Proposed Florida anti-rioting laws "merely a legal excuse to mow down pedestrians"
If you want to protest, stay on the sidewalks. The moment you start blocking the roadways and threatening traffic is when your rights to peaceful assembly cease to exist.
I would disagree. That right still exists, but that isn't what you are doing anymore, thus it would be irrelevant.
This is unlikely to happen in my sweet home Alabama at this point in time, but I've already made up my mind about what to do if subjected to a specific threat situation I've repeatedly seen on TV.
Should I ever be in a car surrounded by a mob and one of them even begins to break a window, that scumbag eats a bullet.
Me dino stays out of downtown Birmingham as much as possible and would definitely stay out if I hear there is protesting going on.
Could happened. Atlanta is just a two-hour drive from here where a Wendy's got burned down for the crime of being close to an incident.
Birmingham has already had some trouble over historical statues.
My husband is very easy going, which is nice because wherever I go, he wants to go too. And he never goes anywhere unarmed unless it's illegal to do so, and then he's armed right up until he has no further choice. It's hard for me to believe that there was actually a time when I thought being armed all the time was an over-reaction.
BTW there are insurance firms that will cover the risk of having to defend yourself. When hubby was teaching CHL lessons, he'd have a rep come visit and give a presentation. I don't know, but I just bet the premiums have gone up a bit - or a lot - lately.
I always had a polite something to say to the armed guard, who would be the first concern of any bank robber who followed me in.
Me dino doesn't tailgate but now I recall all the times I've been in heavy traffic sometimes with parked cars between me and a sidewalk to my right, tight for heavy traffic on my left and, oh, now I must stop at another red light.
And another red light. And another red light. And now look at the back of that 18-wheeler I find in front of me. Now a beggar wants me to roll down my window. Ignore the bum.
Thanks for the advice but should I have to defend myself I'll just have to. Odds are I'll never have to shoot anyone but I try to keep myself mentally prepared.
I realize that if it comes down to the use of force, I will need to have the funds to legally defend myself. I have connections with a couple good attorneys and can fund my defense. I do not want it to come to that, so I have done what I can to stay out of the trouble zones. If the trouble comes into my quiet neighborhood, then force will be met with force and my attorney will be close at hand.
That way, only one ear will go WREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!
Of course, I could be wrong.
He says he's held back because federalism -- but federalism is about laws that are optional. No city or state has business using it as an excuse to let people be murdered or their shops burned because some nut group wants to throw a tantrum. Being protected from violent and property crime is a human right. #ThugLivesDontMatter
I applaud DeSantis for trying to do something, but I see no purpose in passing a law that reinforces the illegality of something that’s already illegal.
Now does that mean that the people in those jurisdictions are going to suffer? Probably. What we have to hope is that suffering brings calls for change which appear at the ballot box. Otherwise, the change will be a result of force from rioters and will get ugly.
The Constitutional Convention did debate a provision that would have banned Congress from maintaining a standing army, but decided not to. Though in practice we did not have one during peacetime (beyond the National Guard) until after the Mexican War.
I found this in reference to the Posse Comitatus and Insurrection Acts: https://www.thoughtco.com/posse-comit... One of the things it points out is that there are significant limits on what the National Guard may be used for.
Again, however, I have to ask: what is the impetus behind getting federal forces involved? I can point to a few instances where that only went bad, such as the Bundy Ranch standoff and the Malheur Reserve protest in which Lavoy Finicum was murdered. One could also add Ruby Ridge, Waco, and the incident with Elian Gonzalez. I'm not such a big one on playing with fire.
The reason I want federal forces involved is that in places like Portland and Minneapolis, the city councils, police chiefs, state prosecutors and governors are all in bed with the bad guys, so either the feds intervene or the victims have no option except to fight a gun battle against both the BLM thugs and the corrupt police who are protecting them. If civilians are put in that position, then government isn't doing its #1 job.
It's political but not illegal. When Eisenhower went in to enforce desegregation at Selma, he couldn't use National Guard troops from Alabama because the governor refused. Same thing with the border kerfuffle. The President just has to call on units from other (politically-friendly) states.
"The reason I want federal forces involved..."
I agree that the entire system smacks not only of injustice but dereliction of duty by local elected officials. That isn't sufficient justification, however, to attempt to remove those officials from office using Federalized troops. Yes, its absolutely unfair to the citizens that their local officials are jackasses (double meaning there) but we have to look at the forest rather than the trees.
One of the huge erosions we've seen in the Constitution has arisen as States have seen their power usurped by the Federal government in nearly every arena. The entire purpose behind having States at all was to make politics local and applicable. The biggest problems facing our nation right now are nation-wide in nature - not local - and all revolve around too much power in the Federal Government. If we start using Federal authorities to remove objectionable local authorities rather than allow their own citizenry to do it, we might as well just end Federalism entirely and dissolve the States, eliminating the 50 individual petri dishes they represent and subjecting all of us to the same overly-broad rulemaking which gave us Common Core. IMHO, that's a cure worse than the disease.
Oh, snap!
Here is one list, but it may not be complete. https://www.diamondandsilk.com/comple...
In this case, the ridiculous and unethical rules for asset seizure could be used for good.
I am well within my natural rights, recognized by SYG, to defend myself and any passengers with any means at my disposal.
For example, if someone breaks in and tries to run off with stuff, you can pursue and use requisite force to recover.
Remember: Don't Break for Communism...where have I seen that before?
Verrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrry Sllllllooooooooooooooowly. And then, oops, he forgot something back on the other side, so they all had to go back. You can see where this is going.
Not that he was really averse to violence. Lots of threats, broke a police officer's ankle, occasionally beat on a car door, various stuff. Also arrested for things like tax evasion, acts of public corruption. I don't believe he ever went to prison, though no doubt he should have...there may be some benefit to delaying tactics when it comes to trials. But the thing I remember the most was him crossing the street at the crosswalks. The people he caught up in that were, I am sure, absolutely infuriated. Which is what he intended.