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.
Look carefully where the bill defines "Racketeering".
There is an edit, there - subheader (b) is now "RIOT", and it wasn't before.
Now look at this little lovely bit:
The capitals letters are additions. That's a very low threshold.
So, in one fell swoop we have lowered the threshold for rioting as a crime and completely reclassified rioting as "racketeering". Care to guess what Arizona's racketeering laws allow for? Anyone?
If you guessed "seizure of assets", come and collect your price!
It allowed seizure of ownership interests in racketeering organizations and proceeds of racketeering operations, not all of the person's assets.
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 article claims rioters can have their assets -- meaning all of their assets -- seized.
That is fake news.
Last edited by hbdwihdh378y9; 02-25-2017 at 07:56 AM..
The article claims rioters can have their assets -- meaning all of their assets -- seized.
That is fake news.
Note that the statute says:
C. "Prior to a determination of liability such orders may include, but are not limited to, issuing seizure warrants, entering findings of probable cause for in personam or in rem forfeiture, entering restraining orders or prohibitions or taking such other actions, including the acceptance of satisfactory performance bonds, the creation of receiverships and the enforcement of constructive trusts, in connection with any property or other interest subject to forfeiture, damages or other remedies or restraints pursuant to this section as the court deems proper."
What's to stop the government from seizing anything it can get its hands on -- even prior to a finding of responsibility -- and then leaving it up to you to try to sort it out later and maybe get all or part of your property back?
Who's going to be preserving and protecting your assets while they are under government seizure?
When seizing assets, is the government known for carefully distinguishing between what may or may not be subject to seizure?
Status:
"Smartened up and walked away!"
(set 25 days ago)
11,780 posts, read 5,789,903 times
Reputation: 14201
[quote=evilcart;47299482]not at all, that is just something you made up. Some vague idea from the depths of your mind...
the concerns are clearly centered on the VAGUE nature of the bill. "riots" are not easy to define, that type of vague wording is used when someone wants to get a law that can later be used in much harsher ways than originally presented...
Police already abuse seizure laws and leave people struggling to get their property back. And before rightwing fools claim "good people have nothing to worry about" I suggest they take a look at the huge pile of innocent people who have fallen victim to this scam.[/QUOTE]
So you admit that it's not a Trump or a Republican thing - it's been in existence for years - thanks for informing your buddies.
C. "Prior to a determination of liability such orders may include, but are not limited to, issuing seizure warrants, entering findings of probable cause for in personam or in rem forfeiture, entering restraining orders or prohibitions or taking such other actions, including the acceptance of satisfactory performance bonds, the creation of receiverships and the enforcement of constructive trusts, in connection with any property or other interest subject to forfeiture, damages or other remedies or restraints pursuant to this section as the court deems proper."
What's to stop the government from seizing anything it can get its hands on -- even prior to a finding of responsibility -- and then leaving it up to you to try to sort it out later and maybe get all or part of your property back?
----- Umm, the fact that the statute doesn't authorize forfeiture of "anything it can get its hands on"? -----
Who's going to be preserving and protecting your assets while they are under government seizure?
When seizing assets, is the government known for carefully distinguishing between what may or may not be subject to seizure?
The OP cited a story about a bill that, if made law, would amend certain statutes. The amendment inarguably would not do what the article says.
Now, since you can't dispute that, you argue that it doesn't matter what the statute says -- the government can just ignore statutes and do what it wants. Of course, if statutes don't matter, then changes in statutes don't matter and therefore can't be newsworthy.
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.
You could already be arrested and charged with a felony in the same situation. If that was not deterring people already, RICO charges are?
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.
This law doesn't do that. Rioting and unlawful assembly already do that.
This law adds an additional charge of racketeering for the crime you are already committing.
(And again, people have to be given the opportunity to leave after unlawful assembly is declared before they can be arrested for any charges related to that unlawful assembly.)
While I have no problem with the strict premise of such a law this one is way to vague and rife with ways to potential abuse just as all the current Federal seizure laws are and HAVE been repeatedly abused.
I see no issue with going after the groups that pay protesters (like Soros orgs) or groups like the Anarchists that specifically go to protests to foment and commit violence I do take issue with how this one is worded...
The article claims rioters can have their assets -- meaning all of their assets -- seized.
Where the ever-lovin' did you get that from?
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.
