gorge
3d ago
By state law, it's 100% disorderly conduct, criminal trespass and I think riot in the third degree ("When three or more persons assembled disturb the public peace by an intentional act or threat of unlawful force or violence to person or property, each participant therein is guilty of riot third degree and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than 364 days or to payment of a fine of not more than $1,000, or both."). Any threat of violence would be "gross misdemeanor" assault in Minnesota. The proper response is that the state government of Minnesota should arrest, try, and convict the mob members and send them to prison for a few months each. That would be a proportionate and just response. If the state government of Minnesota refuses to do that because they are on the side of the "protestors" ... well then you are in a state of exception ...One option then, is to hack federal law in order to go after the protestors, which is what the left usually does. It might make sense to make disorderly conduct in sufficient scale and coordination to be a federal felony. That would stop all these "terrorism lite" tactics. Another possibility would be to arrest the actual members of the state government in that case, for conspiracy to deprive rights under color of law. And if you can't get a federal judge to approve it, well, again, you would be in the state of exception. All of these tracks require a plan for the ensuing escalation.
Yeah, I think FACE, hate crimes laws, and some other civil rights era laws are basically hacks on the original U.S.Constitution, which gave police powers by default to the state. But when the federal government assumed basically all sovereignty, it needed ways to takeover police powers when the states weren't doing what the feds wanted.
More options
Context Copy link