0
   

Peaceful protests versus violent mobs: A primer

 
 
farmerman
 
  3  
Tue 12 Jan, 2021 06:08 pm
@oralloy,
read amendment 1 with the same detailed interpretation you give Amendment 2. Youve caught yourself in your own postulate.

anyway GOHMERT i also an idjit.
oralloy
 
  -2  
Tue 12 Jan, 2021 06:11 pm
@farmerman,
I always pay attention to the First Amendment. I am not caught on anything.
neptuneblue
 
  3  
Tue 12 Jan, 2021 06:12 pm
@Brandon9000,
You're being disingenuous. That's not "all" what he said.

farmerman
 
  4  
Tue 12 Jan, 2021 06:14 pm
@oralloy,
then youre just a dimwit, Ill bet you were the guy wearing the hair shirt an the Viking helmet eh??
oralloy
 
  -2  
Tue 12 Jan, 2021 06:17 pm
@farmerman,
You're the one with the low IQ. I'm the one with the 170 IQ.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -2  
Tue 12 Jan, 2021 06:18 pm
@neptuneblue,
neptuneblue wrote:
You're being disingenuous. That's not "all" what he said.

Brandon's characterization is fair and accurate.
0 Replies
 
maxdancona
 
  2  
Tue 12 Jan, 2021 06:19 pm
Why are you all bickering with Oralloy. He is silly. If you don't respond to him there will be fewer of these meaningless tangents.
maxdancona
 
  2  
Tue 12 Jan, 2021 06:20 pm
@maxdancona,
maxdancona wrote:

The fact is that what Trump said caused violence. If what he said was either

1) intended to cause violence
2) reasonably expected to cause violence

Then it was legally incitement. Whether this is the case will be answered in court.

Do you have that straight now?


I would like Brandon's response to this. Do you agree with me on the facts?
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -2  
Tue 12 Jan, 2021 06:25 pm
@maxdancona,
I know you don't like facts and reality Max, but they are neither silly nor meaningless.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  0  
Tue 12 Jan, 2021 09:58 pm
@maxdancona,
maxdancona wrote:
The fact is that what Trump said caused violence. If what he said was either

1) intended to cause violence
2) reasonably expected to cause violence

Then it was legally incitement. Whether this is the case will be answered in court.

Do you have that straight now?

If a person tells supporters to legally petition for redress of grievances and says "show strength," it's not a crime. The 1st Amendment says, "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech...." Nobody gives a **** if you think you know what was in someone's mind. I guess anytime anyone suggests a protest march and violence occurs during it, he should be prosecuted in your free speech paradise.

Don't you ever call yourself a supporter of freedom of speech again. People who want to criminally prosecute citizens for speech which does not actually solicit violence, shouldn't soil the term "freedom of speech" by referring to themselves in the same sentence.
maxdancona
 
  1  
Tue 12 Jan, 2021 10:14 pm
@Brandon9000,
You are making an emotional argument rather than a logical one. It makes it difficult to have a rational discussion. Either we agree on a set of facts, or we can't have an intelligent discussion. I (for one) am tired of this silly name-calling.

For what it is worth. I agree with you that saying the phrase "show strength" is not a crime. I have no problem accepting the facts you offer that are true.

I have listed two things that are crimes (if Trump is judged by a court to have done).

oralloy
 
  -1  
Tue 12 Jan, 2021 10:19 pm
@maxdancona,
maxdancona wrote:
You are making an emotional argument rather than a logical one.

No, that is what you are doing. Such is standard with progressives.


maxdancona wrote:
It makes it difficult to have a rational discussion. Either we agree on a set of facts, or we can't have an intelligent discussion.

You can't have an intelligent discussion. You aren't capable of it.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Wed 13 Jan, 2021 06:10 am
@maxdancona,
maxdancona wrote:

You are making an emotional argument rather than a logical one. It makes it difficult to have a rational discussion. Either we agree on a set of facts, or we can't have an intelligent discussion. I (for one) am tired of this silly name-calling.

For what it is worth. I agree with you that saying the phrase "show strength" is not a crime. I have no problem accepting the facts you offer that are true.

I have listed two things that are crimes (if Trump is judged by a court to have done).

I would suggest that "intended to cause violence" can never be a criterion in court, unless you claim the ability to read minds. It would be quite a spectacle to tell a defendant, "We know what you were thinking" as he protests that he was not thinking that.

"Can reasonably be expected to cause violence" isn't a criterion either. If you had that criterion, then everyone who ever told supporters, "These people have wronged you" would go to jail, yet people tell supporters that every day and twice on Sunday.

You cannot point to anything that Trump said that solicited violence, and, indeed, he told them to stop. The idea that someone is literally guilty of a crime because of what you perceive to be the general atmosphere of the statement is contrary to the idea of freedom of speech. Either a crime is literally solicited or it isn't, and it wasn't.

Furthermore, all summer the nation was treated to countless acts of violence, theft, looting, etc. I'm sure there were countless cases of liberals having made statements which vaguely sounded supportive (e.g. "We condemn the violence, but you were provoked" or Chris Cuomo's "Show me where it says protesters have to be polite"), yet conservatives never tried to charge any of them with crimes or, for office holder, to impeach them.

This is just the five hundredth unfair attack against Trump. Speech which doesn't literally solicit violence is legal, even if you think you can read minds.
hightor
 
  2  
Wed 13 Jan, 2021 06:26 am
@Brandon9000,
Quote:
The only thing that might be a crime is if he told them to commit an illegal act.

After promoting the rally ("Be there. Will be wild.") for weeks, he told his assembled mob to interfere with and to halt the counting of the electoral ballots with the intention of reversing the result of the election — and he told Pence to violate his constitutional duty.
0 Replies
 
izzythepush
 
  3  
Wed 13 Jan, 2021 06:29 am
@Brandon9000,
Over here there’s a crime called ‘going equipped.’

It’s normally used against known burglars caught with tools for housebreaking.

The rioters had tie tags to bind up lawmakers.

They were going equipped to commit crimes.
0 Replies
 
maxdancona
 
  1  
Wed 13 Jan, 2021 06:41 am
@Brandon9000,
You are factually incorrect. Courts are asked to judge intent all of the time, and the "reasonable person" standard is a legal standard inany cases.
Brandon9000
 
  0  
Wed 13 Jan, 2021 07:03 am
@maxdancona,
maxdancona wrote:
You are factually incorrect. Courts are asked to judge intent all of the time, and the "reasonable person" standard is a legal standard inany cases.

This is the law of the land and any statute not conforming to it is null and void:

"Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech...."

You have yet to specify one sentence he uttered which is illegal. We agree that "You have to show strength and you have to be strong" cannot be taken as illegal. I presume you agree that encouraging demonstration is not illegal, even if you disagree with the cause. Show me the sentence or small group of sentences which were illegal for him to have said.

In this case, Trump told them to go home, and your feeling that the request was half-hearted does not make it criminal. You are setting an extremely dangerous precedent. Your own people could have been prosecuted repeatedly on this kind of basis. My feeling is that when criminally prosecuting someone for political speech, you'd better be extremely sure that the offense was absolutely blatant.
engineer
 
  3  
Wed 13 Jan, 2021 07:08 am
@Brandon9000,
You have been given plenty of examples of direct statements that could be considered incitement. I know you've heard the example that freedom of speech does not mean you can yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater. Incitement is in the same category. If you whip up a mob, you are responsible for its actions. Whether Trump's comments qualify is up for a jury to decide, but "freedom of speech" does not include incitement to riot.
izzythepush
 
  2  
Wed 13 Jan, 2021 07:11 am
@engineer,
Trump could have fired an RPG into the capitol building and Brandon would still be claiming he was innocent.

Some people are too far down the rabbit hole.
0 Replies
 
izzythepush
 
  2  
Wed 13 Jan, 2021 07:13 am
If one were to bump into a work colleague on the way to the bogs and he dropped a bottle of baby oil and a pornographic magazine one would not have to be a mind reader to deduce he was intending on having a J Arthur.
0 Replies
 
 

 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 03/05/2021 at 10:58:32