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

[Farnhamia]

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?

Much better, thanks.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

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

I am OK with this.

So if I spray-paint "OFF THE PIG" on the side of your car, you can shoot to kill in self-defence?

[Bombadil]

It's amazing how similar some Republican senators are the same as the Chinese CCP party, same approach to dissent.

[Plzen]

Trying nonviolent means in certain situations will get you killed.

I would hope that it goes without saying that if the choice boils down to kill the other person or die, any reasonable nonviolent means of escaping the confrontation should be considered to have been exhausted.

Reasonable nonviolent means of escaping a confrontation are generally less available in violent societies like the United States where criminals tend to be armed to the teeth and being uncooperative with a person with a gun can lead to instant death, but even then I'm opposed to blanket castle laws and the like.

Before anyone asks, I do consider not entering a confrontation in the first place to be a reasonable way of leaving one. The winner of a duel is guilty of murder and doesn't get to claim that if he didn't shoot first, the other guy would've.

---

It's amazing how similar some Republican senators are the same as the Chinese CCP party, same approach to dissent.

Americans, and pro-American westerners in general, are willing to go out of their way to justify or at least cite mitigating factors for terrible things when it's Americans who do them. Fascism and blind nationalism are bad when other countries do them, but American exceptionalism? Woohoooo America is the best yeah innit?

[Feline Goetland]

https://www.theblaze.com/news/fla-governor-proposes-law-that-would-protect-drivers-who-kill-or-injure-demonstrators-if-theyre-fleeing-a-mob?utm_source=theblaze-breaking&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=20200922Trending-RomneyVoteScotus&utm_term=ACTIVE%20LIST%20-%20TheBlaze%20Breaking%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.

I think both sides, instigated by China and Russia, need to stop. I’m one of the last people who would ever support BLM. That does not mean felony charges for protests that block the roadway is appropriate. Both the left and the right need to realize that they have only one enemy, namely the so-called People’s Republic of China.

Rioters on both sides need to be investigated for PRC meddling.

[Plzen]

Both the left and the right need to realize that they have only one enemy, namely the so-called People’s Republic of China.

The PRC is a boogeyman the national and international political elite are trying to sell us to get us to agree to shut up and comply, and under no circumstance should the progressive left be intimidated under this rhetoric.

[Diahon]

it's a bullshit law on a bullshit premise that will be abused, which no doubt is desantis' intention

of course, because this is desantis' florida, this sort of thing would pass and protesters will be run over, no matter how peaceful they are

under such circumstances, what would stop future escalations, up to and including vehicles trying to run desantis over?

[Diahon]

It's amazing how similar some Republican senators are the same as the Chinese CCP party, same approach to dissent.

authoritarianism -- shit's same everywhere, and powerful and powerless alike now want that shit either to get shit done, or to reign from their thrones of shit

[Feline Goetland]

Both the left and the right need to realize that they have only one enemy, namely the so-called People’s Republic of China.

The PRC is a boogeyman the national and international political elite are trying to sell us to get us to agree to shut up and comply, and under no circumstance should the progressive left be intimidated under this rhetoric.

When the PRC sells world class surveillance tech to America human rights will simply be gone. Neither the left nor the right will retain any freedom.

[Plzen]

When the PRC sells world class surveillance tech to America human rights will simply be gone. Neither the left nor the right will retain any freedom.

The United States have been spying on most of the world for half a century, and despite the many efforts of the State Department to subjugate the world, reasonably independent democracies still exist. I think we will be fine. But that's starting to drift off topic.

To bring things back to the tangent this initially drifted off from, all of these efforts - the portrayal of protesters as a "mob" against which any means is justified for defence, citations of the need for cooperation against the PRC boogeyman, appeals to "peaceful reform", etc - are all intended to accomplish one thing. Put an end to this period of unrest, restore the facade of "unity", and suppress whatever grievances people might have with the fundamental nature of American society under the insistence that things could always be worse.

It's pretty obvious why conservatives who fundamentally don't oppose the inherited inequalities on which America society runs would be favourable to this sort of outcome. What is far less clear is why the rest of us ought to agree with them.

[Feline Goetland]

When the PRC sells world class surveillance tech to America human rights will simply be gone. Neither the left nor the right will retain any freedom.

The United States have been spying on most of the world for half a century, and despite the many efforts of the State Department to subjugate the world, reasonably independent democracies still exist. I think we will be fine. But that's starting to drift off topic.

To bring things back to the tangent this initially drifted off from, all of these efforts - the portrayal of protesters as a "mob" against which any means is justified for defence, citations of the need for cooperation against the PRC boogeyman, appeals to "peaceful reform", etc - are all intended to accomplish one thing. Put an end to this period of unrest, restore the facade of "unity", and suppress whatever grievances people might have with the fundamental nature of American society under the insistence that things could always be worse.

It's pretty obvious why conservatives who fundamentally don't oppose the inherited inequalities on which America society runs would be favourable to this sort of outcome. What is far less clear is why the rest of us ought to agree with them.

PRC is an actual fascist state. If you think issues in America already suck a lot. What about issues in PRC? PRC has actual fucking concentration camps and feed weird substances (likely causing infertility) to its inmates and harvest people’s organs.

American social liberals and social conservatives are similarly ignorant of the threat China represents. It will continue to cynically support both the far left and the far right to destabilize America until people realize who the real enemy is.

[Plzen]

PRC is an actual fascist state. If you think issues in America already suck a lot. What about issues in PRC? PRC has actual fucking concentration camps and feed weird substances (likely causing infertility) to its inmates and harvest people’s organs.

And what does internal US policy - which the current wave of protests is about, and which Florida's latest "anti-mob" legislation is about - have anything to do with internal human rights violations within the PRC?

This is an "eat your vegetables, because children in Africa are hungry" level of argumentation. Exactly what about force-feeding children in developed countries is supposed to help with the problem that these parents are claiming as a justification for the proposed solution? Exactly what about forcing an internal peace in the United States is supposed to help with the problem that you're claiming as a justification for this proposed solution?

[Jebslund]

I would hope that it goes without saying that if the choice boils down to kill the other person or die, any reasonable nonviolent means of escaping the confrontation should be considered to have been exhausted.

Reasonable nonviolent means of escaping a confrontation are generally less available in violent societies like the United States where criminals tend to be armed to the teeth and being uncooperative with a person with a gun can lead to instant death, but even then I'm opposed to blanket castle laws and the like.

Before anyone asks, I do consider not entering a confrontation in the first place to be a reasonable way of leaving one. The winner of a duel is guilty of murder and doesn't get to claim that if he didn't shoot first, the other guy would've.

It doesn't. People have been found guilty of murder because they "should have run further". People who have never been in shoot or die situations tend to underestimate the aggressor and overestimate the victim's ability to escape. You yourself do this, by saying shooting first isn't an option. Real life isn't like the movies. The person who gets shot doesn't usually get a chance to return fire at the range most such confrontations take place.

You also fail to understand Castle defense laws and stand your ground laws. They are not nearly as broad as you would assume. First off, such laws only cover circumstances in which the person defending him or herself reasonably believes that they will come to grievous harm and/or be killed should they not defend themselves in such situations, same as normal self-defense laws concerning use of lethal force in self-defense. Second, stand your ground and Castle defense laws also do not give carte blanche to use any form of force. You are required to use the minimum level of force considered to be necessary in order to defend yourself. In other words, if you reasonably believe yourself to be able to overpower someone (which is to say if The Man on the Clapham Bus would believe himself capable of defending himself non-lethally in such a situation), you are required to defend yourself in a non-lethal fashion. The same limits which apply to use of lethal Force in a normal self-defense situation apply in these situations as well.

[Freiheit Reich]

Protesters should not be blocking roads unless they get proper permits to do so. Remember what happened to Reginald Denny in 1992. He was simply working and was punished by protesters for daring to be the wrong skin color in the wrong area. The Florida governor doesn't want a repeat of this.

http://content.time.com/time/specials/2 ... 11,00.html

[SD_Film Artists]

It's amazing how similar some Republican senators are the same as the Chinese CCP party, same approach to dissent.

Being able to force protesters out of the way after repeated warnings after being mobbed isn't the same as shooting protesters on site, if that indeed is what you're comparing it to.

[Plzen]

Being able to force protesters out of the way after repeated warnings after being mobbed isn't the same as shooting protesters on site, if that indeed is what you're saying.

Those banner things Hong Kong police raise before every suppression operation doesn't count as "warning"? Suppression is suppression, warning or no.

If anyone needed more examples of my earlier point that Americans being more willing to view people doing repugnant things favourably when the perpetrators are American, well there it is.

[Liriena]

So it's a bill to legalize Charlottesville-style terrorism.

Man, thank fuck ISIS isn't a thing anymore, or they'd be taking full advantage of the fascist stupidity of the American right today.

[Liriena]

It's amazing how similar some Republican senators are the same as the Chinese CCP party, same approach to dissent.

Being able to force protesters out of the way after repeated warnings after being mobbed isn't the same as shooting protesters on site, if that indeed is what you're comparing it to.

Why in the fuck would you ever trust the state with the power to say "actually, this vehicular mass killing was perfectly cool and good"?

[SD_Film Artists]

Being able to force protesters out of the way after repeated warnings after being mobbed isn't the same as shooting protesters on site, if that indeed is what you're saying.

Those banner things Hong Kong police raise before every suppression operation doesn't count as "warning"? Suppression is suppression, warning or no.

If anyone needed more examples of my earlier point that Americans being more willing to view people doing repugnant things favourably when the perpetrators are American, well there it is.

The difference is that you have (or should have) the right to protest but you shouldn't have the right to assault police vehicles. They are two different things. If you jump ontop of a police car and expect it to not react in any way then that's just stupid.

[SD_Film Artists]

Being able to force protesters out of the way after repeated warnings after being mobbed isn't the same as shooting protesters on site, if that indeed is what you're comparing it to.

Why in the fuck would you ever trust the state with the power to say "actually, this vehicular mass killing was perfectly cool and good"?

What vehicular mass killing?

[Glorious Hong Kong]

I cannot bring myself to support this proposal. Surely there are already laws in place to deal with rioters, looters, arsonists, and terrorists? This seems like a knee-jerk reaction. Leftist tyranny should not be countered with rightist tyranny. We cannot stoop to the level of our Marxist enemies lest we become no better than them. However, the OP is misleading. The bill does not simply "legalize running over BLM protesters". It simply grants drivers expanded leeway to flee from rioters. The rest of the bill is problematic to me.

https://www.theblaze.com/news/fla-governor-proposes-law-that-would-protect-drivers-who-kill-or-injure-demonstrators-if-theyre-fleeing-a-mob?utm_source=theblaze-breaking&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=20200922Trending-RomneyVoteScotus&utm_term=ACTIVE%20LIST%20-%20TheBlaze%20Breaking%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

I think both sides, instigated by China and Russia, need to stop. I’m one of the last people who would ever support BLM. That does not mean felony charges for protests that block the roadway is appropriate. Both the left and the right need to realize that they have only one enemy, namely the so-called People’s Republic of China.

Rioters on both sides need to be investigated for PRC meddling.

There has been no evidence so far of PRC involvement in the Marxist-instigated and funded BLM riots and racial hatred despite their shared Marxist goals and despite recently disproved claims to the contrary. The common thread connecting the CCP and BLM is communism, not the CCP itself. There is no covert, CCP-backed United Front op to destabilize America. American leftists are doing a very good job of it themselves. These leftists possess their own independent agency and shouldn't be essentialized and reduced to mere pawns in a Cold War. Do not underestimate them, and if you're a leftist yourself, do not coddle them like puppies lest they bite the hand that feeds them.

You are right in pointing out that both sides have been resorting to their own set of dirty tricks these past couple of months. This draconian proposal is just the latest example. I simply consider one side to be the lesser evil and support that side accordingly.

[Vassenor]

I cannot bring myself to support this proposal. Surely there are already laws in place to deal with rioters, looters, arsonists, and terrorists? This seems like a knee-jerk reaction. Leftist tyranny should not be countered with rightist tyranny. We cannot stoop to the level of our Marxist enemies lest we become no better than them. However, the OP is misleading. The bill does not simply "legalize running over BLM protesters". It simply grants drivers expanded leeway to flee from rioters. The rest of the bill is problematic to me.

I think both sides, instigated by China and Russia, need to stop. I’m one of the last people who would ever support BLM. That does not mean felony charges for protests that block the roadway is appropriate. Both the left and the right need to realize that they have only one enemy, namely the so-called People’s Republic of China.

Rioters on both sides need to be investigated for PRC meddling.

There has been no evidence so far of PRC involvement in the Marxist-instigated and funded BLM riots and racial hatred despite their shared Marxist goals and despite recently disproved claims to the contrary. The common thread connecting the CCP and BLM is communism, not the CCP itself. There is no covert, CCP-backed United Front op to destabilize America. American leftists are doing a very good job of it themselves. These leftists possess their own independent agency and shouldn't be essentialized and reduced to mere pawns in a Cold War. Do not underestimate them, and if you're a leftist yourself, do not coddle them like puppies lest they bite the hand that feeds them.

You are right in pointing out that both sides have been resorting to their own set of dirty tricks these past couple of months. This draconian proposal is just the latest example. I simply consider one side to be the lesser evil and support that side accordingly.

So what makes BLM a Marxist racial hate movement?

[Chan Island]

What a remarkably terrible open to some of the most horrific abuse. But woohoo, accelerationism, right?

[spoiler]I cannot bring myself to support this proposal. Surely there are already laws in place to deal with rioters, looters, arsonists, and terrorists? This seems like a knee-jerk reaction. Leftist tyranny should not be countered with rightist tyranny. We cannot stoop to the level of our Marxist enemies lest we become no better than them. However, the OP is misleading. The bill does not simply "legalize running over BLM protesters". It simply grants drivers expanded leeway to flee from rioters. The rest of the bill is problematic to me.

I think both sides, instigated by China and Russia, need to stop. I’m one of the last people who would ever support BLM. That does not mean felony charges for protests that block the roadway is appropriate. Both the left and the right need to realize that they have only one enemy, namely the so-called People’s Republic of China.

Rioters on both sides need to be investigated for PRC meddling.

There has been no evidence so far of PRC involvement in the Marxist-instigated and funded BLM riots and racial hatred despite their shared Marxist goals and despite recently disproved claims to the contrary. The common thread connecting the CCP and BLM is communism, not the CCP itself. There is no covert, CCP-backed United Front op to destabilize America. American leftists are doing a very good job of it themselves. These leftists possess their own independent agency and shouldn't be essentialized and reduced to mere pawns in a Cold War. Do not underestimate them, and if you're a leftist yourself, do not coddle them like puppies lest they bite the hand that feeds them.

You are right in pointing out that both sides have been resorting to their own set of dirty tricks these past couple of months. This draconian proposal is just the latest example. I simply consider one side to be the lesser evil and support that side accordingly.

[Necroghastia]

I cannot bring myself to support this proposal. Surely there are already laws in place to deal with rioters, looters, arsonists, and terrorists? This seems like a knee-jerk reaction. Leftist tyranny should not be countered with rightist tyranny. We cannot stoop to the level of our Marxist enemies lest we become no better than them. However, the OP is misleading. The bill does not simply "legalize running over BLM protesters". It simply grants drivers expanded leeway to flee from rioters. The rest of the bill is problematic to me.



There has been no evidence so far of PRC involvement in the Marxist-instigated and funded BLM riots and racial hatred despite their shared Marxist goals and despite recently disproved claims to the contrary. The common thread connecting the CCP and BLM is communism, not the CCP itself. There is no covert, CCP-backed United Front op to destabilize America. American leftists are doing a very good job of it themselves. These leftists possess their own independent agency and shouldn't be essentialized and reduced to mere pawns in a Cold War. Do not underestimate them, and if you're a leftist yourself, do not coddle them like puppies lest they bite the hand that feeds them.

You are right in pointing out that both sides have been resorting to their own set of dirty tricks these past couple of months. This draconian proposal is just the latest example. I simply consider one side to be the lesser evil and support that side accordingly.

So what makes BLM a Marxist racial hate movement?

Same thing that makes the CCP communist, right-wingers call it that and expect you to take it at face value.

[Purpelia]

So what makes BLM a Marxist racial hate movement?

1. Marxist: The fact that a large number if not all of their outward facing spokespeople seem to hold neo-left views. That is at least how it appears to be from over here on the civilized continent. I might be wrong though as all I can rely on is news footage. As well as the fact that what passes for the radical left in your country seem to be its primary supporters. And whilst this is clearly not what Marx would have intended the term Marxist has mutated to simply mean what ever flavor the "left" takes this week. Just the same as how fascist has mutated to become a synonym for what ever political party one dislikes.

2. Hate: The fact that they are an openly violent political movement that revels in hurting people and destroying property.

3. Racist: The fact they are a movement based entirely on the idea that race is the primary determinant of a persons character and fate in life. It's literally in their name.