Minnesota bill would make convicted protesters liable for policing costs

Philip_Ireland

It's getting scary
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jan/25/minnesota-protesters-bill-liable-policing-costs

PJPOWER

You should probably point out that it is the "unlawful" protesters that they are targeting. I'm okay with that in that those people usually undermine the general cause of the protests in most cases anyway...why should the city's tax payers be financially responsible for cleanup and other expenses that these asshats stir up?

CM189191

PJPOWER said:

You should probably point out that it is the "unlawful" protesters that they are targeting. I'm okay with that in that those people usually undermine the general cause of the protests in most cases anyway...why should the city's tax payers be financially responsible for cleanup and other expenses that these asshats stir up?

step 1: pass laws targeting 'unlawful' protesters.
step 2: define 'lawful' protesting with designated free speech areas, permits, etc
step 3: all protests are suddenly 'unlawful' because no permits issued

why should the city's tax payers be financially responsible for cleanup and other expenses that these asshats the GOP stirs up?

josevolution

It has started
1st the EPA
News outlets
Tv network
Common citizen !
Total control !

tbergs

Considering what I am hearing about the indiscriminate arrest of anyone in the area during the DC protests, this could be abused very easily. Not a fan of this. I understand the reasoning, but if they're going to go down the road of charging for the amount of police personnel needed to deal with incidents this opens the door to numerous possibilities of law enforcement "billing" for response measures on all types of incidents. And then we have a monetary motivation for excessive response and have turned public servants of the people in to a privatized enforcement agency.

mfc2006

tbergs said:

Considering what I am hearing about the indiscriminate arrest of anyone in the area during the DC protests, this could be abused very easily. Not a fan of this. I understand the reasoning, but if they're going to go down the road of charging for the amount of police personnel needed to deal with incidents this opens the door to numerous possibilities of law enforcement "billing" for response measures on all types of incidents. And then we have a monetary motivation for excessive response and have turned public servants of the people in to a privatized enforcement agency.

exactly.

HesCalledDyer

mfc2006 said:

tbergs said:

Considering what I am hearing about the indiscriminate arrest of anyone in the area during the DC protests, this could be abused very easily. Not a fan of this. I understand the reasoning, but if they're going to go down the road of charging for the amount of police personnel needed to deal with incidents this opens the door to numerous possibilities of law enforcement "billing" for response measures on all types of incidents. And then we have a monetary motivation for excessive response and have turned public servants of the people in to a privatized enforcement agency.

exactly.

Bingo.

PJPOWER

CM189191 said:

PJPOWER said:

You should probably point out that it is the "unlawful" protesters that they are targeting. I'm okay with that in that those people usually undermine the general cause of the protests in most cases anyway...why should the city's tax payers be financially responsible for cleanup and other expenses that these asshats stir up?

step 1: pass laws targeting 'unlawful' protesters.
step 2: define 'lawful' protesting with designated free speech areas, permits, etc
step 3: all protests are suddenly 'unlawful' because no permits issued

why should the city's tax payers be financially responsible for cleanup and other expenses that these asshats the GOP stirs up?

I can see the slippery slope from a rule like this, but at the same time I see the need to get some of these rioters under control...I guess I sympathize with both sides of this argument. Harsher fines/punishment for those that are caught breaking or burning shit may be the better route to go...but harsher fines would kinda be the same thing as having them pay for policing in a round about way...

CM189191

PJPOWER said:

CM189191 said:

PJPOWER said:

You should probably point out that it is the "unlawful" protesters that they are targeting. I'm okay with that in that those people usually undermine the general cause of the protests in most cases anyway...why should the city's tax payers be financially responsible for cleanup and other expenses that these asshats stir up?

step 1: pass laws targeting 'unlawful' protesters.
step 2: define 'lawful' protesting with designated free speech areas, permits, etc
step 3: all protests are suddenly 'unlawful' because no permits issued

why should the city's tax payers be financially responsible for cleanup and other expenses that these asshats the GOP stirs up?

I can see the slippery slope from a rule like this, but at the same time I see the need to get some of these rioters under control...I guess I sympathize with both sides of this argument. Harsher fines/punishment for those that are caught breaking or burning shit may be the better route to go...but harsher fines would kinda be the same thing as having them pay for policing in a round about way...

This is clearly a way to control protesters, not protect property. Destruction of property is already against the law, persecute with the laws you already have on the books.

Also see: trans/cross-dressers in public restrooms. We need to protect our daughters from rapists! (...but rape is already against the law, how does this new law change anything?)

don't take your eye off the ball

JC29856

CM189191 said:

PJPOWER said:

CM189191 said:

PJPOWER said:

You should probably point out that it is the "unlawful" protesters that they are targeting. I'm okay with that in that those people usually undermine the general cause of the protests in most cases anyway...why should the city's tax payers be financially responsible for cleanup and other expenses that these asshats stir up?

step 1: pass laws targeting 'unlawful' protesters.
step 2: define 'lawful' protesting with designated free speech areas, permits, etc
step 3: all protests are suddenly 'unlawful' because no permits issued

why should the city's tax payers be financially responsible for cleanup and other expenses that these asshats the GOP stirs up?

I can see the slippery slope from a rule like this, but at the same time I see the need to get some of these rioters under control...I guess I sympathize with both sides of this argument. Harsher fines/punishment for those that are caught breaking or burning shit may be the better route to go...but harsher fines would kinda be the same thing as having them pay for policing in a round about way...

This is clearly a way to control protesters, not protect property. Destruction of property is already against the law, persecute with the laws you already have on the books.

Also see: trans/cross-dressers in public restrooms. We need to protect our daughters from rapists! (...but rape is already against the law, how does this new law change anything?)

don't take your eye off the ball

Good points...the problem I have are with shit stirrers and agent provocateurs and mass arrests. Kinda like what happened on inauguration day. A few people in black masks burn trash cans limos and break windows but they mass arrest everyone that was kettled.

CM189191

JC29856 said:

CM189191 said:

PJPOWER said:

CM189191 said:

PJPOWER said:

You should probably point out that it is the "unlawful" protesters that they are targeting. I'm okay with that in that those people usually undermine the general cause of the protests in most cases anyway...why should the city's tax payers be financially responsible for cleanup and other expenses that these asshats stir up?

step 1: pass laws targeting 'unlawful' protesters.
step 2: define 'lawful' protesting with designated free speech areas, permits, etc
step 3: all protests are suddenly 'unlawful' because no permits issued

why should the city's tax payers be financially responsible for cleanup and other expenses that these asshats the GOP stirs up?

I can see the slippery slope from a rule like this, but at the same time I see the need to get some of these rioters under control...I guess I sympathize with both sides of this argument. Harsher fines/punishment for those that are caught breaking or burning shit may be the better route to go...but harsher fines would kinda be the same thing as having them pay for policing in a round about way...

This is clearly a way to control protesters, not protect property. Destruction of property is already against the law, persecute with the laws you already have on the books.

Also see: trans/cross-dressers in public restrooms. We need to protect our daughters from rapists! (...but rape is already against the law, how does this new law change anything?)

don't take your eye off the ball

Good points...the problem I have are with shit stirrers and agent provocateurs and mass arrests. Kinda like what happened on inauguration day. A few people in black masks burn trash cans limos and break windows but they mass arrest everyone that was kettled.

Some people just want to watch the world burn. Not much anyone can do about that, except maybe vote differently next time.