Florida new anti-riot law

[Ray From Cleveland]

Nope, that's not what it means at all. If you're attempting to do something that means you are in the act of doing it, not having problems. What incentive would she have for being arrested or injured by defying a police order? Doing so would automatically end her coverage, which is what she is tasked with doing. Breaking the law, could most certainly end their careers. Why would she do this? lol.

You have no legal entitlement to a phone call from jail. It doesn't matter how many times you've seen this in a movie or tv show.

That's ridiculous. Of course you have the right to contact somebody after being arrested. I could imagine the lawsuit against a police department that would hold you indefinitely or until your court date. Correct, it is a Hollywood standard in jail scenes to get one phone call.

It’s actually a Hollywood myth that you get that one and only one phone call after arrest. People often imagine that if the first person they call doesn’t pick up, they’re out of luck. You actually get up to three calls.

Know Your Rights: Phone Calls From Jail | All City Bail Bonds

Phone calls from jail aren't limited to one, and Washington State is making them more affordable.

www.allcitybailbonds.com

CNN would never fire her for creating a scene, nor hurt her career. That's how they attract their audience. In fact it seems to me she did want to get arrested. If she was told to leave, she wasn't going to get anymore coverage anyway. The police tell you to disperse and you turn around and head away from the riot. She didn't which is why the arresting officer asked her if she spoke English.

 

[krichton]

Nope, that's not what it means at all. If you're attempting to do something that means you are in the act of doing it, not having problems. What incentive would she have for being arrested or injured by defying a police order? Doing so would automatically end her coverage, which is what she is tasked with doing. Breaking the law, could most certainly end their careers. Why would she do this? lol.

You have no legal entitlement to a phone call from jail. It doesn't matter how many times you've seen this in a movie or tv show.

That's ridiculous. Of course you have the right to contact somebody after being arrested. I could imagine the lawsuit against a police department that would hold you indefinitely or until your court date. Correct, it is a Hollywood standard in jail scenes to get one phone call.

It’s actually a Hollywood myth that you get that one and only one phone call after arrest. People often imagine that if the first person they call doesn’t pick up, they’re out of luck. You actually get up to three calls.

Know Your Rights: Phone Calls From Jail | All City Bail Bonds

Phone calls from jail aren't limited to one, and Washington State is making them more affordable.

www.allcitybailbonds.com

CNN would never fire her for creating a scene, nor hurt her career. That's how they attract their audience. In fact it seems to me she did want to get arrested. If she was told to leave, she wasn't going to get anymore coverage anyway. The police tell you to disperse and you turn around and head away from the riot. She didn't which is why the arresting officer asked her if she spoke English.

Answer this honestly. When was the last time you've seen any legitimate producer/reporter create a scene in order to be intentonally arrested, and then was no longer able to report on the event she was supposed to cover? Reporters report the news, they don't become it. That's a basic tenet of their job. The cop asked if she spoke english after she had repeatedly told him she was with the media and even after she had told him her cuffs were too tight. Why make excuses for police brutality and possibly racism, unless you welcome a police state? We know police do this all the time. We see it all the time. Doesn't matter if it's just a protestor standing still holding a sign, an elderly man who isn't moving fast enough, or reporters covering protests from the sidelines. They will arrest and assault anyone nearby regardless of whether they're actually breaking any laws and gather them up for arrest. God help the ppl who are too poor for bail, for doing nothing, but excercising their rights. This is tactic the police employ at every left wing protest. Conversely, when have you ever seen a reporter with a real news agency attack a cop so they can get arrested? lol.

Busting The “One Phone Call From Jail” Myth | 1UP Legal

Is it true that you only get one phone call from jail? It's an enduring myth portrayed in countless movies and TV shows, but the reality is far different...

quinnanlaw.com

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Answer this honestly. When was the last time you've seen any legitimate producer/reporter create a scene in order to be intentonally arrested, and then was no longer able to report on the event she was supposed to cover? Reporters report the news, they don't become it. That's a basic tenet of their job. The cop asked if she spoke english after she had repeatedly told him she was with the media and even after she had told him her cuffs were too tight. Why make excuses for police brutality and possibly racism, unless you welcome a police state? We know police do this all the time. We see it all the time. Doesn't matter if it's just a protestor standing still holding a sign, an elderly man who isn't moving fast enough, or reporters covering protests from the sidelines. They will arrest and assault anyone nearby regardless of whether they're actually breaking any laws and gather them up for arrest. God help the ppl who are too poor for bail, for doing nothing, but excercising their rights. This is tactic the police employ at every left wing protest. Conversely, when have you ever seen a reporter with a real news agency attack a cop so they can get arrested? lol.

Police only arrest people they have to. Do you know what an officer has to do after an arrest? He needs to transport the prisoner to jail. He needs to interview the suspect. He needs to write out a report, he needs to attend court to testify in case the judge has any questions at his or her hearing. Why would an officer do go through all that work if he didn't need to?

The officer asked if she spoke English after hearing her speak English because she obviously wasn't listening to his orders, not because of her ethnicity. Plus this was her claim and we have no evidence of it, just like we have no evidence she was trying to comply with their orders. If you are not complying with orders, being a reporter or producer is not a get out of jail free card. You do what they tell you to do and then try to speak to somebody about your situation. Plus again, I don't know why a major cable television would send out a producer instead of a reporter. That alone sounds pretty suspect to me.

I never said she tried to attack the cop, I said she obviously wasn't complying with orders. It's CNN, right? If she was violated, why don't they have a copy of the body cam the officer was wearing? If they don't have it yet, or are not going to try and get it, they are doing so for a reason.

According to my source, not allowing communications with people outside of the jail is a constitutional violation of the 14th Amendment that gives every citizen the right of due process which communication is part of.

Your Rights When You Are Detained: Do You Really Get A Phone Call? | Dolan Law Firm

Arrestees are entitled to make at least three phone calls at no expense if they are within the local calling area and at the arrested person's own expense (if outside the local calling area).

dolanlawfirm.com

 

[krichton]

Answer this honestly. When was the last time you've seen any legitimate producer/reporter create a scene in order to be intentonally arrested, and then was no longer able to report on the event she was supposed to cover? Reporters report the news, they don't become it. That's a basic tenet of their job. The cop asked if she spoke english after she had repeatedly told him she was with the media and even after she had told him her cuffs were too tight. Why make excuses for police brutality and possibly racism, unless you welcome a police state? We know police do this all the time. We see it all the time. Doesn't matter if it's just a protestor standing still holding a sign, an elderly man who isn't moving fast enough, or reporters covering protests from the sidelines. They will arrest and assault anyone nearby regardless of whether they're actually breaking any laws and gather them up for arrest. God help the ppl who are too poor for bail, for doing nothing, but excercising their rights. This is tactic the police employ at every left wing protest. Conversely, when have you ever seen a reporter with a real news agency attack a cop so they can get arrested? lol.

Police only arrest people they have to. Do you know what an officer has to do after an arrest? He needs to transport the prisoner to jail. He needs to interview the suspect. He needs to write out a report, he needs to attend court to testify in case the judge has any questions at his or her hearing. Why would an officer do go through all that work if he didn't need to?

The officer asked if she spoke English after hearing her speak English because she obviously wasn't listening to his orders, not because of her ethnicity. Plus this was her claim and we have no evidence of it, just like we have no evidence she was trying to comply with their orders. If you are not complying with orders, being a reporter or producer is not a get out of jail free card. You do what they tell you to do and then try to speak to somebody about your situation. Plus again, I don't know why a major cable television would send out a producer instead of a reporter. That alone sounds pretty suspect to me.

I never said she tried to attack the cop, I said she obviously wasn't complying with orders. It's CNN, right? If she was violated, why don't they have a copy of the body cam the officer was wearing? If they don't have it yet, or are not going to try and get it, they are doing so for a reason.

According to my source, not allowing communications with people outside of the jail is a constitutional violation of the 14th Amendment that gives every citizen the right of due process which communication is part of.

Your Rights When You Are Detained: Do You Really Get A Phone Call? | Dolan Law Firm

Arrestees are entitled to make at least three phone calls at no expense if they are within the local calling area and at the arrested person's own expense (if outside the local calling area).

dolanlawfirm.com

No. Everything you just said there is simply a story you cooked up in your own head to justify police brutality. The police haven't contradicted a thing she said because they don't need to, because they can do what they want.

Peaceful protestors are scooped up all the time during protests. It's part of the tactics they use. During the floyd protests federal agents would drag random peaceful protestors into vans or cars and drive off with them without actually arresting them. You see this year after year but usually with the cops doing something similar. Asking why they would do that is a question for the police. I'm guessing it's sort of like a terror or intidimation tactic to make ppl afraid to protest. All i'm doing is enlightening you on the facts.

California has laws allowing you to make a phone call, but this is not a given in every state. It's not a legal right in the United States. It depends on the state you've been arrested in.

Minnesota Governor Calls Alleged Assaults on Journalists ‘Chilling’ (Published 2021)

Gov. Tim Walz said he had told police officers to “make changes” that would allow reporters to do their jobs.

www.nytimes.com

20 media outlets are filing lawsuits against the minnessota police department for assaulting their reporters. This is nothing new. A photo journalist was blinded in one eye with a rubber bullet. I guess she was somehow not "complying" and deserved being shot in the eye.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

No. Everything you just said there is simply a story you cooked up in your own head to justify police brutality. The police haven't contradicted a thing she said because they don't need to, because they can do what they want.

Peaceful protestors are scooped up all the time during protests. It's part of the tactics they use. During the floyd protests federal agents would drag random peaceful protestors into vans or cars and drive off with them without actually arresting them. You see this year after year but usually with the cops doing something similar. Asking why they would do that is a question for the police. I'm guessing it's sort of like a terror or intidimation tactic to make ppl afraid to protest. All i'm doing is enlightening you on the facts.

California has laws allowing you to make a phone call, but this is not a given in every state. It's not a legal right in the United States. It depends on the state you've been arrested in.

As my reliable source points out not allowing a suspect to contact people outside of the jail is a violation of due process. After all, that's what cops do after they arrest you, they process you.

If police can do what they want then why can't CNN? CNN could hound them for the video, for a response to the allegation, file a complaint with the ACLU. They did none of these things. An unproven claim was made and you just expect me to believe it. If there were any merit to this claim, CNN would be pursuing it aggressively.

20 media outlets are filing lawsuits against the minnessota police department for assaulting their reporters. This is nothing new. A photo journalist was blinded in one eye with a rubber bullet. I guess she was somehow not "complying" and deserved being shot in the eye.

That's likely the case. You can get anybody to file a lawsuit. It's if it's ruled legitimate is what proves anything.

 

[justoffal]

For those of you on the left confused as to what real leadership looks like, all you have to do is look at Republican Governor Ron DeSantis. Harsher penalties for rioters and you cannot damage any monuments of any kind. In those commie parts of the state, it would fine all local governments who interfere with policing during a riot.

This is how to do things the RIGHT way.

Florida Gov. DeSantis signs controversial âanti-riotâ bill into law

A controversial Florida bill aimed at cracking down on violent protests was signed into law on Monday by Gov. Ron DeSantis.

www.wesh.com

Interesting that the law mandates how much localities must spend on law enforcement. Big government is OK is you control the government I guess.

They mandate no such thing. The towns and municipalities are free to decide what they will spend on their police departments. Florida is also free to decide whether or not it will help a certain town or municipality that refuses to help itself. It is also free to protect Floridians whose own cities and towns have abandoned them to violence by holding local government responsible putting them in that situation.

Jo

 

[jbrownson0831]

Since when was BLM destroying businesses and tearing down statues? They’ve been peaceful since day 1 and compare nothing to Jan 6th.

Ron Desantis just hates black people as he has referred to them as monkeys

Liar

 

[toobfreak]

For those of you on the left confused as to what real leadership looks like, all you have to do is look at Republican Governor Ron DeSantis. Harsher penalties for rioters and you cannot damage any monuments of any kind. In those commie parts of the state, it would fine all local governments who interfere with policing during a riot.

Too bad there wasn't tougher laws in DC, they would have come in handy on Jan 6th.

One tough law DC could definitely stand to have is much tougher laws prosecuting people who cheat on and rig elections.

 

[alang1216]

For those of you on the left confused as to what real leadership looks like, all you have to do is look at Republican Governor Ron DeSantis. Harsher penalties for rioters and you cannot damage any monuments of any kind. In those commie parts of the state, it would fine all local governments who interfere with policing during a riot.

This is how to do things the RIGHT way.

Florida Gov. DeSantis signs controversial âanti-riotâ bill into law

A controversial Florida bill aimed at cracking down on violent protests was signed into law on Monday by Gov. Ron DeSantis.

www.wesh.com

Interesting that the law mandates how much localities must spend on law enforcement. Big government is OK is you control the government I guess.

They mandate no such thing. The towns and municipalities are free to decide what they will spend on their police departments. Florida is also free to decide whether or not it will help a certain town or municipality that refuses to help itself. It is also free to protect Floridians whose own cities and towns have abandoned them to violence by holding local government responsible putting them in that situation.

Jo

Do you prefer "coerce"? Semantics. It is the State telling the locals how to spend their money.

 

[alang1216]

For those of you on the left confused as to what real leadership looks like, all you have to do is look at Republican Governor Ron DeSantis. Harsher penalties for rioters and you cannot damage any monuments of any kind. In those commie parts of the state, it would fine all local governments who interfere with policing during a riot.

Too bad there wasn't tougher laws in DC, they would have come in handy on Jan 6th.

One tough law DC could definitely stand to have is much tougher laws prosecuting people who cheat on and rig elections.

Why? Do you know something no one else does? It's moot since only the primary matters, DC is solidly Dem.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Do you prefer "coerce"? Semantics. It is the State telling the locals how to spend their money.

No, they are simply saying they cannot de-fund their police departments.

 

[alang1216]

Do you prefer "coerce"? Semantics. It is the State telling the locals how to spend their money.

No, they are simply saying they cannot de-fund their police departments.

You meant yes, the State is telling the Locals how much they have to tax themselves to pay for the Local police.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Do you prefer "coerce"? Semantics. It is the State telling the locals how to spend their money.

No, they are simply saying they cannot de-fund their police departments.

Do you get the feeling that leftists simply don't understand the concept of having responsibilities and being held to them?

 

[alang1216]

Do you prefer "coerce"? Semantics. It is the State telling the locals how to spend their money.

No, they are simply saying they cannot de-fund their police departments.

Do you get the feeling that leftists simply don't understand the concept of having responsibilities and being held to them?

Maybe someone can explain the apparent difference here. Is there is a conservative out there who feels the Federal government is too overbearing by telling the States what they have to do while those same conservatives are fine with the States telling their own cities and counties what they have to do?

 

[Mushroom]

Do you prefer "coerce"? Semantics. It is the State telling the locals how to spend their money.

No, they are simply saying they cannot de-fund their police departments.

Do you get the feeling that leftists simply don't understand the concept of having responsibilities and being held to them?

Maybe someone can explain the apparent difference here. Is there is a conservative out there who feels the Federal government is too overbearing by telling the States what they have to do while those same conservatives are fine with the States telling their own cities and counties what they have to do?

There is a big difference from acting from the top down dictating an issue, and simply stating "If you can not keep control on such issues yourself, we will have to step in and do it ourselves".

The first is an outright imposition where it may not be needed, the latter is simply a statement of consequences if they can not keep control themselves.

And yea, I have a problem when the Feds do that also. I still remember when Idaho had a driving age of 14, and a drinking age of 18. One of the lowest teen accident and teen drinking rates in the country, yet they were forced to increase them to 16 and 21 or lose Highway funds. Where as instead the Government should have set a standard, and so long as the problems were not there they should not have stepped in.

 

[alang1216]

Do you prefer "coerce"? Semantics. It is the State telling the locals how to spend their money.

No, they are simply saying they cannot de-fund their police departments.

Do you get the feeling that leftists simply don't understand the concept of having responsibilities and being held to them?

Maybe someone can explain the apparent difference here. Is there is a conservative out there who feels the Federal government is too overbearing by telling the States what they have to do while those same conservatives are fine with the States telling their own cities and counties what they have to do?

There is a big difference from acting from the top down dictating an issue, and simply stating "If you can not keep control on such issues yourself, we will have to step in and do it ourselves".

The first is an outright imposition where it may not be needed, the latter is simply a statement of consequences if they can not keep control themselves.

And yea, I have a problem when the Feds do that also. I still remember when Idaho had a driving age of 14, and a drinking age of 18. One of the lowest teen accident and teen drinking rates in the country, yet they were forced to increase them to 16 and 21 or lose Highway funds. Where as instead the Government should have set a standard, and so long as the problems were not there they should not have stepped in.

That is exactly NOT how I read the law, it was written to solve a problem that doesn't exist:

Florida ‘Defund The Police’ Bill Would Strip Local Governments Of Final Say On Police Pensions And Budgets​

If passed, the bill would allow the governor and the Cabinet to override locally elected commissioners, council members and mayors if police budgets are decreased, or if funds are redirected from them. The Cabinet could force cities to increase police budgets if they wish, potentially resulting in cities being forced to slash other services or raise taxes in order to balance their budgets.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Maybe someone can explain the apparent difference here. Is there is a conservative out there who feels the Federal government is too overbearing by telling the States what they have to do while those same conservatives are fine with the States telling their own cities and counties what they have to do?

The difference is that the US Constitution outlines States Rights. No state has a Constitution that has city and town rights.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

You meant yes, the State is telling the Locals how much they have to tax themselves to pay for the Local police.

No, the state is only telling them that they can't cut their current funding for police without the state getting involved.

 

[Mushroom]

Do you prefer "coerce"? Semantics. It is the State telling the locals how to spend their money.

No, they are simply saying they cannot de-fund their police departments.

Do you get the feeling that leftists simply don't understand the concept of having responsibilities and being held to them?

Maybe someone can explain the apparent difference here. Is there is a conservative out there who feels the Federal government is too overbearing by telling the States what they have to do while those same conservatives are fine with the States telling their own cities and counties what they have to do?

There is a big difference from acting from the top down dictating an issue, and simply stating "If you can not keep control on such issues yourself, we will have to step in and do it ourselves".

The first is an outright imposition where it may not be needed, the latter is simply a statement of consequences if they can not keep control themselves.

And yea, I have a problem when the Feds do that also. I still remember when Idaho had a driving age of 14, and a drinking age of 18. One of the lowest teen accident and teen drinking rates in the country, yet they were forced to increase them to 16 and 21 or lose Highway funds. Where as instead the Government should have set a standard, and so long as the problems were not there they should not have stepped in.

That is exactly NOT how I read the law, it was written to solve a problem that doesn't exist:

Florida ‘Defund The Police’ Bill Would Strip Local Governments Of Final Say On Police Pensions And Budgets​

If passed, the bill would allow the governor and the Cabinet to override locally elected commissioners, council members and mayors if police budgets are decreased, or if funds are redirected from them. The Cabinet could force cities to increase police budgets if they wish, potentially resulting in cities being forced to slash other services or raise taxes in order to balance their budgets.

Different bill.

 

[Mushroom]

Do you prefer "coerce"? Semantics. It is the State telling the locals how to spend their money.

No, they are simply saying they cannot de-fund their police departments.

Do you get the feeling that leftists simply don't understand the concept of having responsibilities and being held to them?

Maybe someone can explain the apparent difference here. Is there is a conservative out there who feels the Federal government is too overbearing by telling the States what they have to do while those same conservatives are fine with the States telling their own cities and counties what they have to do?

There is a big difference from acting from the top down dictating an issue, and simply stating "If you can not keep control on such issues yourself, we will have to step in and do it ourselves".

The first is an outright imposition where it may not be needed, the latter is simply a statement of consequences if they can not keep control themselves.

And yea, I have a problem when the Feds do that also. I still remember when Idaho had a driving age of 14, and a drinking age of 18. One of the lowest teen accident and teen drinking rates in the country, yet they were forced to increase them to 16 and 21 or lose Highway funds. Where as instead the Government should have set a standard, and so long as the problems were not there they should not have stepped in.

That is exactly NOT how I read the law, it was written to solve a problem that doesn't exist:

Florida ‘Defund The Police’ Bill Would Strip Local Governments Of Final Say On Police Pensions And Budgets​

If passed, the bill would allow the governor and the Cabinet to override locally elected commissioners, council members and mayors if police budgets are decreased, or if funds are redirected from them. The Cabinet could force cities to increase police budgets if they wish, potentially resulting in cities being forced to slash other services or raise taxes in order to balance their budgets.

Different bill. You are bringing back one that was way back in February. This discussion is about one in April.

This is the confusion, you are talking about a completely different bill.