Patriot Stands Up To Protestors And He Gets Arrested?? WTF?

[Lesh]

On Monday, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis signed an “anti-riot” bill that allows harsher police crackdowns on demonstrators—an apparent response to the “defund the police” and Black Lives Matter movements. (“This bill actually prevents local governments from defunding law enforcement,” DeSantis said.) A public gathering of three or more people can be classified as a “riot” under the law, and anyone who “willingly” participates in such a gathering can be charged with a third-degree felony. Plus, participants in rallies that turn violent can be also be charged with a third-degree felony even if they had no involvement with the violence. Most jarring of all, the law grants civil immunity to drivers who ram into protesting crowds and even injure or kill participants, if they claim the protests made them concerned for their own well-being in the moment.

So, to support your claim about what the law says, instead of citing the actual law, you cite another lib talking about what they think the law means. Or what they claim it means.


Typical. It is worth remembering that you are the people that heard a man say, "not w.s.", and to this day, still claim to beleive that he said, "w.s.". So, your words have anti-credbility.


You want to talk about that law, CITE THE FUCKING LAW.

I posted a link to what it says. Prove me wrong. Cite the law then

 

[Correll]

On Monday, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis signed an “anti-riot” bill that allows harsher police crackdowns on demonstrators—an apparent response to the “defund the police” and Black Lives Matter movements. (“This bill actually prevents local governments from defunding law enforcement,” DeSantis said.) A public gathering of three or more people can be classified as a “riot” under the law, and anyone who “willingly” participates in such a gathering can be charged with a third-degree felony. Plus, participants in rallies that turn violent can be also be charged with a third-degree felony even if they had no involvement with the violence. Most jarring of all, the law grants civil immunity to drivers who ram into protesting crowds and even injure or kill participants, if they claim the protests made them concerned for their own well-being in the moment.

So, to support your claim about what the law says, instead of citing the actual law, you cite another lib talking about what they think the law means. Or what they claim it means.


Typical. It is worth remembering that you are the people that heard a man say, "not w.s.", and to this day, still claim to beleive that he said, "w.s.". So, your words have anti-credbility.


You want to talk about that law, CITE THE FUCKING LAW.

I posted a link to what it says. Prove me wrong. Cite the law then

You posted a link to what some lib reporters says. That means NOTHING. Hell, at this point in time, it means LESS THAN NOTHING.

You people have ANTI-CREDIBILITY.


You made a claim about the law. To back it up, you have to cite THE FUCKING LAW.


Anything else if bullshit.

 

[Lesh]

On Monday, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis signed an “anti-riot” bill that allows harsher police crackdowns on demonstrators—an apparent response to the “defund the police” and Black Lives Matter movements. (“This bill actually prevents local governments from defunding law enforcement,” DeSantis said.) A public gathering of three or more people can be classified as a “riot” under the law, and anyone who “willingly” participates in such a gathering can be charged with a third-degree felony. Plus, participants in rallies that turn violent can be also be charged with a third-degree felony even if they had no involvement with the violence. Most jarring of all, the law grants civil immunity to drivers who ram into protesting crowds and even injure or kill participants, if they claim the protests made them concerned for their own well-being in the moment.

So, to support your claim about what the law says, instead of citing the actual law, you cite another lib talking about what they think the law means. Or what they claim it means.


Typical. It is worth remembering that you are the people that heard a man say, "not w.s.", and to this day, still claim to beleive that he said, "w.s.". So, your words have anti-credbility.


You want to talk about that law, CITE THE FUCKING LAW.

I posted a link to what it says. Prove me wrong. Cite the law then

You posted a link to what some lib reporters says. That means NOTHING. Hell, at this point in time, it means LESS THAN NOTHING.

You people have ANTI-CREDIBILITY.


You made a claim about the law. To back it up, you have to cite THE FUCKING LAW.


Anything else if bullshit.

You dispute what i posted...cite the fucking law yourself and prove me wrong dickhead

 

[Correll]

On Monday, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis signed an “anti-riot” bill that allows harsher police crackdowns on demonstrators—an apparent response to the “defund the police” and Black Lives Matter movements. (“This bill actually prevents local governments from defunding law enforcement,” DeSantis said.) A public gathering of three or more people can be classified as a “riot” under the law, and anyone who “willingly” participates in such a gathering can be charged with a third-degree felony. Plus, participants in rallies that turn violent can be also be charged with a third-degree felony even if they had no involvement with the violence. Most jarring of all, the law grants civil immunity to drivers who ram into protesting crowds and even injure or kill participants, if they claim the protests made them concerned for their own well-being in the moment.

So, to support your claim about what the law says, instead of citing the actual law, you cite another lib talking about what they think the law means. Or what they claim it means.


Typical. It is worth remembering that you are the people that heard a man say, "not w.s.", and to this day, still claim to beleive that he said, "w.s.". So, your words have anti-credbility.


You want to talk about that law, CITE THE FUCKING LAW.

I posted a link to what it says. Prove me wrong. Cite the law then

You posted a link to what some lib reporters says. That means NOTHING. Hell, at this point in time, it means LESS THAN NOTHING.

You people have ANTI-CREDIBILITY.


You made a claim about the law. To back it up, you have to cite THE FUCKING LAW.


Anything else if bullshit.

You dispute what i posted...cite the fucking law yourself and prove me wrong dickhead

You made the claim, and you can't back it up. That's you losing.


Hey, the law's been in place for a couple of months now. According to you leftards, we righties are a bunch of hate filled w.s. sooo, how many examples of us running down you bwave wacial justice warriors, has there been?


LOL!!!!

You people just talk shit, without any concern whether it is true, or even makes any sense.