Proposed Missouri Bill Would Authorize Deadly Force Against Protesters, Provide Immunity for Those Who Run Over Proteste

[Sarcany]

https://www.theroot.com/proposed-missour...1846136194

According to the St. Louis Post Dispatch, Republican state Sen. Rick Brattin introduced the bill on Monday as a response to the protests that broke out in the state last summer following the death of George Floyd. “To think that your right to protest enables you the right to stop traffic and literally stop people’s ability to move about freely in this nation is a gross misunderstanding of our constitutional rights,” Brattin said during the Monday hearing...

“People can’t even go have a nice meal without being harassed, run out,” Brattin said. “I wanted to ensure that people are able to go and enjoy their freedoms and liberties just like anyone else should be able to.”

Yes, the right to go out to a nice meal is so important that it requires shooting and running over peaceful protesters concerned about people shooting and running them over.

It's in the Constitution!

[C(-)ris]

Seems excessive. We already have laws on the books about blocking traffic as well as what constitutes a "peaceful" protest (breaking other laws would not be peaceful). I'd say that enforcing those laws, such as pedestrian traffic not allowed on Highways/Freeways would take care of any concerns that he might have.

[Acer]

Even if the protesters are protesting a stolen election?

[cbelt3]

MO has insane TeaTrumpPublicans running the asylum. I'm ashamed to say.

[Lemon Drop]

This is why I don't want any new "domestic terrorism" laws. We know how they'd be applied.
We already have laws to cover all the bad stuff that was done on Jan 6.

Same for protesting. No new laws needed. This one won't fly.

[Ombligo]

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis proposed that months ago. Can't these Republican stooges ever be original?

[DeusxMac]

Sarcany wrote:
https://www.theroot.com/proposed-missour...1846136194

According to the St. Louis Post Dispatch, Republican state Sen. Rick Brattin introduced the bill on Monday as a response to the protests that broke out in the state last summer following the death of George Floyd. “To think that your right to protest enables you the right to stop traffic and literally stop people’s ability to move about freely in this nation is a gross misunderstanding of our constitutional rights,” Brattin said during the Monday hearing...

“People can’t even go have a nice meal without being harassed, run out,” Brattin said. “I wanted to ensure that people are able to go and enjoy their freedoms and liberties just like anyone else should be able to.”

Wikipedia has no info on this guy's educational level other than graduating from Lee's Summit High School (side note: Pat Metheny's high school.)

[RgrF]

C(-)ris wrote:
Seems excessive. We already have laws on the books about blocking traffic as well as what constitutes a "peaceful" protest (breaking other laws would not be peaceful). I'd say that enforcing those laws, such as pedestrian traffic not allowed on Highways/Freeways would take care of any concerns that he might have.

This is an attempt to unleash vigilantes and legalize actions against protesters the right wing disagrees with.

[C(-)ris]

RgrF wrote:
[quote=C(-)ris]
Seems excessive. We already have laws on the books about blocking traffic as well as what constitutes a "peaceful" protest (breaking other laws would not be peaceful). I'd say that enforcing those laws, such as pedestrian traffic not allowed on Highways/Freeways would take care of any concerns that he might have.

This is an attempt to unleash vigilantes and legalize actions against protesters the right wing disagrees with.
Guessing that this is in areas where the police and prosecutors are declining to enforce the laws on books. "If you won't take care of it, we will" kind of situation.

[RgrF]

C(-)ris wrote:
Guessing that this is in areas where the police and prosecutors are declining to enforce the laws on books. "If you won't take care of it, we will" kind of situation.

I see it more as an invitation to engage in what otherwise would be unlawful violence.