New 'Anti-Mob' law, is it unconstitutional?

[itsfantastic1]

Isn't there a difference between a riot and a peaceful assembly?  There certainly seems to be...

According to this law the difference could be one person acting badly suddenly it's now called a riot. One more thing for me personally I am tired of laws going on the books that if you fear danger you get to defend yourself the same as if there is actually real danger.

You mean like the actual chances that you will be shot by a cop as opposed to one of your neighbors?

I mean we have set the standard too low for the use of deadly force by anyone. In this bill specifically the idea of running people over.

Apparently exaggerations of perceived dangers are plentiful...

And so is willful ignorance...

[BridgeTroll]

Isn't there a difference between a riot and a peaceful assembly?  There certainly seems to be...

According to this law the difference could be one person acting badly suddenly it's now called a riot. One more thing for me personally I am tired of laws going on the books that if you fear danger you get to defend yourself the same as if there is actually real danger.

You mean like the actual chances that you will be shot by a cop as opposed to one of your neighbors?

I mean we have set the standard too low for the use of deadly force by anyone. In this bill specifically the idea of running people over.

Apparently exaggerations of perceived dangers are plentiful...

And so is willful ignorance...

Oh absolutely... thank you...

[Tacachale]

Isn't there a difference between a riot and a peaceful assembly?  There certainly seems to be...

What on Earth are you talking about?  ALL the protests are peaceful, duh.  Hehe (but sure we should instead focus our energy on solar power, green new deal, social "justice", social "infrastructure", etc... Especially with a conservative like DeSantis in office)

If these people haven't seen the news we've seen showing some of the things that have been going on around the country, it's honestly no point having this conversation.  Thank God for our governor; I can only imagine what state Florida would be in now with Andrew Gillum in office.  I shudder to think...

What on Earth are YOU talking about?

Pressing question: were the rioters on scooters?

[jaxlongtimer]

I think if you look at the uncomfortable application of the "stand your ground" law, you will get a taste for how this law will operate - or not! 

Be wary of unintended consequences.  And unequal, unfair and inconsistent application of it.  We will see if the Qanon's get the same treatment as the BLM's... and so on.  What if this law was on the books during the Civil Rights or Viet Nam protests eras?

[Snaketoz]

Most likely outcome of this law:
QAnon, anti-gun law protesters, MAGA demonstrations, anti abortionists-OK

BLM, anti police violence, pro reproductive rights, cannabis supporters, anti war protesters-thrown to ground, handcuffed, arrested.

[WAJAS]

Any interesting take: https://twitter.com/AnnaForFlorida/status/1386010748846022658?s=20

"If you're in a protest and a car drives into the crowd and you respond by shooting the driver in self-defense which law matters more? The driver liability granted under HB1 or Stand Your Ground?"

[BridgeTroll]

Most likely outcome of this law:
QAnon, anti-gun law protesters, MAGA demonstrations, anti abortionists-OK

BLM, anti police violence, pro reproductive rights, cannabis supporters, anti war protesters-thrown to ground, handcuffed, arrested.

Don't riot

[Charles Hunter]

Again. The way the law is written, you could be in a crowd of thousands, peacefully demonstrating, and a small group, or an individual, smashes some windows, or throws rocks at the police. You now have a "riot" or in the 2nd case an "aggravated riot".  Everyone there is now subject to arrest for participating in a riot and held in jail until your first court appearance.  If your answer is, "Well, don't go to a demonstration." You are proving the accusations being made against the various Republican-controlled legislatures - that they want to suppress First Amendment rights.

As Snaketoz said, it will be interesting to see how the police respond based on who is demonstrating.

[BridgeTroll]

Your exaggerated and overly dramatic example is wrong... once a riot is declared or announced police order the demonstrators or rioters to cease and disperse... those who refuse... well there you go...

Riots are not acceptable forms of protest. Period.

[Charles Hunter]

I never said that riots are an acceptable form of protest, you are putting words into my mouth (or keyboard).

Are you saying the police can end a demonstration by declaring it a riot and ordering people to disperse?

[bl8jaxnative]

There are legal definitions to what constitutes a riot.  There would be long term legal ramifications for officials who fraudulently declare events to be riots when they do not meet those legal.

[Tacachale]

Again, I don't know how other cities fared, but as someone who was there for many of the protests as well as during the riot here in Jacksonville, other than that one case, the police didn't appear to have any trouble keeping the peace with the laws on the books at the time.

Alls I can see that's different with this law is that it may make it easier for the state attorney to throw the book at people who get arrested, but last time 63 of the 66 people arrested had their charges dropped for lack of evidence. Meaning the hammer could have been dropped on the other 3 people who charged, but to what gain? Giving more jail time to a handful of people who already got jail time? Clearly it's not needed as a deterrent as no subsequent riots have happened anywhere in Northeast Florida.

A cynic would say the real goal is to discourage people from going to peaceful protests out of fear of being arrested, or even that it's just intended as virtue signaling to the right wing without any real legal goal.

[Chuckabear]

Your exaggerated and overly dramatic example is wrong... once a riot is declared or announced police order the demonstrators or rioters to cease and disperse... those who refuse... well there you go...

Riots are not acceptable forms of protest. Period.

The police can't just declare a "riot". A protest being declared a riot must meet specific legal criteria and even then the right to protest combined with due process means that the police can not use mass arrests to disperse a crowd. It is why charges are dropped or never pursued when a protest is broken up. Only those who committed acts of violence can be held to account which is why any law that seeks to limit due process without specific evidence of a crime being committed is going to be looked at with a suspicious eye by federal courts.

[Snaketoz]

It's not that simple, Chuckabear.  The police can do whatever, and the overwhelming percentage of instances have shown that legal or not, they can act with impunity.  Another poster says, "don't riot".  Most of us would never riot, but just being near someone who is rioting can put your liberty in peril.  I don't want to be tazed, thrown to the ground, pushed into a paddy wagon, have to make bond, spend time in jail, just for a mistake by the police.  That is a big hassle to endure, only for them to say, "never mind", we didn't have any real reason to arrest you in the first place.  This law is ridiculous.  There are laws on the books that handle vandalism, arson, assault, etc.  Why do we need a new law that allows unqualified public servants the ability to decide whether or not you exercising your Constitutional rights is "legal" or not?  This is just another power trip to stifle citizen's opinions that don't sync with the likes of Rick Scott and DeSantis.  It's shameful.

[Snaketoz]

Most likely outcome of this law:
QAnon, anti-gun law protesters, MAGA demonstrations, anti abortionists-OK

BLM, anti police violence, pro reproductive rights, cannabis supporters, anti war protesters-thrown to ground, handcuffed, arrested.

Don't riot

Last time I checked, exercising your freedom of speech isn't "rioting".