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

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
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.

One would hope so.

But, then again, you need only look at the views of the person who holds the highest office, and see how he feels about protestors.

a reply to: seeker1963

It's a crime to not stop other people from going off half cocked? I'm shocked at you. Here I thought you considered yourself a "Constitutionalist" or something.

Here we've got some authoritarian asshat in state legislature who is using the specter of "violence" that by historical standards — even recent history — is absolutely tame, in an attempt to suppress legitimate opposition. Period.

Reading through the law, what's being proposed is essentially a framework by which by an agent provocateur can show up at a protest, break a window and get everyone else locked up and possibly have THEIR ASSETS SEIZED?

Your answer? In order to exercise their own civil liberties, to peacefully protest, protesters are obligated to police other people? W-T-F. No. Absolutely not. Guilt by tenuous association? Do you not see how insanely authoritarian that is? FFS. I don't agree with 90% of what you say about politics but if somebody locked you up for speaking your mind in the vicinity of some asshole who smashed a window, I would take to the streets in your defense.

And seizing assets? For what? If I go protest and I don't tackle a guy for throwing a brick through a window, should I not only be locked up but have my assets stolen from me? What's next? Summary execution for protesters and three generations of forced labor for their families?

Seems to me this particular legislator would be more at home in North Korea.

a reply to: Kali74

Okay, I will (even though you already have and still inappropriately classify it as loose language):

13-2903. Riot; classification

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.

B. Riot is a class 5 felony.

No, the language is not at all "plenty loose enough to back the claim of the article."

Look, I've noted this before, and I'll say it again--my years as a paralegal at the federal level, plus my current job where I deal with federal agents and AUSAs concerning their trials and evidence gives me the understanding of legal language to make the claims that I do--I'll trust my interpretation over yours or a journalist's or, quite frankly, the ignorant politicians quoted in the article that cite slippery-slope arguments that don't even conform to the language included in the actual bill.

Case in point (from your linked article):

[Sen. Steve] Farley, however, said the legislation does far more than simply going after those who might incite people to riot, something which actually already is a crime. And he warned Republicans that such a broad law could end up being used against some of their allies.

For example, he said, a “Tea Party’’ group wanting to protest a property tax hike might get permits, publicize the event and have a peaceful demonstration.

“And one person, possibly from the other side, starts breaking the windows of a car,’’ Farley said.

“And all of a sudden the organizers of that march, the local Tea Party, are going to be under indictment from the county attorney in the county that raised those property taxes,’’ he said. “That will have a chilling effect on anybody, right or left, who wants to protest something the government has done.’’

No, they wouldn't be, as the law specifically spells out that there must be shown to be a conspiracy (involving 2 or more people) with the intent to do said action and that one of those people actually did it. It leaves zero ambiguous wording to allow for the indictment of a one-off individual causing problems (although it could at least spark an investigation, which is fine).

Then you have this gem of a politician:

“This idea that people are being paid to come out and do that?’’ [Sen. Katie Hobbs] said. “I’m sorry, but I think that is fake news.’’

No, it's actually been proven on more than one occasion. The "fake news" is the claim by Sen. Steve Farley, which is noted above and comes in the (fake news?) story directly in front of her own quote.

And then the ignorant politicians keep talking:

Sen. Andrea Dalessandro, D-Green Valley, had her own concerns.

“I’m fearful that ‘riot’ is in the eyes of the beholder and that this bill will apply more strictly to minorities and people trying to have their voice heard,’’ she said.

No, Sen. Dalessandro, the term "riot" is plainly defined in the bill and doesn't leave much up to interpretation--it has nothing to do with "the eyes of the beholder."

Kali--this article is alarmism at best, and is (the way over-used term) fake news at worst (I prefer to call it intellectual dishonest...AKA, lying). It's sparking irrational fears amongst people not learned enough in the legal system or in the actual language of the bill, and that does no good for anybody. It's an ideological talking point meant to divide people, plain and simple.

It's a good thing that this law encompasses all ideological sides who decide that rioting is an appropriate option during a protest, and it's good that harsher penalties for doing such lawless behavior is being considered. Why that is controversial escapes me.

originally posted by: theantediluvian
Reading through the law, what's being proposed is essentially a framework by which by an agent provocateur can show up at a protest, break a window and get everyone else locked up and possibly have THEIR ASSETS SEIZED?

No, that's what the article says.

The bill (it's not a law, yet) actually refutes that claim by the quoted politician in pretty plain English.

Don't parrot garbage claims.

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: seeker1963

It's a crime to not stop other people from going off half cocked? I'm shocked at you. Here I thought you considered yourself a "Constitutionalist" or something.

Here we've got some authoritarian asshat in state legislature who is using the specter of "violence" that by historical standards — even recent history — is absolutely tame, in an attempt to suppress legitimate opposition. Period.

Reading through the law, what's being proposed is essentially a framework by which by an agent provocateur can show up at a protest, break a window and get everyone else locked up and possibly have THEIR ASSETS SEIZED?

Your answer? In order to exercise their own civil liberties, to peacefully protest, protesters are obligated to police other people? W-T-F. No. Absolutely not. Guilt by tenuous association? Do you not see how insanely authoritarian that is? FFS. I don't agree with 90% of what you say about politics but if somebody locked you up for speaking your mind in the vicinity of some asshole who smashed a window, I would take to the streets in your defense.

And seizing assets? For what? If I go protest and I don't tackle a guy for throwing a brick through a window, should I not only be locked up but have my assets stolen from me? What's next? Summary execution for protesters and three generations of forced labor for their families?

Seems to me this particular legislator would be more at home in North Korea.

hahahaha

You still confuse peaceful protests with rioting! Perhaps you have a hidden agenda?

Are you drinking red or white today?

Sorry ZE, your post election fanatical rants precedes you!

So, if an agent provocateur is caught in an act of violence at a protest, the people can seize all the assets of the police department? Would that also include the personal property of every member of the police department or just the ones actually attending the protest?

Good, if you riot you lose your house, your car, your bling bling.

Gives incentive not to riot and has nothing to do with lawful protest.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

How does Arizona legally define conspiracy to riot and disturbing the peace?

a reply to: TinfoilTP

So weird that I heard baahing when I read your post.

a reply to: Kali74

Where is the likes of Alex Jones and company on this, I mean we have ppl being rounded up ,check points with uniforms with guns asking for papers please and not a peep...oh wait!! he is now part of the power structure even if it's in an unofficial position.

a reply to: Kali74

This is the end of the sham. The US has been holding onto a failed democracy for years now. The Patriot act, and all further policies are not meant for any enemy except one. The Citizens of the United States Of America.
Democracy and liberty have died, they are about to eat the bones now. Everybody just staring at their phones shaking their head in dismay.

#WakeTheFu@kUp

-ThoughtIsMadness.

a reply to: ThoughtIsMadness

How is America a "failed Democracy"? What exactly has failed about it?

a reply to: Kali74

I agree with the law in spirit, but not how it's currently worded and crafted.

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: TinfoilTP

So weird that I heard baahing when I read your post.

The rule of law defines the unruly, now go sheeple along with the anarchists and their Marxist handlers.

originally posted by: Kali74
Arizona Senate Votes to Seize Assets of Those Who Plan, Participate In Protests That Turn Violent

Any time a politician can steal your wealth, they will make a law enabling themselves to do so, with impunity!

a reply to: Krazysh0t

It is no longer a democracy, it is a corporate oligarchy. They let you vote for a puppet and no wonder look who you put as a leader.

The sheep look at the shepherd and say "he loves us and every once and awhile he takes a few of us away to a better place" believe it.
Trillions in debt
Largest Prison Population on earth
Military Industrial Complex
Federal Reserve Bank
Monsanto
Perpetual War
Liberty is dead

Google any one of them and then come back and say you voted for them. You didn't, cuz it's Bull$h!t and so is democracy.
A Corporate Oligarchy

#StillAsleep

-ThoughtIsMadness

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: SlapMonkey

How does Arizona legally define conspiracy to riot and disturbing the peace?

Well, "conspiracy" is defined in the Senate Fact Sheet for SB1142, to which I linked earlier.

As for the definition of "riot," that is a federal thing, which can be found here (amongst many other places that are just a Google search away)--I could not find an Arizona-specific definition, although one must exist somewhere (and I would assume that it's just an adoption of the federal language).

And concerning "disturbing the peace," that's not what this law is about--it's about rioting, which, as is noted, is a different thing altogether and requires specific amounts of people at minimum; disturbing the peace can be accomplished by one person, whereas rioting can not.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

Thankfully, the Bill did not pass. However...

And concerning "disturbing the peace," that's not what this law is about

Then why is it mentioned?

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.

Actual bill.

Also note the number of people required to commit riot... "with two or more other persons". So three.

originally posted by: ThoughtIsMadness
a reply to: Krazysh0t

It is no longer a democracy, it is a corporate oligarchy. They let you vote for a puppet and no wonder look who you put as a leader.

The sheep look at the shepherd and say "he loves us and every once and awhile he takes a few of us away to a better place" believe it.
Trillions in debt
Largest Prison Population on earth
Military Industrial Complex
Federal Reserve Bank
Monsanto
Perpetual War
Liberty is dead

Google any one of them and then come back and say you voted for them. You didn't, cuz it's Bull$h!t and so is democracy.
A Corporate Oligarchy

#StillAsleep

-ThoughtIsMadness

It must suck to live in your world where everything is scary like this. I don't believe you, by the way.

a reply to: Kali74

I understand all of this--if you understood it, then why did you ask?

Conspiracy proper necessitates only two co-conspirators (at minimum); a riotous act necessitates three or more, as you pointed out and as was noted in the information to which I linked days ago.

However, you only need two people to commit the offense of conspiracy to incite a riot, which is a different charge than rioting proper, and therefore is what does not necessitate that overt actions actually took place, just the planning to commit actions.

Disturbing the peace is relatively self-evident, and just a part of what makes up rioting; it can also be a charge in and of itself, so in order for it to fall under rioting proper, other ingredients, including three or more people disturbing the peace, need to exist to actually fall under the offense of rioting.

Other than just perpetuating this thread discussion, I'm confused as to why you're asking questions to which you have direct access to the answers.