What's new
US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Florida new anti-riot law

LeftofLeft

Platinum Member
Joined
Oct 18, 2011
Messages
14,467
Reaction score
6,094
Points
390
In addition, too bad that these laws weren’t in place throughout the US in 2020 were being burnt and looted. It also didn’t help when leaders and celebrities were funding the bail for perpetrators who had been arrested. By January 6, precedent had been set. Florida is taking lead to prevent any such riots from any side.
I'm guessing the laws were aimed at only one side.

yea.... all that rioting, burning, looting, murdering. Such a bad step to try and reduce that. How the hell can it be one sided? What does that side look like? Does the “other side” get a pass???
Is there anything about private citizens from other states arming themselves and killing protestors? How about running protestors over? Occupying government buildings?

You addressed the first part but the bill would prevent localities from reducing police budgets, meaning the State is mandating how locals use tax revenue. Sounds like government overreach to me and I'd think conservatives would object.

Except it says nothing about that in the law. A city can spend whatever they want on their police and the state won't do anything about it. If their force is too small to handle the situation, like I said, state police or the national guard may move in.
Except your link said the law has an "appeal process when cities and counties attempt to reduce police budgets".

In addition, too bad that these laws weren’t in place throughout the US in 2020 were being burnt and looted. It also didn’t help when leaders and celebrities were funding the bail for perpetrators who had been arrested. By January 6, precedent had been set. Florida is taking lead to prevent any such riots from any side.
I'm guessing the laws were aimed at only one side.

yea.... all that rioting, burning, looting, murdering. Such a bad step to try and reduce that. How the hell can it be one sided? What does that side look like? Does the “other side” get a pass???
Is there anything about private citizens from other states arming themselves and killing protestors? How about running protestors over? Occupying government buildings?

You addressed the first part but the bill would prevent localities from reducing police budgets, meaning the State is mandating how locals use tax revenue. Sounds like government overreach to me and I'd think conservatives would object.

Except it says nothing about that in the law. A city can spend whatever they want on their police and the state won't do anything about it. If their force is too small to handle the situation, like I said, state police or the national guard may move in.
Except your link said the law has an "appeal process when cities and counties attempt to reduce police budgets".
Is there anything about private citizens from other states arming themselves and killing protestors? How about running protestors over? Occupying government buildings?
If protestors decide to threaten private citizens or try to pull them out of their cars and beat or kill them as we saw in 2020, then private citizens can use any means to evade the threat or defend themselves.
 

alang1216

Pragmatist
Joined
Jun 21, 2014
Messages
13,467
Reaction score
1,990
Points
245
Location
Virginia
Except your link said the law has an "appeal process when cities and counties attempt to reduce police budgets".
It said a citizens appeal process, not the state. In other words those lib cities that want to defund their departments. The citizens of that city would have a say-so outside of voting.
It is "outside of voting" because the Gov doesn't believe in democracy so he wrote a STATE law to override the local voters, allowing a minority to impose its will.
 

alang1216

Pragmatist
Joined
Jun 21, 2014
Messages
13,467
Reaction score
1,990
Points
245
Location
Virginia
If protestors decide to threaten private citizens or try to pull them out of their cars and beat or kill them as we saw in 2020, then private citizens can use any means to evade the threat or defend themselves.
No matter how far those private citizens have to travel to confront the protestors?
 

Who_Me?

Active Member
Joined
Jan 26, 2021
Messages
233
Reaction score
186
Points
43
Those riotous senior citizens in their nitro fueled golf carts are in for it now.
 

LeftofLeft

Platinum Member
Joined
Oct 18, 2011
Messages
14,467
Reaction score
6,094
Points
390
If protestors decide to threaten private citizens or try to pull them out of their cars and beat or kill them as we saw in 2020, then private citizens can use any means to evade the threat or defend themselves.
No matter how far those private citizens have to travel to confront the protestors?

Private citizen maybe 3 miles or 3,000 miles from their home..... or 10,000 miles. To quote a former Secretary of State, “What difference does it make?”
 

krichton

Gold Member
Joined
Feb 3, 2021
Messages
363
Reaction score
209
Points
168
How many journalists have you seen arrested and assaulted by police just for standing away from the protests and simply filming and reporting. You even see this in footage many times. In any of those instances, did you ever see a single reporter throwing rocks at police, setting cars or buildings on fire, or looting? :laugh:

Every authoritarian throughout history has used some variation of the "law and order" catchphrase to justify just about anything. You won't even know your rights have been taken away until you've lost them. Good luck backing these politicians.

According to your source the police were trying to break up a crowd and she "had trouble" following orders. It says that she's a producer, not a reporter. How do you have problem with a dispersal order? They tell you to leave and you go.

In another source (Newsweek) it stated she was repeatedly yelling at cops that she's a reporter when they were trying to get her to comply with the arrest. That's why the cop asked if she spoke English. It had nothing to do with her Asian descent, it had to do with her not following their instructions. Plus the fact these were her allegations only.

This just happened yesterday so I await to see what really happened. I'm sure a body cam video by one or more officers will tell us what really took place.

This quote was directly from my source. Where in it did you see, that she had "trouble" following orders? :huh1: :dunno:

"Sung was attempting to comply with a dispersal order when Minnesota State Police grabbed her "by her backpack, threw her to the ground, zip-typing her hands behind her back," according to her lawyer, Leita Walker."

The point of this story was to illustrate that police already have a ton of discretionary power. This woman would still be sitting in jail right now if no one knew she had been arrested. Police already get away with throwing bogus charges on citizens to justify a false arrest, and they do it because there is zero accountability. The state doesn't need additional powers to intimidate and harass the public. It also should have no authority over police budgets for local cities.
 
OP
Ray From Cleveland

Ray From Cleveland

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2015
Messages
71,349
Reaction score
18,905
Points
2,290
This quote was directly from my source. Where in it did you see, that she had "trouble" following orders? :huh1: :dunno:

"Sung was attempting to comply with a dispersal order when Minnesota State Police grabbed her "by her backpack, threw her to the ground, zip-typing her hands behind her back," according to her lawyer, Leita Walker."

The point of this story was to illustrate that police already have a ton of discretionary power. This woman would still be sitting in jail right now if no one knew she had been arrested. Police already get away with throwing bogus charges on citizens to justify a false arrest, and they do it because there is zero accountability. The state doesn't need additional powers to intimidate and harass the public. It also should have no authority over police budgets for local cities.

Attempting to comply with orders means that she was having problems doing so. No, she would not be sitting in jail now because all prisoners have a right to a phone call. And I reiterate: The state is not mandating cities police budget. It simply gave citizens of that community a right to redress police budget cuts by their representatives. Any person arrested has the option of suing the city for a false arrest. What do you mean no accountability?

Yes, the state does need additional penalties for rioting if they believe that's the way to slow down or stop them.
 
OP
Ray From Cleveland

Ray From Cleveland

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2015
Messages
71,349
Reaction score
18,905
Points
2,290
It is "outside of voting" because the Gov doesn't believe in democracy so he wrote a STATE law to override the local voters, allowing a minority to impose its will.

Not at all. The voters can still vote out their representatives who did defund their police. But that can take a couple of years to get results. Polls show that over 80% of black citizens are against defunding police, but you'd never know that by watching the MSM.

A minority of voters cannot toss out representatives, so an appeals process was put in place if those minority of voters object to their decisions. It doesn't mean they can accomplish it anyway, it just means their voices will be heard. As in the case of blacks, they may want to continue voting Democrat, but object to their defunding police policies. Now they can do both.
 

alang1216

Pragmatist
Joined
Jun 21, 2014
Messages
13,467
Reaction score
1,990
Points
245
Location
Virginia
It is "outside of voting" because the Gov doesn't believe in democracy so he wrote a STATE law to override the local voters, allowing a minority to impose its will.

Not at all. The voters can still vote out their representatives who did defund their police. But that can take a couple of years to get results. Polls show that over 80% of black citizens are against defunding police, but you'd never know that by watching the MSM.

A minority of voters cannot toss out representatives, so an appeals process was put in place if those minority of voters object to their decisions. It doesn't mean they can accomplish it anyway, it just means their voices will be heard. As in the case of blacks, they may want to continue voting Democrat, but object to their defunding police policies. Now they can do both.
Well reasoned argument but would you apply it to any other issues? How about gun control? Should there be an appeal process when cities and counties fail to enact gun control (not confiscation) measures? Maybe also have an appeal process aimed at the State government so if they enact anti-abortion laws they can be sued.
 

alang1216

Pragmatist
Joined
Jun 21, 2014
Messages
13,467
Reaction score
1,990
Points
245
Location
Virginia
If protestors decide to threaten private citizens or try to pull them out of their cars and beat or kill them as we saw in 2020, then private citizens can use any means to evade the threat or defend themselves.
No matter how far those private citizens have to travel to confront the protestors?

Private citizen maybe 3 miles or 3,000 miles from their home..... or 10,000 miles. To quote a former Secretary of State, “What difference does it make?”
If you choose to take a walk in a hurricane, you don't get my sympathy if you then complain about getting wet.
 

OldLady

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 16, 2015
Messages
68,697
Reaction score
18,810
Points
2,220
Interesting that the law mandates how much localities must spend on law enforcement. Big government is OK is you control the government I guess.

That wasn't in the OP. What it said is it restricts towns and cities from interfering with law enforcement during a riot. You know, like if they have to send in the state troopers.
The mayor of Brooklyn Center passed a law prohibiting tear gas and rubber bullets while the police were in the midst of trying to control a very unruly crowd on night 2 of the protests over Duante Wright. Then the mayor fired the police chief. Maybe DeSantis was thinking of something like that.
 

OldLady

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 16, 2015
Messages
68,697
Reaction score
18,810
Points
2,220
I'm not at all opposed to making laws tougher about throwing stuff at cops, including fireworks. They're going to run into the same problem they've had all along during these protests, though. Figuring out who in the large moving crowd threw it.
 
OP
Ray From Cleveland

Ray From Cleveland

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2015
Messages
71,349
Reaction score
18,905
Points
2,290
I'm not at all opposed to making laws tougher about throwing stuff at cops, including fireworks. They're going to run into the same problem they've had all along during these protests, though. Figuring out who in the large moving crowd threw it.

The concept of harsher penalties is to bring more of a deterrent to the crime to reduce or stop the actions in the first place. Look at what's been going on in Portland for almost a year. Why are they doing it? Because nobody is doing anything to stop them. You know, the summer of love?
 
OP
Ray From Cleveland

Ray From Cleveland

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2015
Messages
71,349
Reaction score
18,905
Points
2,290
The Florida Anti Riot Law is a common sense law that should be a Federal law

You'll never see Democrats use common sense in legislation. That's why they are so against this law. Democrats are void of logic.
 

bodecea

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 22, 2009
Messages
144,581
Reaction score
19,721
Points
2,180
Location
#HasNoClothes
It’s not an ‘anti-riot’ law, it’s an anti-freedom of expression law.

So much for ‘small government’ conservatives.
If it were an anti-riot law...there would be stricter penalties for vandalizing and looting.....focused in on those two actions only.
 
OP
Ray From Cleveland

Ray From Cleveland

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2015
Messages
71,349
Reaction score
18,905
Points
2,290
The mayor of Brooklyn Center passed a law prohibiting tear gas and rubber bullets while the police were in the midst of trying to control a very unruly crowd on night 2 of the protests over Duante Wright. Then the mayor fired the police chief. Maybe DeSantis was thinking of something like that.

It's a perfect example. The Mayor makes those calls, not the Governor. So if you have a leftist Mayor that doesn't want to do anything about a riot, then the state could step in and no city official can stop their actions without getting fined.
 
OP
Ray From Cleveland

Ray From Cleveland

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2015
Messages
71,349
Reaction score
18,905
Points
2,290
Well reasoned argument but would you apply it to any other issues? How about gun control? Should there be an appeal process when cities and counties fail to enact gun control (not confiscation) measures? Maybe also have an appeal process aimed at the State government so if they enact anti-abortion laws they can be sued.

No because firearm ownership is a constitutional right. You have to prove damages when you sue somebody for something. If you get pregnant and can't get an abortion, there are no damages because you brought that on yourself.
 

alang1216

Pragmatist
Joined
Jun 21, 2014
Messages
13,467
Reaction score
1,990
Points
245
Location
Virginia
Well reasoned argument but would you apply it to any other issues? How about gun control? Should there be an appeal process when cities and counties fail to enact gun control (not confiscation) measures? Maybe also have an appeal process aimed at the State government so if they enact anti-abortion laws they can be sued.

No because firearm ownership is a constitutional right. You have to prove damages when you sue somebody for something. If you get pregnant and can't get an abortion, there are no damages because you brought that on yourself.
You have a very simplistic view of the law and humanity.
 

krichton

Gold Member
Joined
Feb 3, 2021
Messages
363
Reaction score
209
Points
168
This quote was directly from my source. Where in it did you see, that she had "trouble" following orders? :huh1: :dunno:

"Sung was attempting to comply with a dispersal order when Minnesota State Police grabbed her "by her backpack, threw her to the ground, zip-typing her hands behind her back," according to her lawyer, Leita Walker."

The point of this story was to illustrate that police already have a ton of discretionary power. This woman would still be sitting in jail right now if no one knew she had been arrested. Police already get away with throwing bogus charges on citizens to justify a false arrest, and they do it because there is zero accountability. The state doesn't need additional powers to intimidate and harass the public. It also should have no authority over police budgets for local cities.

Attempting to comply with orders means that she was having problems doing so. No, she would not be sitting in jail now because all prisoners have a right to a phone call. And I reiterate: The state is not mandating cities police budget. It simply gave citizens of that community a right to redress police budget cuts by their representatives. Any person arrested has the option of suing the city for a false arrest. What do you mean no accountability?

Yes, the state does need additional penalties for rioting if they believe that's the way to slow down or stop them.

Nope, that's not what it means at all. If you're attempting to do something that means you are in the act of doing it, not having problems. What incentive would she have for being arrested or injured by defying a police order? Doing so would automatically end her coverage, which is what she is tasked with doing. Breaking the law, could most certainly end their careers. Why would she do this? lol.

You have no legal entitlement to a phone call from jail. It doesn't matter how many times you've seen this in a movie or tv show. :laugh:
 

USMB Server Goals

Total amount
$350.00
Goal
$350.00

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top