Arizona law will seize assets of protestors
news.vice.com
news.vice.com
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?
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?