The right to protest (ie: issue in AZ)

[Trunk]

http://azcapitoltimes.com/news/2017/02/22/arizona-senate-crackdown-on-protests/

Arizona Senate votes to seize assets of those who plan, participate in protests that turn violent

[Taomeow]

 

http://azcapitoltimes.com/news/2017/02/22/arizona-senate-crackdown-on-protests/

Arizona Senate votes to seize assets of those who plan, participate in protests that turn violent

 

 

Three years ago, I watched in total disbelief what a "peaceful protest" in the main square in Kiev (which I remember very well as the vibrant and beautiful site of my first kiss, many moons ago) was turning into.  Was being relentlessly and unstoppably turned into, to be precise.  A civil war later, tens of thousands of deaths later, three million refugees later, tens of millions of critically impoverished citizens later, and no one of the parties involved getting what they wanted regardless of whatever it was they wanted or got, with the exception of a handful of profiteering scoundrels (as usual), I don't have to question the usefulness of such activities.  I know what they're pregnant with.  So, if the law is aimed at preventing the birth of yet another out-of-control monster of the same species as the one that was born in that square, I don't think it's all bad.  You never know though...  politicians are not to be trusted.  But to disrupt a mechanism that's been relentlessly and unstoppably disrupting country after country into total one-way-street chaos might not be such a bad idea.  Perhaps the methods are not ideal.  Whoever has the ideal method, I'd love to hear from them.

[Marblehead]

 

http://azcapitoltimes.com/news/2017/02/22/arizona-senate-crackdown-on-protests/

Arizona Senate votes to seize assets of those who plan, participate in protests that turn violent

 

 

Well, I was going to say that this is going way too far but after reading Taomeow's post I just don't know what to say.

 

Sometimes we have to stand up and say "Enough is enough."

[liminal_luke]

 

http://azcapitoltimes.com/news/2017/02/22/arizona-senate-crackdown-on-protests/

Arizona Senate votes to seize assets of those who plan, participate in protests that turn violent

 

 

Phoenix might be more peaceful if merely participating in an organized protest becomes a crime, but it will no longer be a part -- in a spiritual, values-based sense -- of America.

[Brian]

There are some who are coordinating and financing, in country after country, civil unrest and violence in the streets for the express purpose of destroying the civil society in the belief (perhaps, if I give them the benefit of the doubt) that utopia will rise from the ashes. I don't say this as speculation or opinion or late-night philosophizing -- and I honestly don't expect many to believe me -- but I state it as fact.

 

If consequences are imposed for violence in the streets, perhaps it will discourage some. Unfortunately, many of those taking to the streets in violence are little more than children who are being misled.

[Brian]

Phoenix might be more peaceful if merely participating in an organized protest becomes a crime, but it will no longer be a part -- in a spiritual, values-based sense -- of America.

Peaceful protests are not violent.

 

The right of the people peaceably to assemble does not include violence and destruction, even if you are really mad.

Edited February 24, 2017 by Brian

[liminal_luke]

There are some who are coordinating and financing, in country after country, civil unrest and violence in the streets for the express purpose of destroying the civil society in the belief (perhaps, if I give them the benefit of the doubt) that utopia will rise from the ashes. I don't say this as speculation or opinion or late-night philosophizing -- and I honestly don't expect many to believe me -- but I state it as fact.

 

If consequences are imposed for violence in the streets, perhaps it will discourage some. Unfortunately, many of those taking to the streets in violence are little more than children who are being misled.

 

 Political protests are like McDonalds hamburgers. If you delve too deeply into the backstory of that burger, you`re not gonna want to finish your meal.  In any case, it`s a lousy way to spend your lunch hour.  So yes: I believe you.

 

But is it a crime?  For most people involved, I`d say no.  The teenager taking your order for minimum wage isn`t committing a crime.  The single mom treating her kid to a "happy" meal isn`t committing a crime.  Using really bad judgment maybe...I`d buy that.  There`s probably a real crime somewhere if we zoom out far enough to get a picture of the actual corporate decision makers at the tippy top, but those people don`t come anywhere near the franchise.

 

Let`s agree that "many of those taking to the streets are little more than children who are being misled."  That`s messed up and very sad.  It`s also not a crime.

Edited February 24, 2017 by liminal_luke

[liminal_luke]

Peaceful protests are not violent.

 

The right of the people peaceably to assemble does not include violence and destruction, even if you are really mad.

 

 

Of course.  Perhaps I misread.  Aren`t they talking about making it illegal to participate in a protest that becomes violent, even if the participant himself is not acting violently?  Like making it illegal to be at a bar if a fight breaks out?  I say sure, lets deal with the people who are actually fighting, swiftly and decisively.   Let`s not make it illegal to be drinking a beer when it goes down.

 

Are you saying that we ought to use the law to dissuade potential protesters from attending an event because there`s a chance someone else might be violent?

Edited February 24, 2017 by liminal_luke

[Brian]

Of course. Perhaps I misread. Aren`t they talking about making it illegal to participate in a protest that becomes violent, even if the participant himself is not acting violently? Like making it illegal to be at a bar if a fight breaks out? I say sure, lets deal with the people who are actually fighting, swiftly and decisively. Let`s not make it illegal to be drinking a beer when it goes down.

 

Are you saying that we ought to use the law to dissuade potential protesters from attending an event because there`s a chance someone else might be violent?

Here's the Bill:

http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/53leg/1R/bills/SB1142S.htm

 

The primary change is adding "Riot" to this list:

(a) Terrorism, animal terrorism or ecological terrorism that results or is intended to result in a risk of serious physical injury or death.

(b ) RIOT.

(c ) Any of the following acts if committed for financial gain:

(i) Homicide.

(ii) Robbery.

(iii) Kidnapping.

(iv) Forgery.

(v) Theft.

(vi) Bribery.

(vii) Gambling.

(viii) Usury.

(ix) Extortion.

(x) Extortionate extensions of credit.

(xi) Prohibited drugs, marijuana or other prohibited chemicals or substances.

(xii) Trafficking in explosives, weapons or stolen property.

(xiii) Participating in a criminal syndicate.

(xiv) Obstructing or hindering criminal investigations or prosecutions.

(xv) Asserting false claims, including, but not limited to, false claims asserted through fraud or arson.

(xvi) Intentional or reckless false statements or publications concerning land for sale or lease or sale of subdivided lands or sale and mortgaging of unsubdivided lands.

(xvii) Resale of realty with intent to defraud.

(xviii) Intentional or reckless fraud in the purchase or sale of securities.

(xix) Intentional or reckless sale of unregistered securities or real property securities.

(xx) A scheme or artifice to defraud.

(xxi) Obscenity.

(xxii) Sexual exploitation of a minor.

(xxiii) Prostitution.

(xxiv) Restraint of trade or commerce in violation of section 34‑252.

(xxv) Terrorism.

(xxvi) Money laundering.

(xxvii) Obscene or indecent telephone communications to minors for commercial purposes.

(xxviii) Counterfeiting marks as proscribed in section 44‑1453.

(xxix) Animal terrorism or ecological terrorism.

(xxx) Smuggling of human beings.

(xxxi) Child prostitution.

(xxxii) Sex trafficking.

(xxxiii) Trafficking of persons for forced labor or services.

(xxxiv) Manufacturing, selling or distributing misbranded drugs in violation of section 13‑3406, subsection A, paragraph 9.

Edited February 24, 2017 by Brian

[Marblehead]

Damn!!!  They outlawed prostitution!

[blackstar212]

Here's the Bill:

http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/53leg/1R/bills/SB1142S.htm

 

The primary change is adding "Riot" to this list:

(a) Terrorism, animal terrorism or ecological terrorism that results or is intended to result in a risk of serious physical injury or death.

(b ) RIOT.

(c ) Any of the following acts if committed for financial gain:

(i) Homicide.

(ii) Robbery.

(iii) Kidnapping.

(iv) Forgery.

(v) Theft.

(vi) Bribery.

(vii) Gambling.

(viii) Usury.

(ix) Extortion.

(x) Extortionate extensions of credit.

(xi) Prohibited drugs, marijuana or other prohibited chemicals or substances.

(xii) Trafficking in explosives, weapons or stolen property.

(xiii) Participating in a criminal syndicate.

(xiv) Obstructing or hindering criminal investigations or prosecutions.

(xv) Asserting false claims, including, but not limited to, false claims asserted through fraud or arson.

(xvi) Intentional or reckless false statements or publications concerning land for sale or lease or sale of subdivided lands or sale and mortgaging of unsubdivided lands.

(xvii) Resale of realty with intent to defraud.

(xviii) Intentional or reckless fraud in the purchase or sale of securities.

(xix) Intentional or reckless sale of unregistered securities or real property securities.

(xx) A scheme or artifice to defraud.

(xxi) Obscenity.

(xxii) Sexual exploitation of a minor.

(xxiii) Prostitution.

(xxiv) Restraint of trade or commerce in violation of section 34‑252.

(xxv) Terrorism.

(xxvi) Money laundering.

(xxvii) Obscene or indecent telephone communications to minors for commercial purposes.

(xxviii) Counterfeiting marks as proscribed in section 44‑1453.

(xxix) Animal terrorism or ecological terrorism.

(xxx) Smuggling of human beings.

(xxxi) Child prostitution.

(xxxii) Sex trafficking.

(xxxiii) Trafficking of persons for forced labor or services.

(xxxiv) Manufacturing, selling or distributing misbranded drugs in violation of section 13‑3406, subsection A, paragraph 9.

What a genius clever way to kill the 1st amendment. To boot it is being applauded.

 

It is already against the law to riot. You can count me out of any protests in fear that someone becomes violent and then innocent bystanders are prosecuted.

[Brian]

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

[Brian]

What a genius clever way to kill the 1st amendment. To boot it is being applauded.

 

It is already against the law to riot. You can count me out of any protests in fear that someone becomes violent and then innocent bystanders are prosecuted.

And, if this Bill clears the Arizona House and gets signed into law by the Arizona Governor, planning a riot (which is already illegal) will be added to the list of conspiracies which are considered by the State of Arizona to be "racketeering" --along with things like human trafficking and attempting to sell someone the Golden Gate Bridge.

 

Help me understand how increasing the potential penalty for something which is already a crime would "kill the 1st amendment"? If you attend a peaceful demonstration, this wouldn't apply. If you attend a peaceful protest and violence breaks out but you aren't involved, this wouldn't apply. If you attend a peaceful protest and you are an active participant in violence which breaks out, this wouldn't apply. If you organize a peaceful demonstration, this wouldn't apply. If you organize a peaceful protest and violence breaks out but you aren't involved, this wouldn't apply. If you organize a peaceful protest and you are an active participant in violence which breaks out, this wouldn't apply. If, on the other hand, you are convicted of organizing a RIOT, you would now (assuming this becomes law in Arizona) risk more than a fine and jail time in Arizona.

[blackstar212]

And, if this Bill clears the Arizona House and gets signed into law by the Arizona Governor, planning a riot (which is already illegal) will be added to the list of conspiracies which are considered by the State of Arizona to be "racketeering" --along with things like human trafficking and attempting to sell someone the Golden Gate Bridge.

 

Help me understand how increasing the potential penalty for something which is already a crime would "kill the 1st amendment"? If you attend a peaceful demonstration, this wouldn't apply. If you attend a peaceful protest and violence breaks out but you aren't involved, this wouldn't apply. If you attend a peaceful protest and you are an active participant in violence which breaks out, this wouldn't apply. If you organize a peaceful demonstration, this wouldn't apply. If you organize a peaceful protest and violence breaks out but you aren't involved, this wouldn't apply. If you organize a peaceful protest and you are an active participant in violence which breaks out, this wouldn't apply. If, on the other hand, you are convicted of organizing a RIOT, you would now (assuming this becomes law in Arizona) risk more than a fine and jail time in Arizona.

http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/news/plan-a-protest-lose-your-house-arizona-senate-passes-sb-1142-charging-provocateurs-with-racketeering-9109154

 

Its in the way it is worded.

[blackstar212]

Here in this article it explains it in greater detail.

 

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2017/02/23/arizona_protest_racketeering_law_passes_state_senate.html

 

 

The ACLU will get involved in this. I plan a peaceful protest and someone else come and starts violence I can be charged with a crime of organizing a riot. LOL it will stifle the 1st amendment. IMO it violates it.

[Brian]

http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/news/plan-a-protest-lose-your-house-arizona-senate-passes-sb-1142-charging-provocateurs-with-racketeering-9109154

 

Its in the way it is worded.

I posted the way it is worded. Literally the way it is worded, as in the actual words of the Bill itself. Did your read it?

[Brian]

Here in this article it explains it in greater detail.

 

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2017/02/23/arizona_protest_racketeering_law_passes_state_senate.html

 

 

The ACLU will get involved in this. I plan a peaceful protest and someone else come and starts violence I can be charged with a crime of organizing a riot. LOL it will stifle the 1st amendment. IMO it violates it.

Nope.

 

You plan a church picnic and a prostitute you've never seen before shows up and asks the preacher if he'd like to have a party in his car -- are you likely to be convicted of conspiracy to run a prostitution ring?

[blackstar212]

Nope.

 

You plan a church picnic and a prostitute you've never seen before shows up and asks the preacher if he'd like to have a party in his car -- are you likely to be convicted of conspiracy to run a prostitution ring?

well if you have a law like the one above then yes, a definitive yes.

[blackstar212]

I posted the way it is worded. Literally the way it is worded, as in the actual words of the Bill itself. Did your read it?

Yes and tell me if I organize a protest and others show up and cause violence how will the authorities know whether I planned it or not? HMMMMMMMMM?

 

OH OH I know I know. They will arrest my ass and do an investigation. This is against the 1st amendment.

[Brian]

Yes and tell me if I organize a protest and others show up and cause violence how will the authorities know whether I planned it or not? HMMMMMMMMM?

 

OH OH I know I know. They will arrest my ass and do an investigation. This is against the 1st amendment.

Is that really the way you think law enforcement works? They arrest your ass, charge you with a felony and THEN do an investigation??? You honestly ought to learn something about that of which you speak.

 

The law right now makes it illegal to plan a riot. The proposed law moves that offense from one category of felony to another category which allows for greater penalty for those cases in which a pattern of systematic conspiracy has been proven in a court of law.

 

You haven't bothered to read the actual Bill, have you?

Edited February 24, 2017 by Brian

[blackstar212]

Is that really the way you think law enforcement works? They arrest your ass, charge you with a felony and THEN do an investigation??? You honestly ought to learn something about that of which you speak.

 

The law right now makes it illegal to plan a riot. The proposed law moves that offense from one category of felony to another category which allows for greater penalty for those cases in which a pattern of systematic conspiracy has been proven in a court of law.

 

You haven't bothered to read the actual Bill, have you?

I did read it.

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/25/business/media/journalists-arrested-trump-inauguration.html?_r=0

 

Tell these people your theory of how it works.

 

How about this one.

 

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/02/18/10-years-in-jail-and-still-no-trial-for-murder-suspect.html

 

Yeah tell me about how this works.

 

Now it works like this. Guilty until proven innocent.

[Brian]

I did read it.

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/25/business/media/journalists-arrested-trump-inauguration.html?_r=0

 

Tell these people your theory of how it works.

 

How about this one.

 

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/02/18/10-years-in-jail-and-still-no-trial-for-murder-suspect.html

 

Yeah tell me about how this works.

 

Now it works like this. Guilty until proven innocent.

Did you read the sequence of events surrounding the Dothan case? Highly unusual and very unfortunate.

 

Did you happen to click the links provided for the journalists in that NYTimes article?

[liminal_luke]

I`m no lawyer, but that bill is a little confusing to me.  If it really means that people who the state proves have "conspired to riot" are guilty, I`m all for it.  My concern is that it might be used to discourage Joe Schmo on the street from peacefully protesting.  The wording that seems ambiguous to me is in section B: "has reason to know."  Everyone knows, or has reason to know, that protests can turn violent.  This is true of pretty much all protests.  Sometimes it`s even violence instigated by people who have infiltrated a group from "the other side" -- or at least so I`ve heard.  There`s a potential for violence, for instance, at Trump rallies.  I have reason to know it.  

 

But if it`s really intended only to prosecute people who plan violence, I`m all for it.  Go Arizona!

 

A.  A person commits conspiracy if, with the intent to promote or aid the commission of an offense, such person agrees with one or more persons that at least one of them or another person will engage in conduct constituting the offense and one of the parties commits an overt act in furtherance of the offense, except that an overt act shall not be required if the object of the conspiracy was to commit any felony upon ON the person of another, or to commit an offense under section 13‑1508, or 13‑1704 OR 13‑2903.

B.  If a person guilty of conspiracy, as defined in subsection A of this section, knows or has reason to know that a person with whom such person conspires to commit an offense has conspired with another person or persons to commit the same offense, such person is guilty of conspiring to commit the offense with such other person or persons, whether or not such person knows their identity.

Edited February 24, 2017 by liminal_luke

[MooNiNite]

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

 

The problem is that the police will start "crowd controlling" by doing things that are seriously not OK. 

 

Like maybe spraying water at people when it is freezing cold out.

 

These types of "people management", especially when the crowd gets too big, instigate "unpeaceful responses" from the people.

 

So the people are really at a huge disadvantage. 

[Brian]

The problem is that the police will start "crowd controlling" by doing things that are seriously not OK. 

 

Like maybe spraying water at people when it is freezing cold out.

 

These types of "people management", especially when the crowd gets too big, instigate "unpeaceful responses" from the people.

 

So the people are really at a huge disadvantage.

By & large, the police do exactly what their publicly elected politicians order them to do. If they are ordered to not arrest violent protestors in Berkley, they don't arrest violent protestors in Berkley. If they are ordered to give protestors room to burn and destroy businesses in Baltimore, they do so. If they are ordered to arrest someone for selling "loosies" on a street corner in NYC, they do it. A law which adds conspiracy to organize a riot to the "racketeering" umbrella won't have any impact on how police address individuals at a protest because that is not at all the scope or meaning of this proposed revision of the law in Arizona.

 

If one is troubled by the systemic behavior of law enforcement in one's vicinity, one should take a hard look at the policymakers calling the tune. (I say "systemic behavior" because individual bad actors don't necessarily reflect those policymakers but it is worth noting that the reaction to those breeches may be such a reflection...)