FL: Gov. Ron DeSantis Signs Controversial Bill Restricting Protesters into Law

[Badger]

Lots of controversial things passing from GOP state legislatures recently it seems.

It's only controversial to those who live in echo chambers and bar those who would ever think such a thing. Everything passed by Dem city councils would be labeled as "controversial" if the media was made up of ordinary people.

WTF does this post even mine.

[Badger]

https://mobile.twitter.com/JoeMyGod/status/1384480279218114568

And DeSantis and those jackasses around him all applauded.

This bodes well.

[Badger]

Have rioters ever simply considered, oh I don't know.... not rioting?

“President Carlson signs ‘Freedom of Access to Roads and Highways’ Act (FARH) criminalizing the obstruction of roadways by protesters”
-CNN; November 19, 2027

“Tucker just took the first step towards criminalizing all protests against his administration”
-Jacobin; November 20, 2027

The line here between what you folks consider a riot versus with the rest of us consider a protest is very very thin. It usually has to do with the level of skin melanin of its participants.

[Badger]

https://www.wfla.com/news/polk-county/desantis-expected-to-sign-controversial-anti-riot-bill-in-polk-county/

Here's the main stuff the bill does.

Make it more difficult for cities and counties to reduce funding for law enforcement, allowing local elected officials to challenge those budget decisions, and giving the state power to approve or amend the local budget

Allow those local governments to be sued if they fail to stop a riot

Define “riot” as a violent public disturbance involving 3 or more people acting with common intent resulting in injury to others, damage to property, or the imminent danger of injury or damage

Enhance penalties for people who commit crimes during a riot

Create a new second-degree felony called an “aggravated riot,” which occurs when the riot has more than 25 participants, causes great bodily harm or more than $5,000 in property damage, uses or threatens to use a deadly weapon, or blocks roadways by force or threat of force

Jesus. Let's break this down to see just what a horrible, Draconian, and arguably unconstitutional law this is, rather than merely enforcing current laws saying you can't throw rocks at cops or break windows.

1) depriving local governments of basic control of their own budgets. You want to reduce police and increase the number of social workers or mental health workers because you think that'll better address the problems of your particular City? Too bad! Representative Billy Bob redneck from nowheresville Florida is Chairman of the house finance committee and thinks you commies and nigg...um, "urban folks" need to be taught what's what. Once again, Republicans prove himself to be all in favor of local government / state or federal control, that is until the second local governments start doing things they don't like. This alone warrants trashing this bill.

Civil immunity for not "stopping a riot". So ganar the days of police commanders an officer showing restraint, seeking to contain protesters and rioters, keep their head down, prevent injury to other persons oh, and wait until the crowd fins out and clear the streets. Now, the Florida legislature has Dean that police commanders need to wait in early swinging batons with riots to break them up aggressively or else the city will get sued. What could possibly go wrong creating a direct Financial incentive for City leaders to bring the hammer down on protesters immediately and aggressively. Which of course is exactly what are little Florida neo-fascist legislature wants.

I would have to see the exact language but I really don't like this thumbnails description of 3 people acting with common intent that results - - keyword results - - in property damage or physical harm. It sounds like if you're part of the a protest and one of the other individuals causes damage, you are now legally liable for the actions of someone else without engaging in illegal activity yourself. Just being in a crowd of three or more where someone else appears sufficient. If so, that is God awful and unconstitutional.

Fourth point. Needs more detail to be assessed.

Yes, creating a high-level - - 2nd degree - - felony for blocking a road. FYI, the legal definition of force would simply be protesters locking arms or the like to suffice, not throwing bricks or pounding on car windows of Meek little white suburbanite family that took a wrong turn. That is beyond draconian.

Yeah, this bill sucks.

[Badger]

I realize that we're talking about a southern state, but the desecration of memorials and historic sites that we have seen over the past year in all parts of the country has become outrageous enough to merit stiffer penalties. It's not just a matter of people tearing down statues of Confederate generals in towns where the state has outlawed local control of public spaces. That part of the bill, at least, seems justifiable.

I initially recommended this post because I agreed exactly. However, having read the summary of the law posted by l f r o m n j--and you can see my response to it--I just can't trust this bill to do anything remotely just or sensible worth a tinker's damn.

I'll readily admit I haven't read the exact Provisions about increasing penalties for desecration of monuments, but this entire bill is so got awfully Draconian, unconstitutional, and above all clearly vindictive towards left-wing protesters that I cannot trust that it amended the laws even regarding such a common sense point as yours in a remotely fair and reasonable way.

There are already laws on the books prohibiting vandalizing monuments and the like, and every aspect of this bill appears to be god-awful, so I can only operate under a rebuttable presumption that any proposed changes to this area the law will likewise be $hite.

[Badger]

https://www.wfla.com/news/polk-county/desantis-expected-to-sign-controversial-anti-riot-bill-in-polk-county/

Here's the main stuff the bill does.

Make it more difficult for cities and counties to reduce funding for law enforcement, allowing local elected officials to challenge those budget decisions, and giving the state power to approve or amend the local budget

Allow those local governments to be sued if they fail to stop a riot

Define “riot” as a violent public disturbance involving 3 or more people acting with common intent resulting in injury to others, damage to property, or the imminent danger of injury or damage

Enhance penalties for people who commit crimes during a riot

Create a new second-degree felony called an “aggravated riot,” which occurs when the riot has more than 25 participants, causes great bodily harm or more than $5,000 in property damage, uses or threatens to use a deadly weapon, or blocks roadways by force or threat of force

Civil immunity for not "stopping a riot". So ganar the days of police commanders an officer showing restraint, seeking to contain protesters and rioters, keep their head down, prevent injury to other persons oh, and wait until the crowd fins out and clear the streets. Now, the Florida legislature has Dean that police commanders need to wait in early swinging batons with riots to break them up aggressively or else the city will get sued. What could possibly go wrong creating a direct Financial incentive for City leaders to bring the hammer down on protesters immediately and aggressively. Which of course is exactly what are little Florida neo-fascist legislature wants.

I would have to see the exact language but I really don't like this thumbnails description of 3 people acting with common intent that results - - keyword results - - in property damage or physical harm. It sounds like if you're part of the a protest and one of the other individuals causes damage, you are now legally liable for the actions of someone else without engaging in illegal activity yourself. Just being in a crowd of three or more where someone else appears sufficient. If so, that is God awful and unconstitutional.

As far as I understand the bill did remove the expanded stand your ground law proposed in November which legalized the shooting of looters by private citizens.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/florida-self-defence-laws-ron-desantis-looting-riots-mob-b1721320.html

If the government refuses to allow one to protect your property then they should be taking management of said protection. They have taken their duty and failed. Either legalize shooting looters or keep liability for weak local governments.

This part of the law seems like a very good compromise in order to prevent vigilantism while still protecting people's property.

Shooting peopke for breaking windows and stealing shoes, NOT when the owner or other persons are in imminent threat of harm, is a horribler idea. You were wrong in supporting it a couple months ago, and its no better an idea now when incorporated into a legislative compromise with sanity.