.

http://azcapitoltimes.com/news/2017/02/22/arizona-senate-crackdown-on-protests/

There are little if any facts in that article. They didn't post the actual statute. The article is almost exclusively editorialized speculation.

I'm not going to dig it up, but if you want to post the statute in its entirety, we can break it down.

already done. Post 68

 

[FA_Q2]

Hmm lets review parts of the First.

"or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Nope nothing about permits or instituting Capital Punishment on citizens who violate the law during a protest assembly, which would also violate the 5th Amendment. Speaking of the 5th

"nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law"

Over the top, Unconstitutional.

“…the right of the people peaceably to assemble…”

Rioting is not peaceable, and therefore, not protected under the First Amendment. Of course, you left wrong-wing filth refuse to acknowledge the difference between peaceable assembly, and violent, destructive rioting. No surprise, given your unabashed alignment with criminals, against the side of law-abiding citizens.

Exactly, punish those that are guilty of violence. Even though it's painfully obvious that in your heart of hearts you Fascist want to punish everyone who disagrees with you, violent or not.

That isn't what the bill is designed to do, it is to punish those that are rioting and arrested. If caught their assets are seized. I have no issue with punishing the rioters, I have a big issue with the seizing assets. There has to be due process and if assets are Court ordered to be sold to pay off any damage a person is found guilty of causing then so be it. I love a good peaceful protest, no violence, no damaging other's property just because you are an ass.

As far as I'm your heart of heart BS, that is all it is. The left claims hate and racism to minimize and silence opposition. How many right wing groups did Obama have put on the terrorist watch groups and how vague was that list to include everyone that disagreed with him or his policies. Seems fascist to me. But it's okay if your side does it, right?

The asset seizure is only present, as far as I know, because the bill puts this under racketeering. I presume that means that the same standards for sizing those assets would apply. I do not see how such a seizure would happen under this law as the only assets available for sizing would be those involved with the crime. IOW, I can only see this happening should a group plan out the riot and the assets of that group would be sized - and rightfully so.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Oh that diabolical Trump has taken over the Arizona state legislature.

I detest forfeiture laws which allow the police to seize assets when an arrest is made though. Seems to violate due process to me.

I do thing forfeiture can only be legitimate upon CONVICTION and when there is a direct correlation to the crimes involved.

But in the case of Soros and his paid brown shirts, can it be said that the the ENTIRE Soros fortune is used to support a criminal enterprise that is engaged in subverting the Constitutional Republic?

Personally I'd start charging people with aiding rioters and possibly with RICO laws since there is little doubt that these riots are organized.

Welcome to the forum, I suspect you will make a fine addition.

 

[Vandalshandle]

FACT SHEET FOR S.B. 1142


riot; planning; participation; racketeering


Purpose



Adds rioting to the list of offenses that can be pursued under racketeering statutes. Expands the definition of riot and specifies that to prove conspiracy to commit a riot, an overt act is not required.

SB1142 - 531R - Senate Fact Sheet


Arizona bill punishes even peaceful protesters when events turn violent

If the bill becomes law, prosecutors could seize the assets of protesters, even if they didn't participate in any violence. The bill would add rioting to the list of offenses that could be charged under Arizona's Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization laws.

The bill, according to a Senate fact sheet, stipulates that an "overt act is not required as proof of a riot offense."

No, an overt act is not required because a THREAT qualifies as well.

I posted the text already. It does NOT apply to a peaceful protester. You cannot threaten violence to others and then claim you are being peaceful.

Threats being illegal is not a new concept - it has been this way for a long time.

If this were to become law, I could peacefully attend a protest, only to find that, unknown to me, some guy had decided in advance to set fire to a billboard; and simply because of my presence, could have my property confiscated. You don't have to have a law degree to recognize that is a violation of my free speech.

No, you could not. That is what others have TOLD you. It is not in the law.

Again, the text has been posted. Where in the text is your assertion supported?

Look, FA, I really should not have teach you stuff that is just barely beyond 8th grade civics.

If you and I plan to rob a bank, and I think that your gun is unloaded, and only bluffing, and then you shoot and kill someone, I am guilty by complicity.

If you and I plan to go to a perfectly legal football game, and I have no reason to think that you are going to break the law, but while you are there, you shoot the peanut vender for shortchanging you, I am not complicitly guilty of anything. This is such a basic legal question that you would have to know this just to get ADMITTED to law school!

You might want to try reading and understanding the law before shooting your mouth off about teaching anything.

I posted the text. I Pulled out the relevant parts that you are referring to. They simply do not say what you keep demanding that they do.

To support my argument I have used the actual text. To support your argument you used asinine links to YouTube on irrelevant content. Try again.

Naw. It is kind of like teaching quantum physics to my cat....

 

[CatInTheSplat]

Oh that diabolical Trump has taken over the Arizona state legislature.

I detest forfeiture laws which allow the police to seize assets when an arrest is made though. Seems to violate due process to me.

I do thing forfeiture can only be legitimate upon CONVICTION and when there is a direct correlation to the crimes involved.

But in the case of Soros and his paid brown shirts, can it be said that the the ENTIRE Soros fortune is used to support a criminal enterprise that is engaged in subverting the Constitutional Republic?

Personally I'd start charging people with aiding rioters and possibly with RICO laws since there is little doubt that these riots are organized.

Welcome to the forum, I suspect you will make a fine addition.

Thank you, and I will endeavor to disappoint


liberals that is.

 

[FA_Q2]

No, an overt act is not required because a THREAT qualifies as well.

I posted the text already. It does NOT apply to a peaceful protester. You cannot threaten violence to others and then claim you are being peaceful.

Threats being illegal is not a new concept - it has been this way for a long time.

If this were to become law, I could peacefully attend a protest, only to find that, unknown to me, some guy had decided in advance to set fire to a billboard; and simply because of my presence, could have my property confiscated. You don't have to have a law degree to recognize that is a violation of my free speech.

No, you could not. That is what others have TOLD you. It is not in the law.

Again, the text has been posted. Where in the text is your assertion supported?

Look, FA, I really should not have teach you stuff that is just barely beyond 8th grade civics.

If you and I plan to rob a bank, and I think that your gun is unloaded, and only bluffing, and then you shoot and kill someone, I am guilty by complicity.

If you and I plan to go to a perfectly legal football game, and I have no reason to think that you are going to break the law, but while you are there, you shoot the peanut vender for shortchanging you, I am not complicitly guilty of anything. This is such a basic legal question that you would have to know this just to get ADMITTED to law school!

You might want to try reading and understanding the law before shooting your mouth off about teaching anything.

I posted the text. I Pulled out the relevant parts that you are referring to. They simply do not say what you keep demanding that they do.

To support my argument I have used the actual text. To support your argument you used asinine links to YouTube on irrelevant content. Try again.

Naw. It is kind of like teaching quantum physics to my cat....

IOW, you cannot support your argument from the text of the bill and therefore have to resort to ad homonyms. Not really a surprise - not one person whining about this law has actually supported their position with the actual law.

I believe G5000 has a term for this - piss drinkers.

 

[Frankeneinstein]

The 4th Reich of the Republican party is in full swing with Trump in office. Make certain they pay hell for it in 2018 and 2020.

What makes you think they won't be rewarded instead?...it will be an election of the "4th Reich" vs. the Bolsheviks/Mensheviks

 

[Vandalshandle]

If this were to become law, I could peacefully attend a protest, only to find that, unknown to me, some guy had decided in advance to set fire to a billboard; and simply because of my presence, could have my property confiscated. You don't have to have a law degree to recognize that is a violation of my free speech.

No, you could not. That is what others have TOLD you. It is not in the law.

Again, the text has been posted. Where in the text is your assertion supported?

Look, FA, I really should not have teach you stuff that is just barely beyond 8th grade civics.

If you and I plan to rob a bank, and I think that your gun is unloaded, and only bluffing, and then you shoot and kill someone, I am guilty by complicity.

If you and I plan to go to a perfectly legal football game, and I have no reason to think that you are going to break the law, but while you are there, you shoot the peanut vender for shortchanging you, I am not complicitly guilty of anything. This is such a basic legal question that you would have to know this just to get ADMITTED to law school!

You might want to try reading and understanding the law before shooting your mouth off about teaching anything.

I posted the text. I Pulled out the relevant parts that you are referring to. They simply do not say what you keep demanding that they do.

To support my argument I have used the actual text. To support your argument you used asinine links to YouTube on irrelevant content. Try again.

Naw. It is kind of like teaching quantum physics to my cat....

IOW, you cannot support your argument from the text of the bill and therefore have to resort to ad homonyms. Not really a surprise - not one person whining about this law has actually supported their position with the actual law.

I believe G5000 has a term for this - piss drinkers.

In my mailbox from Allaince4Action sponsored by the AZ Democratic Party:

****ACTNOW****
An “Attack on Free Speech and Assembly”
This one is personal!
SB 1142: This bill makes participating in, or helping organize a protest that turns into a riot, an offense that could lead to criminal racketeering charges, including significant jail time and seizure of assets. An overt act isn’t needed to prove a conspiracy to riot. If a rally results in a “riot” (including disturbing the peace or destruction of property) the planners can be charged. Those who plan, sponsor or participate in a rally could be charged as if they were part of organized crime!
The Speaker of the House could kill the bill simply by not assigning it to a committee. Contact the Speaker of the AZ House, J. D. Mesnard and urge him NOT to assign SB1142 to a committee. THIS WOULD KILL THE BILL.

 

[danielpalos]

What does violence have to do with free speech?

Sane people can easily tell the difference. LIbErals, not so much.

anybody with guns at any protest; "grab their guns".

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Oh that diabolical Trump has taken over the Arizona state legislature.

I detest forfeiture laws which allow the police to seize assets when an arrest is made though. Seems to violate due process to me.

I do thing forfeiture can only be legitimate upon CONVICTION and when there is a direct correlation to the crimes involved.

But in the case of Soros and his paid brown shirts, can it be said that the the ENTIRE Soros fortune is used to support a criminal enterprise that is engaged in subverting the Constitutional Republic?

Personally I'd start charging people with aiding rioters and possibly with RICO laws since there is little doubt that these riots are organized.

That is why we have a constitution thank God. People have a right to protest and what you are discussing is Gestapo tactics.

Oh for God sakes that is hilarious. What Gestapo tactic have I suggested?

A Googol of Godwins

Doozies, who don't see, do see Nazi.

 

[Vandalshandle]

Outcry Kills Anti-Protest Law in Arizona, but Troubling Trend Continues Nationwide

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Comparison fail. He did not de-legitimize the SCOTUS. He criticized an opinion.

Get a fucking brain.

Of course he did, Jackbooted little fool. So bad was Ohwhatafuckup that Roberts mouthed "not true" to Obammys moronic lie.

Oh wow, totally on the level of trump referring to a justice as a "so-called judge"

People Who Never Grew Up Look for Father Figures

You love authority figures, if not all of them. We can attack the high and mighty lowlife according to the contempt they have for us. They are nothing special, and their contempt for the will of the people shows that we must not allow them to judge us.

You're speaking of Trump, I presume?

Everyone knows that the goal posts were moved on Hillary Clinton's side of the field. No one believes that Trump would be POTUS today, without Vladimir Putin, and FBI director James Comey's unprecedented failure to follow long standing DOJ protocol of not releasing information within 60 days of an election. Millions of people voted during those 7 days believing that charges were imminent against Hillary Clinton. 7 days later Comey gave birth to his nothing burger.

Add to this that Clinton clocked Trump by 3 million more popular votes, makes Trump the most Illegitimate President ever to be sworn into the Oval office.

Eric Holder and 100 other former Justice officials sign letter blasting Comey’s ‘breach of protocol’
DOJ to Investigate James Comey and the FBI
Meet Donald Trump’s Top FBI Fanboy--(this one involves Rudi Giuliani and James Kalstrom both frequent flyers on FOX News that will certainly be involved in this investigation.)

There is an ongoing investigation into the Russia Hacking, I imagine Sessions will block investigations of James Comey--but Democrats are certain to investigate when they take over in 2018.

Holder signing something about a breach of protocol ????

ROTFLMAO....for hours.