Poll of the Day > Florida governor proposes law to allow people to run over peaceful protestors.

(+) Yeah! (+)

https://twitter.com/GovRonDeSantis/status/1308095991183220736?s=20
Disgusting. Im sure the racist Trumpers of Florida are creaming their pants.

Ooh, cool, in Florida terrorism is legal. Great.

---

Come on man. It doesn't say u can run over peaceful protesters. It Litterally says fleeing for safety from a mob. It what twisted way can u conflate peaceful protester with a mob?

hungrymike posted...

It Litterally says fleeing for safety from a mob.

'i feared for my life so i plowed through a crowd of people'

---

hungrymike posted...

It what twisted way can u conflate peaceful protester with a mob?

this is sarcasm right

---

I can't fucking believe I have to start bringing red shells to protests now

---

oh ffs

---

legal muder

---

Of course it's Florida

---

<3

Dont make me a part of your shit.



papercup posted...

Ooh, cool, in Florida terrorism is legal. Great.

Hahahhahahahhhahahhahaha!!1111

Terrorism is what the people getting run-over are doing! So yeah, up until this law, I guess it was!

---

DirtBasedSoap posted...

'i feared for my life so i plowed through a crowd of people'

Yeah that's totally going to happen.
---

hungrymike posted...

Come on man. It doesn't say u can run over peaceful protesters. It Litterally says fleeing for safety from a mob. It what twisted way can u conflate peaceful protester with a mob?

Those words mean nothing in a state that legally allows you to "Stand Your Ground" because you "feared for your safety"

Literally every instance of drivers running over protestors, they'll claim they were in danger, and I don't trust a jury of Florida Men to actually call bull shit on it.

TheSlinja posted... this is sarcasm right

*Video of a driver plowing into peaceful protestors, with them screaming in horror and running in terror*
Police: See! Look at how angry and chaotic they are! Clearly that was a mob, not a group of peaceful protestors.

zebatov posted...

<3

Dont make me a part of your shit.

Lol nice

Revelation34 posted...

Yeah that's totally going to happen.

THIS HAS ALREADY HAPPENED

---

TheSlinja posted...

THIS HAS ALREADY HAPPENED

Citation needed. Especially since this law was just created.
---

Blightzkrieg posted...

I can't fucking believe I have to start bringing red shells to protests now

Or dont block traffic?

Blocking traffic is like having a 30-second ad before a 15-second video. I will absolutely never support your product.

---

Protecting yourself from a mob!? The horror!

If I'm understanding this correctly, it is basically reiterating what we were all supposed to learn as children. Don't play in the street.

---

Good, stop letting these degenerates get away with their shit.

---

TheSlinja posted...

this is sarcasm right

If u have trouble distinguishing between a peaceful protest and a mob, maybe you're part of the problem.

"increases penalties for those who target law enforcement and participate in violent or disorderly assemblies."

Sweet, fuck rioters.

Nobody should have to suffer intimidation and violence because their attackers engage in double-talk.
---

Gamerz4Justice posted...

I know that your alt has a far-left troll gimmick going on, but this clearly isn't the same thing as just "allowing" drivers to run over protesters. They would still need to demonstrate that they're fleeing danger. It's not carte blanche to run over protesters and it very specifically isn't about "peaceful protesters" unless you're facetiously calling them peaceful protesters as a means of mocking the idea of peaceful protest.

papercup posted...

Ooh, cool, in Florida terrorism is legal. Great.

Considering that laws like these limit an angry mob's ability to inflict terror and damage, the opposite seems true. If somebody is being attacked while in a vehicle, they now have some measure of legal protection while trying to escape that violence. The one major problem is that it's just a band-aid and doesn't address the fact that the police have done little to stop mobs from engaging in bad behaviors in the first place.

---

hungrymike posted...

Come on man. It doesn't say u can run over peaceful protesters. It Litterally says fleeing for safety from a mob. It what twisted way can u conflate peaceful protester with a mob?

Seriously. Is there any argument the left has that doesnt rely on purposefully omitting context and/or gaslighting?

Well, it's 20 years late, but Deathrace 2000 is FINALLY starting.

We used to call out points while driving all the time.

---

wolfy42 posted...

Well, it's 20 years late, but Deathrace 2000 is FINALLY starting.

We used to call out points while driving all the time.

Do you wanna be ma Frankenstein?

---

Kyuubi4269 posted...

"increases penalties for those who target law enforcement and participate in violent or disorderly assemblies."

Sweet, fuck rioters.

The way that's written, merely being present at a protest when a few anarchists, far right false-flaggers, or anyone else decide to start breaking windows or setting fires means you can get hit w/ a penalty, even if you didn't fucking do anything,
It doesn't say participate in violent or disorderly actions, but assemblies. Holy fucking 1984 level bull shit!
At least that wording is so ridiculously broad and blatantly anti-1st Amendment that any decent judge would laugh it out of the court.

Nobody should have to suffer intimidation and violence because their attackers engage in double-talk.

Unless it's Ahmaud Arbery, then that's totally cool with you.

DirtBasedSoap posted...

'i feared for my life so i plowed through a crowd of people'

I mean, some cops use this to shoot people. So, I wouldnt be surprised if someone used it to run over people...
---

streamofthesky posted...

The way that's written, merely being present at a protest when a few anarchists, far right false-flaggers, or anyone else decide to start breaking windows or setting fires means you can get hit w/ a penalty, even if you didn't f***ing do anything,

Bonus points where the handful of people breaking windows and setting fires at some of these protests have been police. This conceivably gives police the power to arrest everybody present even if the police are the only violent ones.

On paper, it seems reasonable. Pretty much everyone can agree that rioting and other such violent behaviours are bad and deserve some degree of punishment. Consider how broad the wording is and the potential implications for overreach, though, and this should terrify everyone. Vandalism and assault are already illegal; the only reason more people aren't prosecuted for it is because of how difficult it is to single out individual antagonists in a chaotic situation like this. The solution being proposed here is to skip the step of singling out individual antagonists and instead just prosecute anyone they can get their hands on for being "associated with" (read: in the same area as) actual perpetrators. They're not making it illegal to riot, they're making it illegal to be present at a riot, and that's very much not okay.

---

I mean... its definitely fucked up to run over people who are protesting...

But at the same time, no protestors should block the roads ever. I get that theyre trying to make a difference, but have some sympathy for the workers too. When Im heading home after a long day of being made to feel like Im human garbage, dealing with obnoxious customers all day, making nowhere near enough money... the absolute last thing I need is to have my already-too-long commute extended even more.

---

rexcrk posted...

I mean... its definitely fucked up to run over people who are protesting...

But at the same time, no protestors should block the roads ever. I get that theyre trying to make a difference, but have some sympathy for the workers too. When Im heading home after a long day of being made to feel like Im human garbage, dealing with obnoxious customers all day, making nowhere near enough money... the absolute last thing I need is to have my already-too-long commute extended even more.

My boss always told me that in a situation where you hear the word but, everything which comes before it is bullshit.

So, let me get this straight, you being inconvenienced is grounds to kill somebody?


---

dedbus posted...

Protecting yourself from a mob!? The horror!

You're supposed to let them swarm you, pull you out of your car, and beat you half to death.
Didst thou not get the memo?!

---

Always the same few guys in these topics. Not suprised at kyubbi being a murder horny weirdo. That's his jam.

---

rexcrk posted...

But at the same time, no protestors should block the roads ever. I get that theyre trying to make a difference, but have some sympathy for the workers too.

maybe if cops murdered less and more people paid attention when they did, attention would not have to be forced in this way

---

DirtBasedSoap posted...

'i feared for my life so i plowed through a crowd of people'

thats what it says. Thats what it means in plain English.

in Floridian it means gun the engine billy joe Jim bob theeer er a lot of Mahnorties over thar with wurds on sahgns I kant read.

you need to add the as read by a Florida man principle

---

kangolcone posted...

My boss always told me that in a situation where you hear the word but, everything which comes before it is bullshit.

Which, in this case, according to you, would be I mean... its definitely f***ed up to run over people who are protesting..

Which I certainly do NOT think is bullshit.

I just think everyone should stop being inconsiderate.

---

rexcrk posted...

Which, in this case, according to you, would be I mean... its definitely f***ed up to run over people who are protesting..

Which I certainly do NOT think is bullshit.

I just think everyone should stop being inconsiderate.

Lol someone blocking traffic and someone running over said blockers of traffic aren't the same level of "inconsiderate"

---

kangolcone posted...

being inconvenienced is grounds to kill somebody?

lets put this in prospective here....

THIS IS FLORIDA!

these people dont matter!
(Pam- aka Rafi- from dirty grandpa)

---

What about people trying to get to a doctor or a hospital in an emergency? What about people who might have to help a loved one.

You have to think about things from EVERY perspective. Like, I understand why people want to protest, but there are ways of doing it so that innocent people dont have to be inconvenienced either. I know its more fun to play the Im an internet good guy! but cmon.

---

This seems pretty unconstitutional to me. You could be attending a peaceful protest, or what you think is a peaceful protest. Some ass hat decides to break some windows or deface property and now you can be charged with a felony.

makes sense given the instances of leftist mobs obstructing cars and attacking them and the people inside, like happened here

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=60cqUPxYThY

---

Wanded posted...

makes sense given the instances of leftist mobs obstructing cars and attacking them and the people inside, like happened here

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=60cqUPxYThY

holy shit!!!!

is that a trailer for saints row 5?????

those graphics look legit!


---

streamofthesky posted...

The way that's written, merely being present at a protest when a few anarchists, far right false-flaggers, or anyone else decide to start breaking windows or setting fires means you can get hit w/ a penalty, even if you didn't fucking do anything

Don't go around with violent sociopaths then? It's an incentive to dissociate from thugs and organise your protests intelligently. If you can't keep your group in line then you need to splinter off, you don't get to be a shield for domestic terrorists. It's super easy and common decency.

streamofthesky posted...

It doesn't say participate in violent or disorderly actions, but assemblies. Holy fucking 1984 level bull shit!
At least that wording is so ridiculously broad and blatantly anti-1st Amendment that any decent judge would laugh it out of the court.

It's guilt by association, by assembling along side criminals, you paint yourself complicit. Knowingly assembling with criminals makes you a co-conspirator, this just makes the boundary crystal clear to people who can't understand how they're propagating violence.
---

kangolcone posted...

My boss always told me that in a situation where you hear the word but, everything which comes before it is bullshit.

So, let me get this straight, you being inconvenienced is grounds to kill somebody?

Your boss is clearly a moron then.
---

Kyuubi4269 posted...

Don't go around with violent sociopaths then

The guy saying this took the sides of Ahmad Aubrey killers saying that calling him the n word after he had been shot was justified.

Edit: he also defended their actions well after they were found guilty of hunting him down and killing him for no reason.

Was also glad that a man shot and killed his relative because he jumped out the bushes and scared him.

---

EvilMegas posted...

Lol someone blocking traffic and someone running over said blockers of traffic aren't the same level of "inconsiderate"

You're confusing the issue. U can't run people over for protesting in the street. If a mob attacks and u fear for your life u may flee. I hope that helped clear your confussion.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

Don't go around with violent sociopaths then? It's an incentive to dissociate from thugs and organise your protests intelligently. If you can't keep your group in line then you need to splinter off, you don't get to be a shield for domestic terrorists. It's super easy and common decency.

It's guilt by association, by assembling along side criminals, you paint yourself complicit. Knowingly assembling with criminals makes you a co-conspirator, this just makes the boundary crystal clear to people who can't understand how they're propagating violence.

For the 1 millionth time...
What the absolute fuck is wrong with you?

EvilMegas posted...

The guy saying this took the sides of Ahmad Aubrey killers saying that calling him the n word after he had been shot was justified.

Edit: he also defended their actions well after they were found guilty of hunting him down and killing him for no reason.

Was also glad that a man shot and killed his relative because he jumped out the bushes and scared him.

Don't forget...he defended Arbery's killers and said they were justified, yet has the sheer fucking audacity to say in this topic:

Kyuubi4269 posted...

Nobody should have to suffer intimidation and violence because their attackers engage in double-talk.

zebatov posted...

Dont make me a part of your shit.

That attitude right there is part of the problem.

---

EvilMegas posted...

The guy saying this took the sides of Ahmad Aubrey killers saying that calling him the n word after he had been shot was justified.

I defended the argument as presented in lieu of evidence, what you're obligated to do when somebody has not evidence against him. You just went with the mob like these domestic terrorists destroying cities.

EvilMegas posted...

Was also glad that a man shot and killed his relative because he jumped out the bushes and scared him.

Ya, it's fatal stupidity like playing in traffic on the freeway.

streamofthesky posted...

Don't forget...he defended Arbery's killers and said they were justified, yet has the sheer fucking audacity to say in this topic:

How is this contradictory? We have proof of harm done and threats levied, the law needs no further evidence it occured than what we've seen.
---