Ron DeSantis Says Floridians Have Right to Hit Protesters With Cars

[RaleBulgarian]

They act like they don't know what would happen if someone trapped innocent people in a building and wouldn't allow them to leave. It's false imprisonment or unlawful restraint to do this, and other crimes such as reckless endangerment, assault and battery, or even kidnapping could also be associated with such actions.

The key part of these laws is that someone is trapped by another person or persons and has no means of safely escaping.

I believe the justification for legally allowable violent actions in response to the various situations you describe is/are more complex than simply considering a person’s ability/inability to safely escape, and vary by state.

 

[Hello My Son]

I believe the justification for legally allowable violent actions in response to the various situations you describe is/are more complex than simply considering a person’s ability/inability to safely escape, and vary by state.

You cannot trap people against their will, even if you don't commit an act of violence against them. The laws in all states are very clear on this. They just opt out of applying it when rioters trap innocent people in public.

 

[CLAX1911]

I believe the justification for legally allowable violent actions in response to the various situations you describe is/are more complex than simply considering a person’s ability/inability to safely escape, and vary by state.

Yeah it's about whether or not you have rights and if a protesters right to destroy your property supersedes yours.

Just the mere presence of this law might prevent people from blocking streets maybe that's the purpose of it.

 

[CLAX1911]

You cannot trap people against their will, even if you don't commit an act of violence against them. The laws in all states are very clear on this. They just opt out of applying it when rioters trap innocent people in public.

I still don't know where these people get the idea that impeding traffic is a legitimate form of protest it is not. I would say that it's anti protest it makes people hate your cause that doesn't make them sympathetic.

 

[Hello My Son]

I still don't know where these people get the idea that impeding traffic is a legitimate form of protest it is not. I would say that it's anti protest it makes people hate your cause that doesn't make them sympathetic.

Oh, it's definitely a form of complete self-sabotage.

People self-sabotage their own causes because if their cause was actually resolved once and for all, they'd lose their excuse for rioting, which is what they actually live for.

 

[CLAX1911]

Oh, it's definitely a form of complete self-sabotage.

I think the philosophy is more along the lines of hostage negotiations you do what we want or will block up your streets.

People self-sabotage their own causes because if their cause was actually resolved once and for all, they'd lose their excuse for rioting, which is what they actually live for.

There are professional Rioters that are paid to be ringleaders.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

You cannot trap people against their will, even if you don't commit an act of violence against them. The laws in all states are very clear on this.

Post proof of this ^ claim.

Betcha can’t.

They just opt out of applying it when rioters trap innocent people in public.

nonsense

 

[Hello My Son]

Post proof of this ^ claim.

Your position is that it's not illegal to hold/trap a person against their will?

Seriously?

You actually don't know that's illegal?!

Betcha can’t.

I'll take that bet.

Elements of False Imprisonment Claims

All states (jurisdictions) have false imprisonment laws to protect against unlawful confinement.

To prove a false imprisonment claim as a tort in a civil lawsuit, the following elements must be present:
There was a willful detention;
The detention was without consent; and
The detention was unlawful

A false imprisonment cause of action (legal claim) can come in many forms. Physical force is often used, but it isn’t required. The restraint of a person may be imposed by physical barriers, such as being locked in a car. Restraint also can be by unreasonable duress. An example would be holding someone’s valuables with the intent to coerce them to remain at a location. To claim false imprisonment, you must reasonably believe that you were confined in a bounded area. A court will determine whether the belief is reasonable by determining what a reasonable person would do or believe under similar circumstances. Additionally, the actor must intend to commit the confinement without the legal privilege to do so. For instance, shopkeepers investigating shoplifting may have the necessary privilege to meet legal standards.

nonsense

It's seriously your argument that it's completely legal for you to surround and trap someone without allowing them to safely escape? You've got to be ****ing with me...

 

[CLAX1911]

Your position is that it's not illegal to hold/trap a person against their will?

Seriously?

You actually don't know that's illegal?!



I'll take that bet.

Elements of False Imprisonment Claims

All states (jurisdictions) have false imprisonment laws to protect against unlawful confinement.

To prove a false imprisonment claim as a tort in a civil lawsuit, the following elements must be present:
There was a willful detention;
The detention was without consent; and
The detention was unlawful

A false imprisonment cause of action (legal claim) can come in many forms. Physical force is often used, but it isn’t required. The restraint of a person may be imposed by physical barriers, such as being locked in a car. Restraint also can be by unreasonable duress. An example would be holding someone’s valuables with the intent to coerce them to remain at a location. To claim false imprisonment, you must reasonably believe that you were confined in a bounded area. A court will determine whether the belief is reasonable by determining what a reasonable person would do or believe under similar circumstances. Additionally, the actor must intend to commit the confinement without the legal privilege to do so. For instance, shopkeepers investigating shoplifting may have the necessary privilege to meet legal standards.



It's seriously your argument that it's completely legal for you to surround and trap someone without allowing them to safely escape? You've got to be ****ing with me...

I'd consider it more along the lines of impeding traffic

 

[Hello My Son]

I'd consider it more along the lines of impeding traffic

If it's the people who are simply sitting there and blocking traffic, there are certainly arguments to be made too. But I'm referencing the people who surround vehicles and engage in threatening or aggressive types of behavior, such as screaming, hitting or jumping on the cars, etc.

 

[Fearandloathing]

Ron DeSantis says Floridians have right to hit protesters with cars

"That's their fault for impinging on you," Florida's governor said.

www.newsweek.com

Just more right wing suppression of free speech, coming from DeSantis here with his looking to ramp up stochastic terrorism and have protesters get killed and ran over by drivers.

Wow.


Nothing like a ****ing sicko shit bag as governor.

Hail Republicans and their extremely thin skin!!!!

 

[Phys251]

Soo... when was the last time you really thought they 'can't go lower' than this?

I stopped having that thought. because I kept being punished for it.

There is. No. Bottom.

Unless one means the gas chambers.

 

[Fearandloathing]

Okay so if the protestors wear ICE uniforms, they can’t be run over.

Let’s hand out fake ICE uniforms at every protest.

Make them.

I mean it's like 3 letters!

Challenge is what made Amerika great when it was.

 

[Linc]

Sign him up for the IDF

 

[RaleBulgarian]

Your position is that it's not illegal to hold/trap a person against their will?

Seriously?

You actually don't know that's illegal?!



I'll take that bet.

Elements of False Imprisonment Claims

All states (jurisdictions) have false imprisonment laws to protect against unlawful confinement.

To prove a false imprisonment claim as a tort in a civil lawsuit, the following elements must be present:
There was a willful detention;
The detention was without consent; and
The detention was unlawful

A false imprisonment cause of action (legal claim) can come in many forms. Physical force is often used, but it isn’t required. The restraint of a person may be imposed by physical barriers, such as being locked in a car. Restraint also can be by unreasonable duress. An example would be holding someone’s valuables with the intent to coerce them to remain at a location. To claim false imprisonment, you must reasonably believe that you were confined in a bounded area. A court will determine whether the belief is reasonable by determining what a reasonable person would do or believe under similar circumstances. Additionally, the actor must intend to commit the confinement without the legal privilege to do so. For instance, shopkeepers investigating shoplifting may have the necessary privilege to meet legal standards.



It's seriously your argument that it's completely legal for you to surround and trap someone without allowing them to safely escape? You've got to be ****ing with me...

We weren’t debating the legal definition of illegal confinement, false imprisonment, etc.. Of course that’s illegal in every state.

The debate is over what actions are legally permissible for the person being illegally detained to free him/herself.

A bunch of people surrounding a car, blocking the driver from moving, while waving protest signs and chanting protest slogans does not justify a violent response by the driver.

 

[anatta]

It’s not free speech to block/trap people in their cars and/or behave aggressively while doing so.

Stand on the sidewalk and hold a ****ing sign, bitch into your bullhorns, and behave like a civilized person, and nobody will have any problems.

misdemeanor in Florida to impede traffic

 

[CLAX1911]

If it's the people who are simply sitting there and blocking traffic, there are certainly arguments to be made too. But I'm referencing the people who surround vehicles and engage in threatening or aggressive types of behavior, such as screaming, hitting or jumping on the cars, etc.

Fair point at that moment they aren't free to go.

 

[Hello My Son]

We weren’t debating the legal definition of illegal confinement, false imprisonment, etc.. Of course that’s illegal in every state.

The debate is over what actions are legally permissible for the person being illegally detained to free him/herself.

A bunch of people surrounding a car, blocking the driver from moving, while waving protest signs and chanting protest slogans does not justify a violent response by the driver.

Yes, we were. I said this:

You cannot trap people against their will, even if you don't commit an act of violence against them. The laws in all states are very clear on this. They just opt out of applying it when rioters trap innocent people in public.

And you disagreed.

As my link stated, physical force (aka aggression) is often used but is not required for someone to be falsely imprisoned. The requirement is that a person only must reasonably believe that they are being confined in a bounded area.

All I'm saying is that if a person is surrounded and trapped by people, they should be able to push them out of the way with their vehicles and maneuver around them as necessary to safely escape. If they are not allowed to pass, they are being trapped by the people blocking their way, by definition. Nobody has the right to falsely imprison/trap someone against their will, even in a car (which my link also referenced). All 50 states have laws against this. Hell, if you got into an argument with someone and merely stood in front of the only entrance/exit and didn't allow them to leave when they asked you to move, that's a false imprisonment charge in all states, and it could be charged alongside assault/battery as well. If it happens in a relationship, it's also a domestic violence charge on top of that.

 

[Hello My Son]

misdemeanor in Florida to impede traffic

Yep, once a law is being broken it's no longer within the realm of "free speech."

 

[KingLeo]

Hey Ron why stop there?
Give your brown shirts a large backhoe.
That way they can get more bodies in the bucket in one pass.

Have Republicans really sunk this low?
Disgraceful.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

Yes, we were. I said this:



And you disagreed.

As my link stated, physical force (aka aggression) is often used but is not required for someone to be falsely imprisoned. The requirement is that a person only must reasonably believe that they are being confined in a bounded area.

All I'm saying is that if a person is surrounded and trapped by people, they should be able to push them out of the way with their vehicles and maneuver around them as necessary to safely escape. If they are not allowed to pass, they are being trapped by the people blocking their way, by definition. Nobody has the right to falsely imprison/trap someone against their will, even in a car (which my link also referenced). All 50 states have laws against this. Hell, if you got into an argument with someone and merely stood in front of the only entrance/exit and didn't allow them to leave when they asked you to move, that's a false imprisonment charge in all states, and it could be charged alongside assault/battery as well. If it happens in a relationship, it's also a domestic violence charge on top of that.

And I said;

I believe the justification for legally allowable violent actions in response to the various situations you describe is/are more complex than simply considering a person’s ability/inability to safely escape, and vary by state.

We’re on the same page.

My mistake for misreading your post.

 

[CLAX1911]

Hey Ron why stop there?
Give your brown shirts a large backhoe.
That way they can get more bodies in the bucket in one pass.

Have Republicans really sunk this low?
Disgraceful.

That people don't have to just be at the mercy of a violent mob? Why should they be?

 

[KingLeo]

That people don't have to just be at the mercy of a violent mob? Why should they be?

You are assuming there will be a 'violent mob'?
It is called a protest and the right is covered in the Constitution.
Ever heard of it?
Now would Donnie love to provoke violence?
Of course, another distraction from him disastrous BBB and a chance to play army with his goon squads.

 

[Hello My Son]

And I said;

We’re on the same page.

My mistake for misreading your post.

That makes more sense. I thought we were saying the same thing at first but then we each seemed to misinterpret one another's arguments. My apologies for doing the same!

 

[CLAX1911]

You are assuming there will be a 'violent mob'?

You need to read the law. It would have to be a threatening situation in order to flee

It is called a protest and the right is covered in the Constitution.

It's not though. Violating the law such as impeding traffic means it's not a protest.

Ever heard of it?

Protesting is fine blocking up roads isn't protesting it's rioting and it isn't peaceful.

Now would Donnie love to provoke violence?

This is a Florida law

Of course, another distraction from him disastrous BBB and a chance to play army with his goon squads.

What?