The Jaxson

Community => Politics => Topic started by: MusicMan on April 21, 2021, 01:34:47 PM

Title: New 'Anti-Mob' law, is it unconstitutional?
Post by: MusicMan on April 21, 2021, 01:34:47 PM
Question for you constitutional law experts out there:

Isn't DeSantis new "anti-mob" law regarding "riots" etc..... unconstitutional?   I thought citizens had the right to peaceably assemble without his permission.....
Title: Re: New 'Anti-Mob' law, is it unconstitutional?
Post by: Charles Hunter on April 21, 2021, 01:57:11 PM
I'm sure there will be test cases once people start getting arrested for violating it.
Title: Re: New 'Anti-Mob' law, is it unconstitutional?
Post by: jaxlongtimer on April 21, 2021, 03:29:13 PM
I'm sure there will be test cases once people start getting arrested for violating it.

Cue up the ACLU who has already registered their opposition to this bill.  Given how discretionary its enforcement will likely be, I think they will have a good case to have it ruled unconstitutional.

I wonder, at times, if DeSantis and the Legislature pass these bills to support the bevy of lawyers the State pays millions to for defending the State's ongoing desire to pass unsustainable laws.  And, how much those same lawyers recycle those fees into campaign contributions.  It has to be a cottage industry at this point.  How many Florida laws have been tossed or limited by the courts in recent years?

By the way, check out the PBS series that started last night, "Philly DA."  It's as good as any Netflix or HBO documentary series and sheds an amazing light on the various sides (police, prosecutors, defenders, offenders, victims, judges) to our justice system and law enforcement.  Every citizen should watch this to understand how complex and difficult applying justice in this country really is.  It also demonstrates how the "anti-mob" law is likely to be smoke and mirrors in the end and will just cost taxpayers millions of dollars for nothing.
Title: Re: New 'Anti-Mob' law, is it unconstitutional?
Post by: Charles Hunter on April 21, 2021, 03:36:04 PM
Right, DuhSantis and his cronies in the Legislature can throw red meat to their base by passing this law; then they can wail and gnash their teeth about how those librul judges quashed the will of the people. 
Title: Re: New 'Anti-Mob' law, is it unconstitutional?
Post by: itsfantastic1 on April 21, 2021, 06:33:36 PM
When an unstoppable "Stand Your Ground Law" meet an immovable "Run Over Protestors Law"...
Title: Re: New 'Anti-Mob' law, is it unconstitutional?
Post by: Snaketoz on April 21, 2021, 07:44:39 PM
Right, DuhSantis and his cronies in the Legislature can throw red meat to their base by passing this law; then they can wail and gnash their teeth about how those librul judges quashed the will of the people.
Exactly
Title: Re: New 'Anti-Mob' law, is it unconstitutional?
Post by: Charles Hunter on April 21, 2021, 07:47:52 PM
According to this article, https://www.miaminewtimes.com/news/whats-in-floridas-anti-riot-bill-hb-1-12147768
Quote
On Monday, the governor signed the bill into law — albeit with some changes. The state won't grant immunity to drivers who run over protesters blocking traffic, as originally proposed. Protest organizers will no longer face racketeering charges if a demonstration turns violent.
Title: Re: New 'Anti-Mob' law, is it unconstitutional?
Post by: MusicMan on April 21, 2021, 08:57:22 PM
I cant help but wonder where we would be if our elected leaders stopped spending hours on this useless BS and instead focused on something as simple as a statewide solar initiative.

That being said, our state passed a progressive "restore felons right to vote " initiative only to have DeSantis and Co destroy it.
Title: Re: New 'Anti-Mob' law, is it unconstitutional?
Post by: BridgeTroll on April 22, 2021, 06:35:28 AM
Isn't there a difference between a riot and a peaceful assembly?  There certainly seems to be...
Title: Re: New 'Anti-Mob' law, is it unconstitutional?
Post by: simms3 on April 22, 2021, 07:15:38 AM
Isn't there a difference between a riot and a peaceful assembly?  There certainly seems to be...

What on Earth are you talking about?  ALL the protests are peaceful, duh.  Hehe (but sure we should instead focus our energy on solar power, green new deal, social "justice", social "infrastructure", etc... Especially with a conservative like DeSantis in office)

If these people haven't seen the news we've seen showing some of the things that have been going on around the country, it's honestly no point having this conversation.  Thank God for our governor; I can only imagine what state Florida would be in now with Andrew Gillum in office.  I shudder to think...
Title: Re: New 'Anti-Mob' law, is it unconstitutional?
Post by: Adam White on April 22, 2021, 07:44:27 AM
Isn't there a difference between a riot and a peaceful assembly?  There certainly seems to be...

What on Earth are you talking about?  ALL the protests are peaceful, duh.  Hehe (but sure we should instead focus our energy on solar power, green new deal, social "justice", social "infrastructure", etc... Especially with a conservative like DeSantis in office)

If these people haven't seen the news we've seen showing some of the things that have been going on around the country, it's honestly no point having this conversation.  Thank God for our governor; I can only imagine what state Florida would be in now with Andrew Gillum in office.  I shudder to think...

What on Earth are YOU talking about?
Title: Re: New 'Anti-Mob' law, is it unconstitutional?
Post by: Chuckabear on April 22, 2021, 09:45:34 AM
Isn't there a difference between a riot and a peaceful assembly?  There certainly seems to be...

Of course their is, but this legislation is still border line unconstitutional and parts of it may not survive legal challenge. The biggest issue is that the Right To Assembly is an individual right (De Jonge v. Oregon). Which is why we see the majority of mass arrests after a protest turns violent end up having no charges.
Title: Re: New 'Anti-Mob' law, is it unconstitutional?
Post by: BridgeTroll on April 22, 2021, 11:08:00 AM
Isn't there a difference between a riot and a peaceful assembly?  There certainly seems to be...

Of course their is, but this legislation is still border line unconstitutional and parts of it may not survive legal challenge. The biggest issue is that the Right To Assembly is an individual right (De Jonge v. Oregon). Which is why we see the majority of mass arrests after a protest turns violent end up having no charges.
No one... including DeSantis is arguing against free speech or the right to assemble.  To suggest that is silly. This appears to be an attempt to hold people accountable for the violence, looting, and vandalism that occurs when the peaceful protest devolves into a riot...

Happy to see the lawsuit... let's get this litigated and sorted out before it's needed...
Title: Re: New 'Anti-Mob' law, is it unconstitutional?
Post by: Charles Hunter on April 22, 2021, 11:52:45 AM
The concern is that it only takes a few people with bad intent to turn a peaceful demonstration into a "riot" - smash a few windows, kick a police car, don't leave when the cops tell you to, and so on - or if the police believe there is an "imminent danger" of property damage or personal injury. Here is the definition of "Riot" from the new law:
Quote
870.01
(2) A person commits a riot if he or she willfully participates in a violent public disturbance involving an assembly of three or more persons, acting with a common intent to assist each other in violent and disorderly conduct, resulting in:
(a) Injury to another person;
(b) Damage to property; or
(c) Imminent danger of injury to another person or damage to property.

Once the excrement hits the ventilator, the police won't take the time to sort out who is a "rioter" and who is a "peaceful demonstrator" - they will arrest everyone, and let the courts sort out which is who.

Those arrested will have to stay in jail until their first court appearance
Quote
870.01
(6) Except for a violation of subsection (1), a person arrested for a violation of this section shall be held in custody until brought before the court for admittance to bail in accordance with chapter 903.

Subsection (1) defines "affray" - basically fighting in public "to the terror of people".

The "bad actors" could be people on your side whose passions get the better of them, and they lose control. Or, the "bad actors" could be folks from the other side who want to cause problems to your group.  No matter, that peaceful demonstration has turned into a riot. You now have a felony arrest on your record.  Fear of arrest for something over which that have no control will deter some people from attending a peaceful protest, from exercising their First Amendment rights.
Title: Re: New 'Anti-Mob' law, is it unconstitutional?
Post by: vicupstate on April 22, 2021, 12:53:53 PM
The concern is that it only takes a few people with bad intent to turn a peaceful demonstration into a "riot" - smash a few windows, kick a police car, don't leave when the cops tell you to, and so on - or if the police believe there is an "imminent danger" of property damage or personal injury. Here is the definition of "Riot" from the new law:
Quote
870.01
(2) A person commits a riot if he or she willfully participates in a violent public disturbance involving an assembly of three or more persons, acting with a common intent to assist each other in violent and disorderly conduct, resulting in:
(a) Injury to another person;
(b) Damage to property; or
(c) Imminent danger of injury to another person or damage to property.

Once the excrement hits the ventilator, the police won't take the time to sort out who is a "rioter" and who is a "peaceful demonstrator" - they will arrest everyone, and let the courts sort out which is who.

Those arrested will have to stay in jail until their first court appearance
Quote
870.01
(6) Except for a violation of subsection (1), a person arrested for a violation of this section shall be held in custody until brought before the court for admittance to bail in accordance with chapter 903.

Subsection (1) defines "affray" - basically fighting in public "to the terror of people".

  Fear of arrest for something over which that have no control will deter some people from attending a peaceful protest, from exercising their First Amendment rights.

Which is the intent of this new law. Make people that want to register their dissent scared to do so. The fact they were about to let people drive their autos into a crowd without penalty was a dead giveaway. 


   
Title: Re: New 'Anti-Mob' law, is it unconstitutional?
Post by: itsfantastic1 on April 22, 2021, 01:14:09 PM
An analogy would be arresting everyone at a sporting event and charging them with felonies because a few fans got in a fight in the stands. Crimes such as property damage, assult and theft already exist. Regardless of protest or not, it's still a crime to do everything this bill "hopes to protect against."

This law is clearly designed to stifle people's ability to peaceably assemble for fear they'll be lumped in with the actions of others. It's also ironic to see small government conservatives throwing their support behind this law, which gives the government broader power to stifle whole groups of people based on the actions of the few. But as long as it's "hurting the right people", they'll cheer on because "it could never happen to them..."
Title: Re: New 'Anti-Mob' law, is it unconstitutional?
Post by: Tacachale on April 22, 2021, 02:36:55 PM
I don’t know about the rest of Florida but Jacksonville only had one riot out of dozens of protests. It was after the first one, and it hasn’t happened at any protest since. The law isn’t based on anything that happened around here.
Title: Re: New 'Anti-Mob' law, is it unconstitutional?
Post by: BridgeTroll on April 22, 2021, 03:21:49 PM
An analogy would be arresting everyone at a sporting event and charging them with felonies because a few fans got in a fight in the stands. Crimes such as property damage, assult and theft already exist. Regardless of protest or not, it's still a crime to do everything this bill "hopes to protect against."

This law is clearly designed to stifle people's ability to peaceably assemble for fear they'll be lumped in with the actions of others. It's also ironic to see small government conservatives throwing their support behind this law, which gives the government broader power to stifle whole groups of people based on the actions of the few. But as long as it's "hurting the right people", they'll cheer on because "it could never happen to them..."

Pretty sure we just saw a right wing riot in DC a short time ago...
Title: Re: New 'Anti-Mob' law, is it unconstitutional?
Post by: vicupstate on April 22, 2021, 03:28:07 PM
An analogy would be arresting everyone at a sporting event and charging them with felonies because a few fans got in a fight in the stands. Crimes such as property damage, assult and theft already exist. Regardless of protest or not, it's still a crime to do everything this bill "hopes to protect against."

This law is clearly designed to stifle people's ability to peaceably assemble for fear they'll be lumped in with the actions of others. It's also ironic to see small government conservatives throwing their support behind this law, which gives the government broader power to stifle whole groups of people based on the actions of the few. But as long as it's "hurting the right people", they'll cheer on because "it could never happen to them..."

Pretty sure we just saw a right wing riot in DC a short time ago...

Technically, it was an attempted insurrection.
Title: Re: New 'Anti-Mob' law, is it unconstitutional?
Post by: BridgeTroll on April 22, 2021, 03:29:57 PM
I don’t know about the rest of Florida but Jacksonville only had one riot out of dozens of protests. It was after the first one, and it hasn’t happened at any protest since. The law isn’t based on anything that happened around here.

Do we need to wait for a Minneapolis, Portland, or DC happen here?  Reasonable limits to constitutional rights are pretty common... with some people wanting drastic limits.  Some gun control proposals would be an example. Seems many here are concerned about the "slippery slope "... hmmm... interesting...
Title: Re: New 'Anti-Mob' law, is it unconstitutional?
Post by: BridgeTroll on April 22, 2021, 03:30:23 PM
An analogy would be arresting everyone at a sporting event and charging them with felonies because a few fans got in a fight in the stands. Crimes such as property damage, assult and theft already exist. Regardless of protest or not, it's still a crime to do everything this bill "hopes to protect against."

This law is clearly designed to stifle people's ability to peaceably assemble for fear they'll be lumped in with the actions of others. It's also ironic to see small government conservatives throwing their support behind this law, which gives the government broader power to stifle whole groups of people based on the actions of the few. But as long as it's "hurting the right people", they'll cheer on because "it could never happen to them..."

Pretty sure we just saw a right wing riot in DC a short time ago...

Technically, it was an attempted insurrection.
Lol...ok...
Title: Re: New 'Anti-Mob' law, is it unconstitutional?
Post by: jaxlongtimer on April 22, 2021, 05:08:35 PM
The concern is that it only takes a few people with bad intent to turn a peaceful demonstration into a "riot" - smash a few windows, kick a police car, don't leave when the cops tell you to, and so on - or if the police believe there is an "imminent danger" of property damage or personal injury. Here is the definition of "Riot" from the new law:
Quote
870.01
(2) A person commits a riot if he or she willfully participates in a violent public disturbance involving an assembly of three or more persons, acting with a common intent to assist each other in violent and disorderly conduct, resulting in:
(a) Injury to another person;
(b) Damage to property; or
(c) Imminent danger of injury to another person or damage to property.

Once the excrement hits the ventilator, the police won't take the time to sort out who is a "rioter" and who is a "peaceful demonstrator" - they will arrest everyone, and let the courts sort out which is who.

Those arrested will have to stay in jail until their first court appearance
Quote
870.01
(6) Except for a violation of subsection (1), a person arrested for a violation of this section shall be held in custody until brought before the court for admittance to bail in accordance with chapter 903.

Subsection (1) defines "affray" - basically fighting in public "to the terror of people".

The "bad actors" could be people on your side whose passions get the better of them, and they lose control. Or, the "bad actors" could be folks from the other side who want to cause problems to your group.  No matter, that peaceful demonstration has turned into a riot. You now have a felony arrest on your record.  Fear of arrest for something over which that have no control will deter some people from attending a peaceful protest, from exercising their First Amendment rights.

Charles, good points to note.

This clause is notable:  "...acting with a common intent to assist each other..."  The FBI and Justice Department are having to do massive work to demonstrate this for the Capitol's insurrectionists with all the cameras, witnesses and other evidence they are gathering.  Imagine what it would take to prove this in court for a "spur of the moment action" by a single demonstrator that led to massive arrests of many or all protestors on site.  What a waste of resources for a losing cause.

I might add that on the anniversary of Kent State I read that one of the students killed was just walking by on the way to classes and had nothing to do with the protests.  I wonder if anyone is "mishandled" by the police at a protest, if this law gives the police the benefit of the doubt.  Kind of like "stand your ground" for the police.  In this current world where police are being scrutinized for overzealous reactions, it seems like this law is going in the wrong direction.  Will this law prevent the police from being held accountable for acting outside the bounds of appropriateness?

Separately, I have read that the police already have all the legal tools they need to arrest "violent" or otherwise non-peaceful protesters and this law adds nothing to their enforcement powers - it just gives them more cover to "intimidate" protestors given the wide discretion they will now have (i.e. guilty until proven innocent).

Even with our conservative majority Supreme Court, I will be surprised if this law is constitutionally sustained.
Title: Re: New 'Anti-Mob' law, is it unconstitutional?
Post by: Tacachale on April 22, 2021, 05:32:40 PM
I don’t know about the rest of Florida but Jacksonville only had one riot out of dozens of protests. It was after the first one, and it hasn’t happened at any protest since. The law isn’t based on anything that happened around here.

Do we need to wait for a Minneapolis, Portland, or DC happen here?  Reasonable limits to constitutional rights are pretty common... with some people wanting drastic limits.  Some gun control proposals would be an example. Seems many here are concerned about the "slippery slope "... hmmm... interesting...

The police locally hasn’t had any trouble managing the protests after the first one. And it’s been nearly a year. The law should be based on actual situations, not hypothetical ones.
Title: Re: New 'Anti-Mob' law, is it unconstitutional?
Post by: BridgeTroll on April 22, 2021, 07:01:33 PM
I don’t know about the rest of Florida but Jacksonville only had one riot out of dozens of protests. It was after the first one, and it hasn’t happened at any protest since. The law isn’t based on anything that happened around here.

Do we need to wait for a Minneapolis, Portland, or DC happen here?  Reasonable limits to constitutional rights are pretty common... with some people wanting drastic limits.  Some gun control proposals would be an example. Seems many here are concerned about the "slippery slope "... hmmm... interesting...

The police locally hasn’t had any trouble managing the protests after the first one. And it’s been nearly a year. The law should be based on actual situations, not hypothetical ones.

Cmon... what happened in Minneapolis, Portland and countless other cities is hardly hypothetical...lol.  But seriously... no worries. I long ago decided city core living was not for me... I will visit them like I would  a amusement park or ticket taking carnival attraction.  You and yours can tax each other to death for the privilege of squeezing together on mass transit, small expensive apartments, and peaceful protests...
I will be moving into the quietness of the rural countryside gardening and building my apiary.

Beware that slippery slope... it comes for everyone... lol
Title: Re: New 'Anti-Mob' law, is it unconstitutional?
Post by: Tacachale on April 22, 2021, 09:12:34 PM
I don’t know about the rest of Florida but Jacksonville only had one riot out of dozens of protests. It was after the first one, and it hasn’t happened at any protest since. The law isn’t based on anything that happened around here.

Do we need to wait for a Minneapolis, Portland, or DC happen here?  Reasonable limits to constitutional rights are pretty common... with some people wanting drastic limits.  Some gun control proposals would be an example. Seems many here are concerned about the "slippery slope "... hmmm... interesting...

The police locally hasn’t had any trouble managing the protests after the first one. And it’s been nearly a year. The law should be based on actual situations, not hypothetical ones.

Cmon... what happened in Minneapolis, Portland and countless other cities is hardly hypothetical...lol.  But seriously... no worries. I long ago decided city core living was not for me... I will visit them like I would  a amusement park or ticket taking carnival attraction.  You and yours can tax each other to death for the privilege of squeezing together on mass transit, small expensive apartments, and peaceful protests...
I will be moving into the quietness of the rural countryside gardening and building my apiary.

Beware that slippery slope... it comes for everyone... lol

Not sure why crimes in Minneapolis would require changing laws in Florida that were working, nor do I live in a small apartment, but I do hope you enjoy your apiary and gardening. I’ve enjoyed learning to garden too.
Title: Re: New 'Anti-Mob' law, is it unconstitutional?
Post by: JeffreyS on April 22, 2021, 09:26:35 PM
Isn't there a difference between a riot and a peaceful assembly?  There certainly seems to be...
According to this law the difference could be one person acting badly suddenly it’s now called a riot. One more thing for me personally I am tired of laws going on the books that if you fear danger you get to defend yourself the same as if there is actually real danger.
Title: Re: New 'Anti-Mob' law, is it unconstitutional?
Post by: bl8jaxnative on April 23, 2021, 09:04:03 AM
And I'm tired of people claiming theirs a clear, measurable way of determining that the it's only fear and not an actual threat.
Title: Re: New 'Anti-Mob' law, is it unconstitutional?
Post by: BridgeTroll on April 23, 2021, 10:06:28 AM
Isn't there a difference between a riot and a peaceful assembly?  There certainly seems to be...
According to this law the difference could be one person acting badly suddenly it’s now called a riot. One more thing for me personally I am tired of laws going on the books that if you fear danger you get to defend yourself the same as if there is actually real danger.

You mean like the actual chances that you will be shot by a cop as opposed to one of your neighbors?
Title: Re: New 'Anti-Mob' law, is it unconstitutional?
Post by: JeffreyS on April 23, 2021, 10:23:46 AM
Isn't there a difference between a riot and a peaceful assembly?  There certainly seems to be...
According to this law the difference could be one person acting badly suddenly it’s now called a riot. One more thing for me personally I am tired of laws going on the books that if you fear danger you get to defend yourself the same as if there is actually real danger.

You mean like the actual chances that you will be shot by a cop as opposed to one of your neighbors?
I mean we have set the standard too low for the use of deadly force by anyone. In this bill specifically the idea of running people over.
Title: Re: New 'Anti-Mob' law, is it unconstitutional?
Post by: BridgeTroll on April 23, 2021, 10:36:12 AM
Isn't there a difference between a riot and a peaceful assembly?  There certainly seems to be...
According to this law the difference could be one person acting badly suddenly it’s now called a riot. One more thing for me personally I am tired of laws going on the books that if you fear danger you get to defend yourself the same as if there is actually real danger.

You mean like the actual chances that you will be shot by a cop as opposed to one of your neighbors?
I mean we have set the standard too low for the use of deadly force by anyone. In this bill specifically the idea of running people over.

Apparently exaggerations of perceived dangers are plentiful...
Title: Re: New 'Anti-Mob' law, is it unconstitutional?
Post by: itsfantastic1 on April 23, 2021, 11:57:10 AM
Isn't there a difference between a riot and a peaceful assembly?  There certainly seems to be...
According to this law the difference could be one person acting badly suddenly it’s now called a riot. One more thing for me personally I am tired of laws going on the books that if you fear danger you get to defend yourself the same as if there is actually real danger.

You mean like the actual chances that you will be shot by a cop as opposed to one of your neighbors?
I mean we have set the standard too low for the use of deadly force by anyone. In this bill specifically the idea of running people over.

Apparently exaggerations of perceived dangers are plentiful...

And so is willful ignorance...
Title: Re: New 'Anti-Mob' law, is it unconstitutional?
Post by: BridgeTroll on April 23, 2021, 12:40:14 PM
Isn't there a difference between a riot and a peaceful assembly?  There certainly seems to be...
According to this law the difference could be one person acting badly suddenly it’s now called a riot. One more thing for me personally I am tired of laws going on the books that if you fear danger you get to defend yourself the same as if there is actually real danger.

You mean like the actual chances that you will be shot by a cop as opposed to one of your neighbors?
I mean we have set the standard too low for the use of deadly force by anyone. In this bill specifically the idea of running people over.

Apparently exaggerations of perceived dangers are plentiful...

And so is willful ignorance...

Oh absolutely... thank you...
Title: Re: New 'Anti-Mob' law, is it unconstitutional?
Post by: Tacachale on April 23, 2021, 03:48:47 PM
Isn't there a difference between a riot and a peaceful assembly?  There certainly seems to be...

What on Earth are you talking about?  ALL the protests are peaceful, duh.  Hehe (but sure we should instead focus our energy on solar power, green new deal, social "justice", social "infrastructure", etc... Especially with a conservative like DeSantis in office)

If these people haven't seen the news we've seen showing some of the things that have been going on around the country, it's honestly no point having this conversation.  Thank God for our governor; I can only imagine what state Florida would be in now with Andrew Gillum in office.  I shudder to think...

What on Earth are YOU talking about?

Pressing question: were the rioters on scooters?
Title: Re: New 'Anti-Mob' law, is it unconstitutional?
Post by: jaxlongtimer on April 23, 2021, 06:00:47 PM
I think if you look at the uncomfortable application of the "stand your ground" law, you will get a taste for how this law will operate - or not! 

Be wary of unintended consequences.  And unequal, unfair and inconsistent application of it.  We will see if the Qanon's get the same treatment as the BLM's... and so on.  What if this law was on the books during the Civil Rights or Viet Nam protests eras?
Title: Re: New 'Anti-Mob' law, is it unconstitutional?
Post by: Snaketoz on April 25, 2021, 09:26:11 AM
Most likely outcome of this law:
QAnon, anti-gun law protesters, MAGA demonstrations, anti abortionists-OK

BLM, anti police violence, pro reproductive rights, cannabis supporters, anti war protesters-thrown to ground, handcuffed, arrested.
Title: Re: New 'Anti-Mob' law, is it unconstitutional?
Post by: WAJAS on April 25, 2021, 02:46:47 PM
Any interesting take: https://twitter.com/AnnaForFlorida/status/1386010748846022658?s=20

"If you’re in a protest and a car drives into the crowd and you respond by shooting the driver in self-defense which law matters more? The driver liability granted under HB1 or Stand Your Ground?"
Title: Re: New 'Anti-Mob' law, is it unconstitutional?
Post by: BridgeTroll on April 25, 2021, 05:59:46 PM
Most likely outcome of this law:
QAnon, anti-gun law protesters, MAGA demonstrations, anti abortionists-OK

BLM, anti police violence, pro reproductive rights, cannabis supporters, anti war protesters-thrown to ground, handcuffed, arrested.
Don't riot
Title: Re: New 'Anti-Mob' law, is it unconstitutional?
Post by: Charles Hunter on April 25, 2021, 06:13:41 PM
Again. The way the law is written, you could be in a crowd of thousands, peacefully demonstrating, and a small group, or an individual, smashes some windows, or throws rocks at the police. You now have a "riot" or in the 2nd case an "aggravated riot".  Everyone there is now subject to arrest for participating in a riot and held in jail until your first court appearance.  If your answer is, "Well, don't go to a demonstration." You are proving the accusations being made against the various Republican-controlled legislatures - that they want to suppress First Amendment rights.

As Snaketoz said, it will be interesting to see how the police respond based on who is demonstrating.
Title: Re: New 'Anti-Mob' law, is it unconstitutional?
Post by: BridgeTroll on April 26, 2021, 06:53:10 AM
Your exaggerated and overly dramatic example is wrong... once a riot is declared or announced police order the demonstrators or rioters to cease and disperse... those who refuse... well there you go...

Riots are not acceptable forms of protest. Period.
Title: Re: New 'Anti-Mob' law, is it unconstitutional?
Post by: Charles Hunter on April 26, 2021, 10:03:03 AM
I never said that riots are an acceptable form of protest, you are putting words into my mouth (or keyboard).

Are you saying the police can end a demonstration by declaring it a riot and ordering people to disperse?
Title: Re: New 'Anti-Mob' law, is it unconstitutional?
Post by: bl8jaxnative on April 26, 2021, 10:29:36 AM


There are legal definitions to what constitutes a riot.  There would be long term legal ramifications for officials who fraudulently declare events to be riots when they do not meet those legal.
Title: Re: New 'Anti-Mob' law, is it unconstitutional?
Post by: Tacachale on April 26, 2021, 10:37:13 AM
Again, I don't know how other cities fared, but as someone who was there for many of the protests as well as during the riot here in Jacksonville, other than that one case, the police didn't appear to have any trouble keeping the peace with the laws on the books at the time.

Alls I can see that's different with this law is that it may make it easier for the state attorney to throw the book at people who get arrested, but last time 63 of the 66 people arrested had their charges dropped for lack of evidence. Meaning the hammer could have been dropped on the other 3 people who charged, but to what gain? Giving more jail time to a handful of people who already got jail time? Clearly it's not needed as a deterrent as no subsequent riots have happened anywhere in Northeast Florida.

A cynic would say the real goal is to discourage people from going to peaceful protests out of fear of being arrested, or even that it's just intended as virtue signaling to the right wing without any real legal goal.
Title: Re: New 'Anti-Mob' law, is it unconstitutional?
Post by: Chuckabear on April 26, 2021, 10:52:19 AM
Your exaggerated and overly dramatic example is wrong... once a riot is declared or announced police order the demonstrators or rioters to cease and disperse... those who refuse... well there you go...

Riots are not acceptable forms of protest. Period.

The police can't just declare a "riot". A protest being declared a riot must meet specific legal criteria and even then the right to protest combined with due process means that the police can not use mass arrests to disperse a crowd. It is why charges are dropped or never pursued when a protest is broken up. Only those who committed acts of violence can be held to account which is why any law that seeks to limit due process without specific evidence of a crime being committed is going to be looked at with a suspicious eye by federal courts.
Title: Re: New 'Anti-Mob' law, is it unconstitutional?
Post by: Snaketoz on April 26, 2021, 04:49:06 PM
It's not that simple, Chuckabear.  The police can do whatever, and the overwhelming percentage of instances have shown that legal or not, they can act with impunity.  Another poster says, "don't riot".  Most of us would never riot, but just being near someone who is rioting can put your liberty in peril.  I don't want to be tazed, thrown to the ground, pushed into a paddy wagon, have to make bond, spend time in jail, just for a mistake by the police.  That is a big hassle to endure, only for them to say, "never mind", we didn't have any real reason to arrest you in the first place.  This law is ridiculous.  There are laws on the books that handle vandalism, arson, assault, etc.  Why do we need a new law that allows unqualified public servants the ability to decide whether or not you exercising your Constitutional rights is "legal" or not?  This is just another power trip to stifle citizen's opinions that don't sync with the likes of Rick Scott and DeSantis.  It's shameful.
Title: Re: New 'Anti-Mob' law, is it unconstitutional?
Post by: Snaketoz on April 26, 2021, 04:52:40 PM
Most likely outcome of this law:
QAnon, anti-gun law protesters, MAGA demonstrations, anti abortionists-OK

BLM, anti police violence, pro reproductive rights, cannabis supporters, anti war protesters-thrown to ground, handcuffed, arrested.
Don't riot
Last time I checked, exercising your freedom of speech isn't "rioting".
Title: Re: New 'Anti-Mob' law, is it unconstitutional?
Post by: BridgeTroll on April 26, 2021, 06:43:00 PM
Most likely outcome of this law:
QAnon, anti-gun law protesters, MAGA demonstrations, anti abortionists-OK

BLM, anti police violence, pro reproductive rights, cannabis supporters, anti war protesters-thrown to ground, handcuffed, arrested.
Don't riot
Last time I checked, exercising your freedom of speech isn't "rioting".
Then the law doesn't apply.  It only effects rioters...
Title: Re: New 'Anti-Mob' law, is it unconstitutional?
Post by: Snaketoz on April 26, 2021, 07:40:04 PM
Ha ha ha...or whenever Barney Fife says you are rioting.  You are funny!
Title: Re: New 'Anti-Mob' law, is it unconstitutional?
Post by: WAJAS on April 26, 2021, 07:44:52 PM
Most likely outcome of this law:
QAnon, anti-gun law protesters, MAGA demonstrations, anti abortionists-OK

BLM, anti police violence, pro reproductive rights, cannabis supporters, anti war protesters-thrown to ground, handcuffed, arrested.
Don't riot
Last time I checked, exercising your freedom of speech isn't "rioting".
Then the law doesn't apply.  It only effects rioters...

Part of the problem is how the new law defines a riot though.
Title: Re: New 'Anti-Mob' law, is it unconstitutional?
Post by: Snaketoz on April 26, 2021, 08:18:01 PM
This is a law you could expect to find in Russia, not Florida.  I wish everyone would read this law and honestly say it's legal.  It's vague, poorly written, full of Soviet type wordings, and has to be over turned.  It's something like 64 pages long.  If arrested you cannot be released on bail until you go before a judge.  If you are adjudicated guilty you lose the right to vote.  Any assembly over 3 people can be called a mob.  I bet it's over turned.  I hope it's over turned. 
Title: Re: New 'Anti-Mob' law, is it unconstitutional?
Post by: Charles Hunter on April 26, 2021, 08:23:01 PM
Definition of "RIOT" from the law
Quote
Section 870.01 - Affrays and riots

(2)   A person commits a riot if he or she willfully participates in a violent public disturbance involving an assembly of three or more persons, acting with a common intent to assist each other in violent and disorderly conduct, resulting in:
(a) Injury to another person;
(b) Damage to property; or
(c) Imminent danger of injury to another person or
(d) damage to property.
A person who commits a riot commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
Subsection (1) defines "Affray" - basically public fighting "to the terror of the people."

It is items (c) and (d) that are problematic, where "imminent danger of injury to another person or damage to property" is the same felony as actually injuring a person or damaging property.  And who determines if damage or injury is "imminent"? The police on the scene make that determination. Now, the charge against you may eventually be dropped by the State Attorney. But, because of subsection (6), you will have probably spent the night, or longer, in jail awaiting your bail hearing.
Quote
(6)   Except for a violation of subsection (1), a person arrested for a violation of this section shall be held in custody until brought before the court for admittance to bail in accordance with chapter 903.
Remember that subsection (1) is an "affray" or public fighting, which is a misdemeanor.

Granted, 870.01 ends with this
Quote
(7)   This section does not prohibit constitutionally protected activity such as a peaceful protest.
But with the police on the scene determining if the event is a "peaceful protest" or a "riot" it sounds like the Legislature put that in to reassure some people that the intent is not to stifle protest.
Title: Re: New 'Anti-Mob' law, is it unconstitutional?
Post by: Snaketoz on April 26, 2021, 09:22:22 PM
What is to keep some in power to have their agents infiltrate a peaceful demonstration, throw a few rocks, break a few windows, and then have police attack and arrest the peaceful people simply exercising their rights?  I know many times in the early 20th century, thugs and Pinkerton agents were hired to vandalize buildings at Ford Motors, attack strikers, and cause mayhem.  The strikers were blamed of course.
 Happened with coal miners too.  This is a step backward.
Title: Re: New 'Anti-Mob' law, is it unconstitutional?
Post by: BridgeTroll on April 27, 2021, 06:27:08 AM
I welcome the lawsuit also... let's get this ironed out...  8)
Title: Re: New 'Anti-Mob' law, is it unconstitutional?
Post by: MusicMan on April 28, 2021, 09:26:19 PM
Definition of "RIOT" from the law
Quote
Section 870.01 - Affrays and riots

(2)   A person commits a riot if he or she willfully participates in a violent public disturbance involving an assembly of three or more persons, acting with a common intent to assist each other in violent and disorderly conduct, resulting in:
(a) Injury to another person;
(b) Damage to property; or
(c) Imminent danger of injury to another person or
(d) damage to property.
A person who commits a riot commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084."

Certainly describes to a 'T' the events of Jan 6 2021.
Title: Re: New 'Anti-Mob' law, is it unconstitutional?
Post by: JeffreyS on April 29, 2021, 04:39:04 AM
Most likely outcome of this law:
QAnon, anti-gun law protesters, MAGA demonstrations, anti abortionists-OK

BLM, anti police violence, pro reproductive rights, cannabis supporters, anti war protesters-thrown to ground, handcuffed, arrested.
Don't riot
Last time I checked, exercising your freedom of speech isn't "rioting".
Then the law doesn't apply.  It only effects rioters...
If it wasn’t so sad I would laugh at The naïveté.

I’m going to pretend for a second the worst of what this law presumes about specifically the BLM protests is true and they are riots.
Part one Destroying property to stop part two the murder of Black people at the hands of the police. Shouldn’t we then be solving the first part of the presumption by ending the second part.
I know the law is not really an attempt to stop riots just to make protesters seem like rioters so my example is just fantasy. How BT doesn’t see that worries me because I think of him as a representative of the reasonable right.
Title: Re: New 'Anti-Mob' law, is it unconstitutional?
Post by: Tacachale on April 29, 2021, 10:29:33 AM
Definition of "RIOT" from the law
Quote
Section 870.01 - Affrays and riots

(2)   A person commits a riot if he or she willfully participates in a violent public disturbance involving an assembly of three or more persons, acting with a common intent to assist each other in violent and disorderly conduct, resulting in:
(a) Injury to another person;
(b) Damage to property; or
(c) Imminent danger of injury to another person or
(d) damage to property.
A person who commits a riot commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084."

Certainly describes to a 'T' the events of Jan 6 2021.

Yes, it shouldn't be forgotten that this law is coming from the party who owns the insurrection. They do not have credibility on this in the slightest.
Title: Re: New 'Anti-Mob' law, is it unconstitutional?
Post by: BridgeTroll on April 29, 2021, 05:57:17 PM
I am not a member of any party. I simply think that rioting or violence in protest is completely unacceptable. This most certainly applies to right wing violence, left wing violence, or anarchistic violence.

Shrugging your shoulders with a “riots happen” attitude is unacceptable and destructive.

Pretty fukin simple….  8)
Title: Re: New 'Anti-Mob' law, is it unconstitutional?
Post by: Charles Hunter on April 29, 2021, 07:47:55 PM
Shrugging your shoulders with a “riots happen” attitude is unacceptable and destructive.

Pretty fukin simple….  8)

I don't think anyone here is taking that attitude.

The concern, at least mine and I think at least some others, is that the new law is so broad it could be applied to people who are not involved in rioting or violence.  The law allows the police to arrest anyone in the crowd if violence, or imminent violence, breaks out. Fear of a felony arrest if the peaceful demonstration for a cause you support might become a riot. There are already laws against all the violence, looting, and similar 'riotous' behavior.  Why was this law needed?  To feed red meat to the Trumpian Base? To discourage demonstrations against the powers that be?

It can be argued the law encourages the police to take extreme measures, as cities can be held civilly liable for any damages arising from the riot if they don't do enough to quell it.
Quote
768.28 (5)(b) A municipality has a duty to allow the municipal law enforcement agency to respond appropriately to protect persons and property during a riot or an unlawful assembly based on the availability of adequate equipment to its municipal law enforcement officers and relevant state and federal laws. If the governing body of a municipality or a person authorized by the governing body of the municipality breaches that duty, the municipality is civilly liable for any damages including damages arising from personal injury, wrongful death, or property damages proximately caused by the municipality's breach of duty. The sovereign immunity recovery limits in paragraph (a) do not apply to an action under this paragraph.
Title: Re: New 'Anti-Mob' law, is it unconstitutional?
Post by: WAJAS on April 29, 2021, 07:53:34 PM
I am not a member of any party. I simply think that rioting or violence in protest is completely unacceptable. This most certainly applies to right wing violence, left wing violence, or anarchistic violence.

Shrugging your shoulders with a “riots happen” attitude is unacceptable and destructive.

Pretty fukin simple….  8)

Well, that's the thing right. This law makes the "protests happen" attitude into a "riots happen" one because of how they define a riot and how it impacts those that aim to peacefully protest within the "riot."
Title: Re: New 'Anti-Mob' law, is it unconstitutional?
Post by: Charles Hunter on April 29, 2021, 09:00:03 PM
I wonder if this section will be used against the groups that gather outside Planned Parenthood and other women's medical service sites, and yell at the women going in for medical services, trying to "refrain from doing any act"? It could be argued that screaming at the women and blocking their path, is a "threat[en] to use imminent force".
Quote
784.0495 Mob intimidation.—
(1) It is unlawful for a person, assembled with two or more other persons and acting with a common intent, to use force or threaten to use imminent force, to compel or induce, or attempt to compel or induce, another person to do or refrain from doing any act or to assume, abandon, or maintain a particular viewpoint against his or her will.
Title: Re: New 'Anti-Mob' law, is it unconstitutional?
Post by: BridgeTroll on April 30, 2021, 07:30:26 AM
There are many laws that overlap or seem redundant... For example some assaults, vandalism, and murders are prosecuted under so called hate crimes because of a racial or national component or motivation.

This new law in my view is simply adding teeth to existing limp and ineffectual laws...
Title: Re: New 'Anti-Mob' law, is it unconstitutional?
Post by: Zac T on April 30, 2021, 11:26:44 AM
During the committee meetings, even the sponsor of the bill gave a different answer each time when asked to define what constitutes a riot. If the lawmakers who drafted the bill can't define what this bill is supposed to protect against, that leaves all discretion to law enforcement to do so.

Most bills that affect law enforcement have an effective date at least a year from when the bill was signed into law in order to give law enforcement proper training. This bill became effective immediately so police officers are going out on the streets enforcing a law that they have little to no training in.

The fact that this bill also gives the state legislature the right to overturn a municipalities decision to decrease their own police budget should give it away that this is nothing more than virtue-signaling to the right from a governor who has eyes on the presidency. No longer do cities have the right to decide how money should be spent within their own community. This most definitely will be overturned in the courts
Title: Re: New 'Anti-Mob' law, is it unconstitutional?
Post by: BridgeTroll on April 30, 2021, 05:15:04 PM
Good. I really have no dog in this fight. If rioting happens I’m not going to be anywhere nearby.

Hopefully we can get a ruling on the lawsuit before something occurs… :)
Title: Re: New 'Anti-Mob' law, is it unconstitutional?
Post by: Snaketoz on April 30, 2021, 07:34:08 PM
How can anyone honestly say that this law is anything other than a power grab by the right?  We have laws against vandalism, we have laws against arson, assault, battery, theft, robbery, any unlawful action you can name.  This takes our freedom to dissent to the whim of the party in office.  Any dissent that does not match the values of the current regime can be deemed a mob, riotous, or a threat to public safety.  The Constitution is not a document that gives the majority, or the party in power, the right to modify our rights.  It's to assure that all Americans are treated equally.  There is NO justification for this law.
Title: Re: New 'Anti-Mob' law, is it unconstitutional?
Post by: Charles Hunter on April 30, 2021, 10:15:52 PM
When one of Florida's sports teams - pro or college - wins some Big Game Championship, it is likely their fans will take to the streets in celebration.  At these joyous celebrations, some people get out of hand and break windows, or turn over cars, or pull down street lights, or beat up fans of the Other Team.  Will the DeSantis Anti-1st Amendment Law be applied to them?  Heck, if the local police feel any of that "out of hand" stuff is "imminent" they could "read the riot act" and make felony arrests.  Even if none of the "out of hand" stuff happens, the fact that thousands of people are blocking the streets runs afoul of this new law. 
Title: Re: New 'Anti-Mob' law, is it unconstitutional?
Post by: Snaketoz on May 01, 2021, 09:33:59 AM
I hope the people of Florida take note of the fact that the party that is always portraying itself as the "keepers of the Constitution, and of personal rights", especially when it comes to guns, is always enacting laws that are a contradiction to their stated aims.
Title: Re: New 'Anti-Mob' law, is it unconstitutional?
Post by: BridgeTroll on May 01, 2021, 03:57:50 PM
Oh the drama... :o ::)
Title: Re: New 'Anti-Mob' law, is it unconstitutional?
Post by: Florida Power And Light on May 02, 2021, 09:35:24 PM
How can anyone honestly say that this law is anything other than a power grab by the right?  We have laws against vandalism, we have laws against arson, assault, battery, theft, robbery, any unlawful action you can name.  This takes our freedom to dissent to the whim of the party in office.  Any dissent that does not match the values of the current regime can be deemed a mob, riotous, or a threat to public safety.  The Constitution is not a document that gives the majority, or the party in power, the right to modify our rights.  It's to assure that all Americans are treated equally.  There is NO justification for this law.

Flooring the gas pedal on your vehicle as a result of a certain public roadway blockage episode hardly ever present in the past was a Driver behind/ for the legislative effort.
Seeing San Margo businesses boarded up around this time last year in prep for Protest was Prescient.
Etc.
Live with this new legislation...... How Bad Can It Be????
Title: Re: New 'Anti-Mob' law, is it unconstitutional?
Post by: vicupstate on May 03, 2021, 07:46:24 AM
How can anyone honestly say that this law is anything other than a power grab by the right?  We have laws against vandalism, we have laws against arson, assault, battery, theft, robbery, any unlawful action you can name.  This takes our freedom to dissent to the whim of the party in office.  Any dissent that does not match the values of the current regime can be deemed a mob, riotous, or a threat to public safety.  The Constitution is not a document that gives the majority, or the party in power, the right to modify our rights.  It's to assure that all Americans are treated equally.  There is NO justification for this law.

Flooring the gas pedal on your vehicle as a result of a certain public roadway blockage episode hardly ever present in the past was a Driver behind/ for the legislative effort.
Seeing San Margo businesses boarded up around this time last year in prep for Protest was Prescient.
Etc.
Live with this new legislation...... How Bad Can It Be????

I think you and Bridge Troll are being very disingenuous. You don't have to know much about the law to see how this new law can be abused and used to prevent or eliminate dissent against the government. If Biden were proposing this, the Right would have a fit.

I hope it is struck down by the courts before it causes serious harm. 

We fought a 'Drug War' for decades that destroyed many lives all for the sake of political gamesmanship. This has the potential to do the same and do long term harm to democracy in the process.     
Title: Re: New 'Anti-Mob' law, is it unconstitutional?
Post by: bl8jaxnative on May 03, 2021, 09:30:40 AM
No longer do cities have the right to decide how money should be spent within their own community.

There's always been restrictions and constrictions to this before.  Not just in Florida but all the states.
Title: Re: New 'Anti-Mob' law, is it unconstitutional?
Post by: jaxlongtimer on May 11, 2021, 06:14:22 PM
I'm sure there will be test cases once people start getting arrested for violating it.

Cue up the ACLU who has already registered their opposition to this bill.  Given how discretionary its enforcement will likely be, I think they will have a good case to have it ruled unconstitutional.

I wonder, at times, if DeSantis and the Legislature pass these bills to support the bevy of lawyers the State pays millions to for defending the State's ongoing desire to pass unsustainable laws.  And, how much those same lawyers recycle those fees into campaign contributions.  It has to be a cottage industry at this point.  How many Florida laws have been tossed or limited by the courts in recent years?

By the way, check out the PBS series that started last night, "Philly DA."  It's as good as any Netflix or HBO documentary series and sheds an amazing light on the various sides (police, prosecutors, defenders, offenders, victims, judges) to our justice system and law enforcement.  Every citizen should watch this to understand how complex and difficult applying justice in this country really is.  It also demonstrates how the "anti-mob" law is likely to be smoke and mirrors in the end and will just cost taxpayers millions of dollars for nothing.

As predicted, the ink has hardly dried and, sure enough, the ACLU, NAACP, etc. have now filed suit in Federal court to overturn this law based on it being unconstitutional.  We will now waste Florida taxpayers' money defending a worthless law that was never needed in the first place.  If the State loses, they may also have to pay for the plaintiff's lawyers.

Quote

Federal lawsuit challenging Florida anti-riot bill claims law targets Black protesters


Several groups have joined to file a federal lawsuit on behalf of Black-led organizations challenging a recently enacted Florida law (H.B. 1) which the groups assert is intended to chill First Amendment rights.

The NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund Inc., the ACLU of Florida, and the Community Justice Project filed the lawsuit in federal court in Tallahassee. The state Legislature passed so-called anti-riot bill in its recent session at the urging of Gov. Ron DeSantis, who championed the bill.

The law targets Black protesters and their allies who demand racial justice and has already slowed protest activity among Black organizers in Florida,” according to a press release from the groups filing the lawsuit....

....The plaintiffs in the lawsuit are The Dream Defenders, the Black Collective Inc., Chainless Change Inc, Black Lives Matter Alliance Broward; the Florida State Conference of the NAACP Branches and Youth Units and the Northside Coalition of Jacksonville.

The lawsuit lists as defendants DeSantis, Attorney General Ashley Moody, Leon County Sheriff Walt McNeil, Jacksonville Sheriff Mike Williams, and Broward County Sheriff Gregory Tony.
Title: Re: New 'Anti-Mob' law, is it unconstitutional?
Post by: BridgeTroll on May 12, 2021, 08:17:14 AM
The really predictable part of this is that those two organizations misguided efforts may only serve to hurt the people who live and work in the CBDs where the demonstrations and riots will occur...

THAT was predictable...  :)
Title: Re: New 'Anti-Mob' law, is it unconstitutional?
Post by: bl8jaxnative on May 12, 2021, 08:35:32 AM

"
The law targets Black protesters and their allies who demand racial justice
"

No, the laws target childish numpties who go out into the street and throw a fit cuz they're not happy.


This country is plagued by people the mentality of a toddler, constantly wanting attention for doing nothing.  Pathetic.
Title: Re: New 'Anti-Mob' law, is it unconstitutional?
Post by: vicupstate on May 12, 2021, 08:43:40 AM

"
The law targets Black protesters and their allies who demand racial justice
"

No, the laws target childish numpties who go out into the street and throw a fit cuz they're not happy.


This country is plagued by people the mentality of a toddler, constantly wanting attention for doing nothing.  Pathetic.

There is literally nothing in this law that is beneficial. Any activity that is targeted as unlawful was already unlawful. 
Title: Re: New 'Anti-Mob' law, is it unconstitutional?
Post by: Tacachale on May 12, 2021, 08:57:39 AM
The really predictable part of this is that those two organizations misguided efforts may only serve to hurt the people who live and work in the CBDs where the demonstrations and riots will occur...

THAT was predictable...  :)

Except there’s no indication “riots will occur” there or anywhere.
Title: Re: New 'Anti-Mob' law, is it unconstitutional?
Post by: Adam White on May 12, 2021, 10:20:49 AM
No, the laws target childish numpties who go out into the street and throw a fit cuz they're not happy.

This country is plagued by people the mentality of a toddler, constantly wanting attention for doing nothing.  Pathetic.

AFAIK, everyone has a right to express their dissatisfaction in the streets. And if it bothers you that people want attention for doing nothing, you could always just...not give them attention.
Title: Re: New 'Anti-Mob' law, is it unconstitutional?
Post by: itsfantastic1 on May 12, 2021, 10:33:52 AM
No, the laws target childish numpties who go out into the street and throw a fit cuz they're not happy.

This country is plagued by people the mentality of a toddler, constantly wanting attention for doing nothing.  Pathetic.

AFAIK, everyone has a right to express their dissatisfaction in the streets. And if it bothers you that people want attention for doing nothing, you could always just...not give them attention.

Fairly certain this nation was founded by "childish numpties" who "threw a fit" because they were "unhappy"
Title: Re: New 'Anti-Mob' law, is it unconstitutional?
Post by: Adam White on May 12, 2021, 10:36:48 AM
No, the laws target childish numpties who go out into the street and throw a fit cuz they're not happy.

This country is plagued by people the mentality of a toddler, constantly wanting attention for doing nothing.  Pathetic.

AFAIK, everyone has a right to express their dissatisfaction in the streets. And if it bothers you that people want attention for doing nothing, you could always just...not give them attention.

Fairly certain this nation was founded by "childish numpties" who "threw a fit" because they were "unhappy"

Exactly! And when they got around to doing it, they made sure the right to do so was protected.
Title: Re: New 'Anti-Mob' law, is it unconstitutional?
Post by: BridgeTroll on May 12, 2021, 11:54:31 AM
No one... no where... has said a single thing about limiting our right to peaceably assemble. T he first amendment sez.

First Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The moment violence begins the peaceable assembly is now over... time to go home or be arrested.

Since it is unlikely that a peaceable assembly begins in my neighborhood, and ends in a riot all I can do is feel sorry for those that lose a grocery or a business.  I'm sure the NAACP and ACLU will help make everyone whole..
Title: Re: New 'Anti-Mob' law, is it unconstitutional?
Post by: MusicMan on May 12, 2021, 12:20:04 PM
I see your politics ..... keep in mind Trump owes cities for his rallies that will never be paid....
Title: Re: New 'Anti-Mob' law, is it unconstitutional?
Post by: Charles Hunter on May 12, 2021, 12:32:43 PM
Again ... all of those things - property destruction, assault on law enforcement officers, blocking roadways, and so on - are already against the law.  The threat to "peaceable assembly" is that the law allows the arrest of people if the LEOs think a riot is "imminent." I believe the intent and result is to discourage people from exercising their right of free speech and peaceable assembly, for fear that some "bad actors" may do something - or the police think it is "imminent" they will do something - and start arresting everyone in sight, whether you or I were "rioting" or just there to support a cause.  And, sure, the police "should" clearly announce they are about to start arresting people (aka "read the riot act"), but how clearly is that communicated, and how long a clearance time is provided?

Will you support the arrest of people harassing patients of women's health clinics under this law?
Title: Re: New 'Anti-Mob' law, is it unconstitutional?
Post by: BridgeTroll on May 12, 2021, 12:56:09 PM
I see your politics ..... keep in mind Trump owes cities for his rallies that will never be paid....

Not a trumper... never was.  I see your politics also...
Title: Re: New 'Anti-Mob' law, is it unconstitutional?
Post by: BridgeTroll on May 12, 2021, 12:59:44 PM
Again ... all of those things - property destruction, assault on law enforcement officers, blocking roadways, and so on - are already against the law.  The threat to "peaceable assembly" is that the law allows the arrest of people if the LEOs think a riot is "imminent." I believe the intent and result is to discourage people from exercising their right of free speech and peaceable assembly, for fear that some "bad actors" may do something - or the police think it is "imminent" they will do something - and start arresting everyone in sight, whether you or I were "rioting" or just there to support a cause.  And, sure, the police "should" clearly announce they are about to start arresting people (aka "read the riot act"), but how clearly is that communicated, and how long a clearance time is provided?

Will you support the arrest of people harassing patients of women's health clinics under this law?

I make no distinction regarding who is protesting what... if it turns into a violent demonstration whether right wingers at the capitol or lefties in Seattle or Portland is immaterial...

I do admire your clear desire and defense of riotous behavior though... I appreciate your passion...
Title: Re: New 'Anti-Mob' law, is it unconstitutional?
Post by: vicupstate on May 12, 2021, 01:22:37 PM
Again ... all of those things - property destruction, assault on law enforcement officers, blocking roadways, and so on - are already against the law.  The threat to "peaceable assembly" is that the law allows the arrest of people if the LEOs think a riot is "imminent." I believe the intent and result is to discourage people from exercising their right of free speech and peaceable assembly, for fear that some "bad actors" may do something - or the police think it is "imminent" they will do something - and start arresting everyone in sight, whether you or I were "rioting" or just there to support a cause.  And, sure, the police "should" clearly announce they are about to start arresting people (aka "read the riot act"), but how clearly is that communicated, and how long a clearance time is provided?

Will you support the arrest of people harassing patients of women's health clinics under this law?

I make no distinction regarding who is protesting what... if it turns into a violent demonstration whether right wingers at the capitol or lefties in Seattle or Portland is immaterial...

I do admire your clear desire and defense of riotous behavior though... I appreciate your passion...

Please explain WHY this law is needed. There is none. It opens a pandora's box of authority to the police to act as abitur of what is 'imminent'. It is meant to be a deterrent to peaceful assembly.     
Title: Re: New 'Anti-Mob' law, is it unconstitutional?
Post by: Charles Hunter on May 12, 2021, 01:32:10 PM
Please point out where I "desire" and 'defend' "riotous behavior.  In all of my posts, I have expressed my concern that a peaceful demonstration can turn into a "riot" by the actions of a few people with bad intent. Or, if the police believe "riotous behavior" is "imminent." 
Given existing laws against property destruction, assaulting law enforcement, blocking roadways, etc. - why was this law needed? As I have said previously, I see two reasons. First, to feed red meat to the Trump wing of the GQP based on fears of BLM or antifa, thus establishing DeSantis as a worthy successor to Trump.  Second, to discourage peaceful protest against extra-legal killings by the police, or restrictions of voting (or reproductive, or other) rights.
Title: Re: New 'Anti-Mob' law, is it unconstitutional?
Post by: BridgeTroll on May 12, 2021, 01:54:14 PM
The new law simply adds teeth to existing laws for acts committed during a violent demonstration... It also holds responsible those who incite the violence...

I will use hate crimes as an example duplicating existing laws... murder, vandalism, assault can be classified as hate crimes even though those crimes already exist.  We have added " motivation" as a factor.  It makes these crimes more heinous simply by the politics or skin color, or nationality of the perpetrator and victim.
Title: Re: New 'Anti-Mob' law, is it unconstitutional?
Post by: Snaketoz on May 12, 2021, 02:25:38 PM
I think that the people who see any value in this ridiculous law would do a 180 if it had been put into place by Obama or a black governor.  This law is a hit with the DeSantis and Trump people because it helps those people use the law to enforce their agenda.  The authors of this law keep mentioning BLM and misconduct in the same sentence, yet never mention the ignorant goons who stormed the Capitol.  I don't want non-elected, poorly educated, rank and file law enforcement people making decisions on what is a riot, what may be a riot, and who deserves to be arrested, maced, tazed, or chewed-on by dogs.  Why would ANYONE want to give up a Constitutional right because the party in power is offended by you voicing your opposition to wrongs in our society?
Title: Re: New 'Anti-Mob' law, is it unconstitutional?
Post by: BridgeTroll on May 12, 2021, 02:33:46 PM
Your lack of respect for law enforcement shines through over and over snake...
Title: Re: New 'Anti-Mob' law, is it unconstitutional?
Post by: Snaketoz on May 12, 2021, 05:53:49 PM
Your lack of respect for law enforcement shines through over and over snake...
I respect anyone deserving respect.  I meant no disrespect for law enforcement officers.  My only concern is, who determines what is or isn't a mob or a riot.  I see examples of misconduct everyday.  I want respect to be a two way street.  I assure you, I will show more respect and compassion to citizens exercising their Constitutional rights than I would to someone like Derek Chauvin.
Title: Re: New 'Anti-Mob' law, is it unconstitutional?
Post by: BridgeTroll on May 12, 2021, 08:10:04 PM
Your lack of respect for law enforcement shines through over and over snake...
I respect anyone deserving respect.  I meant no disrespect for law enforcement officers.  My only concern is, who determines what is or isn't a mob or a riot.  I see examples of misconduct everyday.  I want respect to be a two way street.  I assure you, I will show more respect and compassion to citizens exercising their Constitutional rights than I would to someone like Derek Chauvin.
Nope... you are in fact disrespectful...

Ha ha ha...or whenever Barney Fife says you are rioting.  You are funny!
Title: Re: New 'Anti-Mob' law, is it unconstitutional?
Post by: Snaketoz on May 12, 2021, 09:20:58 PM
OK Troll,  If I'm disrespecting law enforcement, you're disrespecting the Constitution.
Title: Re: New 'Anti-Mob' law, is it unconstitutional?
Post by: Tacachale on May 12, 2021, 11:32:36 PM
Returning to the actual topic, this is a list of all days in Florida where violence occurred during or on the day of a protest, according to this Wikipedia article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Floyd_protests_in_Florida). The article doesn't include every peaceful protest as there were many in Jacksonville, but I expect it's a good record of the ones where violence occurred. No incident seems to have happened since June 4 when two white men assaulted a man playing a recording of an MLK speech.

Bonita Springs: On June 1, protesters vandalized a building with graffiti.
Fort Lauderdale: On May 31, one protester stole an American flag during an otherwise peaceful protest. On June 1, there was a standoff between police and protesters and rioting broke out.
Fort Myers: City officials took down a bust of Robert E. Lee to prevent demonstrators from potentially vandalizing it.
Gainesville: May 30, A man drove into a crowd of demonstrators and pulled a gun; he was arrested.
Jacksonville: May 30, about 200 people were Downtown after the much larger main protest ended and a riot broke out. A police officer was injured and property damage occurred. Police arrested about 65 people over the next two days, but the state attorney dropped charges on all but two of them.
Marco Island: On June 3, one protester was arrested for grabbing the phone of someone recording the protest; a bystander was arrested for carrying an assault rifle.
Miami: On May 30, following a larger protest, one large group of protesters began looting and rioting, leading the mayor to extend a curfew and state of emergency. On June 3, the FBI arrested groups of people, mostly Venezuelans, Cubans, Haitians and Hondurans, who it said were paid to cause violence at protests; on June 5 the White House stated they were connected to Venezuelan president Nicholas Maduro. I can't find any updates on this story. On June 4, a man playing a recording of MLK's I Have a Dream speech was assaulted by two white men.
Naples: On June 1, some protesters threw water bottles at police and punched a police car.
Orlando: On May 30, police used tear gas to disperse protesters blocking Orange Blossom Drive. On May 31, police used tear gas to disperse another crowd they said was heading toward I-4.
Tallahassee: On May 30, a man drove a truck through a crowd of demonstrators. He was arrested.
Tampa: On May 30, rioting and looting occurred at night following a much larger protest. Two police were injured and numerous arrests were made.
Temple Terrace: On May 30, police said protesters blocked streets; the protesters said the police used rubber bullets on them.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Floyd_protests_in_Florida
Title: Re: New 'Anti-Mob' law, is it unconstitutional?
Post by: BridgeTroll on May 13, 2021, 07:04:44 AM
OK Troll,  If I'm disrespecting law enforcement, you're disrespecting the Constitution.

These are my actual words... please read them...

quote author=BridgeTroll link=topic=36890.msg511291#msg511291 date=1620834871]
No one... no where... has said a single thing about limiting our right to peaceably assemble. T he first amendment sez.

First Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The moment violence begins the peaceable assembly is now over... time to go home or be arrested.

Since it is unlikely that a peaceable assembly begins in my neighborhood, and ends in a riot all I can do is feel sorry for those that lose a grocery or a business.  I'm sure the NAACP and ACLU will help make everyone whole..
Title: Re: New 'Anti-Mob' law, is it unconstitutional?
Post by: BridgeTroll on May 13, 2021, 07:14:58 AM
Returning to the actual topic, this is a list of all days in Florida where violence occurred during or on the day of a protest, according to this Wikipedia article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Floyd_protests_in_Florida). The article doesn't include every peaceful protest as there were many in Jacksonville, but I expect it's a good record of the ones where violence occurred. No incident seems to have happened since June 4 when two white men assaulted a man playing a recording of an MLK speech.

Bonita Springs: On June 1, protesters vandalized a building with graffiti.
Fort Lauderdale: On May 31, one protester stole an American flag during an otherwise peaceful protest. On June 1, there was a standoff between police and protesters and rioting broke out.
Fort Myers: City officials took down a bust of Robert E. Lee to prevent demonstrators from potentially vandalizing it.
Gainesville: May 30, A man drove into a crowd of demonstrators and pulled a gun; he was arrested.
Jacksonville: May 30, about 200 people were Downtown after the much larger main protest ended and a riot broke out. A police officer was injured and property damage occurred. Police arrested about 65 people over the next two days, but the state attorney dropped charges on all but two of them.
Marco Island: On June 3, one protester was arrested for grabbing the phone of someone recording the protest; a bystander was arrested for carrying an assault rifle.
Miami: On May 30, following a larger protest, one large group of protesters began looting and rioting, leading the mayor to extend a curfew and state of emergency. On June 3, the FBI arrested groups of people, mostly Venezuelans, Cubans, Haitians and Hondurans, who it said were paid to cause violence at protests; on June 5 the White House stated they were connected to Venezuelan president Nicholas Maduro. I can't find any updates on this story. On June 4, a man playing a recording of MLK's I Have a Dream speech was assaulted by two white men.
Naples: On June 1, some protesters threw water bottles at police and punched a police car.
Orlando: On May 30, police used tear gas to disperse protesters blocking Orange Blossom Drive. On May 31, police used tear gas to disperse another crowd they said was heading toward I-4.
Tallahassee: On May 30, a man drove a truck through a crowd of demonstrators. He was arrested.
Tampa: On May 30, rioting and looting occurred at night following a much larger protest. Two police were injured and numerous arrests were made.
Temple Terrace: On May 30, police said protesters blocked streets; the protesters said the police used rubber bullets on them.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Floyd_protests_in_Florida

Thanks for providing. According to snake we are inundated with incompetent police... we are one officer mistake or resisting arrest incident away from peaceful assembly turning into a violent confrontation.

I do not think the legislation limits any peaceful protest...unless of course you are carrying frozen water bottles, rocks, etc... I await the results of the lawsuit and certainly accept the finding. Will you?
Title: Re: New 'Anti-Mob' law, is it unconstitutional?
Post by: Snaketoz on May 13, 2021, 08:15:48 AM
Troll, I'd like you to direct me to any post where I said, "we are inundated with incompetent police".  I'm saying WHO makes the call that peaceful demonstrators potentially lose their civil rights simply by being in the area where others break the law.  You are an example of someone who takes the words or actions of others and turns it around to fit your own agenda.  I wouldn't care for those of your ilk to decide whether I'm in a riotous mob, or exercising my freedoms.  There are laws on the books for any crime that may be committed during a demonstration.  Why do we need yet another vague, easily manipulated, one-sided law?  What gives a political party in one state the right to re-write the law of the land we've had for 232 years?
Title: Re: New 'Anti-Mob' law, is it unconstitutional?
Post by: BridgeTroll on May 13, 2021, 09:37:07 AM
Who makes the call?  The same ones who do it every day across the the country in a variety of different circumstances.
Title: Re: New 'Anti-Mob' law, is it unconstitutional?
Post by: Zac T on May 13, 2021, 12:55:20 PM
Returning to the actual topic, this is a list of all days in Florida where violence occurred during or on the day of a protest, according to this Wikipedia article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Floyd_protests_in_Florida). The article doesn't include every peaceful protest as there were many in Jacksonville, but I expect it's a good record of the ones where violence occurred. No incident seems to have happened since June 4 when two white men assaulted a man playing a recording of an MLK speech.

Bonita Springs: On June 1, protesters vandalized a building with graffiti.
Fort Lauderdale: On May 31, one protester stole an American flag during an otherwise peaceful protest. On June 1, there was a standoff between police and protesters and rioting broke out.
Fort Myers: City officials took down a bust of Robert E. Lee to prevent demonstrators from potentially vandalizing it.
Gainesville: May 30, A man drove into a crowd of demonstrators and pulled a gun; he was arrested.
Jacksonville: May 30, about 200 people were Downtown after the much larger main protest ended and a riot broke out. A police officer was injured and property damage occurred. Police arrested about 65 people over the next two days, but the state attorney dropped charges on all but two of them.
Marco Island: On June 3, one protester was arrested for grabbing the phone of someone recording the protest; a bystander was arrested for carrying an assault rifle.
Miami: On May 30, following a larger protest, one large group of protesters began looting and rioting, leading the mayor to extend a curfew and state of emergency. On June 3, the FBI arrested groups of people, mostly Venezuelans, Cubans, Haitians and Hondurans, who it said were paid to cause violence at protests; on June 5 the White House stated they were connected to Venezuelan president Nicholas Maduro. I can't find any updates on this story. On June 4, a man playing a recording of MLK's I Have a Dream speech was assaulted by two white men.
Naples: On June 1, some protesters threw water bottles at police and punched a police car.
Orlando: On May 30, police used tear gas to disperse protesters blocking Orange Blossom Drive. On May 31, police used tear gas to disperse another crowd they said was heading toward I-4.
Tallahassee: On May 30, a man drove a truck through a crowd of demonstrators. He was arrested.
Tampa: On May 30, rioting and looting occurred at night following a much larger protest. Two police were injured and numerous arrests were made.
Temple Terrace: On May 30, police said protesters blocked streets; the protesters said the police used rubber bullets on them.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Floyd_protests_in_Florida

This list is missing a few of the protests over the Confederate monument in St Augustine that had instances of violence. The first was when the group supporting the removal of the monument surrounded and threatened a man who was selling Trump merchandise. The second was a passerby who violently lunged and attacked several marchers. The third was a group of Proud Boys who assaulted several young women. The St Augustine PD quickly and efficiently apprehended all suspects and the protests went on passionately but peacefully afterwards.

There were also 2 instances of violence during protests in Baker County over the summer, both initiated by Trump supporters who continuously instigated young women. Unlike St Augustine,  the Baker County Sheriff's Office waited until things turned ugly to intervene but everyone involved was eventually arrested and the protests ended.

In all instances, the laws on the books were sufficient enough to arrest and charge all perpetrators of violence and allow the peaceful demonstrators to continue with their demonstration or go home, whichever they chose. Under the new law, everybody (including myself) could be arrested simply by being a part of the same group as the violent protesters and would not be eligible for bail prior to their date in court. That's why it is so dangerous because it gives police sole discretion to determine what a riot is and then they can arrest everyone even if you had nothing to do with the violence.

Due to not being able to control someone's actions but potentially being held liable for it, this new law will significantly discourage protests across the political spectrum and that is damaging to our country and completely against what the Constitution stands for.
Title: Re: New 'Anti-Mob' law, is it unconstitutional?
Post by: vicupstate on May 13, 2021, 02:14:55 PM
Well said ZacT.

It is also very troubling that this legislation comes on the heels of other legislation that seeks to make voting more difficult. Legislation in which all of the press (except State media) was banned from covering the signing ceremony. Democracy is dying by a thousand cuts, some small, some very big.     
Title: Re: New 'Anti-Mob' law, is it unconstitutional?
Post by: BridgeTroll on May 13, 2021, 02:19:42 PM
Well then it's settled...  :)
Title: Re: New 'Anti-Mob' law, is it unconstitutional?
Post by: MusicMan on May 13, 2021, 08:47:51 PM
Republican like DeSantis are all for law and order unless it's investigating their good buddies, like Matt Gaetz or Trump.  For God's sake Rick Scott should have gone to jail, just like the kids selling dime bags in Brentwood, but our criminal justice system doesn't work that way.

Something tells me DeSantis will decry law and order if it indictes Trump and takes him to court (Georgia, DC, or New York).   Same for the traitors who stormed the capitol, many Repubs are trying to pretend it never happened.

 
Title: Re: New 'Anti-Mob' law, is it unconstitutional?
Post by: MusicMan on May 24, 2021, 09:56:58 PM
In his never ending pursuit of the Trump base, Ron D Santis has introduced anther ridiculous law that will inevitably cost Florida taxpayers while proving absolutely nothing.

https://www.cnn.com/2021/05/24/tech/desantis-big-tech-anti-censorship/index.html
Title: Re: New 'Anti-Mob' law, is it unconstitutional?
Post by: jaxlongtimer on June 02, 2021, 06:21:40 PM
As noted before, DeSantis is a state lawyer's full employment agent.  Here is another lawsuit over one of his ridiculous, unnecessary, politically motivated and likely unconstitutional laws.  Note the Disney exception at the end of the article.  So much for equal treatment under the law.  Just a big waste of taxpayer dollars on his silliness.
Quote
Two industry groups that represent tech companies including Facebook, Twitter, Google, and Amazon filed a lawsuit against Florida, claiming that a new law targeting online speech violates the First Amendment.

The lawsuit, filed by NetChoice and the Computer and Communications Industry Association, is aimed at a law enacted last week by Gov. Ron DeSantis.

DeSantis has framed the law as protecting citizens from online censorship. It's designed to prohibit social-media platforms from "willfully deplatforming" political candidates and lets Florida fine a company $250,000 a day if it does deplatform someone.

The law also lets Florida citizens sue a tech company for up to $100,000 if they believe it's breaking the law.

The lawsuit described the law as a "smorgasbord of constitutional violations" and argued that it would make it impossible for tech companies to exercise their First Amendment rights by moderating their platforms for objectionable and harmful content.

The tech groups filed the lawsuit last Thursday, seeking preliminary and permanent injunctions to prevent the law from coming into force on July 1.

"These unprecedented restrictions are a blatant attack on a wide range of content-moderation choices that these private companies have to make on a daily basis to protect their services, users, advertisers, and the public at large from a variety of harmful, offensive, or unlawful material," the lawsuit argued.

It also pointed to a loophole in the law exempting companies that own theme parks in Florida, such as Disney. The suit argued that this was evidence that the law unfairly targeted specific companies.

https://www.businessinsider.com/facebook-twitter-sue-florida-censorship-deplatforming-law-ron-desantis-2021-6
Title: Re: New 'Anti-Mob' law, is it unconstitutional?
Post by: bl8jaxnative on June 09, 2021, 09:54:06 AM
Laws are a product of politics.  Calling them "politically motivated" betrays a deep ignorance over what's going on and how things work.
Title: Re: New 'Anti-Mob' law, is it unconstitutional?
Post by: jaxlongtimer on June 09, 2021, 01:42:38 PM
Laws are a product of politics.  Calling them "politically motivated" betrays a deep ignorance over what's going on and how things work.

To clarify, when I speak about politicization, I am talking about legislation passed, not for the greater good or needs of the legislators' constituents, but to mainly further the self interests of the legislators' passing it.  Thus, if you will, a different variety or flavor of "politically motivated."  The most obvious example is the legislature's ongoing assault on constitutional amendments passed by up to 70+% of voters.

Today's partisanship suggests that politicians are mainly interested in self preservation by appealing to a very limited but active base than serving the widest swath of the community.  Much of the blame goes on the middle range of the political spectrum for sitting out too many elections and, more generally, most of the political process.

Regardless, we now have what we have and most of what is being "produced" is due to this bad kind of "politically motivated." 

Title: Re: New 'Anti-Mob' law, is it unconstitutional?
Post by: bl8jaxnative on June 11, 2021, 11:46:41 AM
?  What gives a political party in one state the right to re-write the law of the land we've had for 232 years?


The Constitution.

The legislasture's job is to write laws.

What's next?  Complaining about pedestrians using sidewalks?   
Title: Re: New 'Anti-Mob' law, is it unconstitutional?
Post by: Snaketoz on June 11, 2021, 12:16:01 PM
?  What gives a political party in one state the right to re-write the law of the land we've had for 232 years?


The Constitution.

The legislasture's job is to write laws.

What's next?  Complaining about pedestrians using sidewalks?
The "legislasture's" of states can't amend the Constitution of the country.
Title: Re: New 'Anti-Mob' law, is it unconstitutional?
Post by: Snaketoz on June 11, 2021, 12:18:29 PM
Laws are a product of politics.  Calling them "politically motivated" betrays a deep ignorance over what's going on and how things work.
I don't believe that post means what you intended.
Title: Re: New 'Anti-Mob' law, is it unconstitutional?
Post by: jaxoNOLE on June 12, 2021, 01:21:25 AM
?  What gives a political party in one state the right to re-write the law of the land we've had for 232 years?


The Constitution.

The legislasture's job is to write laws.

What's next?  Complaining about pedestrians using sidewalks?
The "legislasture's" of states can't amend the Constitution of the country.

The Constitution--specifically the first amendment, here--applies to government regulation or limitation of free speech. A law against censorship by private companies may well infringe those companies' rights, which the pending litigation will resolve. But it is not a constitutional violation on first amendment grounds.

Quote
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Shall make no law abridging freedom of speech. Does the right of a private company or citizen to suppress another's free speech fall under that umbrella? I highly doubt it.
Title: Re: New 'Anti-Mob' law, is it unconstitutional?
Post by: Adam White on June 12, 2021, 03:01:06 AM
?  What gives a political party in one state the right to re-write the law of the land we've had for 232 years?


The Constitution.

The legislasture's job is to write laws.

What's next?  Complaining about pedestrians using sidewalks?
The "legislasture's" of states can't amend the Constitution of the country.

The Constitution--specifically the first amendment, here--applies to government regulation or limitation of free speech. A law against censorship by private companies may well infringe those companies' rights, which the pending litigation will resolve. But it is not a constitutional violation on first amendment grounds.

Quote
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Shall make no law abridging freedom of speech. Does the right of a private company or citizen to suppress another's free speech fall under that umbrella? I highly doubt it.

What are you talking about?

Unless this thread went off-piste somewhere, I thought we were talking about a law that limits the right to protest? That has nothing to do with private enterprise.

But, I totally get it if I am just missing something - we are like 8 pages in or something!

Edit: I do now see that there was reference to a law which stops companies from 'de-platforming' people, but that again is nothing to do with private enterprise limiting freedom of speech (well, it's about the government trying to stop private censorship - and it could be therefore argued that the government is acting unconstitutionally).
Title: Re: New 'Anti-Mob' law, is it unconstitutional?
Post by: jaxoNOLE on June 12, 2021, 10:28:25 AM
^I would argue "de-platforming" someone is absolutely a restriction of their free speech by private enterprise. I'm not sure the first amendment confers a "right to censor" to private companies, but I do agree it doesn't protect customers from de-platforming by private enterprise.

In my original post, I was merely challenging the assertion that the state legislature is attempting to "amend the Constituton." You need only look at the Second Amendment to see how much leeway states are given in limiting enumerated rights.
Title: Re: New 'Anti-Mob' law, is it unconstitutional?
Post by: bl8jaxnative on June 13, 2021, 01:29:06 PM
"Protest" never appears in the US Constitution.
Title: Re: New 'Anti-Mob' law, is it unconstitutional?
Post by: Adam White on June 14, 2021, 07:29:47 AM
"Protest" never appears in the US Constitution.

But speech does. And so does "the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

So it really kind of does, when you think about it.
Title: Re: New 'Anti-Mob' law, is it unconstitutional?
Post by: BridgeTroll on June 14, 2021, 06:24:14 PM
I believe the new law addresses violence and rioting... not peaceable assembly. We have known for quite awhile now that as long as the peaceful protest was mostly peaceful then there clearly was no rioting

I think...
Title: Re: New 'Anti-Mob' law, is it unconstitutional?
Post by: WAJAS on June 14, 2021, 07:06:50 PM
I believe the new law addresses violence and rioting... not peaceable assembly. We have known for quite awhile now that as long as the peaceful protest was mostly peaceful then there clearly was no rioting

I think...
Well, now we're back to what the law itself defines as rioting. If a few people are disturbing the peace in a protest of hundreds, then a riot is occurring. I'd say that makes it too easy for three people who don't support the cause to purposefully disturb the peace while being within the crowd, which would then result in the freedom of speech and to assemble of everyone else to be infringed.

There's a line you have to make there of course, but I think this law is too limiting.
Title: Re: New 'Anti-Mob' law, is it unconstitutional?
Post by: jaxoNOLE on June 14, 2021, 10:08:05 PM
I believe the new law addresses violence and rioting... not peaceable assembly. We have known for quite awhile now that as long as the peaceful protest was mostly peaceful then there clearly was no rioting

I think...
Well, now we're back to what the law itself defines as rioting. If a few people are disturbing the peace in a protest of hundreds, then a riot is occurring. I'd say that makes it too easy for three people who don't support the cause to purposefully disturb the peace while being within the crowd, which would then result in the freedom of speech and to assemble of everyone else to be infringed.

There's a line you have to make there of course, but I think this law is too limiting.

The issue with this law, in my opinion, is that it allows a few violent lawbreakers to color otherwise peaceful protestors as "co-conspirators." Of course, this is all conjecture until we see the law applied in practice. I think the concerns expressed here about the law are valid; I'm not sure it was needed legislation; but I don't think it's a vast sinister conspiracy to gut our first amendment rights. If the application of the law proves otherwise, then it should be struck down.

One thing I am clear on: This law was more a love letter from DeSantis to his base than a pressing policy need. But hey, that's politics.
Title: Re: New 'Anti-Mob' law, is it unconstitutional?
Post by: Adam White on June 15, 2021, 02:53:28 PM
I believe the new law addresses violence and rioting... not peaceable assembly. We have known for quite awhile now that as long as the peaceful protest was mostly peaceful then there clearly was no rioting

I think...

But, if a person is peacefully protesting and some other person or persons starts 'rioting', the peaceful protestor can be arrested and prosecuted for 'rioting' under this law (or so it would seem). That's the issue. I don't think anyone who has commented on this thread is defending the right to riot.
Title: Re: New 'Anti-Mob' law, is it unconstitutional?
Post by: Shine on June 20, 2021, 08:17:47 AM
Read this bill a couple of times and could not see a place where simply standing or being in the area of a “riot” would constitute cause for arrest.  It appears to me this law sets new penalties for engaging in criminal activities as part of a riot Also, under a general category of laws collectively termed “riot act,” the courts have found that law enforcement may temporarily dismiss your right of assembly if the situation is or is about to decay into a disturbance or “riot.”  So, the idea that your rights of assembly can be put aside during unrest is an old, not new concept.  Would like to see those who believe this law would sweep up innocent bystanders in a criminal arrest to indicate the language in the law that does this.  I honestly would like to understand the sections of this law that are a problem.  Many Thanks.
Title: Re: New 'Anti-Mob' law, is it unconstitutional?
Post by: Adam White on June 20, 2021, 10:06:48 AM
Read this bill a couple of times and could not see a place where simply standing or being in the area of a “riot” would constitute cause for arrest.  It appears to me this law sets new penalties for engaging in criminal activities as part of a riot Also, under a general category of laws collectively termed “riot act,” the courts have found that law enforcement may temporarily dismiss your right of assembly if the situation is or is about to decay into a disturbance or “riot.”  So, the idea that your rights of assembly can be put aside during unrest is an old, not new concept.  Would like to see those who believe this law would sweep up innocent bystanders in a criminal arrest to indicate the language in the law that does this.  I honestly would like to understand the sections of this law that are a problem.  Many Thanks.

I got this bit from the FL Senate summary:

Defining the third degree felony offense of riot, which a person commits if he or she willfully participates in a violent public disturbance involving an assembly of three or more persons, acting with a common intent to assist each other in violent and disorderly conduct, resulting in:

Injury to another person;
Damage to property; or
Imminent danger of injury to another person or damage to property;

As I read this, one need only 'willfully participate' in a 'violent' public disturbance which involves three or more people who are acting with a comment intent...

So if you are at a protest that becomes violent, you can be convicted of 'rioting'. As the statute appears to be written, it would not require the prosecutors to prove you did anything other than willfully participate in a public disturbance that became violent. You don't actually have to commit any violence yourself.

Title: Re: New 'Anti-Mob' law, is it unconstitutional?
Post by: bl8jaxnative on June 20, 2021, 10:51:12 AM


But, if a person is peacefully protesting and some other person or persons starts 'rioting', the peaceful protestor can be arrested and prosecuted for 'rioting' under this law (or so it would seem). That's the issue.


As long as police are doing what they're obligated to do, announce loudly and repeatedly, that the crowd is to disperse, there is no problem.  At that point it's a riot.  If you don't want to be in the riot, leave.
Title: Re: New 'Anti-Mob' law, is it unconstitutional?
Post by: Shine on June 20, 2021, 12:33:08 PM

As I read this, one need only 'willfully participate' in a 'violent' public disturbance which involves three or more people who are acting with a comment intent...

So if you are at a protest that becomes violent, you can be convicted of 'rioting'. As the statute appears to be written, it would not require the prosecutors to prove you did anything other than willfully participate in a public disturbance that became violent. You don't actually have to commit any violence yourself.



I see your concern here.  However, the term 'willfully participate' would exclude by-standers and those not a party to criminal activity.  "Willful," as a legal term generally means your actions come to voluntary and intentional participation in a crime.  And, to be proven guilty of a criminal act, the burden of proof is a high standard and "beyond a reasonable doubt."  Lets not forget, that long before this law came to be, once law enforcement orders a crowd to disperse in accordance with law, those that remain can be charged with a crime and arrested.
Title: Re: New 'Anti-Mob' law, is it unconstitutional?
Post by: Adam White on June 20, 2021, 02:30:31 PM

As I read this, one need only 'willfully participate' in a 'violent' public disturbance which involves three or more people who are acting with a comment intent...

So if you are at a protest that becomes violent, you can be convicted of 'rioting'. As the statute appears to be written, it would not require the prosecutors to prove you did anything other than willfully participate in a public disturbance that became violent. You don't actually have to commit any violence yourself.



I see your concern here.  However, the term 'willfully participate' would exclude by-standers and those not a party to criminal activity.  "Willful," as a legal term generally means your actions come to voluntary and intentional participation in a crime.  And, to be proven guilty of a criminal act, the burden of proof is a high standard and "beyond a reasonable doubt."  Lets not forget, that long before this law came to be, once law enforcement orders a crowd to disperse in accordance with law, those that remain can be charged with a crime and arrested.

Maybe. But the way it is written, one need only willfully participate in a violent demonstration - not commit violence. If you're participating in a peaceful demonstration that becomes violent, you could theoretically be charged with a crime.

As far as your second issue is concerned, that has been a standing issue for civil libertarians. Law enforcement should not have the right to stop peaceful protest and be able to disperse people. But they do. And the problem, of course, is that charges may be dropped, but that is after being silenced, arrested and traumatised. And possibly after spending money for bail or a lawyer (for example). These sorts of laws work to stop or hinder the exercise of free speech.
Title: Re: New 'Anti-Mob' law, is it unconstitutional?
Post by: Charles Hunter on June 20, 2021, 04:26:00 PM
Don't forget, this language appears for each section of the law:
Quote
A person arrested for a violation of this section shall be held in custody until brought before the court for admittance to bail

No being given a summons to appear, no released on recognizance - you sit in jail until your bail hearing.
Title: Re: New 'Anti-Mob' law, is it unconstitutional?
Post by: BridgeTroll on June 21, 2021, 02:36:15 PM
Police have zero interest in arresting innocent bystanders. This addresses willfully participating in violent acts.  Peaceful protesters have nothing to be concerned about...
Title: Re: New 'Anti-Mob' law, is it unconstitutional?
Post by: Adam White on June 21, 2021, 03:17:37 PM
Police have zero interest in arresting innocent bystanders. This addresses willfully participating in violent acts.  Peaceful protesters have nothing to be concerned about...

I'm glad that's how you feel. Unfortunately, you are not all police and you are not the one making the judgement call about who is or isn't "innocent" or a "bystander". Re-reading the posts, it seems you are very comfortable stating what others think - whether it is DeSantis or the police. I have no idea what any of them think - I can just see that this law is worded in such a way that it could easily lead to 'over zealous application' by someone without sufficient scruples.

I find it funny how "small government" types are all for big government when it's directed at people they don't like. And no, before you get a case of the vapours BT, I'm not necessarily referring to you.

The fact that this legislation is facing legal challenges leads me to believe that far cleverer legal minds than ours see this as problematic. As you said earlier, we can see how the lawsuits fare and iron this out (or something to that effect).
Title: Re: New 'Anti-Mob' law, is it unconstitutional?
Post by: BridgeTroll on June 21, 2021, 05:15:04 PM
Yep... let the courts decide.  I don't particularly care as I am very unlikely to be involved in a riot... or near a riot.
Title: Re: New 'Anti-Mob' law, is it unconstitutional?
Post by: icarus on June 21, 2021, 07:23:42 PM
Don't forget, this language appears for each section of the law:
Quote
A person arrested for a violation of this section shall be held in custody until brought before the court for admittance to bail

No being given a summons to appear, no released on recognizance - you sit in jail until your bail hearing.

In Jacksonville, first appearances are held at 9am and 1pm 365 days a year including holidays where an initial plea is made and bail is set.  In some instances based on the offense, bail is set before first appearance.  In other words, typically, an offender is the in the pretrial detention facility for this amount of time regardless (less than 24 hours).

I cant imagine many other Florida jurisdictions are that different.
Title: Re: New 'Anti-Mob' law, is it unconstitutional?
Post by: Shine on June 22, 2021, 09:44:15 AM
Yet to see anyone show the language in this law that causes arrest to bystanders or threatens infringement of 1st Amendment rights. Read it three times - still looking.
Title: Re: New 'Anti-Mob' law, is it unconstitutional?
Post by: JeffreyS on June 22, 2021, 10:20:18 AM
Let’s remember this will be enforced by the racist group that had to empty the jail to prepare for the peaceful and ultimately well run Orange Crush event. JSO’s racist ranting and pearl clutching seems to have opened the door for several of the beaches businesses to embrace their own racism and shut out event participants.
Title: Re: New 'Anti-Mob' law, is it unconstitutional?
Post by: Adam White on June 22, 2021, 11:29:40 AM
Yet to see anyone show the language in this law that causes arrest to bystanders or threatens infringement of 1st Amendment rights. Read it three times - still looking.

I don't know where you studied law, but I do know that the NAACP has a number of very well-educated and experienced lawyers in the their service - and they apparently think there is reason to worry. A number of groups are taking legal action in respect of this, so it's fair to say that your opinion isn't universally shared.
Title: Re: New 'Anti-Mob' law, is it unconstitutional?
Post by: icarus on June 22, 2021, 11:43:11 AM
Let’s remember this will be enforced by the racist group that had to empty the jail to prepare for the peaceful and ultimately well run Orange Crush event.

Actually the Pretrial Detention Faciity is almost always over occupied with inmates.  Cells designed to hold two men were retrofitted to hold three and the continued overflow sleeps in make shift plastic ("boat beds") in the common area.  The fire marshall typically comes through every month and decides how many people need to be either transferred to county jail or released to meet minimum safety standards at the facility.

I doubt it was emptied specifically for Orange Crush. I walked past Orange Crush on the beach and a good argument could be made it was more of a gathering (very few people).  Besides trash all over the beach, I believe the main complaint from Jax Beach officials and law enforcement was that the organizers were anything but.  No  permits were pulled; there was no communication with the administration or law enforcement and the number of participants were publicized at over 20,000 .... a few hundred showed up.

For the most part, every one I saw walking past the gathering both directions at same time as me really could have cared less who was on the beach.   
Title: Re: New 'Anti-Mob' law, is it unconstitutional?
Post by: Zac T on June 22, 2021, 01:07:28 PM
Let’s remember this will be enforced by the racist group that had to empty the jail to prepare for the peaceful and ultimately well run Orange Crush event.

Actually the Pretrial Detention Faciity is almost always over occupied with inmates.  Cells designed to hold two men were retrofitted to hold three and the continued overflow sleeps in make shift plastic ("boat beds") in the common area.  The fire marshall typically comes through every month and decides how many people need to be either transferred to county jail or released to meet minimum safety standards at the facility.

I doubt it was emptied specifically for Orange Crush. I walked past Orange Crush on the beach and a good argument could be made it was more of a gathering (very few people).  Besides trash all over the beach, I believe the main complaint from Jax Beach officials and law enforcement was that the organizers were anything but.  No  permits were pulled; there was no communication with the administration or law enforcement and the number of participants were publicized at over 20,000 .... a few hundred showed up.

For the most part, every one I saw walking past the gathering both directions at same time as me really could have cared less who was on the beach.   

JSO did in fact move inmates to other counties in preparation of potential mass arrests ahead of Orange Crush

Quote
The Jacksonville Sheriff's Office plans to temporarily transfer about 100 Duval County jail inmates to neighboring facilities in preparation for the possibility of numerous arrests at this weekend's Orange Crush Festival.

About 60 inmates will be housed in the St. Johns County Jail while another 30 or 40 are expected to be held in Flagler County, according to law enforcement authorities.

Sheriff's Office spokesman Christian Hancock declined to reveal specifics, but said the agency is taking precautions should trouble arise as organizers expect up to 20,000 people at the festival's events scheduled throughout Jacksonville and the Beaches.

https://www.jacksonville.com/story/news/crime/2021/06/16/jacksonville-opens-up-jail-space-moving-out-inmates-before-festival/7714874002/
Title: Re: New 'Anti-Mob' law, is it unconstitutional?
Post by: Shine on June 22, 2021, 01:18:42 PM
Yet to see anyone show the language in this law that causes arrest to bystanders or threatens infringement of 1st Amendment rights. Read it three times - still looking.

I don't know where you studied law, but I do know that the NAACP has a number of very well-educated and experienced lawyers in the their service - and they apparently think there is reason to worry. A number of groups are taking legal action in respect of this, so it's fair to say that your opinion isn't universally shared.

You bring up a good point.  The NAACP did not write the lawsuit, Aaron Carter Bates in Orlando did.  He bills himself as civil rights lawyer but is listed as a personal injury attorney . . . and he is currently doing something in real-estate law.  He has also had issues with the FL Bar over compliance with licensing standards.  Go have a listen to Mr. Bates interview about the lawsuit on NPR's "Florida Roundup."  Then ask yourself if that is the lawyer you would pay to represent your interest.

Bates interview starts at about the 20 second mark:
https://www.stitcher.com/show/the-florida-roundup/episode/continued-controversy-around-floridas-anti-riot-law-addressing-climate-change-83418932 (https://www.stitcher.com/show/the-florida-roundup/episode/continued-controversy-around-floridas-anti-riot-law-addressing-climate-change-83418932)

After reading the complaint, I think most, if not all the plaintiffs in this case will be denied standing.
Title: Re: New 'Anti-Mob' law, is it unconstitutional?
Post by: icarus on June 22, 2021, 04:54:00 PM
JSO did in fact move inmates to other counties in preparation of potential mass arrests ahead of Orange Crush

Quote
The Jacksonville Sheriff's Office plans to temporarily transfer about 100 Duval County jail inmates to neighboring facilities in preparation for the possibility of numerous arrests at this weekend's Orange Crush Festival.

About 60 inmates will be housed in the St. Johns County Jail while another 30 or 40 are expected to be held in Flagler County, according to law enforcement authorities.

Sheriff's Office spokesman Christian Hancock declined to reveal specifics, but said the agency is taking precautions should trouble arise as organizers expect up to 20,000 people at the festival's events scheduled throughout Jacksonville and the Beaches.

https://www.jacksonville.com/story/news/crime/2021/06/16/jacksonville-opens-up-jail-space-moving-out-inmates-before-festival/7714874002/

Wow, like I said prison transfers are common but this seems like overkill.  I wonder who made this decision someone in the Sheriff's division or in the Corrections division? I could understand FLA/GA game but the only justification I could understand would be that it was unpermitted unorganized and 20,000+ people would be arriving in town.  Even then, its overkill.

Title: Re: New 'Anti-Mob' law, is it unconstitutional?
Post by: Snaketoz on June 22, 2021, 05:46:26 PM
Lenny Curry, Ron DeSantis, John Rutherford, Sheriff Williams, many of our council members, legislature reps, and many others, are a huge embarrassment to our city and state.  It seems they are trying to make us like Mississippi in the 60s.  Shameful.
Title: Re: New 'Anti-Mob' law, is it unconstitutional?
Post by: Charles Hunter on June 22, 2021, 09:25:25 PM
Lenny Curry, Ron DeSantis, John Rutherford, Sheriff Williams, many of our council members, legislature reps, and many others, are a huge embarrassment to our city and state.  It seems they are trying to make us like Mississippi in the 60s.  Shameful.

I would argue more like the 50s than the 60s - by the 60s People Not Like Them were getting "uppity" and disrespectful.  In the 50s, everyone "knew their place".
Title: Re: New 'Anti-Mob' law, is it unconstitutional?
Post by: bl8jaxnative on June 24, 2021, 09:20:24 AM

Add to this people in their 20s account for 2 to 3 times more covid19 cases and.....

https://www.kff.org/coronavirus-covid-19/issue-brief/latest-data-on-covid-19-vaccinations-race-ethnicity/

Overall, across these 40 states, the percent of White people who have received at least one COVID-19 vaccine dose (46%) was roughly 1.4 times higher than the rate for Black people (33%) and 1.2 times higher than the rate for Hispanic people (38%) as of June 21, 2021.

Title: Re: New 'Anti-Mob' law, is it unconstitutional?
Post by: Adam White on June 24, 2021, 03:00:57 PM

Add to this people in their 20s account for 2 to 3 times more covid19 cases and.....

https://www.kff.org/coronavirus-covid-19/issue-brief/latest-data-on-covid-19-vaccinations-race-ethnicity/

Overall, across these 40 states, the percent of White people who have received at least one COVID-19 vaccine dose (46%) was roughly 1.4 times higher than the rate for Black people (33%) and 1.2 times higher than the rate for Hispanic people (38%) as of June 21, 2021.

Not sure I see the connection between your post and the topic. Seriously (not being awkward). Can you clarify?
Title: Re: New 'Anti-Mob' law, is it unconstitutional?
Post by: JeffreyS on July 13, 2021, 07:33:05 PM
Apparently it does not apply if the GOP approves of the protest.
https://www.nbcmiami.com/news/local/south-floridians-march-onto-palmetto-expressway-in-show-of-support-for-cuban-protesters/2494287/?fbclid=IwAR0HEls7fv2fz0ui-XIJyLwWi6OdzR_fYdCbd5VYHQxYyEGH2PWJxDmgYCg

 (https://www.nbcmiami.com/news/local/south-floridians-march-onto-palmetto-expressway-in-show-of-support-for-cuban-protesters/2494287/?fbclid=IwAR0HEls7fv2fz0ui-XIJyLwWi6OdzR_fYdCbd5VYHQxYyEGH2PWJxDmgYCg)
I guess blocking the Miami freeway isn’t a problem.

The protesters in Cuba seem like they are a bit mobbish the way I hear conservatives describe who should be jailed.
Title: Re: New 'Anti-Mob' law, is it unconstitutional?
Post by: BridgeTroll on July 13, 2021, 08:19:00 PM
When they become violent and begin looting let me know... I  am surprised though that you want to incarcerate people who want to free the Cubans from decades of communist oppression...lets see how supportive my democrat friends are...
Title: Re: New 'Anti-Mob' law, is it unconstitutional?
Post by: JeffreyS on July 13, 2021, 09:46:32 PM
I don’t want them jailed I am pro protesters.
Title: Re: New 'Anti-Mob' law, is it unconstitutional?
Post by: Charles Hunter on July 13, 2021, 10:58:10 PM
I don't want peaceful protestors jailed. But blocking roadways is exactly one of the things that Desantis' Anti-Riot Law is designed to stop. If there weren't selective enforcement, every one of the protestors on the expressway should have been arrested and held without bail until their bail hearings could be held.  And that's just one obvious violation of the Anti-Riot Law.  Who knows what other violations occurred that were ignored because the GQP likes what they are protesting about.
Title: Re: New 'Anti-Mob' law, is it unconstitutional?
Post by: jaxoNOLE on July 13, 2021, 11:23:23 PM
Blocking a freeway to protest has always been illegal without a permit. I admit I haven't looked it up, but I doubt many (any) permits have been granted to protestors to block an interstate in FL.

It's just not practical to paddy wagon hundreds of people blocking a freeway. No law can change the fact that protestors almost always outnumber police on the scene. Use video,  identify as many lawbreakers as possible after the fact, and get misdemeanor bench warrants; though experience suggests it's simply not a priority for limited police resources. Peacefully obstructing a freeway should be a fine. Throw rocks or bottles...different story.
Title: Re: New 'Anti-Mob' law, is it unconstitutional?
Post by: bl8jaxnative on July 14, 2021, 09:18:34 AM
Physically imposing your view - blocking the freeway - is a form of violence.  It's no longer a matter of mere words.

It's the kind of jack ass move that gets people killed.   
Title: Re: New 'Anti-Mob' law, is it unconstitutional?
Post by: Charles Hunter on July 14, 2021, 09:39:43 AM
Physically imposing your view - blocking the freeway - is a form of violence.  It's no longer a matter of mere words.

It's the kind of jack ass move that gets people killed.   

So you agree that, if the Desantis Anti-Riot Law is to be equally enforced, the highway-blocking demonstrators in Miami, Tampa, Orlando, and Jacksonville, should have been arrested? Could it be that the content of the protests (against the commies in Cuba) influenced the application of the law?
Title: Re: New 'Anti-Mob' law, is it unconstitutional?
Post by: BridgeTroll on July 14, 2021, 10:44:48 AM
Physically imposing your view - blocking the freeway - is a form of violence.  It's no longer a matter of mere words.

It's the kind of jack ass move that gets people killed.   

Meh... no it isn't...
Title: Re: New 'Anti-Mob' law, is it unconstitutional?
Post by: Zac T on July 14, 2021, 11:18:34 AM
I'm a Democrat and I also support the right to protest and do not think the demonstrators yesterday should be arrested or punished. They didn't do anything harmful except add an hour or two to people's commute.

With that being said, the demonstrations yesterday show just how pointless this new law is. These were the first real protests since this law has been enacted and they violated one of the major provisions in the law (blocking roadways) and the police did nothing and the governor dodged a question about how they should have been treated. What exactly was the purpose of the bill if they are not going to enforce it other than pandering to right-wing voters ahead of a possible presidential run?

The only beauty of it is that any violators of the law in the future are effectively immune to punishment due to selective persecution.
Title: Re: New 'Anti-Mob' law, is it unconstitutional?
Post by: BridgeTroll on July 14, 2021, 11:44:24 AM
Let me know when they begin burning and looting... I will agree with you if nothing is done then.  This is a peaceful protest... nothing more... at this point.
Title: Re: New 'Anti-Mob' law, is it unconstitutional?
Post by: Zac T on July 14, 2021, 11:57:14 AM
Let me know when they begin burning and looting... I will agree with you if nothing is done then.  This is a peaceful protest... nothing more... at this point.

If they start rioting, they will be arrested. Rioting was already illegal in Florida prior to this law and will remain illegal even if the courts strike down the bill. The only difference is what constitutes a riot, who gets punished, and the level of punishment you receive. But I agree, these were peaceful protests and I'm glad they were treated as they were.
Title: Re: New 'Anti-Mob' law, is it unconstitutional?
Post by: BridgeTroll on July 14, 2021, 05:48:17 PM
Two arrested...

https://www.wfla.com/news/hillsborough-county/2-cuba-protesters-in-tampa-among-1st-to-be-charged-related-to-floridas-anti-riot-law/
Title: Re: New 'Anti-Mob' law, is it unconstitutional?
Post by: JeffreyS on July 15, 2021, 07:20:01 AM
Let me know when they begin burning and looting... I will agree with you if nothing is done then.  This is a peaceful protest... nothing more... at this point.
so I wonder why DeSantis didn’t sign a bill that expressed a sentiment more Like that. Blocking roadways was supposed to lead to arrest luckily selective enforcement exposes his law as the political pandering it is.
Title: Re: New 'Anti-Mob' law, is it unconstitutional?
Post by: MusicMan on July 15, 2021, 08:03:37 AM
Lets be honest, if a BLM get together shut down I 95 lots of people would have been arrested.
Title: Re: New 'Anti-Mob' law, is it unconstitutional?
Post by: BridgeTroll on July 15, 2021, 09:35:22 AM
Lets be honest, if a BLM get together shut down I 95 lots of people would have been arrested.

I think you’re wrong
Title: Re: New 'Anti-Mob' law, is it unconstitutional?
Post by: JeffreyS on July 15, 2021, 11:19:33 AM
Lets be honest, if a BLM get together shut down I 95 lots of people would have been arrested.

I think you’re wrong
So the local government and police that are going to empty the jail if Black people plan on gathering at the beach will go easy on BLM shutting down 95???

I find that difficult to believe.
Title: Re: New 'Anti-Mob' law, is it unconstitutional?
Post by: JeffreyS on July 15, 2021, 11:56:02 AM
 https://floridapolitics.com/archives/441293-mac-stipanovich-floridas-cuba-protests-gop-hypocrisy-pettiness-and-a-lot-of-gall/?fbclid=IwAR2MVo3I_NHtFNjVXz2QMs2feB7YG1wMFwL-0ejMASM0nqwgiHeSno4cEAM


 (https://floridapolitics.com/archives/441293-mac-stipanovich-floridas-cuba-protests-gop-hypocrisy-pettiness-and-a-lot-of-gall/?fbclid=IwAR2MVo3I_NHtFNjVXz2QMs2feB7YG1wMFwL-0ejMASM0nqwgiHeSno4cEAM)
Title: Re: New 'Anti-Mob' law, is it unconstitutional?
Post by: JeffreyS on July 15, 2021, 12:00:08 PM
By the way the strategy is brilliant. Want that Cuban vote show them the love by approving of their behavior even as the GOP is cracking down on others who would do the same.
Title: Re: New 'Anti-Mob' law, is it unconstitutional?
Post by: BridgeTroll on July 15, 2021, 01:03:53 PM
By the way the strategy is brilliant. Want that Cuban vote show them the love by approving of their behavior even as the GOP is cracking down on others who would do the same.
Strategy??

How cynical... could they just possibly... possibly be supporting a free Cuba? How many years of communist oppression should they endure??

Good God Jeffrey...
Title: Re: New 'Anti-Mob' law, is it unconstitutional?
Post by: JeffreyS on July 15, 2021, 01:10:03 PM
I am not doubting that they are Ernest about Cuba said nothing to that effect. The strategy is about selective enforcement of the law that is the theme of this thread.
Title: Re: New 'Anti-Mob' law, is it unconstitutional?
Post by: BridgeTroll on July 15, 2021, 01:53:25 PM
Ah... ok... when they don't arrest violent rioters let me know because I want violent Cubans arrested along with anyone else...
Title: Re: New 'Anti-Mob' law, is it unconstitutional?
Post by: JeffreyS on July 15, 2021, 04:56:36 PM
I’m glad you don’t want non violent protesters arrested.  To everyone else, My commentary on this thread is intended to reflect the reality that the police could have arrested those nonviolent protesters and been in compliance with the law that is being discussed.
Title: Re: New 'Anti-Mob' law, is it unconstitutional?
Post by: BridgeTroll on July 15, 2021, 05:24:12 PM
It's called common sense... police always have discretion.   You noticed not ALL speeders are pulled over... and some who are simply receive a warning... shoplifters get let go depending on the situation.

The "reality" as you put it is shows that the law is in fact fair... and peaceful protesters will not be rounded up and incarcerated as you and others predicted...

Selective enforcement?  Meh.... NOT.
Title: Re: New 'Anti-Mob' law, is it unconstitutional?
Post by: Charles Hunter on July 15, 2021, 05:39:17 PM
From NBC Miami
https://www.nbcmiami.com/news/local/desantis-tells-cuba-protesters-to-not-block-florida-roadways/2495957/


Quote
Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis is telling demonstrators who are protesting in support of the Cuban people to stop blocking traffic on the state's roadways.

"We can't have that, it's dangerous for you to be shutting down a thoroughfare, you're also putting other people in jeopardy," DeSantis said at a news conference in Miami Thursday. "You don't know if an emergency vehicle needs to get somewhere. And then obviously it's just disrespectful to make people stand in traffic."

He forgot to mention another reason not to block roadways is that under the anti-riot law, motorists could run over protestors blocking the road.
Quote
Provisions of the law also make it a felony to block some roadways and provides an affirmative defense in a civil action for drivers who feared for their safety and hit protesters with their cars.
Title: Re: New 'Anti-Mob' law, is it unconstitutional?
Post by: Snaketoz on July 15, 2021, 05:47:33 PM
It's called common sense... police always have discretion.   You noticed not ALL speeders are pulled over... and some who are simply receive a warning... shoplifters get let go depending on the situation.

The "reality" as you put it is shows that the law is in fact fair... and peaceful protesters will not be rounded up and incarcerated as you and others predicted...

Selective enforcement?  Meh.... NOT.
Nothing you have posted relates to reality.  Speeders and shoplifters?  Discretion?  Jacksonville looked for more jail space prior to proposed beach jam, but looked the other way when demonstrators stopped traffic on an interstate?  Anyone with any sense at all knows pandering when they see it.  Are black voters voting for DeSantis, Curry, Williams, and Trump?  Are Cuban/Americans voting for DeSantis, Curry, Williams, and Trump?  The answer is only too obvious.  Half of the I95 demonstrators probably cheered the insurrection at the Capitol.
Title: Re: New 'Anti-Mob' law, is it unconstitutional?
Post by: BridgeTroll on July 15, 2021, 06:30:13 PM
Any more groups you wish to categorize??  Do you always divide people into racial groups?

Wow... just wow...
Title: Re: New 'Anti-Mob' law, is it unconstitutional?
Post by: JeffreyS on July 15, 2021, 09:59:16 PM
It's called common sense...
To paraphrase JSO from a couple of weeks ago -Empty the jail Jacksonville there’s Black folks wantin to use the beach-.

Seems like some common sense we can get all comfy and snuggly in.
Title: Re: New 'Anti-Mob' law, is it unconstitutional?
Post by: jaxoNOLE on July 15, 2021, 10:31:43 PM
Police are supposed to prepare for negative outcomes. The last festival in Tybee island resulted in 80 arrests. It was a festival combining large groups of college-aged adults with drinking and partying. You keep harping on clearing the jail, but isn't it more telling that there were only 5 arrests ( and those aren't even clearly tied to the festival)? Doesn't exactly sound like the evil JSO stormtroopers were doing a good job trumping up charges to fill the jail.

If you'll recall, interviews with Jax Beach officers revealed they were treating the event like July 4th. I guess they must hate Independence Day, too, if preparing for large crowds mixed with alcohol is racist.
Title: Re: New 'Anti-Mob' law, is it unconstitutional?
Post by: Snaketoz on July 16, 2021, 08:41:07 AM
Did they look for more jail space prior to the Republican convention?  Lots of drinking was going to be happening.
Title: Re: New 'Anti-Mob' law, is it unconstitutional?
Post by: Zac T on July 16, 2021, 10:34:06 AM
Police are supposed to prepare for negative outcomes. The last festival in Tybee island resulted in 80 arrests. It was a festival combining large groups of college-aged adults with drinking and partying. You keep harping on clearing the jail, but isn't it more telling that there were only 5 arrests ( and those aren't even clearly tied to the festival)? Doesn't exactly sound like the evil JSO stormtroopers were doing a good job trumping up charges to fill the jail.

If you'll recall, interviews with Jax Beach officers revealed they were treating the event like July 4th. I guess they must hate Independence Day, too, if preparing for large crowds mixed with alcohol is racist.

Except they don't clear the jail prior to Independence Day or any other event/festival. The jail was also 500 inmates under capacity the week approaching the festival so even if Jax approached 80 arrests similar to the previous festival (which isn't a lot out of thousands of people) the jail wouldn't have come anywhere near capacity.
Title: Re: New 'Anti-Mob' law, is it unconstitutional?
Post by: jaxoNOLE on July 16, 2021, 10:58:04 AM
And again, our fears of a racist purge were confirmed when they filled their cleared-out jail with innocent festival attendees, right?

Since I'm too lazy, can someone provide the list of civil rights violations perpetrated by law enforcement on Orange Crush attendees in Jacksonville? How many BLM protesters have been arrested for blocking roadways under the new anti-riot law?

I'm just trying to understand the scope of how many people have been harmed by these specific evil plans by DeSantis, the GOP, and JSO. The point recently being argued in this thread has essentially been, "Law enforcement will use the anti-riot law to unfairly target black people, as evidenced locally by their previous bias in handling the Orange Crush festival." Thousands of black people came to our city for a festival with a history of some organizational issues, but had a good time, peacefully, and very few arrests resulted. I think that's great. It also doesn't scream, "GESTAPO!" about our local law enforcement.

As I've posted previously, the anti-riot law isn't necessary and was written as a pure political tool. But I just don't see any "there" there, yet, in the controversy surrounding it. And with so many watchful eyes on its implementation, hopefully we never will.
Title: Re: New 'Anti-Mob' law, is it unconstitutional?
Post by: Charles Hunter on July 16, 2021, 11:46:57 AM
DeSantis wants to skip the usual mediation phase in the lawsuit filed against the Anti-Mob Law.
Quote
A lawsuit filed by a coalition of groups, including the Dream Defenders and the Florida State Conference of the NAACP, contends that the law will have a “chilling” effect on protected speech and violates equal-protection and due-process rights.

Chief U.S. District Judge Mark Walker ordered mediation in the case to begin by Nov. 12 and be completed by Nov. 26.

But in a motion filed Tuesday, lawyers for Florida Attorney General Ashley Moody and Governor Ron DeSantis said that mediation, commonly ordered by judges, won’t be productive.

https://miami.cbslocal.com/2021/07/14/florida-desantis-mediation-legal-challenge-anti-riot-law-hb1/?fbclid=IwAR1InsnxcC_CNEUS9zrY-sHbOwkuZbXmw-bovTskIWLE_UV4AiBsm2vTHFw#.YPEdCUFUsjE.facebook


Could it be that mediation sessions are private, where a courtroom can have TV cameras?
Title: Re: New 'Anti-Mob' law, is it unconstitutional?
Post by: BridgeTroll on July 16, 2021, 12:19:34 PM
Good. Get the lawsuit going... DeSantis wants a yea or nay so we can move forward.  We do however now have good examples of what constitutes a peaceful protest and a "mostly " peaceful protest...
Title: Re: New 'Anti-Mob' law, is it unconstitutional?
Post by: Adam White on July 16, 2021, 12:48:07 PM
I don't get why so many appear to have such a hard-on for authoritarianism.
Title: Re: New 'Anti-Mob' law, is it unconstitutional?
Post by: Snaketoz on July 16, 2021, 01:28:50 PM
There are many instances in US history where the police/hired goons started riots, that before their actions were peaceful.
Title: Re: New 'Anti-Mob' law, is it unconstitutional?
Post by: BridgeTroll on July 16, 2021, 02:48:11 PM
I don't get why so many appear to have such a hard-on for authoritarianism.

I don't get why so many people have such a desire to embrace riots...
Title: Re: New 'Anti-Mob' law, is it unconstitutional?
Post by: Snaketoz on July 16, 2021, 03:02:14 PM
Are all protests riots?
Title: Re: New 'Anti-Mob' law, is it unconstitutional?
Post by: BridgeTroll on July 16, 2021, 03:12:50 PM
Are all protests riots?

Of course not... are all riots protests?
Title: Re: New 'Anti-Mob' law, is it unconstitutional?
Post by: JeffreyS on July 16, 2021, 04:20:55 PM
Police are supposed to prepare for negative outcomes. The last festival in Tybee island resulted in 80 arrests. It was a festival combining large groups of college-aged adults with drinking and partying. You keep harping on clearing the jail, but isn't it more telling that there were only 5 arrests ( and those aren't even clearly tied to the festival)? Doesn't exactly sound like the evil JSO stormtroopers were doing a good job trumping up charges to fill the jail.

If you'll recall, interviews with Jax Beach officers revealed they were treating the event like July 4th. I guess they must hate Independence Day, too, if preparing for large crowds mixed with alcohol is racist.

Their racist rant and doom predicting by publicly stating it was going to be a problem and they were clearing the jail scared businesses into shutting down. It was intentional signaling meant to
Make the festival look bad.

I’ll credit the good people attending for the lack of arrests.
Title: Re: New 'Anti-Mob' law, is it unconstitutional?
Post by: jaxoNOLE on July 16, 2021, 07:10:50 PM
Can you point me to the racist rant? I don't recall seeing that and would welcome the chance to be informed.

As far as the lack of arrests, yes, the attendees were great and I hope they come back next year. My point is we didn't have trumped up BS charges against them.
Title: Re: New 'Anti-Mob' law, is it unconstitutional?
Post by: JeffreyS on July 17, 2021, 03:53:31 AM
If you think “rant” is a dramatic use of alliteration by me to describe the statements of clearing the jail and potential problems of the Orange Crush weekend I could concede that. However I won’t concede that the purpose was racist fear mongering. A relatively small festival that Jacksonville could easily handle made into an embarrassment of frightened businesses closing in the face of our visitors.

And in the context of this thread’s discussion definitely not the actions of a police force that I want to manage overreaching laws with the idea that they will have the discretion to not enforce the law as written.

If you need me to congratulate JSO for not “Trumping up” charges on law biding citizens ok, kudos. However to me that seems like a low bar.
 
Title: Re: New 'Anti-Mob' law, is it unconstitutional?
Post by: bl8jaxnative on July 17, 2021, 03:01:52 PM


The officials I saw said it _may be_ a problem and specifically pointed to previous events.

Those are reasonable fact based concerns.

I'd be curious who attended past events and who attended this one.  The location may have helped changed things.   Tybee may have attracted a crowd - maybe younger - that was willing to travel to party.  Heck, because they were going to travel they were going to make sure to P A R T Y.

Whereas moving it down into Jacksonville / Jacksonville Beach may have lead to a less attractive travel-for-partying location.  Maybe it caused more locals to attend.   Or maybe both.

If y'll got your complaints off your chest, we may have the potential for fun local event to hold annually.     Potential for some annual events downtown, at that.   Something good can come of this.

Title: Re: New 'Anti-Mob' law, is it unconstitutional?
Post by: JeffreyS on July 17, 2021, 09:07:58 PM
Well the stated official’s concerns leading up to the event factually scared several Businesses into panicking and closing for the small event. So perhaps they didn’t all get the same feel for what was being said as you. I don’t really have a problem with them being prepared so much as acting like an event about the third of the size of a Jag game spread out over downtown and the beaches was ever going to be a issue for JSO. Particularly the clearing out the jail line was intended to vilify IMO.   It reminded me of the  Clay county sheriff pretending he may need to deputize people to handle the BLM protesters who as it turns out ignored Clay county. This type of posturing makes me feel like  writing extensive laws just in case the locals want to use them or ignore them when it suits is bad policy.
Title: Re: New 'Anti-Mob' law, is it unconstitutional?
Post by: jaxoNOLE on July 19, 2021, 07:06:00 PM
I'll happily agree that the law seems like bad policy. I'm just not sold it's intended to be racist bad policy. Much like you crediting the attendees of Orange Crush for their civil behavior, I attribute businesses closing to the biases of their ownership. Regarding my comment about trumping up charges, I'm not suggesting we give out trophies. I'm pointing out that the fear of potential abuse against festival-goers, citing the actions of emptying the jail and pre-event messaging, never materialized, and maybe we should refrain from drawing similar conclusions about the anti-riot law until the evidence is in.

The concerns have been floated, loudly. There are enough watchdogs on this issue that abusing the application of the law at this point could be quite expensive. With precedent in the use of discretion now being set via the handling of the Cuba protests, law enforcement will have to justify why situation B merited a more aggressive approach than situation A. I personally will withhold my judgment until we see it play out in the real world (assuming the law isn't pre-emptively canned in litigation).
Title: Re: New 'Anti-Mob' law, is it unconstitutional?
Post by: jaxlongtimer on September 10, 2021, 06:12:12 PM
Just got an answer to the question posed by this thread... yes, this law has been deemed unconstitutional by a federal judge.  Another waste of taxpayer funds by DeSantis.  And, he isn't finished as he plans to appeal.  Let's see if he can find a packed Federal appeals court like he has with Florida's First District Court of Appeals to support his case.

Quote
ST. PETERSBURG, Fla. — Florida's new "anti-riot" law championed by Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis as a way to quell violent protests is unconstitutional and cannot be enforced, a federal judge ruled Thursday.

The 90-page decision by U.S. District Judge Mark Walker in Tallahassee found the recently-enacted law "vague and overbroad" and amounted to an assault on First Amendment rights of free speech and assembly as well as the Constitution's due process protections.

People engaged in peaceful protest or innocently in the same area when a demonstration turned violent could face criminal charges and stiff penalties under the law, the judge said.

A key issue is defining what the word "riot" means in the statute. Walker noted that past Florida laws sought to prevent demonstrations that could threaten segregationist Jim Crow-era practices.

"If this court does not enjoin the statute's enforcement, the lawless actions of a few rogue individuals could effectively criminalize the protected speech of hundreds, if not thousands, of law-abiding Floridians," Walker wrote.

"It unfortunately takes only a handful of bad actors to transform a peaceful protest into a violent public disturbance," the judge added.

DeSantis said during an appearance in New Port Richey that the state will take its case to the Atlanta-based 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The governor called the ruling by Walker a "foreordained conclusion" and has said he frequently prevails when appealing Tallahassee judges' orders.

"I guarantee you we'll win that on appeal," DeSantis said.

The lawsuit was filed against DeSantis and other state officials by the NAACP Florida conference, Dream Defenders, Black Lives Matter Alliance Broward and other groups who argue the law appears specifically aimed to halt protests by Black people and other minorities.

The measure was passed earlier this year by the GOP-led Legislature and signed into law in April by the governor. It was a reaction to demonstrations around the country following last year's killing by Minneapolis police of George Floyd, a Black man, that stirred passions nationwide under the banner of the Black Lives Matter movement.

The plaintiff groups and the American Civil Liberties Union of Florida issued a joint statement praising the decision, saying the law "appears designed to target those who protest police violence."

"As states around the country threaten to pass similar legislation, today's decision serves as a powerful reminder that such unjust and unconstitutional efforts cannot stand," the statement said.

State Agriculture Commissioner Nikki Fried, a Democrat who is running for governor, called the law "dangerous and discriminatory" and said in a statement that Walker's ruling shows "the governor's continued attempts to strong-arm and silence opponents are unconstitutional."

The governor's lawyers have argued that the law continues to allow peaceful protest but is an effort to draw a sharp distinction between that and a violent riot. Walker found that argument unpersuasive.

"Because it is unclear whether a person must share an intent to do violence and because it is unclear what it means to participate, the statute can plausibly be read to criminalize continuing to protest after violence occurs, even if the protestors are not involved in, and do not support, the violence," Walker wrote. "The statute can also be read to criminalize other expressive activity, like remaining at the scene of a protest turned violent to film the police reaction."

The law, also known as HB1, stiffens penalties for crimes committed during a riot or violent protest. It allows authorities to detain arrested protesters until a first court appearance and establishes new felonies for organizing or participating in a violent demonstration.

It also makes it a second-degree felony, punishable by up to 10 years in prison, to destroy or demolish a memorial, plaque, flag, painting, structure or other object that commemorates historical people or events.

In addition, the measure requires that local governments justify any reductions in law enforcement budgets.

https://www.npr.org/2021/09/09/1035687247/florida-anti-riot-law-ron-desantis-george-floyd-black-lives-matter-protests
Title: Re: New 'Anti-Mob' law, is it unconstitutional?
Post by: BridgeTroll on September 10, 2021, 06:19:01 PM
Judicial oversight is the beauty of the system
Title: Re: New 'Anti-Mob' law, is it unconstitutional?
Post by: Snaketoz on September 11, 2021, 09:01:09 AM
Most of us were correct on this one.  Bad attempt at another power grab.
Title: Re: New 'Anti-Mob' law, is it unconstitutional?
Post by: BridgeTroll on September 11, 2021, 09:09:57 AM
Has the ruling been appealed yet?  I don't think it's a bad attempt nor a power grab. I assume adjustments will be made to comply with issues in the first attempt.
Title: Re: New 'Anti-Mob' law, is it unconstitutional?
Post by: Snaketoz on September 11, 2021, 09:46:38 AM
It will probably be appealed, if for no other reason than keeping DeSantis' based fired-up.  I bet a pro DeSantis/Trump rally would never be classified as a "riot".  (Many of the repubs are audaciously stating that the Jan. 6 insurrection at Capitol was merely a gathering.)  The "law" gave too much leeway to enforce biased policies.  From either side.