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

[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

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

Then the law doesn't apply.  It only effects rioters...

[Snaketoz]

Ha ha ha...or whenever Barney Fife says you are rioting.  You are funny!

[WAJAS]

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".

Then the law doesn't apply.  It only effects rioters...

Part of the problem is how the new law defines a riot though.

[Snaketoz]

This is a law you could expect to find in Russia, not Florida.  I wish everyone would read this law and honestly say it's legal.  It's vague, poorly written, full of Soviet type wordings, and has to be over turned.  It's something like 64 pages long.  If arrested you cannot be released on bail until you go before a judge.  If you are adjudicated guilty you lose the right to vote.  Any assembly over 3 people can be called a mob.  I bet it's over turned.  I hope it's over turned. 

[Charles Hunter]

Definition of "RIOT" from the law

Section 870.01 - Affrays and riots

(2)   A person commits a riot if he or she willfully participates in a violent public disturbance involving an assembly of three or more persons, acting with a common intent to assist each other in violent and disorderly conduct, resulting in:
(a) Injury to another person;
(b) Damage to property; or
(c) Imminent danger of injury to another person or
(d) damage to property.
A person who commits a riot commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

Subsection (1) defines "Affray" - basically public fighting "to the terror of the people."

It is items (c) and (d) that are problematic, where "imminent danger of injury to another person or damage to property" is the same felony as actually injuring a person or damaging property.  And who determines if damage or injury is "imminent"? The police on the scene make that determination. Now, the charge against you may eventually be dropped by the State Attorney. But, because of subsection (6), you will have probably spent the night, or longer, in jail awaiting your bail hearing.

(6)   Except for a violation of subsection (1), a person arrested for a violation of this section shall be held in custody until brought before the court for admittance to bail in accordance with chapter 903.

Remember that subsection (1) is an "affray" or public fighting, which is a misdemeanor.

Granted, 870.01 ends with this

(7)   This section does not prohibit constitutionally protected activity such as a peaceful protest.

But with the police on the scene determining if the event is a "peaceful protest" or a "riot" it sounds like the Legislature put that in to reassure some people that the intent is not to stifle protest.

[Snaketoz]

What is to keep some in power to have their agents infiltrate a peaceful demonstration, throw a few rocks, break a few windows, and then have police attack and arrest the peaceful people simply exercising their rights?  I know many times in the early 20th century, thugs and Pinkerton agents were hired to vandalize buildings at Ford Motors, attack strikers, and cause mayhem.  The strikers were blamed of course.
Happened with coal miners too.  This is a step backward.

[BridgeTroll]

I welcome the lawsuit also... let's get this ironed out... 

[MusicMan]

Definition of "RIOT" from the law
Quote
Section 870.01 - Affrays and riots

(2)   A person commits a riot if he or she willfully participates in a violent public disturbance involving an assembly of three or more persons, acting with a common intent to assist each other in violent and disorderly conduct, resulting in:
(a) Injury to another person;
(b) Damage to property; or
(c) Imminent danger of injury to another person or
(d) damage to property.
A person who commits a riot commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084."

Certainly describes to a 'T' the events of Jan 6 2021.

[JeffreyS]

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".

Then the law doesn't apply.  It only effects rioters...

If it wasn't so sad I would laugh at The naïveté.

I'm going to pretend for a second the worst of what this law presumes about specifically the BLM protests is true and they are riots.
Part one Destroying property to stop part two the murder of Black people at the hands of the police. Shouldn't we then be solving the first part of the presumption by ending the second part.
I know the law is not really an attempt to stop riots just to make protesters seem like rioters so my example is just fantasy. How BT doesn't see that worries me because I think of him as a representative of the reasonable right.

[Tacachale]

Definition of "RIOT" from the law
Quote
Section 870.01 - Affrays and riots

(2)   A person commits a riot if he or she willfully participates in a violent public disturbance involving an assembly of three or more persons, acting with a common intent to assist each other in violent and disorderly conduct, resulting in:
(a) Injury to another person;
(b) Damage to property; or
(c) Imminent danger of injury to another person or
(d) damage to property.
A person who commits a riot commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084."

Certainly describes to a 'T' the events of Jan 6 2021.

Yes, it shouldn't be forgotten that this law is coming from the party who owns the insurrection. They do not have credibility on this in the slightest.

[BridgeTroll]

I am not a member of any party. I simply think that rioting or violence in protest is completely unacceptable. This most certainly applies to right wing violence, left wing violence, or anarchistic violence.

Shrugging your shoulders with a "riots happen" attitude is unacceptable and destructive.

Pretty fukin simple.... 

[Charles Hunter]

Shrugging your shoulders with a "riots happen" attitude is unacceptable and destructive.

Pretty fukin simple.... 

I don't think anyone here is taking that attitude.

The concern, at least mine and I think at least some others, is that the new law is so broad it could be applied to people who are not involved in rioting or violence.  The law allows the police to arrest anyone in the crowd if violence, or imminent violence, breaks out. Fear of a felony arrest if the peaceful demonstration for a cause you support might become a riot. There are already laws against all the violence, looting, and similar 'riotous' behavior.  Why was this law needed?  To feed red meat to the Trumpian Base? To discourage demonstrations against the powers that be?

It can be argued the law encourages the police to take extreme measures, as cities can be held civilly liable for any damages arising from the riot if they don't do enough to quell it.

768.28 (5)(b) A municipality has a duty to allow the municipal law enforcement agency to respond appropriately to protect persons and property during a riot or an unlawful assembly based on the availability of adequate equipment to its municipal law enforcement officers and relevant state and federal laws. If the governing body of a municipality or a person authorized by the governing body of the municipality breaches that duty, the municipality is civilly liable for any damages including damages arising from personal injury, wrongful death, or property damages proximately caused by the municipality's breach of duty. The sovereign immunity recovery limits in paragraph (a) do not apply to an action under this paragraph.

[WAJAS]

I am not a member of any party. I simply think that rioting or violence in protest is completely unacceptable. This most certainly applies to right wing violence, left wing violence, or anarchistic violence.

Shrugging your shoulders with a "riots happen" attitude is unacceptable and destructive.

Pretty fukin simple.... 

Well, that's the thing right. This law makes the "protests happen" attitude into a "riots happen" one because of how they define a riot and how it impacts those that aim to peacefully protest within the "riot."

[Charles Hunter]

I wonder if this section will be used against the groups that gather outside Planned Parenthood and other women's medical service sites, and yell at the women going in for medical services, trying to "refrain from doing any act"? It could be argued that screaming at the women and blocking their path, is a "threat[en] to use imminent force".

784.0495 Mob intimidation.—
(1) It is unlawful for a person, assembled with two or more other persons and acting with a common intent, to use force or threaten to use imminent force, to compel or induce, or attempt to compel or induce, another person to do or refrain from doing any act or to assume, abandon, or maintain a particular viewpoint against his or her will.

[BridgeTroll]

There are many laws that overlap or seem redundant... For example some assaults, vandalism, and murders are prosecuted under so called hate crimes because of a racial or national component or motivation.

This new law in my view is simply adding teeth to existing limp and ineffectual laws...