• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Florida’s new ‘anti-riot’ law is vague and draconian

I find GOPers interesting. It seems the only Amendment they wat the country to follow is the second so they can shoot people. Of course now in Florida you can shoose the way you want to kill someone, guns or cars. Ain't you lucky.
What amendment protects the right to bang on, push, or threaten to drag someone from a car?
 

Easy answer. Legally protest...obey the law. Nothing very complicated about this.
 
That shouldn't even be considered. Vehicular homicide is a serious offense even if it is pure negligence.
What about someone in a car trying to get away from a violent psychotic mob that has surrounded that someone's car and wants to Reginald Denny them?
 
Anywhere in America, if you are surrounded by angry people pounding on your car and you drive through them, you won't get arrested.
So you think people should allow themselves to be dragged from their car and beaten or have their car trashed?
 
As you know, that's not what right-wing extremists want. Right-wing extremists feel entitled to the right to run over people simply for being in the road.
You're lying again.

In fact, i think you're trolling. You're trying to get someone to go bugs on you and get in trouble. Nice try.
 

A great law. A model for law everywhere, especially Portland, Seattle, and Minneapolis.

Here is a great summary provided by Andrew Branca, a self-defense attorney and blogger:


It's time for the decent liberals in this country (and I assume there must be some) to get a backbone and stand up to their own "woke" mobs and rioters.
 
Why are you lying? It only gives immunity to people who unintentionally hit someone.


And how does one prove motive in such a case counselor?
 
This is a glimpse of the fascist state that Republicans are hell bent on imposing on America.

Oh, for goodness' sake.

Not to worry.

The courts will invalidate any unconstitutional parts of the new law.

Just as Nancy kneeled in order to make a (stupid) point, so too has the Florida legislature passed this law in order to make a (good) point. But it will not change anything in practice. Bad people will continue to riot and block traffic. After all, they are losers who have nothing else to do.
 
Florida law: If they are black, feel free to run them over.
 
What about someone in a car trying to get away from a violent psychotic mob that has surrounded that someone's car and wants to Reginald Denny them?
everyone has the right to defend themselves and escape a deadly environment. that this law allows that is a good thing.
 
Florida law: If they are black, feel free to run them over.
what makes them black? does the law specifically say that?

please by all means, show me where the law says "you may run over rioters if they are black" , Calamity.
 
You're lying again.

I'm so sorry that you feel entitled to invent your own reality where terrorism by vehicle is allowed.

In fact, i think you're trolling. You're trying to get someone to go bugs on you and get in trouble. Nice try.

Finally, the ad hom attacks. Was wondering when they were going to show up!
 
It's hard to believe posts like this come from people so stupid.

You want to live in a fascist state, move to NY.

You misspelled "North Korea."
 


There is nothing in that law that "makes it legal to kill and maim protestors by running into them with vehicles." It does not legalize vehicular homicide.

Rather, it provides an affirmative defense for those sued by rioters for damages arising out of the rioters participation in a riot. If a rioter is convicted or found, by a preponderance of the evidence, to have rioted any injury sustained by him/her in the riot activity cannot be compensated by civil litigation against another party.

Excellent law.
 
Come on man. They are peaceful protesters. They can do anything they want. Motorist have no rights.

https://apnews.com/article/race-and...-legislation-238201499e0d4a960ef49b92f25dbb31

 

A reminder to all, from Andrew Blanca, self defense attorney and blogger:

"The new rules of engagement adopted by Florida for defending against rioters, looters, and arsonists became effective only last week, on April 19, 2021—an historical relevant date that any American ought to know well, as the battles of Lexington and Concord were fought on that date in 1775. ...

This newly adopted Florida legislation doesn’t actually change any of the state’s justified use of force laws, per se. Instead, it prohibits the obstruction of public roads by protestors (§ 316.2045), it broadens the scope of what qualifies as criminal conduct in the context of assault, battery, and certain property crimes (such as looting) and increases the penalties for much of this conduct in the context of a riot (§ 784.011. Assault, § 784.021. Aggravated Assault, § 784.03. Battery, § 784.045. Aggravated Battery, §784.07 assault or battery of first responders, § 806.13 Criminal Mischief, § 812.014. Theft and more), it enhances punishment for damage to historical monuments (§ 806.135 & § 872.02), it creates civil liability for town governments that fail to protect persons or property in the context of a riot (§ 768.28), it requires state approval for any local “defund the police” efforts (§ 166.241), it creates a new statute that prohibits mob intimidation (§ 784.0495), it creates a new statute that prohibits online intimidation or online publication of identifying information (§ 836.115), it creates a new statute that provides for civil immunity from a suit over damages sought by someone engaged in a riot—for example, a rioter who may have been struck by a fleeing person’s vehicle (§ 870.07), it provides revised definitions of “affray,” “riot,” and “aggravated riot” (§ 870.01), and very importantly it provides that for many of the acts of misconduct covered by HB1 bail will not be immediately available to the accused until they have appeared in court—this will prevent the current practice of immediate release of offenders allowing them to promptly re-engage in further rioting, looting, and arson."
 
Well it's obvious DeSantis doesn't think our mothers taught us any such thing.
 

Before you make a losing bet, I suggest you actually read a full and unbiased description of the law or the law itself before doing so.

Exactly what do you think is unlawful about prohibiting the obstruction of public roads by protestors (§ 316.2045)? What is unlawful about creating a "new statute that provides for civil immunity from a suit over damages sought by someone engaged in a riot—for example, a rioter who may have been struck by a fleeing person’s vehicle (§ 870.07),?"

Since when have individual people had the constitutional right to prevent traffic from using state roadways whenever they feel like it? If you think this simplification and rewrite of current Florida law (see crossed out words) is going to be overturned by the courts you are either completely ignorant of law, or can't read english. Here is 316.2045:



And here is the ONLY relevant changes to civil liability as applied to a person fleeing a riot in a vehicle:








For all the histrionic hairpulling you are known to do, there is nothing you imagine (or fabricate) there. Shame on you.


 
everyone has the right to defend themselves and escape a deadly environment. that this law allows that is a good thing.

You want to legalize terrorism.
 

So which is it, person who has an "Our Enemy The State" avatar? Do nonviolent protesters get to stand their ground? Or do violent drivers get to murder them? You cannot have both.
 

Imagine these thugs writing the constitution, when it came to individual rights - the right to free speech, the right to assemble, the right to petition the government...

Don't think they'd prohibit the establishment of state religion, either.
 
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…