Minnesota bill would make convicted protesters liable for policing costs

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jan/25/minnesota-protesters-bill-liable-policing-costs
Comments
-
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?0
-
step 1: pass laws targeting 'unlawful' protesters.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 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 thatthese asshatsthe GOP stirs up?0 -
It has started
1st the EPA
News outlets
Tv network
Common citizen !
Total control !jesus greets me looks just like me ....0 -
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.It's a hopeless situation...0
-
exactly.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.
I LOVE MUSIC.
www.cluthelee.com
www.cluthe.com0 -
Bingo.mfc2006 said:
exactly.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.
Star Lake 00 / Pittsburgh 03 / State College 03 / Bristow 03 / Cleveland 06 / Camden II 06 / DC 08 / Pittsburgh 13 / Baltimore 13 / Charlottesville 13 / Cincinnati 14 / St. Paul 14 / Hampton 16 / Wrigley I 16 / Wrigley II 16 / Baltimore 20 / Camden 22 / Baltimore 24 / Raleigh I 25 / Raleigh II 25 / Pittsburgh I 250 -
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 said:
step 1: pass laws targeting 'unlawful' protesters.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 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 thatthese asshatsthe GOP stirs up?0 -
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.PJPOWER said:
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 said:
step 1: pass laws targeting 'unlawful' protesters.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 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 thatthese asshatsthe GOP stirs up?
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 ball0 -
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 said:
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.PJPOWER said:
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 said:
step 1: pass laws targeting 'unlawful' protesters.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 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 thatthese asshatsthe GOP stirs up?
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 ball0 -
Some people just want to watch the world burn. Not much anyone can do about that, except maybe vote differently next time.JC29856 said:
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 said:
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.PJPOWER said:
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 said:
step 1: pass laws targeting 'unlawful' protesters.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 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 thatthese asshatsthe GOP stirs up?
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 ball0
Categories
- All Categories
- 148.8K Pearl Jam's Music and Activism
- 110K The Porch
- 274 Vitalogy
- 35K Given To Fly (live)
- 3.5K Words and Music...Communication
- 39.1K Flea Market
- 39.1K Lost Dogs
- 58.7K Not Pearl Jam's Music
- 10.6K Musicians and Gearheads
- 29.1K Other Music
- 17.8K Poetry, Prose, Music & Art
- 1.1K The Art Wall
- 56.7K Non-Pearl Jam Discussion
- 22.2K A Moving Train
- 31.7K All Encompassing Trip
- 2.9K Technical Stuff and Help