Arizona Senate Votes to Seize Assets of Those Who Plan, Participate In Protests That Turn Violent

a reply to: watchitburn

I linked the bill directly in a later post. As per that link, riot is defined as:

A. A person commits riot if, with two or more other persons acting together, such person recklessly uses force or violence or threatens to use force or violence, if such threat is accompanied by immediate power of execution, which either disturbs the public peace or results in damage to the property of another person.

Regardless, asset seizure is entirely wrong in most cases and the justifications for such need to be narrowed, not broadened. Further this makes it far too easy for protest to be shut down.

Say there's a protest against abortion happening in front of your City Hall... all a pro-choice advocate needs to do is stand among the protesters and smash a bottle or light a trash barrel on fire and anyone at the protest is subject to arrest and asset seizure. Is that a road you really want to pave?

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: intrptr

Speaking of racketeering, right?

Exactly. Under RICO (Wiki),

The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, commonly referred to as the RICO Act or simply RICO, is a United States federal law that provides for extended criminal penalties and a civil cause of action for acts performed as part of an ongoing criminal organization. The RICO Act focuses specifically on racketeering, and it allows the leaders of a syndicate to be tried for the crimes which they ordered others to do or assisted them in doing, closing a perceived loophole that allowed a person who instructed someone else to, for example, murder, to be exempt from the trial because he did not actually commit the crime personally.

Perfect example of the legislators (the syndicate) instructing law enforcement to confiscate (legally steal) personal property without due process, not actually committing the crime themselves.

Bunch a legalese they use against us but are exempt from themselves.

Good use what they seize to pay the costs of the damages they cause and to cover the costs of arresting and jailing them .

I am pretty sure even the right wing on here (for the most part) agree this bill is F ed up.

What has me in a bit of stupor is the elected officials that do not seem to have a sense of the constitution. Just how did they get their positions? Shouldn't they at least have an understanding of the constitution?

I hope the people of Arizona take note of those who signed such a trash bill and make sure they no longer keep their positions come next election.

a reply to: Kali74
And just think, 1 Agent Provocateur managed by them can create the necessary chaos.

a reply to: seeker1963

And not for nothing? If you are there to protest peacefully and these clowns show up to agitate? You have 2 options, shut them down OR leave! If you hang out to watch them or join in? Then you go down with them!

True ...its a simple judgment call ...As simple as if its going to rain and you don't want to get wet then go inside .That is what turns me off to protesting ...being in the wrong spot at the wrong time for all the right reasons ...Makes me think of these fools that go to live with wild grizzlies and get attacked ...

a reply to: intrptr

People are fine with it when it's not their stuff being taken. Once it is, watch them howl.

That's all, just wanted to say that

a reply to: Vector99

I have to agree with you there,lived in Ahwatukee for 2 years,after living in Calif,was like living in the wild west,it averages about 100 degrees there,I think the sun got to some

a reply to: Kali74

Americans think they had it bad under British Rule.

This proposal is more Draconian than the 1714 " Riot Act " which along with The U.K. also covered her colonies.

The penalty for causing damage to property during Riot was for the property owner to claim compensation through the courts ( and had a limited time to do so ) Personal property of a rioter could not be seized.

Also before any action could be taken by law enforcement the " Riot Act " had to be read aloud to rioters as to give them 1 hour to disperse before any action could be taken.

originally posted by: the2ofusr1
a reply to: seeker1963

And not for nothing? If you are there to protest peacefully and these clowns show up to agitate? You have 2 options, shut them down OR leave! If you hang out to watch them or join in? Then you go down with them!

True ...its a simple judgment call ...As simple as if its going to rain and you don't want to get wet then go inside .That is what turns me off to protesting ...being in the wrong spot at the wrong time for all the right reasons ...Makes me think of these fools that go to live with wild grizzlies and get attacked ...

That is what these people who peacefully protest do not realize. They are a COVER for those like Antifa and these other Bolshevik groups to enact their violence!

With out the peaceful protestors do you think these cowards would be out their setting fires and assaulting "Nazi's"? No they wouldn't! So for those of you who have the right to peacefully protest, you have 2 choices! Shut these asshats down or get out of dodge! If you become a spectator to the violence these dirt bags instigate, whether you are just watching OR standing their encouraging them, don't be shocked when you find yourself behind bars!

It's that simple!

a reply to: Grimpachi

What has me in a bit of stupor is the elected officials that do not seem to have a sense of the constitution. Just how did they get their positions? Shouldn't they at least have an understanding of the constitution?

Maybe they do understand it a bit and not enough ...If they made the law very clear that anyone participating in a not so peaceful way and actually were in violation of that right for other people to do so they could be sent to prison for lets just say 10 years it might send a message . Its not only the job of the Govt. to protect those rights but the people that are protesting too ...Maybe a coarse in the responsibility of the peaceful protester ...A protesters card is in order ...abuse it you loose it ...

a reply to: cenpuppie

People are fine with it when it's not their stuff being taken. Once it is, watch them howl.

Thats changing. How much blood can you squeeze from a Turnip? These kind of seizure laws directly violate the Bill of Rights, something people already demonstrate about in protests.

Now they are going to take your assets for showing up to protest? Whats next? Illegal parking, spitting on the sidewalk?

The funniest example of this overboard kind of 'policing' is Officer Bubbles...

a reply to: Kali74

I actually read the bill's proposed changes to the already-existing laws--your OP is misrepresenting the reality of the law.

Here is the fact sheet describing exactly what the proposed changes are and will do, but just for ease of reading:

Provisions

1. Adds riot to the specified acts defined as racketeering.

2. Stipulates an overt act is not required as proof of a riot offense.

3. Expands the definition of riot to include immediate power of execution which results in damage to the property of another person.

Basically, what this bill really does is says that if you riot (not peacefully protest, like the misleading quotes in the OP state) and cause harm to a person or an individual's property (both illegal acts, which means that you are no longer exercising your right to peacefully protest, and instead are engaging in criminal activity), and it can be proven that you conspired to do so, you can now be charged under RICO statutes.

The whole "even before anything happens" claim is true, but misleading in its implication--like I noted, there has to be a proven conspiracy involved to have intended to a rioting action before this law applies to anyone. Period.

Could it lead to arrests that yield no convictions? Sure, but so does every other law on the books. The point is, though, this now adds an extra level of deterrence to groups of people who are increasingly brazen and purposeful in their riotous acts, and it enables harsher punishments for those who conspire to do so, even if they don't follow through with the action (apparently).

But like in any stated, "conspiracy to commit [insert crime here]" is a punishable crime--this just ups the cost of conspiring to riot, and honestly, I'm okay with that.

The whole argument that if you're in a protest that turns violent, you can be charged under this law, is just a massive sack of BS, at least as it is written. How it will be enforced, though, waits to be seen (assuming that it is signed into law). It appears to have been in the works for a while now, so who knows if it will pass.



ETA: I do disagree that this is necessarily RICO material, but I do applaud the state for approaching the subject with harsher available penalties.

a reply to: Kali74

This is going to quickly be shot down by the courts. First Amendment is clear on the matter when it comes to protesting.

They should seize the assets only on the ones shown to push or participate in violence. They can't be freezing anyone's assets before they do something wrong or if they are only peacefully protesting.

The problem is that the instigators usually fire up people from the sidelines and do not actually get in the action much of the time. Like the leaders in ancient wars, they watch the fight from on top of the hill and give orders. You need to locate these instigators, usually they deny any responsibility and their followers protect them from getting caught many times.

We have been conditioned to do this, it is a military tactic, the generals are not in the war fighting most times. This conditioning is engraved into most societies world wide now.

We need to focus on protesting real things, these bickering protests take away from the protests we should be concentrating on. I cannot see why half the protests are happening anymore, Trump has been elected president, we must work together on fixing things right, not fight each other. We have more chance of fixing really needed things with this administration that with Obama or Bush. The NWO is not even viable. We all become slaves under that with the laziest of people running things and the hardest workers working risky and health hurting jobs getting no more than those who serve burgers.

Back on track, I do know that we need to stop all this petty sour grape protesting but we have to reserve the right for peaceful protest too.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

That RICO addition is a great addition 5th column stuff is a tactic that people like Soros is known for .He might have to change his tune eh ..

a reply to: Krazysh0t

This is going to quickly be shot down by the courts. First Amendment is clear on the matter when it comes to protesting.

The courts would have no problem in adding the word "peaceful" to your statement and agreeing that all other types that cause harm can and will be prosecuted under the law .Even if it means redefining the law so every one has to be on board and protected .

a reply to: the2ofusr1

Rioting is already illegal under different aspects of the law. This is clearly an attempt to suppress our First Amendment rights because the right can't deal with protesters.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

The language of the bill is plenty loose enough to back the claim of the article. Note how they define riot.

The era of pre-crime



Good Times ahead!

P.S

What Arizona is doing is wrong and dangerous .