Fl. Gov. Propose law to legalize running over BLM protesters

[Heimsveldi]

https://www.theblaze.com/news/fla-gover ... ing%20News

I'm not a super political person but I found this law really disturbing o might disagree w people on stuff but killing people? Really? Protesting is a right

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/fl ... 33461.html

Voices
While Bill Barr rants about ‘anarchist’ cities, Florida is quietly bringing in fascist-style laws against protesters
Trump-supporting Republicans have started to realize they’re on the wrong side of history — and they’re acting accordingly

Corey Hill
Florida
12 hours ago

Governor DeSantis has brought in felony charges which effectively criminalize dissent
Governor DeSantis has brought in felony charges which effectively criminalize dissent
On Monday, flanked by maskless Polk County Sheriffs, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis announced his grand new strategy to quell dissent and just maybe boost his disastrous standing in the Sunshine State polling averages: the Combating Violence, Disorder and Looting and Law Enforcement Protection Act. Since this is Florida, it’s equal parts stupid and dangerous.

The act calls for felony charges for protesters who block roadways; felony charges for protests of seven or more people which result in property damages; hell, charges for donating to protests that result in property damage. People convicted under these new statutes will lose their eligibility for state benefits, and won’t be eligible for bail until their first court appearance. Under the “No Defund the Police Permitted’ subsection, we learn that municipalities that reduce funding to police will lose access to state grants and aid. The act even attaches RICO liability to people involved in organizing protests that result in property damages.


But as far as addressing the most prevalent source of actual violence at protests — drivers running over people exercising their First Amendment rights — not only does the act fail to create penalties for vehicular assaults, it actually calls for immunity for people who drive over protestors.

[Ostroeuropa]

This is pretty straightforwardly him tipping his hat as a supporter of the alt-right at charlottesville imo.

[The Reformed American Republic]

OP is a bit thin.

It says if they're fleeing a mob. It isn't carte blanche to kill protesters.

[Major-Tom]

I'd beef up the opening post a little, but the issue here is how ill-defined this law is. It says it would make it legal to attempt vehicular manslaughter if the driver is "fleeing a mob." What constitutes a mob? How would people be able to prove the driver was actually fleeing a dangerous situation versus acting out a militia-man fantasy of "running over them damn protesters." It is so open to interpretation, and I think that's the point, it's political grandstanding at it's best, a dangerous piece of legislation at it's worst.

What a moronic, asinine fucking idea from the melting pea brain of Governor DeSantis.

[Heimsveldi]

OP is a bit thin.

It says if they're fleeing a mob. It isn't carte blanche to kill protesters.

Sorry first time posting in general I wanted to see other opinions since it doesn't seem to get mainstream coverage like it should thx

[Vassenor]

OP is a bit thin.

It says if they're fleeing a mob. It isn't carte blanche to kill protesters.

You mean like the mob that the Charlottesville Neo Nazi claimed to be fleeing that didn't exist?

[The Reformed American Republic]

OP is a bit thin.

It says if they're fleeing a mob. It isn't carte blanche to kill protesters.

Sorry first time posting in general I wanted to see other opinions since it doesn't seem to get mainstream coverage like it should thx

Sorry if I seemed a bit harsh.

[The Reformed American Republic]

OP is a bit thin.

It says if they're fleeing a mob. It isn't carte blanche to kill protesters.

You mean like the mob that the Charlottesville Neo Nazi claimed to be fleeing that didn't exist?

No.

[Cordel One]

The previous car attacks haven't been from people fleeing, this is definitely going to be abused.


It's pretty obvious what this law is, and it's very fucked up.

[Major-Tom]

OP is a bit thin.

It says if they're fleeing a mob. It isn't carte blanche to kill protesters.

That's precisely why it's fucking moronic, the burden of proof is transferred to the people being run over lmfao. The definition of the word "mob" is subjective. Is a mob merely a group of angry people acting in an unsavory fashion? Is it people peacefully protesting but shouting mean slogans? Is it a group actively threatening people with weapons? Any of those could be grouped into the idea of a mob as is defined in this dipshit bill.

This bill would've been fine (albeit total grandstanding) had it just said "people are authorized to use self-defense tactics if threatened by immediate violence" or something to that affect. It would've been nothing more than red meat to a certain base, but still defensible within some degree of reason;

Not this dumb "FLEEING A MOB MEANS USE YOUR 54% APR DODGE CHALLENGER TO SMASH SOME PROTESTERS AHA!"

[Kowani]

This is pretty straightforwardly him tipping his hat as a supporter of the alt-right at charlottesville imo.

It’s not a dogwhistle if you can hear it on the moon.

[Telconi]

OP is a bit thin.

It says if they're fleeing a mob. It isn't carte blanche to kill protesters.

That's precisely why it's fucking moronic, the burden of proof is transferred to the people being run over lmfao. The definition of the word "mob" is subjective. Is a mob merely a group of angry people acting in an unsavory fashion? Is it people peacefully protesting but shouting mean slogans? Is it a group actively threatening people with weapons? Any of those could be grouped into the idea of a mob as is defined in this dipshit bill.

This bill would've been fine (albeit total grandstanding) had it just said "people are authorized to use self-defense tactics if threatened by immediate violence" or something to that affect. It would've been nothing more than red meat to a certain base, but still defensible within some degree of reason;

Not this dumb "FLEEING A MOB MEANS USE YOUR 54% APR DODGE CHALLENGER TO SMASH SOME PROTESTERS AHA!"

Victims don't prosecute crimes. And the burden of proof would be placed on the state attorney, which is exactly where it belongs.

[SD_Film Artists]

OP is a bit thin.

It says if they're fleeing a mob. It isn't carte blanche to kill protesters.

Just as I expected. Often protesters feel that it's a good idea to jump on top of a police car like a pack of zombies and are then suddenly surprised if said police car starts moving.

[Tekania]

At best it would amount to an affirmative defense. As such the one charged with vehicular manslaughter/assault would have to prove his defense to the court/jury.

Contrary to some people's opinions, affirmative defenses (like self-defense claims or this) aren't just carte-blanche get out of the charge things. They are an affirmative defense that the defendant can employ to possibly remove their culpability in the act. But simply claiming it doesn't remove culpability, you have to establish to the court/jury based on a preponderance of evidence that your claim in the affirmative defense is true. If not you have the danger of effect that as an affirmative defense your agreeing the event stipulated in the crime happened and as such not proving the affirmative defense means you'll be very likely to be found guilty since your affirmative defense is effectively agreeing to the rest of the state's case against you.

[Farnhamia]

OP is a bit thin.

It says if they're fleeing a mob. It isn't carte blanche to kill protesters.

Sorry first time posting in general I wanted to see other opinions since it doesn't seem to get mainstream coverage like it should thx

You should edit the OP to include more information, maybe an excerpt from the article you linked. I gotta tell you, if the only source you have is The Blaze, you're in for a lot of grief on the validity of that site as a source. You should also put in your own opinion, too.

[Nuroblav]

I'm not surprised this is Florida.

I forgot about DeSantis, but now that I remembered him again, I can't help but feel sorry for Florida with him in charge.

You should edit the OP to include more information, maybe an excerpt from the article you linked. I gotta tell you, if the only source you have is The Blaze, you're in for a lot of grief on the validity of that site as a source. You should also put in your own opinion, too.

Not too caught up with the whole validity thing, but will The Independent do? It seems to sum up the whole laws put in place a bit more.

[Heimsveldi]

I'm not surprised this is Florida.

I forgot about DeSantis, but now that I remembered him again, I can't help but feel sorry for Florida with him in charge.

You should edit the OP to include more information, maybe an excerpt from the article you linked. I gotta tell you, if the only source you have is The Blaze, you're in for a lot of grief on the validity of that site as a source. You should also put in your own opinion, too.

Not too caught up with the whole validity thing, but will The Independent do? It seems to sum up the whole laws put in place a bit more.

Thx. I meed to edit my op a bit more

[Page]

Goddammit Florida. I love my state but it's been ruled by despicable people for so long.

[Ethel mermania]

Rioters should be punished. If someone who's car is being assaulted should have the right of self defense.

I am OK with this.

[The Black Forrest]

Rioters should be punished. If someone who's car is being assaulted should have the right of self defense.

I am OK with this.

It has to be defined and evaluated if it happens.

Why did you hit this person?
a mob was around my car and I have a right to self-defense.
This person was just crossing the street.

It smells like another stand your ground and will probably be abused.

[Plzen]

It says if they're fleeing a mob. It isn't carte blanche to kill protesters.

Admittedly, driving is not my area of expertise, but if one’s car is moving towards a mob, how is that compatible with “fleeing” said mob?

If you’re accurate in your summary I can’t see how this law would ever be applicable.

---

In any case, my stance here is the same as it is in any other piece of self-defence legislation. My opinion remains that self-defence should only be accepted if the defendant can demonstrate that they tried and failed all reasonable nonviolent methods of leaving a confrontation.

[Ethel mermania]

Rioters should be punished. If someone who's car is being assaulted should have the right of self defense.

I am OK with this.

It has to be defined and evaluated if it happens.

Why did you hit this person?
a mob was around my car and I have a right to self-defense.
This person was just crossing the street.

It smells like another stand your ground and will probably be abused.

Possibly, but if someone is trying to pull you out of your car and three people are standing in front of it, i don't see an issue with the driver trying to get out of there for their own safety. Those 3 aren't innocent and the driver should be protected from assault charges stemming from hitting them.

And as far a jail the looters portion goes, I am good with that too.

[Necroghastia]

felony charges for protesters who block roadways; felony charges for protests of seven or more people which result in property damages; hell, charges for donating to protests that result in property damage.

Oh yeah, "blocking roadways" and "property damage." I see no reason that something that vague would everrrr be abused
Same thing for the vehicular homicide: got a couple of protestors in your vicinity? Just shout "I'M FEELING THREATENED" and floor it, baby.

municipalities that reduce funding to police will lose access to state grants and aid.

Need to make budget cuts? Sucks to be you!

[Jebslund]

---

In any case, my stance here is the same as it is in any other piece of self-defence legislation. My opinion remains that self-defence should only be accepted if the defendant can demonstrate that they tried and failed all reasonable nonviolent methods of leaving a confrontation.

Trying nonviolent means in certain situations will get you killed. If someone is shooting at you, asking them to stop or trying to flee will not save you unless they are a terrible shot. Even in other self-defense situations, what is reasonable in the moment and what *seems* reasonable to someone who wasn't there are two different things, hence the purpose of stand your ground and castle defense laws removing any obligation to retreat. If someone pulls a weapon, you don't always have time to try nonviolent means, and if someone is already swinging, nothing nonviolent is going to save you unless you are faster than them.

[Heimsveldi]

Sorry first time posting in general I wanted to see other opinions since it doesn't seem to get mainstream coverage like it should thx

You should edit the OP to include more information, maybe an excerpt from the article you linked. I gotta tell you, if the only source you have is The Blaze, you're in for a lot of grief on the validity of that site as a source. You should also put in your own opinion, too.

Is sufficient?