Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I've proved them wrong, not that it was hard to do. Their triumphant posting of the text of the bill followed by "no language about confiscation" is simply ignorance on how legislation works.
That's nice. Unproven and irrelevant as long as the protests are legal, but hey...
Let's play a game. In this game, you're going to prove and show that NexGen, loveshiscountry and lifeexplorer used the words: "no language about confiscation".
You have 3 minutes: GO!
Quote:
Protesters do not owe you an explanation for exercising their right to assemble. You may think it useless, cool. Don't go. However, it raises attention to problems. You think that really stupid immigration EO of Trump's wouldn't still be standing were it not for the massive protests? It's not the only solution and nobody claimed that.
As long as they actually peacefully protest, I don't care what they do. The second that they become violent, they most certainly DO owe us all an explanation.
Quote:
Money coming from...? Let me guess, Soros is probably involved?
You do realize that moveon dot org OPENLY ADMITS that Soros funds them, right?
Quote:
I have taken part in one protest in my life, and that was exactly what happened. The signs looked far from professional, admittedly.
Well! One protest makes one an expert on planned, organized protests these days. Who knew!
I've been to a single demonstration. I guess I'm an expert on demonstrations now. They had hand made signs at that demonstration...there's a HUGE difference between hand made signs and professionally made signs...especially when there's 300 people carrying the same damn sign.
Quote:
What on Earth are you on about? Words have meanings and legal terms have very specific meanings. "Money flows around" is racketeering now?
You failed comprehension? I'm sorry. Try harder next time. You know exactly what I meant.
Quote:
If someone, anyone, in the crowd causes property damage, that peaceful protester can now be charged with racketeering and have his/her assets seized. Not just the guy breaking stuff, anyone in the crowd.
Let's take a guess as to why. Let's take one giant guess here.
The girls who wore the knitted pink hats...did they cause property damage? Did they get violent? Did they riot? Were they peaceful? With the exception of that one ***** who tried to light the other girls' hair on fire, as a whole, was the entire pink brigade acting in a violent way and destroying other peoples property? No, they were not. That was a peaceful, albeit silly, protest.
The people at Berkely? Like I said in the thread about that: If you libs want us to actually believe that you want nothing to do with "antifa" then don't cheer them on, don't dance around with them, don't stand there in the same space and let them damage while you look on, don't use them as your shield. You tell them to leave or you find another location to go to, you tell them that you don't condone it, WHILE you are there, not in comment sections days and weeks after the fact. You dissasociate with them AT THE TIME, not after you all get called out on saying NOTHING at the time. If you're there, you're guilty by association. If you don't want to be guilty by association, don't f-en be there. If some movement comes along and destroys your protest, abandon the f-en protest and stop giving the appearance of larger numbers of supporters. Right now, the left looks like it supports antifa because they NEVER remove themselves from the situation when antifa comes along and starts destroying things. You see the "peaceful protesters" standing around laughing and smiling. Hardly what I consider "innocent".
Quote:
That is what this law does. And that is the fact that people like NxtGen appears to not want to discuss.
NexGen simply quoted the bill and asked people to point out where they had a problem with the bill. And he also stated it was fake news from the OP's link. You're the first one who even bothered to point out what you had a problem with, after how many pages? And your so called "problem" with it does not prove the title of the thread, as you claimed.
A riot and a violent protest is NOT a "peaceful protest".
If you're standing there while a murder takes place, even if you didn't do the murder, even if you just happened upon it 10 seconds before, if the police see you standing there, guess what's going to happen? You think the police are simply going to let you go home? Hell no. They are going to detain you and grill you to find out who you are and what you know.
Chilling effect. You could join a peaceful protest where violence breaks out totally unbeknownst to you and with zero involvement from you. Yet your assets might be seized?
Would there have ever been a Tea Party movement if this had been the law? A Second Amendment movement or a civil rights movement? A labor movement by miners and factory workers?
This is a danger to America and it affects all sides.
How many commenting here even live in AZ?
AZ is, in some big aspects a police state already. While I can see a need for some of what this proposed new law tries to do I think it goes a bit far and is ripe for police abuse. I've seen how seizure laws can be used and abused AND I've seen how broad "activity" laws like Disorderly Conduct can/have been abused here in AZ.
I think something like this is a reaction to outside groups setting up protests knowing full well there could be trouble and then agitating or sending in agitators just to get news coverage all the while claiming "we're just using our first amendment rights and had no idea".
Sure you didn't...
Let's play a game. In this game, you're going to prove and show that NexGen, loveshiscountry and lifeexplorer used the words: "no language about confiscation".
You have 3 minutes: GO!
You voted Trump, yes? The headline mentions asset seizure. The bill defenders quote the text and say "Nuh-uh" (no, not literally). I point out where they're wrong. Questions?
Quote:
You failed comprehension? I'm sorry. Try harder next time. You know exactly what I meant.
I don't. When "money flows around", it's racketeering? If Soros funds moveon.org, it's racketeering? Words mean things.
Quote:
NexGen simply quoted the bill and asked people to point out where they had a problem with the bill. And he also stated it was fake news from the OP's link.
Well, he was wrong.
Quote:
You're the first one who even bothered to point out what you had a problem with, after how many pages?
It was kinda clear from the news stories, but apparently some people need the truth hammered out in front of them. Fine, I provide.
Quote:
And your so called "problem" with it does not prove the title of the thread, as you claimed.
It does. If you're last in a protest of 5,000 people and 10 people up front break something, this law would make your participation criminal. No matter how peaceful you were, no matter how peaceful your intent was, never mind that you personally didn't do anything and weren't in a position to stop them. And yes, the category of crime would be racketeering, which opens up for confiscation of assets.
Quote:
If you're standing there while a murder takes place, even if you didn't do the murder, even if you just happened upon it 10 seconds before, if the police see you standing there, guess what's going to happen? You think the police are simply going to let you go home? Hell no. They are going to detain you and grill you to find out who you are and what you know.
And so the eff what? "Standing there while a murder takes place" is not a crime. You won't get charged, because there's no law on the books against standing there. The Law won't take your stuff for standing there. You would be what civilized jurisdictions call "a witness".
However, "standing there while a protest gets out of hand", in Arizona, would become a crime if this piece of bad law passes. You would not be in court as a witness, you would be a defendant.
It's immoral in that it's clearly intended to discourage people from exercising their First Amendment rights, and it's bad law on top of that, because it essentially introduces collective punishment and completely ignores the absence of criminal intent. But - Arizona. They love spending the taxpayer's money on losing lawsuits as long as they get to appear "tough on crime".
"The Republican-controlled Arizona Senate has passed a bill that would let law enforcement officials seize the assets of people who participate in protests that turn violent — even if those people had nothing to do with any violent incidents."
"The Republican-controlled Arizona Senate has passed a bill that would let law enforcement officials seize the assets of people who participate in protests that turn violent — even if those people had nothing to do with any violent incidents."
Those caught insighting violence.
Nothing peaceful about it.
Meanwhile: Violent protestors arrested in DC during the inauguration are starting to be sentenced to 10 years no parole, no probation. No plea bargaining with the feds.
Oh, great. Trumpler is starting to take political prisoners.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Pubs...
