
Arizona law will seize assets of protestors - dmode
https://news.vice.com/story/arizona-is-trying-to-pass-a-law-to-criminalize-riots-that-havent-happened-yet
======
gozur88
This all seems reasonable to me. If you're part of an organization that's
planning and abetting criminal behavior, you shouldn't be surprised when
you're expected to compensate the victims.

~~~
CarolineW
Consider: you're in a protest, peacefully expressing your disagreement. Then
some _other_ people start smashing windows. Under this law, you can now be
arrested.

What's more, quite possibly these other people are those who are actively
damaging property because they want _you_ to be arrested.

How can that be a good thing?

~~~
gozur88
>Consider: you're in a protest, peacefully expressing your disagreement. Then
some other people start smashing windows. Under this law, you can now be
arrested.

It's not that simple. They'd have to prove you were both part of the same
criminal organization. I don't think it's too much of a stretch to say if
you're part of a group that's planning illegal stuff, you should probably
leave that group.

~~~
CarolineW
I'm going by this:

> ... _criminally charge people and seize their assets if they’re believed to
> be ... participating in a demonstration that ends up becoming violent._

By that wording you don't actually need to be associated with the group that
is planning the violence. It may be that the intent is as you describe, but
the wording as given here allows the police simply to sweep up anyone
attending a protest that turns out to be violent.

~~~
gozur88
They link to the text of the bill in the article, and that "participating in a
demonstration that ends up becoming violent" isn't supported by that text. The
law is addressing participation in a conspiracy.

~~~
CarolineW
So you are not saying that what the article says is reasonable. You are saying
that the article does not accurately report the change in the law.

Yes?

This may seem a petty point to you, but if it's the case then I wish you (and
others - you are by no means the only one to do this) would say what you
actually mean, and not something that is not what you mean.

Specifically, you said:

> _This all seems reasonable to me._

That sounds to me like you are agreeing that what the article says is
happening is reasonable, whereas now it seems that you are saying that the law
being passed is reasonable, and that the article is mis-reporting it.

Yes?

~~~
gozur88
Yes, I am saying the law is not accurately represented.

You're reading too much into what I said. The law is reasonable. The article
is sensationalized, though not as much as the HN title.

~~~
CarolineW
> _Yes, I am saying the law is not accurately represented._

OK, now everything you've written makes sense - thank you.

> _You 're reading too much into what I said._

Sorry, but I just read what you wrote and took what I thought was the most
obvious interpretation. As I explained earlier, you said:

> _This all seems reasonable to me._

When that's a reply to a link to an article, it seems reasonable to me that
the "this" should be referring to the article. The downvotes make it clear
that my expectations were wrong.

Thank you for your clarification.

