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

[Purpelia]

It will be "enough" when those politicians begin doing something about the problems in policing. You think passing some new laws will stop this? No, only meeting the protesters' demands will stop this.

Just to be 100% clear. Did you just say that violent protests that hurt people and cause property damage are acceptable and that it is acceptable for them to continue until their demands are met?

[Nobel Hobos 2]

It will be "enough" when those politicians begin doing something about the problems in policing. You think passing some new laws will stop this? No, only meeting the protesters' demands will stop this.

Just to be 100% clear. Did you just say that violent protests that hurt people and cause property damage are acceptable and that it is acceptable for them to continue until their demands are met?

No.

[Purpelia]

Just to be 100% clear. Did you just say that violent protests that hurt people and cause property damage are acceptable and that it is acceptable for them to continue until their demands are met?

No.

Ok. Good. I had to check because that's what I got from your post but English is not my first language and it sounded crazy enough of an opinion to have that, whilst I would not put past the people here to have, I still did not want to assume was such without confirmation. And good thing I didn't assume it.

[Glorious Hong Kong]

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.

Also the fact that the founders of the BLM organization (not to be confused with the wider movement) identify as "trained Marxists" who seek to abolish capitalism. BLM was literally founded on Marxist principles. But again, the CCP isn't involved in any way despite sharing the same ideology. The video literally covers this about 7 1/2 minutes in.

(Image)

If whites are so racist and hateful towards blacks as BLM makes it seem then why is the percentage of blacks being murdered by whites so small? There are so many statistics that can be shown to support the idea that white people are not as racist as they are made out to be.

https://www.dailywire.com/news/7-statis ... on-bandler

Data shows that 93 percent of black homicide victims are killed by other blacks.

Perhaps the Florida governor know this and that is a reason he is not so supportive of the protests because he knows that there is no excuse for looting or attacking innocent drivers in this cause of 'anti-racism.'

Hey, mind if I add your links to my sig? This one and the PJMedia one?

[Eukaryotic Cells]

Normally, running over somebody is considered assault with a deadly weapon. Sometimes states have special vehicular assault laws. You need to show that you were reasonably acting in self-defense (or defense of others) in order to avoid liability. What does this bill change about that?

[Vassenor]

If it's not to be confused with the wider movement why are you using it as evidence that the wider movement is Marxist?

Then again I still dont get why you see people being equal as a bad thing.

[The Rich Port]

Normally, running over somebody is considered assault with a deadly weapon. Sometimes states have special vehicular assault laws. You need to show that you were acting in self-defense in order to avoid liability. What does this bill change about that?

DeSantis is a Trump follower who doesn't have an original or good thought to himself, you're giving him too much credit.

[Purpelia]

Also the fact that the founders of the BLM organization (not to be confused with the wider movement) identify as "trained Marxists" who seek to abolish capitalism. BLM was literally founded on Marxist principles. But again, the CCP isn't involved in any way despite sharing the same ideology. The video literally covers this about 7 1/2 minutes in.?

I can't watch videos now or engage in conspiracy theories without proof, because let's face it even if the CCP was involved you couldn't prove it ever in this political climate. This said, if you are interested in the topic and have a couple hours to burn I would suggest watching this: Yuri Bezmenov - Deception Was My Job You might find it most interesting. And it is most definitively topical to the discussion.

[Greed and Death]

The law does not legalize running people over even if they are blocking traffic. What the proposed law does is provide drivers with a clear defense to liability if they are threated by a mob.

It is worth noting the majority of protesters hit occur after protesters swarm a car that is trying to drive through a gap in the protest lines where the driver then hits the gas because he fears for his safety.

In most instances self defense statutes apply but a clear cut law specially for this type of incident would be useful

[Greed and Death]

Normally, running over somebody is considered assault with a deadly weapon. Sometimes states have special vehicular assault laws. You need to show that you were reasonably acting in self-defense (or defense of others) in order to avoid liability. What does this bill change about that?

Running someone over intentionally still would be assault. The proposed law only clarifies when a driver may escape a bad situation ie they are threatened by a mob. Most instances covered under this law are covered under existing self defense law.

[Stylan]

Disgusting.

[Freiheit Reich]

Because I support the police and I believe all lives matter, not just white or black ones. Most police officers are only moderately paid for a very hard (at least hard in big cities) and mostly thankless job. They get insulted constantly and they are called racist by liberal elites. They are handcuffed from doing their jobs by liberal big city mayors.

In other words, you don't give a fuck about people being beaten or killed by police.

If it was White Lives Matter doing all the protests, you'd be just as much against them, correct?

Try reading a book about the NYPD and realize how much training they go through and how much thinking they have to do every day in their job. Yeah, a few police officers are corrupt and racist but we can say the same about every profession, even respected professions like politicians, judges, and church leaders. It is really sad how ignorant most BLM protesters are when it comes to knowing what the police go through.

I am glad at least a few politicians are standing up to the decent citizens that are being terrorized by BLM protesters and saying 'enough is enough.'

It will be "enough" when those politicians begin doing something about the problems in policing. You think passing some new laws will stop this? No, only meeting the protesters' demands will stop this.

As to why the police should be the first to have racism purged from their ranks: because they have discretion in when to apply and when not to apply the law. Because they go armed on the streets of every city. And because they have near-perfect immunity to commit crimes including murder. They are the absolute worst part of society you want exercising systemic racism.

Yes, I would be against the protesters if they were 'white lives matter' protesters because I think we should be more of a colorblind society. I am definitely against looters and violent protesters and think it is fine if they are beaten or run over if they are threatening innocent drivers. The looters are a menace to society and it is a guarantee that many of them will commit a lot more mischief before they reach age 45-50 (when many criminals settle down and commit crimes at much lower rates).

Plenty of police officers are punished if they attack innocent people and show racist behavior. This is not 1960 and I doubt many police officers are in the KKK these days.

[Freiheit Reich]

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.

Also the fact that the founders of the BLM organization (not to be confused with the wider movement) identify as "trained Marxists" who seek to abolish capitalism. BLM was literally founded on Marxist principles. But again, the CCP isn't involved in any way despite sharing the same ideology. The video literally covers this about 7 1/2 minutes in.

If whites are so racist and hateful towards blacks as BLM makes it seem then why is the percentage of blacks being murdered by whites so small? There are so many statistics that can be shown to support the idea that white people are not as racist as they are made out to be.

https://www.dailywire.com/news/7-statis ... on-bandler

Data shows that 93 percent of black homicide victims are killed by other blacks.

Perhaps the Florida governor know this and that is a reason he is not so supportive of the protests because he knows that there is no excuse for looting or attacking innocent drivers in this cause of 'anti-racism.'

Hey, mind if I add your links to my sig? This one and the PJMedia one?

Yes, you can add the links. No problem.

[Ifreann]

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.

With a law like this in place, the police would have a perfect excuse not to arrest someone who runs over anti-police protesters. Prosecutors would have a perfect excuse not to press charges. The finer points of how asserting an affirmative defence works in court don't matter if the perpetrator is allowed to go free and the case never gets to court, which is probably exactly the idea.

[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.

The thing is that violence only occurs when the system is not responding to a social issue. Both in HK and with BLM, a social issue is not being properly addressed if not a blind eye being turned to it. Although HK didn't start out as such both essentially faced an unaccountable police force using violence and then the state essentially backing them in that violence.

Here the state is backing citizen use of violence, which really only encourages citizen participation. If you don't want to be affected by protests then stay away from them, don't drive around in them, take guns along to them.. let the police handle it and the state should very much be ensuring the police handle it within the law.

In HK the CCPs response was not to address the issue but to clamp down on dissent, blame everything on the protests, insinuate foreign forces were driving it, allow the police to continue with violence. In the US they seem to be actively encouraging and protecting citizen involvement.

We had a year of protests in HK, where I wanted to I could stay well clear of them, and they would have remained peaceful if the state didn't use violence to disperse them.

Normally any protest is upfront about where they're happening, so just stay away from them.

However, more specifically, 'charges for donating to protests that result in property damage'. - that's similar to what they did here, made donating to protests illegal.. because who can tell if they're going to turn violent or not, it's almost making donating to contentious causes illegal.

And what does this have to do with cars?

[Glorious Hong Kong]

Also the fact that the founders of the BLM organization (not to be confused with the wider movement) identify as "trained Marxists" who seek to abolish capitalism. BLM was literally founded on Marxist principles. But again, the CCP isn't involved in any way despite sharing the same ideology. The video literally covers this about 7 1/2 minutes in.



Hey, mind if I add your links to my sig? This one and the PJMedia one?

Yes, you can add the links. No problem.

Cool. Thanks.

[Insaanistan]

This is America.

[Atheris]

Isn't this unconstitutional? The first amendment legalizes freedom of assembly and petition.

[Ethel mermania]

Isn't this unconstitutional? The first amendment legalizes freedom of assembly and petition.

No.

[The Emerald Legion]

Also how does "police need to stop killing people based just on the colour of their skin" constitute defining a person's worth by their race? If anything it's the opposite.

Because frankly from an outsiders perspective they are. At best, they are missing the point entirely. And at worst they are demonstrating that they don't care just as long as you leave their race alone. That's how.

Fundamentally racism is not the primary cause of the american situation. Yes, it is definitively a thing and it is definitively a contributing factor. And yes, black people are likely at the receiving end of police violence because of it. But fundamentally it's the police violence that is the problem more than the racism. And that police violence is the result of deeper social and economic issues.

Yes, you have parts of your country where the police is killing people left and right and generally acting like a violent oppressive occupation force. This is something that has been primarily caused by your gun culture, massive proliferation of firearms and the collapse of your middle class economy which leaves far too many people of all races without hope of achieving the american dream that everyone in your culture is indoctrinated into striving for. This leaves you with a huge population of working poor and essentially the same conditions seen in 19th century western Europe. And your police is naturally turning to the same means with similarly bad results.

And it is these things that are the primary problem. If your society did not have these problems but retained the mass racism you might well be in a situation where said racism ends up being noticed in such grievous acts as having black people being less likely to be let off a traffic fine with a warning as opposed to what you have now where they have their children shot in the streets. Which is frankly deplorable, let's be honest.

Fundamentally your society has reached a point where it needs a class revolution and not a race one. You need deep structural reforms to your society, economy and culture. That is the only thing that is going to solve these issues at a fundamental level. And hopefully you will realize this and enact some sort of reform before either comes to pass. Because take it from someone from the continent where they happen every few years. Revolutions suck.

Not really. It's an interesting thing to notice, but Racism and police brutality are rather Uniquely issues that crop up under Democrats.

Why? Because the Democrats are A.) Racists who stir up racial tension to get into power. B.) Authoritarians.

[Insaanistan]

:!:

Because frankly from an outsiders perspective they are. At best, they are missing the point entirely. And at worst they are demonstrating that they don't care just as long as you leave their race alone. That's how.

Fundamentally racism is not the primary cause of the american situation. Yes, it is definitively a thing and it is definitively a contributing factor. And yes, black people are likely at the receiving end of police violence because of it. But fundamentally it's the police violence that is the problem more than the racism. And that police violence is the result of deeper social and economic issues.

Yes, you have parts of your country where the police is killing people left and right and generally acting like a violent oppressive occupation force. This is something that has been primarily caused by your gun culture, massive proliferation of firearms and the collapse of your middle class economy which leaves far too many people of all races without hope of achieving the american dream that everyone in your culture is indoctrinated into striving for. This leaves you with a huge population of working poor and essentially the same conditions seen in 19th century western Europe. And your police is naturally turning to the same means with similarly bad results.

And it is these things that are the primary problem. If your society did not have these problems but retained the mass racism you might well be in a situation where said racism ends up being noticed in such grievous acts as having black people being less likely to be let off a traffic fine with a warning as opposed to what you have now where they have their children shot in the streets. Which is frankly deplorable, let's be honest.

Fundamentally your society has reached a point where it needs a class revolution and not a race one. You need deep structural reforms to your society, economy and culture. That is the only thing that is going to solve these issues at a fundamental level. And hopefully you will realize this and enact some sort of reform before either comes to pass. Because take it from someone from the continent where they happen every few years. Revolutions suck.

Not really. It's an interesting thing to notice, but Racism and police brutality are rather Uniquely issues that crop up under Democrats.

Why? Because the Democrats are A.) Racists who stir up racial tension to get into power. B.) Authoritarians.

Yeah... no. Not true, dude.

[The Emerald Legion]

:!:

Not really. It's an interesting thing to notice, but Racism and police brutality are rather Uniquely issues that crop up under Democrats.

Why? Because the Democrats are A.) Racists who stir up racial tension to get into power. B.) Authoritarians.

Yeah... no. Not true, dude.

Why are all of the top 5 places in the USA for police brutality Democrat strongholds then? Why do they make race and race based issues their literal calling card issue?

[Insaanistan]

Yeah... no. Not true, dude.

Why are all of the top 5 places in the USA for police brutality Democrat strongholds then? Why do they make race and race based issues their literal calling card issue?

Answer to the first question: Because Democrat governors don’t make cities and all their inhabitants magically liberal or even Democrats, and police brutality is a problem that is systemic and systematic, not across party lines.
Answer to second question: Because Democrats are more likely to take issue with police brutality and racism than Republicans, whereas Republicans recently showed they were okay with electing a conspiracy theorist who think Hollywood and the Democrats are running a secret child sex ring, all Muslims are terrorists and all Jews are bad, Trump is secretly valiantly leading a war against the Democrat “Deep State” and that any time a white gunman shoots a place up it’s actually a set up by “Islamic” terrorists to make white people look bad; ya know, the lady who the FBI literally has said is a possible terrorist threat. But she’s white and “Christian” and Republican, so it’s all good.

[The Emerald Legion]

Why are all of the top 5 places in the USA for police brutality Democrat strongholds then? Why do they make race and race based issues their literal calling card issue?

Answer to the first question: Because Democrat governors don’t make cities and all their inhabitants magically liberal or even Democrats, and police brutality is a problem that is systemic and systematic, not across party lines.
Answer to second question: Because Democrats are more likely to take issue with police brutality and racism than Republicans, whereas Republicans recently showed they were okay with electing a conspiracy theorist who think Hollywood and the Democrats are running a secret child sex ring, all Muslims are terrorists and all Jews are bad, Trump is secretly valiantly leading a war against the Democrat “Deep State” and that any time a white gunman shoots a place up it’s actually a set up by “Islamic” terrorists to make white people look bad; ya know, the lady who the FBI literally has said is a possible terrorist threat. But she’s white and “Christian” and Republican, so it’s all good.

Ah. So you're from Left Propagandastan then. Because none of what you said is true.

[SD_Film Artists]

Normally, running over somebody is considered assault with a deadly weapon. Sometimes states have special vehicular assault laws. You need to show that you were reasonably acting in self-defense (or defense of others) in order to avoid liability. What does this bill change about that?

It doesn't have to be intentionally killing someone to death by running them over; it could simply mean having the right to drive away from a crowd which is assaulting your vehicle. I'm thinking of something like the police car in Sacramento.

*police car taps the accelerator to warn the protester because the sirens apparently aren't enough*

*protester keeps doing stupid shit*

"Oh maaaah gawud...oh maaah gaawud........"