Russians Hacked Florida County Voting Data - But Not To Change Election Results

Florida Governor DeSantis: Go ahead and defund the police. We’ll defund your entire city.

Posted by: | |Categories Around The World, Featured, Law and Legal, Must Reads, Politics and Policing
Share:

FLORIDA – In what can only be described as the most aggressive and encompassing form of combatting the defunding of police endeavors and the violent riots that go in tandem with those efforts, Governor Rick DeSantis proposed legislation that has been dubbed as the “Combatting Violence, Disorder and Looting and Law Enforcement Protection Act”.

And by reviewing the proposed legislation highlights, those in favor of riots-free cities are likely to cheer…as for those adoring or engaging in riots, they’re not exactly thrilled.

But one of the more interesting portions in this legislation is state grants or aid will be pulled from local governments that decide to defund their police departments.

The proposed act is broken down into three separate sections, which are labeled as:

  • New criminal offenses to combat rioting, looting and violence
  • Increased penalties
  • Citizen and taxpayer protection measures

From what the breakdown of each section reads, this would be a monumental tool to cease the types of acts that many have witnessed across the country over the past few months in the era of rioting, arson and looting.

According to the first section dedicated to combatting the likes of rioting, the following is written:

“Prohibition on Violent or Disorderly Assemblies: 3rd degree felony when 7 or more person are involved in an assembly and cause damage to property or injure other persons.”

While this may sound an awful lot like a riot, Florida law is rather vague on the definition of a riot – which then reverts to interpretation of rioting in common law – but also affords an additional charge for acts akin to rioting (basically, two felonies charges instead of one).

The first section on the proposed legislation continued with laws against “obstructing roadways” that would also make it legal for drivers harassed by a mob of unpermitted protesters to flee from safety and not suffer any legal consequences for possible death or injury to said members of the mob. Obstructing the roadway would also result in a 3rd degree felony.

Also, protesters harassing patrons of establishments “such as a restaurant” would result in a misdemeanor. What that would mean is a group of people who were say surrounding someone having a meal and yelling at them to raise their fist for BLM would all get arrested.

Do you want to join our private family of first responders and supporters?  Get unprecedented access to some of the most powerful stories that the media refuses to show you.  Proceeds get reinvested into having active, retired and wounded officers, their families and supporters tell more of these stories.  Click to check it out.

LET Unity

That’s not all though – toppling monuments or damaging any public property during a riot or protest will also land someone with a 2nd degree felony if this legislation passes. But this legislation gets even better…because it would also utilize RICO liability for anyone who is found to have funded or organized any violent or disorderly assembly.

When it comes to the “increased penalties” portion of the act, malefactors who strike a law enforcement with anything – be it fist or projectile – during any “violent or disorderly assembly” would have to spend a minimum of six months in jail.

Further sentence enhancements are also mentioned for anyone throwing an object during a riot that strikes anyone, be they law enforcement or not. Also, anyone who travels from out of state to participate in “a violent or disorderly assembly” will get a sentence enhancement for alleged crimes.

But section three, dubbed as the “citizen and taxpayer protection measures” really reinforces that this act is aimed at making sure innocent people affected by these riots will attain justice – and that local governments will be held accountable for enabling the acts of rioters:

  • No “Defund the Police” Permitted: Prohibits state grants or aid to any local government that slashes the budget for law enforcement services.
  • Victim Compensation: Waives sovereign immunity to allow a victim of a crime related to a violent or disorderly assembly to sue local government for damages where the local government is grossly negligent in protecting persons or property.
  • Government Employee/Benefits: Terminates state benefits and makes anyone ineligible for employment by state/local government if convicted of participating in a violent or disorderly assembly.
  • Bail: No bond or bail until first appearance in court if charged with a crime related to participating in a violent or disorderly assembly; rebuttable presumption against bond or bail after first appearance.

It’s with little surprise that those in support of the riots are mad – or even still trying to lay blame on police officers for people rioting and burning down buildings.

But aside from those upset, many online are absolutely thrilled at the proposed legislation brought by Governor DeSantis.

And all things considered, it’s hard not understand why many would be on board with an act of this magnitude.

While cities across America defund the police, this Texas city is doing just the opposite. Here’s why.

SAN ANTONIO, TX – The San Antonio City Council passed a $2.9 billion budget this past week. One line item of particular interest was the increase in spending for the San Antonio police department.

In this new era of “defunding” police, the nation’s 7th largest city just gave the department an additional $8 million above what they provided last year. 

Texas governor, Greg Abbott, did not hold back his thoughts, tweeting: 

“I applaud San Antonio for passing a budget that boosts police spending rather than cutting law enforcement spending like some other cities. Having well-trained law enforcement is essential to safe communities.”

We can only assume that one of the cities that Abbott was referring to is the one that the state capitol sits in the middle of, Austin. Last month, the city council in Austin voted unanimously to cut $150 million from the departments $440 million budget, according to Fox News. 

But Forbes argues that simply isn’t the case, since they have only redirected $21 million so far. The fact that an additional $129 million is being redirected over the course of the fiscal year is apparently lost on Forbes. 

Austin isn’t the only Texas city that Abbott has pointed to. 

“The last thing they should do is defund law enforcement, and yet, that is exactly what the City of Austin has done, and that’s what Dallas City Council voted to do in announcing its own defunding scheme last night.”

And Abbott was not the only elected official criticizing the decision in Dallas. 

In a statement, Dallas mayor Eric Johnson said, “My amendment, Amendment 88, was the only one offered Wednesday that would have undone the $7 million cut to police overtime.

The Dallas City Council, with the exception of Councilmember Cara Mendelsohn, rejected Amendment 88 outright, leaving us to vote in two weeks on a budget that defunds the police amid an unacceptable increase in violent crime.

Unless that changes, I cannot support this budget.”

Like San Antonio, Houston also voted to increase spending for the police department, raising their budget 2% from $946 million to $965 million. The department’s budget makes up 19% of the Bayou City’s $5.1 billion budget for the next fiscal year. 

Meanwhile, a lot is happening in San Antonio, even as the city council voted to increase spending. 

Do you want to join our private family of first responders and supporters?  Get unprecedented access to some of the most powerful stories that the media refuses to show you.  Proceeds get reinvested into having active, retired and wounded officers, their families and supporters tell more of these stories.  Click to check it out.

LET Unity

SAN ANTONIO, TX –A group of people who call themselves activists recently released a travel advisory for black people in the City of San Antonio, Texas. 

The advisory is that the city is unsafe for black people after sundown due to the police.

The group calling for the advisory is known as the Defund SAPD Coalition, (San Antonio Police Department).  They have publicly called for the defunding of the police department and now claim that police are so bad there that black people should be out of the city by sundown.

Not sure what difference it makes as to what time of the day, but, apparently, to them, police are more evil at night than during the daytime.  This travel warning that the coalition gives is not backed by any sane person, or entity. 

The Coalition has four different levels for their travel warning, going from exercise normal precaution, exercise increased caution, reconsider travel and do not travel.  The group currently has San Antonio listed as a “reconsider travel” position.

In a news release, the group said:

“San Antonio is a sundown town for black residents and visitors.  A travel advisory has been issued to warn that any black people traveling to San Antonio use increased caution when in the city due to the city’s policing policies that put black lives in danger.”

What is interesting, as My San Antonio points out, is the term sundown town was a term that used to mean, back in the 1960s and before, that all minorities had to leave by sundown, leaving only white people in the area. 

Now, something that has been defeated for almost 60 years, the group wants to bring back…head scratcher.

The group, according to My San Antonio, is calling on the ban now over the recent arrest of Mathias Ometu, the police involved shooting death of Damian Daniels, and the shooting involving Jacob Blake in Kenosha, Wisconsin, something that happened nowhere near San Antonio.

To look at why there is concern, let us first look at the case involving Mathias Ometu, a black man who we now know was doing nothing more than jogging. 

However, police did not know nor could confirm that at the time of police contact. In the last week of August, San Antonio Police were dispatched to a domestic battery in which a woman’s ex-husband had allegedly choked her and fled on foot. 

The ex-wife advised that the suspect in the case was wearing a green shirt with facial hair, and a black male. Officers searched the area and located a black male with a green shirt and facial hair. 

The officer pulls up next to the man and asks for his name, if the Ometu had provided his name and identification, the incident would have ended in under a minute. 

However, Ometu refused, which caused the officer to detain him while trying to determine if he was in fact the suspect in the domestic violence case. Since he was lawfully detained, as he matched the description given by the victim in the case, officers had every right to place him in their police vehicle. 

Ometu refused to enter the vehicle and a fight ensued between the officers and the Ometu.   

When the victim arrived for a show up, she confirmed that Ometu was not her ex-husband, however, he was still arrested for physically fighting with officers while they were lawfully performing their duties. 

And, again, all he had to do was provide his name and the situation would never have gotten to that point. 

But, somehow, the police are bad for this case. In the next case cited, police were called to the residence of Damien Daniels to check on his well being because his family was concerned with his mental state. 

As officers arrived on scene, they made contact with Daniels who clearly had a gun about his waist band.  

Officers tried to convince Daniels to seek mental health assistance and he refused.  Officers, who apparently determined that he was a threat to himself or others, attempted to take him into custody for a involuntary mental health examination.

During the encounter, it appears that Daniels allegedly made some type of attempt to retrieve his firearm which prompted San Antonio Officers to open fire, striking and killing him. 

Now, the death is tragic to be sure, however, one with common sense would be hard pressed to believe that officers should have left Daniels alone in his current mental state. Therefore, officers had to attempt to take him into custody. 

The officers did not ask Daniels, who they tried to talk into going voluntarily for thirty minutes, to pull his firearm, but, allegedly he did. 

So, if that is accurate, what is the officer in that situation supposed to do, in the court of Black Lives Matter and public opinion?

Should the officers have just allowed Daniels to retrieve his firearm and hoped that he would not shoot them or himself? 

Should the officers just run away and left Daniels to his own device and pray he did not shoot them in the back?  Should the officers had just allowed Daniels to shoot them and hoped they did not die?

To these city council members who believe that Daniel’s situation would have been better served by mental healthcare professionals, whom they are trying to move some police funding over to, how do you think a social worker or a psychologist is going to fare against a person who is mentally unstable and also armed with a gun? 

Ironically, if that were the way the situation had been handled, and the mental health professional had been hurt or killed, these same people would be asking why the cops weren’t there to protect them and intervene. 

Damned if you do, damned if you don’t.

—

Want to make sure you never miss a story from Law Enforcement Today? With so much “stuff” happening in the world on social media, it’s easy for things to get lost.

Make sure you click “following” and then click “see first” so you don’t miss a thing! (See image below.) Thanks for being a part of the LET family!

Facebook Follow First

Share:
Submit a Correction
About The Author

Gregory Hoyt is an I.T. Marketing and Sales professional based out in Sierra Vista, Arizona. While being a staunch and outspoken advocate of law enforcement and first responders, Gregory Hoyt also has the experience of having spent nearly 5 years in prison as well. Since then, he's used his unique perspective to offer support and commentary about the criminal justice system. When not working or combating bad ideas, Hoyt also leisurely studies economics, history, and law.

Related Posts