>>23163974 lb
supposedly NOTABLE!
But probably exaggerated, at the very least.
NO SAUCE
NOT NOTABLE
Key Claims and Fact-Check:
"You can shoot and kill any protester who threatens you and your property in the State of Florida" and "You can shoot and kill any protester who threatens another person or their property."
False and Misleading: Florida’s Anti-Riot Law (HB 1) does not grant citizens a blanket right to shoot and kill protesters who threaten them or their property. The law strengthens penalties for crimes committed during riots and expands definitions of a "riot," but it does not alter Florida’s existing self-defense laws, such as the "Stand Your Ground" law (Florida Statutes § 776.012).
Under Florida’s self-defense laws, deadly force is only permissible when a person reasonably believes it is necessary to prevent imminent death, great bodily harm, or certain forcible felonies (e.g., burglary or robbery). A vague "threat" to property or another person does not automatically justify lethal force. The law requires proportionality and reasonableness, and courts evaluate each case individually.
The Florida Supreme Court, in a June 2024 ruling, clarified that the Anti-Riot Law’s definition of a "riot" applies narrowly to individuals who actively participate in violent public disturbances with intent to cause harm or lawlessness, not peaceful protesters or bystanders. It does not authorize vigilante-style lethal force against protesters.
No provision in HB 1 or any recent Supreme Court ruling explicitly allows citizens to shoot protesters for threatening property or others.
"You can drive through protesters with your car if they are illegally blocking the road."
Partially True but Misleading: HB 1 includes a provision granting civil immunity to drivers who injure or kill protesters blocking a road if the driver is "fleeing for safety from a mob" and the protesters are engaged in a riot or unlawful assembly. However, this does not give a blanket right to "drive through protesters" with impunity. The immunity applies only under specific circumstances, such as when the driver reasonably believes they are in danger and are attempting to escape.
The law does not authorize intentional or reckless harm to protesters, and drivers could still face criminal charges (e.g., vehicular manslaughter) if their actions are deemed unreasonable or excessive. Courts would evaluate the context, including whether the protesters posed an actual threat.
Posts on X have exaggerated this provision, claiming it allows drivers to "run over" protesters freely, but this oversimplifies the legal standard and ignores the requirement for a reasonable fear of harm.
"The 2021 Anti-Riot Law - which was just upheld by the Supreme Court."
False: There is no evidence that the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled on Florida’s Anti-Riot Law (HB 1) as of June 12, 2025. The U.S. Supreme Court has not issued a decision directly upholding or addressing this law.
The Florida Supreme Court, in June 2024, issued a ruling in response to questions from the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, clarifying that the law’s definition of a "riot" applies only to individuals who actively participate in violent public disturbances with intent to cause harm, not peaceful protesters. This ruling aimed to narrow the law’s scope to avoid unconstitutional overreach.
Additionally, the Eleventh Circuit, in October 2024, lifted a lower court’s injunction, allowing enforcement of the law while legal challenges continue. This is a procedural step, not a final ruling on the law’s constitutionality, and it is not a U.S. Supreme Court decision.