http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/...riot/98302932/SB 1142 would expand the definition to allow charges if the force or violence results in property damage. Because it defines rioting as "two or more people acting together," it could allow protest organizers to be prosecuted if someone else is involved in the rioting — even if that someone isn't part of the organizing group. It could also allow organizers to be prosecuted just for planning an event that prosecutors believe could result in rioting.
This bill would put rioting under the state's Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization (RICO) statutes that are typically used to prosecute organized crime and allow police to take items acquired through criminal activity. The sentence for racketeering can include more than a year in prison. It would allow police to seize protesters' or organizers' assets and make them financially responsible for any property damage.
Absolutely 100% agree with this. A swift end needs to be put to these hipster liberal millennial cess-parties that have grown rampant like Spanish flu after WWI. Especially around the college campuses, those gots are the ing worst.
And don't just punish the organizers, while they definitely deserve punishment for rioting plus a conspiracy charge... you still have to give the one-year rioting sentence to any and all participators. And I don't mean just general bystanders that keep a reasonable distance from the scene, I mean the ones actually holding up the signs and screaming and marching in obvious accordance with the mob. These are the real problem, they're generally young and stupid and should be taught a serious lesson!
Without the participators, the organizers have nothing to organize, so the participators must be punished harshly. It's why those caught using drugs should be punished more harshly as opposed to only targeting the sellers. Without the users, the sellers have no business!
Doubt it stands SCOTUS scrutiny.
Lump!!!!!!!!! Sweetheart!!!!!!!!! Pumpinpuss!!!!!!!!!
The old proverbial hatchet is buried deep. Let us fight no more forever.
Problem with this is that freedom of assembly to seek redress of grievances is cons utionally guaranteed.
If Obama or some blue state similarly sought to limit the Tea Party, the howls of tyranny would have been dire and correctly so. But that didn't happen.
Candy ass republicans want to chill political expression since it makes their guy look bad.
What shrinking violets. Maybe they don't gave the spine to subsist in a vibrant republic.
& I would have left them to their chicanery. Everyone knows what is going on. It's FAKE NEWS at it's finest. Let 'em where we eat.
Isn't the 1st Amendment outdated though? Do we really need it?
Professional rioters need to be prosecuted. Those who fund them need to be prosecuted as well. It almost amounts to terrorism.
Don't leave out the "peacefully" part of the 1st Amendment, like you did in the quote above. It's dishonest and it gives the rioters a backdoor. Nuh uh.
We already have laws for breaking the peace and rioting. Are they insufficient?
The existing laws target individuals. When rioters are hired, they are basically a terrorist group and those who hire them need to be prosecuted.
Besides, this is very reminiscient of the 2nd Amendment debate when new gun laws are proposed as if the existing laws are insufficient. It's already illegal to kill people, why have more gun laws?
Seems silly to hold permit holders responsible before the fact for violence the police fear might break out or was perpetrated by others. The AZ law makes it tactical for people unconnected with the organizers to start fights knowing the organizers will be held accountable.
You mean like holding gun retailers accountable for what some lunatic does with the product?
Funny how the Bill of Rights suddenly matters.
So where's the proof anyone has hired professional rioters? Seems like overkill to pass a law based on what might happen or might have happened.
I never suggeated that was appropriate.
Swing and a miss.
You're boxing with shadows, not with me.
There exists a gradient of leftism here and each part of that gradient takes the liberty of their custom stance on issues so that they can have plausible deniability when the shoe is pointed out to be on the other foot. They will not speak out against the rest of the gradient regardless the level of destruction they wish to heap upon the 2nd Amendment. Still, when the dust settles, there's a clear line and you're on the other side.
When you (you in general) set fire to the BoR because part of it doesn't seem to apply to you, it doesn't necessarily stop at that Amendment.
it's still part of the foundational compact.
Do you think we don't need it?
If the 2nd needs to go, why not the 1st as well?
so you agree you weren't really talking to me.
Appreciate your candor.
2nd is still there too. Neither needs to go.
The 2nd has been infringed upon more than any in the BoR and it's under constant attack from the left. Why do you need guns? Are you a gun nut? Are you a free speech nut, a right to peacefully assemble nut?
No, you folks lost me with that liberal bull . I hope it bites you all in the ass.
Still punching at shadows, I see
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
