Law Enforcement Protection Act

thperez1972 · Sep 26, 2020

Horrible said:
It says *or* not *and*. Small difference but tyrants have a way of twisting words (and laws) like a pretzel to fit their political ends. Why give them more rope?

You still haven’t addressed my basic point that there are enough laws on the books already to completely shut down this rioting. Local leaders simply choose not to do this for political reasons.

More simply, I will use this quote to articulate where I am coming from on this "No man's life, liberty or property are safe while the Legislature is in session." - Gideon John Tucker

Yes, it does say “or.” So what? It doesn’t matter.

1. Any assembly (disorderly, orderly, or violent) that damages public or private property.
2. Any assembly (disorderly, orderly, or violent) that causes injury to others.
3. Any assembly (disorderly, orderly, or violent) that restricts the movement of others.
4. Any assembly (disorderly, orderly, or violent) that intimidates others.

Which one of those 4 are constitutionally protected actions?

You can define orderly and disorderly however you want. Twist it to mean anything you can think of. That still won’t erase the other element necessary for making the action illegal. The law does not make a “disorderly protest” illegal so the definition of “disorderly protest” does not matter in the absence of the the other elements of the crime.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Horrible · Sep 26, 2020

thperez1972 said:
Yes, it does say *or.* So what? It doesn’t matter.

1. Any assembly (disorderly, orderly, or violent) that damages public or private property.
2. Any assembly (disorderly, orderly, or violent) that causes injury to others.
3. Any assembly (disorderly, orderly, or violent) that restricts the movement of others.
4. Any assembly (disorderly, orderly, or violent) that intimidates others.

Which one of those 4 are constitutionally protected actions?

You can define orderly and disorderly however you want. Twist it to mean anything you can think of. That still won’t erase the other element necessary for making the action illegal. The law does not make a *disorderly protest* illegal so the definition of *disorderly protest* does not matter in the absence of the the other elements of the crime.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Agree to disagree. Disorderly can be defined as any assembly of 7 or more where any of these elements exist. And can be twisted and enforced by future tyrannical Administrations to suppress dissenters. Don't forget that the left considers what they call "hate speech" as a form of "violence".

You still have not articulated why this legislation is needed if the destruction of property, injuring of others, rioting, looting, etc are already codified in existing legislation? These riots we are seeing across the country are an enforcement issue and NOT a legislative issue. Those in power in these cities (Portland, Seattle, Konosha, NYC, etc) do not have the stones to do what is necessary to rid their cities of this BS. Adding more laws to the books will solve nothing.

This is exactly why gun control simply doesn't work and is nothing more than virtual signaling with respect to actually stopping crime, but can, and is often used to punish otherwise law-abiding citizens exercising their God-given and Constituionally-protected rights.

thperez1972 · Sep 26, 2020

Horrible said:
Agree to disagree. Disorderly can be defined as any assembly of 7 or more where any of these elements exist. And can be twisted and enforced by future tyrannical Administrations to suppress dissenters. Don't forget that the left considers what they call "hate speech" as a form of "violence".

You still have not articulated why this legislation is needed if the destruction of property, injuring of others, rioting, looting, etc are already codified in existing legislation? These riots we are seeing across the country are an enforcement issue and NOT a legislative issue. Those in power in these cities (Portland, Seattle, Konosha, NYC, etc) do not have the stones to do what is necessary to rid their cities of this BS. Adding more laws to the books will solve nothing.

This is exactly why gun control simply doesn't work and is nothing more than virtual signaling with respect to actually stopping crime, but can, and is often used to punish otherwise law-abiding citizens exercising their God-given and Constituionally-protected rights.

I don’t know if we disagree or not. You’ve still not explained how the definition of “disorderly protest” makes any difference here whatsoever. You also mentioned a couple of times that a wild definition of “disorderly” would infringe on one’s right to assemble but you didn’t say which action or actions listed in the proposal it would infringe upon.

And I did address the “need” for this law in post #19. It takes the actions penalties of actions and enhances them if performed as part of a mob.

Now if you still want to “agree to disagree” so be it. But to be fair, bowing out of the conversation now with those unaddressed issues sounds more like an inability to back up your claim than a case of disagreement.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Horrible · Sep 26, 2020

thperez1972 said:
I don’t know if we disagree or not. You’ve still not explained how the definition of *disorderly protest* makes any difference here whatsoever. You also mentioned a couple of times that a wild definition of *disorderly* would infringe on one’s right to assemble but you didn’t say which action or actions listed in the proposal it would infringe upon.

And I did address the *need* for this law in post #19. It takes the actions penalties of actions and enhances them if performed as part of a mob.

Now if you still want to *agree to disagree* so be it. But to be fair, bowing out of the conversation now with those unaddressed issues sounds more like an inability to back up your claim than a case of disagreement.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

A "Disorderly" protest can be defined as almost anything. If a protester flies a Gadsen Flag during a protest, a leftist could identify that as racist and therefore "disorderly". Not much of a stretch as leftist have already identified this type of protesting as "hate speech".

Post #19 identified enhanced penalties for existing law, which I have not yet commented on, but don't necessarily have any heartburn with. So, definitely not agree to disagree on that point. My focus has been the lack of definition and possibility/probability of abuse of "disorderly" and maybe even "violent" protest.

And I object to being the one with burden of proof of anything here, although, I believe that I have provided such. Burden of proof should be upon those proposing new legislation, which by definition, limits the freedoms of its citizens. The burden of proof that these laws will do ANYTHING to prevent these riots from happening when they are ALREADY UNLAWFUL. Making them doubly illegal will not stop them. Enforce the existing laws before drafting new ones. That is my take. Still not seeing any response to this argument, hence my "agree to disagree" comment.

The left excels at twisting words in legislation to meet their ends. The mental gymnastics are often mind-boggling. One may trust the current DeSantis Administration (DeSantis was a really good Congressman and has proven himself to be a great Governor) but I will remind everyone reading this that he very narrowly won the gubernatorial election against an openly avowed socialist and borderline Communist. I am not a citizen of FL but I fear for the freedoms of those that live in that state and would rather not rely upon the electorate to make a determination on what my or your rights and freedoms should be.

thperez1972 · Sep 26, 2020

Horrible said:
A "Disorderly" protest can be defined as almost anything. If a protester flies a Gadsen Flag during a protest, a leftist could identify that as racist and therefore "disorderly". Not much of a stretch as leftist have already identified this type of protesting as "hate speech".

Again, so what? The law doesn’t make a disorderly protest illegal.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Horrible · Sep 26, 2020

thperez1972 said:
Again, so what? The law doesn’t make a disorderly protest illegal.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Really? Maybe I misinterpreted? But this seems pretty clear to me:

Prohibition on Violent or Disorderly Assemblies

thperez1972 · Sep 26, 2020

Horrible said:
Really? Maybe I misinterpreted? But this seems pretty clear to me:

Oh...so you’re one of those people who get all of your information from headlines while you ignore the substance. Ok. So what’s the penalty listed in the law for “disorderly protesting” when there’s nothing else involved?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Horrible · Sep 26, 2020

thperez1972 said:
Oh...so you’re one of those people who get all of your information from headlines while you ignore the substance. Ok. So what’s the penalty listed in the law for *disorderly protesting* when there’s nothing else involved?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

LOL. You don't know me, so please don't suggest that I am "one of those people"

If there is no penalty, again haven't dug into the specs of the proposed law, then what the hell is the point of the legislation? Are we into virtue signaling? I thought that was the left's thing?

Again, I sound like a broken record here, all that it is needed to stop this rioting insanity and madness is the state and local communities nutting up and enforcing existing law. No new rules or laws are needed. Continuing to add new laws for the purpose of adding laws and looking like you are "doing something" about a problem is a path to a police state. I don't want to speak for anyone else here, but I myself value my freedoms. We can't legislate our way out of these problems.

thperez1972 · Sep 26, 2020

Horrible said:
LOL. You don't know me, so please don't suggest that I am "one of those people"

If there is no penalty, again haven't dug into the specs of the proposed law, then what the hell is the point of the legislation? Are we into virtue signaling? I thought that was the left's thing?

Again, I sound like a broken record here, all that it is needed to stop this rioting insanity and madness is the state and local communities nutting up and enforcing existing law. No new rules or laws are needed. Continuing to add new laws for the purpose of adding laws and looking like you are "doing something" about a problem is a path to a police state.

If you don’t want to be called “one of them,” don’t act like one of them. The text of the proposed law was quoted above, post #2 I believe. The penalties are listed in the text but they may not be in bold. What’s the proposed penalty for a disorderly protest without any other action?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

thperez1972 · Sep 26, 2020

Horrible said:
If there is no penalty, again haven't dug into the specs of the proposed law, then what the hell is the point of the legislation? Are we into virtue signaling? I thought that was the left's thing?

This has been covered before but the law enhances the penalties for crimes committed during a violent or disorderly protest.

Horrible · Sep 26, 2020

thperez1972 said:
If you don’t want to be called *one of them,* don’t act like one of them. The text of the proposed law was quoted above, post #2 I believe. The penalties are listed in the text but they may not be in bold. What’s the proposed penalty for a disorderly protest without any other action?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Not a fan of people making broad generalizations about other people. I could say the same about you as you said yourself in an earlier post that you have not dug into the proposed legislation, but I try to keep my posts about substance instead of personal attacks.

Why does the penalty matter? If it is death by firing squad or a $1 fine, I oppose it, as I go back to my argument regarding how this can be twisted by those in power to silence dissent. If there is no penalty, then what is the point of the legislation?

Again, the riots we are seeing can be ended by enforcement of existing laws. No new legislation required. The leaders in charge of these states and localities don't have the political will to address this. No legislation will solve this.

Horrible · Sep 26, 2020

thperez1972 said:
This has been covered before but the law enhances the penalties for crimes committed during a violent or disorderly protest.

Roger. I said in an earlier post that I don't have heartburn with enhancing penalties for violation of existing criminal activity already codified in law.

thperez1972 · Sep 26, 2020

Horrible said:
Not a fan of people making broad generalizations about other people. I could say the same about you as you said yourself in an earlier post that you have not dug into the proposed legislation, but I try to keep my posts about substance instead of personal attacks.

Why does the penalty matter? If it is death by firing squad or a $1 fine, I oppose it, as I go back to my argument regarding how this can be twisted by those in power to silence dissent. If there is no penalty, then what is the point of the legislation?

Again, the riots we are seeing can be ended by enforcement of existing laws. No new legislation required. The leaders in charge of these states and localities don't have the political will to address this. No legislation will solve this.

Your posts lack substance. And I’m not making a personal attack. I’m making an observation. To back up your claim, you posted the title of the section instead of any substance in that section. The penalty for disorderly protesting matters because it’s nonexistent. Why isn’t it there? Because the legislation isn’t to make assemblies illegal. The legislation is to enhance crimes committed during violent or disorderly protests. The definition of disorderly is not important if you’re not committing one of the listed crimes. The legislation is being made in a state that doesn’t have a lot of reported rioting. This legislation has nothing to do with decisions made by politicians in other states.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Horrible · Sep 26, 2020

thperez1972 said:
Your posts lack substance. And I’m not making a personal attack. I’m making an observation. To back up your claim, you posted the title of the section instead of any substance in that section. The penalty for disorderly protesting matters because it’s nonexistent. Why isn’t it there? Because the legislation isn’t to make assemblies illegal. The legislation is to enhance crimes committed during violent or disorderly protests. The definition of disorderly is not important if you’re not committing one of the listed crimes. The legislation is being made in a state that doesn’t have a lot of reported rioting. This legislation has nothing to do with decisions made by politicians in other states.

The legislation is being made in response to events and decisions in other states and areas.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

My posts do not lack substance. At all. They identify the lack of need for this legislation, very simply put. And the potential for future abuse of such legislation.

Quite honestly, I could care less about the current intent of any legislation as that almost always gets lost and basterdized over time. Laws very rarely are repealed.

Saying "you are one of those people..." is not an observation at all and detracts from the substance of your arguments.

Bosco · Sep 26, 2020

If this happened in Florida would everyone participating be deemed felons under this act?

Video: https://www.wdrb.com/news/wdrb-vide...deo_c916e114-8f9b-5c3f-801e-3c259ee71db9.html

https://www.cnn.com/2020/09/25/us/breonna-taylor-investigation-protests/index.html

As the marchers moved along Main Street shortly before 7 p.m. ET Friday, police officers set up restraining lines in front of them and on a street to the left. Several flash bang devices exploded above the crowd.

An official with the Louisville Metro Police Department said officers shot two flash bangs in the air because the crowd was told to move onto sidewalks and did not.

Sgt. Lamont Washington said an unlawful assembly was declared after the protesters stayed in the streets, and the stun grenades were used to get their attention.

Two people were arrested, he said.

thperez1972 · Sep 26, 2020

Horrible said:
My posts do not lack substance. At all. They identify the lack of need for this legislation, very simply put. And the potential for future abuse of such legislation.

Quite honestly, I could care less about the current intent of any legislation as that almost always gets lost and basterdized over time. Laws very rarely are repealed.

Saying "you are one of those people..." is not an observation at all and detracts from the substance of your arguments.

But the “lack of need” doesn’t exist. What you say shouldn’t be in the legislation isn’t in the legislation.

I know you could care less about the intent. If you did, you’d have read more than the title and you’d have seen what you don’t think should be in there isn’t actually in there.

And it is an observation. There are a group of people who form an opinion based on incomplete information. By your posts, you have shown yourself to be in that group. When presented with the correct information, they may do one of a few things. They might take in all the available information and make a more informed decision, even if that decision differs from the one previously made. Or they could reject that information as irrelevant because it doesn’t line up with their opinion. Another option is to get the information, recognize their hasty decision doesn’t make sense, then, afraid to have people think they are wrong, dismiss the entire subject by saying it’s pointless to discuss it.

It appears you may fit in the last category. Despite multiple people telling you what you were saying wasn’t in the law, you persisted, using the title, rather than the text, to prove your position. When pushed to find the proof in the text, you could care less about it because it’ll get change over time.

So here’s the substance. The law does not make any assemblies illegal in and of themselves. The law lists no penalties for simply assembling. The law has a purpose, to take laws listed elsewhere and enhance the penalties if the crime was committed during a violent or disorderly protest.

So feel free to read all of the law. Or don’t. Feel free to reply based on any new information you may have learned. Or don’t. Feel free to discuss something actually in the law. Or don’t. But you’re not fooling anyone by the constant deflection.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Bigchillin83 · Sep 26, 2020

Bosco said:
If this happened in Florida would everyone participating be deemed felons under this act?

Video: https://www.wdrb.com/news/wdrb-vide...deo_c916e114-8f9b-5c3f-801e-3c259ee71db9.html

https://www.cnn.com/2020/09/25/us/breonna-taylor-investigation-protests/index.html

i would agree to arrest them, just cause you want to protest, or even peaceful protest you have no right to block me or any other hard working person from drivng home from a long day at work or going to pick my kids up from school... you cannot stop traffic to make people listen to you who dont wanna listen or dont care... you stand on the public side walk and protest if no body wants to stop and listen then oh well... lol the video even shows people standing on other peopls car, sorry big dog, i cannot support that...

thperez1972 · Sep 26, 2020

Bosco said:
If this happened in Florida would everyone participating be deemed felons under this act?

Video: https://www.wdrb.com/news/wdrb-vide...deo_c916e114-8f9b-5c3f-801e-3c259ee71db9.html

https://www.cnn.com/2020/09/25/us/breonna-taylor-investigation-protests/index.html

That’s a good question. Possibly not. The proposed legislation says “obstructing traffic.” If there’s no traffic because the streets were closed, they’re not obstructing traffic.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

John_ · Sep 26, 2020

Bosco said:
If this happened in Florida would everyone participating be deemed felons under this act?

Right in your post on page one outlining the new charges it indicates the charges are felony crimes except #4. So if you are convicted in FL on felony charges, then yes you are a felon. Key word is "convicted".

Bosco said:
https://www.flgov.com/2020/09/21/governor-ron-desantis-announces-the-combatting-violence-disorder-and-looting-and-law-enforcement-protection-act/[/URL]

The Combatting Violence, Disorder and Looting and Law Enforcement Protection Act has three components, outlined below:
New Criminal Offenses to Combat Rioting, Looting and Violence

Prohibition on Violent or Disorderly Assemblies: 3rd degree felony when 7 or more persons are involved in an assembly and cause damage to property or injury to other persons.

Prohibition on Obstructing Roadways: 3rd degree felony to obstruct traffic during an unpermitted protest, demonstration or violent or disorderly assembly; driver is NOT liable for injury or death caused if fleeing for safety from a mob.

Prohibition on Destroying or Toppling Monuments: 2nd degree felony to destroy public property during a violent or disorderly assembly.

Prohibition on Harassment in Public Accommodations: 1st degree misdemeanor for a participant in a violent or disorderly assembly to harass or intimidate a person at a public accommodation, such as a restaurant.

RICO Liability: RICO liability attaches to anyone who organizes or funds a violent or disorderly assembly.

Increased Penalties

Mandatory Minimum Jail Sentence: Striking a law enforcement officer (including with a projectile) during a violent or disorderly assembly = 6 months mandatory minimum jail sentence.

Offense Enhancements: Offense and/or sentence enhancements for: (1) throwing an object during a violent or disorderly assembly that strikes a civilian or law enforcement officer; (2) assault/battery of a law enforcement officer during a violent or disorderly assembly; and (3) participation in a violent or disorderly assembly by an individual from another state.

Citizen and Taxpayer Protection Measures

No *Defund the Police* Permitted: Prohibits state grants or aid to any local government that slashes the budget for law enforcement services.

Victim Compensation: Waives sovereign immunity to allow a victim of a crime related to a violent or disorderly assembly to sue local government for damages where the local government is grossly negligent in protecting persons and property.

Government Employment/Benefits: Terminates state benefits and makes anyone ineligible for employment by state/local government if convicted of participating in a violent or disorderly assembly.

Bail: No bond or bail until first appearance in court if charged with a crime related to participating in a violent or disorderly assembly; rebuttable presumption against bond or bail after first appearance.

Bosco · Sep 26, 2020

thperez1972 said:
That’s a good question. Possibly not. The proposed legislation says *obstructing traffic.* If there’s no traffic because the streets were closed, they’re not obstructing traffic.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I wonder if them declaring it an unlawful assembly makes any difference in the manner? I'm always in the middle on this type of stuff. The libertarian in me says "don't tread on me" but then the rational human being in me says "don't loot/riot/attack police officers who are just doing their job".

John_ said:
Right in your post on page one outlining the new charges it indicates the charges are felony crimes except #4. So if you are convicted in FL on felony charges, then yes you are a felon. Key word is "convicted".

It seems to be a bit vague though. If you're peacefully protesting and it gets declared unlawful b/c there's too many of you to fit on the sidewalk then everyone can be arrested with felony charges even those who were on the sidewalk? If someone starts throwing glass bottles at police and they deem it disorderly are they then allowed to arrest everyone who is there even if they weren't the ones throwing glass bottles? You would hope only the offenders would be arrested but the wording makes it seem like they could arrest anyone who participated in the protest and even those who just organized it.

I guess we'll have to see it in action which I'm sure will happen as I'm sure people will protest the bill.

Law Enforcement Protection Act

The Best online firearms community in Louisiana.

Member Benefits:

ESSAYONS

Well-Known Member

ESSAYONS

Well-Known Member

ESSAYONS

Well-Known Member

Attachments

ESSAYONS

Well-Known Member

ESSAYONS

ESSAYONS

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

ESSAYONS

Well-Known Member

We are the hammer

ESSAYONS

Well-Known Member

ESSAYONS

Shooter

We are the hammer

Log in

Forum statistics