Arizona lawmakers going full Bannon - Charging 'Provocateurs' With Racketeering - Bill dropped!!!

[Thebobo]

What is the mindset of the average republican lawmaker, do they not remember our countries history, are we part of the same humanity. How how can normally peaceful protestors stop Anarchist.

Full story

"The Arizona Senate passed a bill on Wednesday that would allow the government to seize the property of people who help plan a demonstration that turns violent.

If the bill becomes law, prosecutors could charge people and seize assets for conspiracy to riot even if the so-called conspirators didn't participate in any violence.

As Phoenix New Times columnist Stephen Lemons wrote last week, the bill comes as a right-wing response to the violence and damage at recent protests in Washington, D.C., and on the campus of the University of California, Berkeley."

 

[MomentsofSanity]

Alternate title - Arizona Lawmakers Find New Way To Waste Taxpayers Money on Inevitable SCOTUS Loss.

 

[mikeymikec]

Bu-bu-but I thought it was "the left" who are constantly threatening freedom of speech?

 

[Fanatical Meat]

Posting just to see if any of our libertarian or constitutionalist conservatives post in here.

 

[vi edit]

I think somebody confused "Black Bloc" with literally being blocks of blacks.

 

[senseamp]

Republicans need to read up about their Ukrainian sister authoritarian Putin puppet party, called Party of Regions, and how things worked out for them. Yanukovich clamped down on protests too.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-protest_laws_in_Ukraine

The Ukrainian anti-protest laws are a group of ten laws restricting freedom of speech and freedom of assembly.[1] The laws were passed by the Parliament of Ukraine on January 16, 2014, (referred to as Black Thursday) and signed into law by President Viktor Yanukovych the following day,[2][3] amid massive anti-government protests that started in November.

Maybe Paul Manafort can fill Republicans in on the rest.

 

[jayzds]

I don't agree with that law...but anyone breaking a law by rioting which is just as bad and deserves to be shot. They are just like a rattler/coyote = a varmint with no value in society.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

I don't agree with that law...but anyone breaking a law by rioting which is just as bad and deserves to be shot. They are just like a rattler/coyote = a varmint with no value in society.

Remember everyone, his vote counts as much as yours.

 

[PokerGuy]

I understand what they are trying to do, and there's definitely a need to get a handle on these looters, rioters, violent lefties... but this isn't the right way IMO. There's way too much of a slippery slope. In fact, if someone wanted to, they could commit acts of violence, damage property etc at a protest organized by someone else just to hurt the organizers even if the organizers had nothing to do with the acts.

Peaceful protesting is fine, but when you go over into violence, damage to property, looting etc, they need to bring the hammer down on the criminals and throw them behind bars for 10 years or so. That will discourage the others from doing similarly stupid things.

A bill like this would need to be much more narrowly crafted. If you can demonstrate that the organizers intended for violence etc to happen, then yes, throw them in jail and make them pay restitution. Otherwise, the responsibility is solely on the person committing the crime.

 

[PokerGuy]

Remember everyone, his vote counts as much as yours.

Good thing, because he's right. You can protest without violence, rioting, looting etc.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

Good thing, because he's right. You can protest without violence, rioting, looting etc.

Not disagreeing with your premise. I do take issue with his premise that a violent response is warranted. That's a spiral that goes nowhere good in a real hurry.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

I understand what they are trying to do, and there's definitely a need to get a handle on these looters, rioters, violent lefties... but this isn't the right way IMO. There's way too much of a slippery slope. In fact, if someone wanted to, they could commit acts of violence, damage property etc at a protest organized by someone else just to hurt the organizers even if the organizers had nothing to do with the acts.

Peaceful protesting is fine, but when you go over into violence, damage to property, looting etc, they need to bring the hammer down on the criminals and throw them behind bars for 10 years or so. That will discourage the others from doing similarly stupid things.

A bill like this would need to be much more narrowly crafted. If you can demonstrate that the organizers intended for violence etc to happen, then yes, throw them in jail and make them pay restitution. Otherwise, the responsibility is solely on the person committing the crime.

See, this is more logical. Crush their nuts in a vice, sure (within reason), but shoot them in the face? Things get worse.

 

[vi edit]

The nomadic horde of "professional protest thugs" have made a mess of a traditional freedom of assembly. When laws come up, these assholes are the ones that are used as talking points and clickbait. These mobs have no political agenda other than to troll anyone and everyone.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

The nomadic horde of "professional protest thugs" have made a mess of a traditional freedom of assembly. When laws come up, these assholes are the ones that are used as talking points and clickbait. These mobs have no political agenda other than to troll anyone and everyone.

It's tricky because there's a thin film of 'professional protesters' who aren't thugs that do the same thing. Strictly speaking I don't take issue with 'diet' political activists who let their voices be heard in this format, but aren't so hardcore as to be causing substantial problems/arrest-able offenses for or to others. It serves it's purpose, bringing to light (or more into focus), issues they care about. But how do you wrangle the rioters/thugs without roping in the others? Exclusion tends to be an all-or-nothing thing, and everything else is reactionary.

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

I don't agree with that law...but anyone breaking a law by rioting which is just as bad and deserves to be shot. They are just like a rattler/coyote = a varmint with no value in society.

you do realize that both the coyote and the rattler are important parts of the ecosystem right? They're part of the food chain. Right?

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

you do realize that both the coyote and the rattler are important parts of the ecosystem right? They're part of the food chain. Right?

Of course not, to exist is to be at the top of the food chain, to the sacrifice of all other members of said food chain. The logic of this is NOT to be called into question, as it implies weakness.

 

[sdifox]

I don't agree with that law...but anyone breaking a law by rioting which is just as bad and deserves to be shot. They are just like a rattler/coyote = a varmint with no value in society.

Shot? Arrested, charged with corresponding charges, sure. But shot? This ain't Mother Russia.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

Looks like a good law to me. I bet it will go a long way to shut down violent riots from professional protesters and anarchist thugs.

 

[IronWing]

Looks like a good law to me. I bet it will go a long way to shut down violent riots from professional protesters and anarchist thugs.

No it won't. That isn't whom is targeted by the law. You organize a protest. People you didn't invite show up and riot. This law comes after you for their actions.

 

[IronWing]

The Arizona legislature was the inspiration for Ironwing's Amendment.

IronWing's Amendment to the AZ State Constitution:
1) All votes in the legislature shall be recorded by roll call (no voice votes).
2) Legislators voting in the affirmative for any law later determined to be unconstitutional under the AZ constitution or the U.S. Constitution as amended at the time of the bill's passage shall be held personally responsible for all costs to the State in defending the law and liable for all legal fees of and damages to plaintiffs successfully challenging the law. Liability shall be joint, strict, and several.

 

[sdifox]

Looks like a good law to me. I bet it will go a long way to shut down violent riots from professional protesters and anarchist thugs.

You think the ones rioting are the organisers?

 

[imported_tajmahal]

You think the ones rioting are the organisers?

It's much the same as what went on with eco-terrorist groups Earthfirst! and Greepeace giving cover to more moderate environmental groups. The organizers are fully cognizant of what violence may be happening in their "events".

 

[First]

Alternate title - Arizona Lawmakers Find New Way To Waste Taxpayers Money on Inevitable SCOTUS Loss.

Aiyeee.

 

[Moonbeam]

It's tricky because there's a thin film of 'professional protesters' who aren't thugs that do the same thing. Strictly speaking I don't take issue with 'diet' political activists who let their voices be heard in this format, but aren't so hardcore as to be causing substantial problems/arrest-able offenses for or to others. It serves it's purpose, bringing to light (or more into focus), issues they care about. But how do you wrangle the rioters/thugs without roping in the others? Exclusion tends to be an all-or-nothing thing, and everything else is reactionary.

You are demonstrating a talent for nuanced thinking. People with conservative brain defects will see you as dangerous.

 

[sdifox]

It's much the same as what went on with eco-terrorist groups Earthfirst! and Greepeace giving cover to more moderate environmental groups. The organizers are fully cognizant of what violence may be happening in their "events".

So basically, AZ is banning protest? Since the rioters choose to show up in basically any protest.