Under this law, if someone in a protest smashes a store window, a bystander would be allowed to shoot that person in "self-defense". If protesters block traffic, that becomes a felony, which...
The proposal would expand the list of “forcible felonies” under Florida’s self-defense law to justify the use of force against people who engage in criminal mischief that results in the “interruption or impairment” of a business, and looting, which the draft defines as a burglary within 500 feet of a “violent or disorderly assembly.”
Other key elements of DeSantis’ proposal would enhance criminal penalties for people involved in “violent or disorderly assemblies,” make it a third-degree felony to block traffic during a protest, offer immunity to drivers who claim to have unintentionally killed or injured protesters who block traffic, and withhold state funds from local governments that cut law enforcement budgets.
Under this law, if someone in a protest smashes a store window, a bystander would be allowed to shoot that person in "self-defense".
If protesters block traffic, that becomes a felony, which typically means it's punishable by a year or more in prison, and crucially carries with it the loss of voting rights.
Not only that, but anyone within 500ft of a possible 'burglary' could be shot in self defense. And anyone part of such assemblies where a "burglary" is possible could be jailed without bond until...
Not only that, but anyone within 500ft of a possible 'burglary' could be shot in self defense.
And anyone part of such assemblies where a "burglary" is possible could be jailed without bond until their court date.
This is far worse than anything I've read to be considered in years.
Sorry, you're right, unconstitutional is not the word I should have used. I guess I was thinking along the lines of the 4th amendment, "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, ......
Sorry, you're right, unconstitutional is not the word I should have used. I guess I was thinking along the lines of the 4th amendment, "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, ... shall not be violated ... but upon probable cause.." but of course that's both about the government and about search and seizure, not about deadly force.
Regardless, I can't see how any reasonable judge would say that standing near an incident makes it OK for someone else to shoot you. These laws are very obviously about giving white people the right to shoot black people without needing a cause and without fear of punishment. It's disgusting.
OK, now this one does actually violate the constitution, at least as you've described it: I assume they've used some weasel words to not call the poll tax a poll tax? FWIW, California voted to...
OK, now this one does actually violate the constitution, at least as you've described it:
Twenty-Fourth Amendment
Section 1
The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.
I assume they've used some weasel words to not call the poll tax a poll tax?
FWIW, California voted to restore voting rights to paroled felons this election with the passage of Proposition 17, so there's progress being made in this area.
I am sorta OK with the traffic blocking thing, I think that can be a bit too disruptive. Especially if protestors take over a bridge. I am however, NOT ok with the stupidity that is the 500ft...
I am sorta OK with the traffic blocking thing, I think that can be a bit too disruptive. Especially if protestors take over a bridge. I am however, NOT ok with the stupidity that is the 500ft thing. I get that they want to justify business owners protecting their place (roof Koreans in LA riots of the 90's), but the breadth of the statement (I have not read the laws drafts, just the article so it could be sensationalism) is horrifying.
That's not entirely correct. As of the moment, felons regain their right to vote once they've finished their sentence and paid off any fees associated with it. It's still taken away until all that...
That's not entirely correct. As of the moment, felons regain their right to vote once they've finished their sentence and paid off any fees associated with it. It's still taken away until all that happens.
Also not entirely correct. Sentence yes, fees no depending on situation. An injunction against the order requiring fines to be paid was made by a federal judge in October 2019 that stopped the law...
Also not entirely correct. Sentence yes, fees no depending on situation. An injunction against the order requiring fines to be paid was made by a federal judge in October 2019 that stopped the law from applying to any indigent individual.
While that might have been true in October 2019, the ruling's gone back and forth since. Most recently the 11th Circuit ruled in favor of DeSantis (6-4) in September 2020 [1, 2], thereby...
While that might have been true in October 2019, the ruling's gone back and forth since. Most recently the 11th Circuit ruled in favor of DeSantis (6-4) in September 2020 [1, 2], thereby disenfranchising affected individuals this election cycle.
By the way, five of those six judges who voted in favor of disenfranchisement were appointed by Trump.
Thank you for the clarification, hadn't looked into it as far and didn't realize they still had the fees in there as I remember there being cases to stop it. Looks like the full block is still...
Thank you for the clarification, hadn't looked into it as far and didn't realize they still had the fees in there as I remember there being cases to stop it. Looks like the full block is still pending in the courts.
Under this law, if someone in a protest smashes a store window, a bystander would be allowed to shoot that person in "self-defense".
If protesters block traffic, that becomes a felony, which typically means it's punishable by a year or more in prison, and crucially carries with it the loss of voting rights.
Not only that, but anyone within 500ft of a possible 'burglary' could be shot in self defense.
And anyone part of such assemblies where a "burglary" is possible could be jailed without bond until their court date.
This is far worse than anything I've read to be considered in years.
Has anyone ever challenged these laws in court? Seems like the type of thing that would be unconstitutional, but the law is often counterintuitive.
Sorry, you're right, unconstitutional is not the word I should have used. I guess I was thinking along the lines of the 4th amendment, "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, ... shall not be violated ... but upon probable cause.." but of course that's both about the government and about search and seizure, not about deadly force.
Regardless, I can't see how any reasonable judge would say that standing near an incident makes it OK for someone else to shoot you. These laws are very obviously about giving white people the right to shoot black people without needing a cause and without fear of punishment. It's disgusting.
OK, now this one does actually violate the constitution, at least as you've described it:
I assume they've used some weasel words to not call the poll tax a poll tax?
FWIW, California voted to restore voting rights to paroled felons this election with the passage of Proposition 17, so there's progress being made in this area.
I am sorta OK with the traffic blocking thing, I think that can be a bit too disruptive. Especially if protestors take over a bridge. I am however, NOT ok with the stupidity that is the 500ft thing. I get that they want to justify business owners protecting their place (roof Koreans in LA riots of the 90's), but the breadth of the statement (I have not read the laws drafts, just the article so it could be sensationalism) is horrifying.
You're ok with blocking traffic being an offense sufficient to remove someone's voting rights?
You don't lose voting right in Florida any longer.
That's not entirely correct. As of the moment, felons regain their right to vote once they've finished their sentence and paid off any fees associated with it. It's still taken away until all that happens.
Also not entirely correct. Sentence yes, fees no depending on situation. An injunction against the order requiring fines to be paid was made by a federal judge in October 2019 that stopped the law from applying to any indigent individual.
While that might have been true in October 2019, the ruling's gone back and forth since. Most recently the 11th Circuit ruled in favor of DeSantis (6-4) in September 2020 [1, 2], thereby disenfranchising affected individuals this election cycle.
By the way, five of those six judges who voted in favor of disenfranchisement were appointed by Trump.
[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/florida-felon-voting/2020/09/11/9a6b5d3a-f45e-11ea-bc45-e5d48ab44b9f_story.html
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felony_disenfranchisement_in_Florida
Well shit and sonofabitch. Thanks for the correction.
Ah, thank you for the clarification.
Thank you for the clarification, hadn't looked into it as far and didn't realize they still had the fees in there as I remember there being cases to stop it. Looks like the full block is still pending in the courts.