If you spread false information, even if it’s in the name of a good cause, you will make it harder for people to believe you or people supporting your good cause when you talk about true information. There’s enough issues with conservatives that you don’t need to invent more like a conspiracy theorist.
No, it is because like I said the Supreme Court did ask some valid questions… there are plenty of laws that the people on Jan. 6 broke, but the one in particular that they are using could equally be applied to protesters that have also disrupted official proceedings. If the police have evidence that all the people that went into the capitol were there with a plan to assassinate and specifically harm members of congress, then yes I think that they should qualify under this law. But, merely going into the capitol building is not sufficient evidence in of itself. I’m just saying, be careful what you wish for and don’t be surprised if suddenly climate activists and other Democrat protesters don’t get charged with the same thing once you do.
I’m just saying, be careful what you wish for and don’t be surprised if suddenly climate activists and other Democrat protesters don’t get charged with the same thing once you do.
They already get charged. The insurrectionists were treated with kid gloves and are to this day.
Being charged with a crime is not the same as being convicted though, and currently the challenge before the Supreme Court is in regards to what crimes they can be convicted with. It isn’t an easy subject and I agree the Supreme Court is biased and corrupt, but I also try my best to evaluate the case law and I still believe that they asked some good questions about when it is okay to charge someone with this particular crime when it appears that it could apply to Democrat protesters in several cases as well that were not charged. Not only that, but you get a few corrupt cops and next thing you know they claim that some peaceful protester outside the capital building assaulted them, then they could claim all peaceful protesters there intended to be violent and charge them all with 20 to 30 years under 18 U.S. Code § 1512. Heck, even impeding traffic under 18 U.S. Code § 1512 could be argued to prevent communication to a judge.
Being charged with a crime is not the same as being convicted though, and currently the challenge before the Supreme Court is in regards to what crimes they can be convicted with.
Later in this thread you conflate the insurrectionists with BLM. You’ve been downplaying the insurrection this entire thread. They beat police officers mercilessly multiple times, on camera. We all saw what happened. The medical examiner said that Sicknick died for reasons unrelated to the injuries he sustained at the hands of your favorite people, but it’s not like they weren’t fucking trying to beat him to death.
You really do take everything out of context for your own agenda don’t you? I didn’t conflate the people on Jan 6 to BLM. My only point was do you want all people in an area or vicinity getting charged with the same thing that a select few of a group may only be guilty of. Do you not agree that for each defendant in a case, that evidence needs to be presented to show specifically what crimes they were trying to commit… or, do you think that if people are in an area where a few protesters throw a molotov cocktail that everyone else even when they were never there with the intention of starting a fire should all be charged with the same crime? You can twist my words all you want, and I’m sure you’d love to have mod or are reporting this to mods cause heck people like you definitely don’t like it when people point out their inconsistencies and call them out for actually being the propaganda while making claims about people like me.
You say these people are my “favorite people” but you have no evidence, and I can assure you they aren’t, but you really don’t care. It is all about the false narrative you wish to push. It sounds to me like you don’t care how Sicknick actually died, but that you’ll gladly use his death in whatever narrative is most convenient for you.
Why are you splitting hairs to defend insurrectionists?
Is it because they beat capitol police and you hate the police?
If you spread false information, even if it’s in the name of a good cause, you will make it harder for people to believe you or people supporting your good cause when you talk about true information. There’s enough issues with conservatives that you don’t need to invent more like a conspiracy theorist.
No, it is because like I said the Supreme Court did ask some valid questions… there are plenty of laws that the people on Jan. 6 broke, but the one in particular that they are using could equally be applied to protesters that have also disrupted official proceedings. If the police have evidence that all the people that went into the capitol were there with a plan to assassinate and specifically harm members of congress, then yes I think that they should qualify under this law. But, merely going into the capitol building is not sufficient evidence in of itself. I’m just saying, be careful what you wish for and don’t be surprised if suddenly climate activists and other Democrat protesters don’t get charged with the same thing once you do.
They already get charged. The insurrectionists were treated with kid gloves and are to this day.
Being charged with a crime is not the same as being convicted though, and currently the challenge before the Supreme Court is in regards to what crimes they can be convicted with. It isn’t an easy subject and I agree the Supreme Court is biased and corrupt, but I also try my best to evaluate the case law and I still believe that they asked some good questions about when it is okay to charge someone with this particular crime when it appears that it could apply to Democrat protesters in several cases as well that were not charged. Not only that, but you get a few corrupt cops and next thing you know they claim that some peaceful protester outside the capital building assaulted them, then they could claim all peaceful protesters there intended to be violent and charge them all with 20 to 30 years under 18 U.S. Code § 1512. Heck, even impeding traffic under 18 U.S. Code § 1512 could be argued to prevent communication to a judge.
Later in this thread you conflate the insurrectionists with BLM. You’ve been downplaying the insurrection this entire thread. They beat police officers mercilessly multiple times, on camera. We all saw what happened. The medical examiner said that Sicknick died for reasons unrelated to the injuries he sustained at the hands of your favorite people, but it’s not like they weren’t fucking trying to beat him to death.
This person or AI is clearly doing that CIA disrupt productivity thing & goading you to respond again & again— don’t fall for it
You really do take everything out of context for your own agenda don’t you? I didn’t conflate the people on Jan 6 to BLM. My only point was do you want all people in an area or vicinity getting charged with the same thing that a select few of a group may only be guilty of. Do you not agree that for each defendant in a case, that evidence needs to be presented to show specifically what crimes they were trying to commit… or, do you think that if people are in an area where a few protesters throw a molotov cocktail that everyone else even when they were never there with the intention of starting a fire should all be charged with the same crime? You can twist my words all you want, and I’m sure you’d love to have mod or are reporting this to mods cause heck people like you definitely don’t like it when people point out their inconsistencies and call them out for actually being the propaganda while making claims about people like me.
You say these people are my “favorite people” but you have no evidence, and I can assure you they aren’t, but you really don’t care. It is all about the false narrative you wish to push. It sounds to me like you don’t care how Sicknick actually died, but that you’ll gladly use his death in whatever narrative is most convenient for you.