Defensive Carry banner

21 - 32 of 32 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,149 Posts
If you had just said "dismissed," you could have saved typing and space.:rolleyes:
Good point. I'm not sure if the charge was nolle prossed or if it was dismissed. If the charge was nolle prossed it could be brought back by the state at a future date, where as a dismissal can't. I read reports that stated the charge was nolle prossed and others stated it was outright dismissed.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,149 Posts
Yes, but only after a protest was lodged by the ACLU.
I'd like to know why she was even charged in the first place? I read reports she was not even involved with the rally. I'd like to know the underlying reason the police made contact with her. Was she causing some type of disturbance or did she try to access someplace she was not supposed to go?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,180 Posts
As usual, there are exceptions.

876.155 Applicability; ss. 876.12-876.15.—The provisions of ss. 876.12-876.15 apply only if the person was wearing the mask, hood, or other device:
(1) With the intent to deprive any person or class of persons of the equal protection of the laws or of equal privileges and immunities under the laws or for the purpose of preventing the constituted authorities of this state or any subdivision thereof from, or hindering them in, giving or securing to all persons within this state the equal protection of the laws;
(2) With the intent, by force or threat of force, to injure, intimidate, or interfere with any person because of the person’s exercise of any right secured by federal, state, or local law or to intimidate such person or any other person or any class of persons from exercising any right secured by federal, state, or local law;
(3) With the intent to intimidate, threaten, abuse, or harass any other person; or
(4) While she or he was engaged in conduct that could reasonably lead to the institution of a civil or criminal proceeding against her or him, with the intent of avoiding identification in such a proceeding.
History.—s. 1, ch. 81-249; s. 1416, ch. 97-102.
876.16 Sections 876.11-876.15; exemptions.—The following persons are exempted from the provisions of ss. 876.11-876.15:
(1) Any person or persons wearing traditional holiday costumes;
(2) Any person or persons engaged in trades and employment where a mask is worn for the purpose of ensuring the physical safety of the wearer, or because of the nature of the occupation, trade, or profession;
(3) Any person or persons using masks in theatrical productions, including use in Gasparilla celebrations and masquerade balls;
(4) Persons wearing gas masks prescribed in emergency management drills and exercises.
History.—s. 6, ch. 26542, 1951; s. 46, ch. 83-334.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,031 Posts
I'd like to know why she was even charged in the first place? I read reports she was not even involved with the rally. I'd like to know the underlying reason the police made contact with her. Was she causing some type of disturbance or did she try to access someplace she was not supposed to go?
I've read a lot on the case, because I had the same question. This is not going to be everything there is to know about the case, but here's what I've read:
  • There were multiple militia-type groups there that day, all OC'ing, including ARs and AKs, that had their faces covered with bandannas and balaclavas, who were obviously intending to conceal their identities. I can attest to this myself, I was there. The cops left them alone. They must have been under orders not to start a ruckus.
  • A lot of the cops were wearing balaclavas.
  • The gal arrested is not thought to have been part of the rally. She is a woman of color in her 20's who lives about two miles away in Richmond. Her Facebook page reportedly indicates she has connections to Northam and that her father works at the Capitol.
  • The arrest took place an hour and a half after the official end of the 2A rally. There were still quite a few people around, but most had left.
  • When approached by the Richmond city police and told she was violating the law, she said she was covering her face to keep warm. It was bitter cold that day. She even exposed her face so the cops could ID her. But then she recovered her face. The cops told her she couldn't do that. She was spotted a third time with her face covered and they arrested her. There was no indication she was belligerent, only that she was cold and felt the need to cover her face.
  • She was charged with a Class Six felony. The prosecutor said the officers acted properly and that the prosecutor supports the mask law.
  • The charges stood for about three weeks. The ACLU got involved asking the charges be dropped and her lawyer said he intended to challenge the constitutionality of the mask law. Finally the prosecutor's office dropped the charges, saying it would be difficult to prove she covered her face with intent to hide her identity.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
33,883 Posts
Discussion Starter #25
As usual, there are exceptions.

876.155 Applicability; ss. 876.12-876.15.–The provisions of ss. 876.12-876.15 apply only if the person was wearing the mask, hood, or other device:.
Should have read through the other hundred lines.:rolleyes:

Nevermind...
download.jpg
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,180 Posts
Should have read through the other hundred lines.:rolleyes:

Nevermind...
View attachment 321798
I've just spent too much time reading statutes. Still a valuable topic to discuss, though. It's good for Floridians to know that they're okay wearing a mask as long as they don't have criminal intent, though that might still pose a problem for a number of them...
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,938 Posts
The only law that doesn't seem to have unintended consequences is the law of unintended consequences.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
33,883 Posts
Discussion Starter #29
I've just spent too much time reading statutes. Still a valuable topic to discuss, though. It's good for Floridians to know that they're okay wearing a mask as long as they don't have criminal intent, though that might still pose a problem for a number of them...
Soooo . . . I should release everyone from my detainment compound?
 
  • Like
Reactions: maxwell97

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,149 Posts
I've read a lot on the case, because I had the same question. This is not going to be everything there is to know about the case, but here's what I've read:
  • There were multiple militia-type groups there that day, all OC'ing, including ARs and AKs, that had their faces covered with bandannas and balaclavas, who were obviously intending to conceal their identities. I can attest to this myself, I was there. The cops left them alone. They must have been under orders not to start a ruckus.
  • A lot of the cops were wearing balaclavas.
  • The gal arrested is not thought to have been part of the rally. She is a woman of color in her 20's who lives about two miles away in Richmond. Her Facebook page reportedly indicates she has connections to Northam and that her father works at the Capitol.
  • The arrest took place an hour and a half after the official end of the 2A rally. There were still quite a few people around, but most had left.
  • When approached by the Richmond city police and told she was violating the law, she said she was covering her face to keep warm. It was bitter cold that day. She even exposed her face so the cops could ID her. But then she recovered her face. The cops told her she couldn't do that. She was spotted a third time with her face covered and they arrested her. There was no indication she was belligerent, only that she was cold and felt the need to cover her face.
  • She was charged with a Class Six felony. The prosecutor said the officers acted properly and that the prosecutor supports the mask law.
  • The charges stood for about three weeks. The ACLU got involved asking the charges be dropped and her lawyer said he intended to challenge the constitutionality of the mask law. Finally the prosecutor's office dropped the charges, saying it would be difficult to prove she covered her face with intent to hide her identity.
Thanks for the details. I'd heard some of them but did not know the ACLU had gotten involved.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,314 Posts
Can the government force one to break the law? No, but they can make it impossible to obey all of the laws we have. Making any action taken illegal.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,003 Posts
As usual, there are exceptions.
I've seen too many instances where LEO are not interested in the legal exceptions. Case in point, the guys in Florida who open carry while fishing as a form of protest to legalize open carry. Open carrying while fishing (or going to/from) is a legal exception to the no open carry law. But, there are numerous instances where these people are assaulted by cops at gunpoint, detained and sometimes charged with other spurious charges - all for performing an activity which is expressly spelled out as legal.

IMO, any law that is a blanket "no mask" law is unconstitutional based on the 1st amendment. I wonder if it has ever been challenged. I would expect the law is not used often - and probably only as an added offense when the person has committed other crimes - so maybe not. Interestingly, one of the conditions for those crimes would make it seem "illegal" for LEO to cover their cafe (e.g. swat).
(3) With the intent to intimidate, threaten, abuse, or harass any other person; or
 
21 - 32 of 32 Posts
Top