This all seems reasonable to me. If you're part of an organization that's planning and abetting criminal behavior, you shouldn't be surprised when you're expected to compensate the victims.
Consider: you're in a protest, peacefully expressing your disagreement. Then some other people start smashing windows. Under this law, you can now be arrested.
What's more, quite possibly these other people are those who are actively damaging property because they want you to be arrested.
>Consider: you're in a protest, peacefully expressing your disagreement. Then some other people start smashing windows. Under this law, you can now be arrested.
It's not that simple. They'd have to prove you were both part of the same criminal organization. I don't think it's too much of a stretch to say if you're part of a group that's planning illegal stuff, you should probably leave that group.
You could be a member of an extremely large group like the NRA and have absolutely no idea what fellow members might plan to do once they arrive at a protest.
Also I'd like to point out that often times that people committing crimes at protests often turn out to be opportunists.
This law doesn't require you to actively incite illegal behavior, you just have to be the planner of the event where it occurs even if that wasn't your intention. The problem is that a protest can easily turn into a riot, especially if it's not well organized.
It's worded in a way that it could apply to a protest that becomes a riot rather than only a planned riot. I doubt anyone would object to a law against planning a riot, but that's already illegal.
> ... criminally charge people and seize their assets if they’re believed to be ... participating in a demonstration that ends up becoming violent.
By that wording you don't actually need to be associated with the group that is planning the violence. It may be that the intent is as you describe, but the wording as given here allows the police simply to sweep up anyone attending a protest that turns out to be violent.
They link to the text of the bill in the article, and that "participating in a demonstration that ends up becoming violent" isn't supported by that text. The law is addressing participation in a conspiracy.
So you are not saying that what the article says is reasonable. You are saying that the article does not accurately report the change in the law.
Yes?
This may seem a petty point to you, but if it's the case then I wish you (and others - you are by no means the only one to do this) would say what you actually mean, and not something that is not what you mean.
Specifically, you said:
> This all seems reasonable to me.
That sounds to me like you are agreeing that what the article says is happening is reasonable, whereas now it seems that you are saying that the law being passed is reasonable, and that the article is mis-reporting it.
> Yes, I am saying the law is not accurately represented.
OK, now everything you've written makes sense - thank you.
> You're reading too much into what I said.
Sorry, but I just read what you wrote and took what I thought was the most obvious interpretation. As I explained earlier, you said:
> This all seems reasonable to me.
When that's a reply to a link to an article, it seems reasonable to me that the "this" should be referring to the article. The downvotes make it clear that my expectations were wrong.
There are already laws against that. Why don't they just hold the people directly responsible, responsible?
The bill stipulates that an "overt act is not required as proof of a riot offense." So planners of a protest could be charged because someone else committed an "overt act" that caused a riot.
> Yes. We have laws that punish rioters. But if you're funding and "training" people to smash windows and burn cars, you should share the culpability.
We have laws for funding, inciting, procuring, etc., rioting, already.
(In fact, in most jurisdictions, we don't need specific laws.fornthst, since the laws against riot plus the laws proviidng liability for soliciting, procuring, etc. any criminal act already cover this.)
Clearly the Arizona legislature didn't think this behavior was covered under existing law. If these sorts of groups don't exist, there's no problem adding them to the list, is there?
Being a getaway driver in a bank heist is absolutely nothing like organizing a protest and then it getting out of control. If they intended for it to be a riot that is already a crime.
Because the way the bill apparently reads, anyone in a protest could end up with their property seized. Great way to bankrupt the Quakers, I suppose. Ensure that a few goons get into the next anti-war protest. Have the goons hype up a few unstable protestors into smashing a 7-11's window. Arrest everyone, and confiscate all their property. After that happens twice, all the Quakers are going to never organize again. Chilling effect. Luckily, Arizona didn't pass this, someone must have come to their senses.
26 comments
[ 68.3 ms ] story [ 802 ms ] threadWhat's more, quite possibly these other people are those who are actively damaging property because they want you to be arrested.
How can that be a good thing?
It's not that simple. They'd have to prove you were both part of the same criminal organization. I don't think it's too much of a stretch to say if you're part of a group that's planning illegal stuff, you should probably leave that group.
Also I'd like to point out that often times that people committing crimes at protests often turn out to be opportunists.
It's vaguely worded on purpose.
Where? Where in the statute are these words? It's possible they're there and I just didn't see them. Maybe you can point them out.
> ... criminally charge people and seize their assets if they’re believed to be ... participating in a demonstration that ends up becoming violent.
By that wording you don't actually need to be associated with the group that is planning the violence. It may be that the intent is as you describe, but the wording as given here allows the police simply to sweep up anyone attending a protest that turns out to be violent.
Yes?
This may seem a petty point to you, but if it's the case then I wish you (and others - you are by no means the only one to do this) would say what you actually mean, and not something that is not what you mean.
Specifically, you said:
> This all seems reasonable to me.
That sounds to me like you are agreeing that what the article says is happening is reasonable, whereas now it seems that you are saying that the law being passed is reasonable, and that the article is mis-reporting it.
Yes?
You're reading too much into what I said. The law is reasonable. The article is sensationalized, though not as much as the HN title.
OK, now everything you've written makes sense - thank you.
> You're reading too much into what I said.
Sorry, but I just read what you wrote and took what I thought was the most obvious interpretation. As I explained earlier, you said:
> This all seems reasonable to me.
When that's a reply to a link to an article, it seems reasonable to me that the "this" should be referring to the article. The downvotes make it clear that my expectations were wrong.
Thank you for your clarification.
The bill stipulates that an "overt act is not required as proof of a riot offense." So planners of a protest could be charged because someone else committed an "overt act" that caused a riot.
We arrest the getaway car driver involved in a bank heist. All he's doing is driving, right? That's not even illegal.
We have laws for funding, inciting, procuring, etc., rioting, already. (In fact, in most jurisdictions, we don't need specific laws.fornthst, since the laws against riot plus the laws proviidng liability for soliciting, procuring, etc. any criminal act already cover this.)
Do you have any reasons for this law that are(1) based on evidence and (2) isn't already covered by existing law?
Why is the First Amendment such a red-headed stepchild? Because it hasn't been shaved as thin as the Fourth?
I didn't see anything like that. Perhaps you can cite a particular clause?