6 ms·

Arizona law will seize assets of protestors

6 points by dmode 10y ago

gozur88 10y ago
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.
- CarolineW 10y ago
  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. How can that be a good thing?
  - gozur88 10y ago
    >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.
    - alphabettsy 10y ago
      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.
      - gozur88 10y ago
        This law isn't going to affect you if that's the case. The NRA (and most protest groups) don't plan and incite illegal behavior.
        alphabettsy 10y ago
        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 vaguely worded on purpose.
        gozur88 10y ago
        I didn't see any wording that vague when I read the statute. Which clause are you talking about?
        alphabettsy 10y ago
        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.
        gozur88 10y ago
        >It's worded in a way that it could apply to a protest that becomes a riot rather than only a planned riot. 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.
    - CarolineW 10y ago
      I'm going by this: > ... 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.
      - gozur88 10y ago
        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.
        CarolineW 10y ago
        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?
        gozur88 10y ago
        Yes, I am saying the law is not accurately represented. 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.
        CarolineW 10y ago
        > 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. Thank you for your clarification.
- alphabettsy 10y ago
  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.
  - gozur88 10y ago
    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 arrest the getaway car driver involved in a bank heist. All he's doing is driving, right? That's not even illegal.
    - dragonwriter 10y ago
      > 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.)
      - gozur88 10y ago
        But this law includes remedies.
        dragonwriter 10y ago
        So do the existing ones.
    - alphabettsy 10y ago
      I didn't realize there was any evidence whatsoever of people being funded or trained to smash windows or burn cars. Do you have any reasons for this law that are(1) based on evidence and (2) isn't already covered by existing law?
- bediger4000 10y ago
  Seems like it's maybe lacking in due process, and beyond, has a chilling effect on free speech. Why is the First Amendment such a red-headed stepchild? Because it hasn't been shaved as thin as the Fourth?
  - gozur88 10y ago
    I don't see why this would have a chilling effect on free speech. Surely people realize it's a crime to conspire to commit crimes?
    - bediger4000 10y ago
      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.
      - gozur88 10y ago
        >Because the way the bill apparently reads, anyone in a protest could end up with their property seized. I didn't see anything like that. Perhaps you can cite a particular clause?

6 points by dmode 10y ago

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.

CarolineW 10y ago
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. How can that be a good thing?
- gozur88 10y ago
  >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.
  - alphabettsy 10y ago
    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.
    - gozur88 10y ago
      This law isn't going to affect you if that's the case. The NRA (and most protest groups) don't plan and incite illegal behavior.
      - alphabettsy 10y ago
        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 vaguely worded on purpose.
        gozur88 10y ago
        I didn't see any wording that vague when I read the statute. Which clause are you talking about?
        alphabettsy 10y ago
        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.
        gozur88 10y ago
        >It's worded in a way that it could apply to a protest that becomes a riot rather than only a planned riot. 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.
  - CarolineW 10y ago
    I'm going by this: > ... 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.
    - gozur88 10y ago
      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.
      - CarolineW 10y ago
        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?
        gozur88 10y ago
        Yes, I am saying the law is not accurately represented. 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.
        CarolineW 10y ago
        > 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. Thank you for your clarification.
alphabettsy 10y ago
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.
- gozur88 10y ago
  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 arrest the getaway car driver involved in a bank heist. All he's doing is driving, right? That's not even illegal.
  - dragonwriter 10y ago
    > 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.)
    - gozur88 10y ago
      But this law includes remedies.
      - dragonwriter 10y ago
        So do the existing ones.
  - alphabettsy 10y ago
    I didn't realize there was any evidence whatsoever of people being funded or trained to smash windows or burn cars. Do you have any reasons for this law that are(1) based on evidence and (2) isn't already covered by existing law?
bediger4000 10y ago
Seems like it's maybe lacking in due process, and beyond, has a chilling effect on free speech. Why is the First Amendment such a red-headed stepchild? Because it hasn't been shaved as thin as the Fourth?
- gozur88 10y ago
  I don't see why this would have a chilling effect on free speech. Surely people realize it's a crime to conspire to commit crimes?
  - bediger4000 10y ago
    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.
    - gozur88 10y ago
      >Because the way the bill apparently reads, anyone in a protest could end up with their property seized. I didn't see anything like that. Perhaps you can cite a particular clause?