In fairness, the shooter actually hit and injured two protestors and the driver of the car did not.
Printable View
In fairness, the shooter actually hit and injured two protestors and the driver of the car did not.
Nothing unreasonable about charging the shooter for reckless behavior, but, by Lewk's standards, the driver should have been charged for both the attempted murders and the inadvertent injuries that were caused in the attempt to prevent the murders. Damn' good thing other drivers managed to stop the jeep by ramming the fucking groypers.
Yeah. AG Barr thinks the feds should DOMINATE the states. Acting DHS Secretary Wolf thinks the feds should dominate THE BATTLE GROUND. They can't prosecute graffiti or trash fires, so they misuse laws created to deal with *terrorism by foreign actors*.Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy
But if Trump loses re-election, and a new AG is appointed....can those federal agents be prosecuted? Or is there some kind of statute of limitations or blanket immunity?
Driver made every effort to avoid hitting people. It is easy to hit people if he wanted to, he did not. All he wanted to do was get out of the area.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
Our resident "teacher troll" is crime-trolling again. :donkey:
Yes, there will be statutes of limitations. It's most commonly five years in federal law for felonies though factors and circumstances can raise or lower it even if it's not in one of those crime categories with a different limitation codified in the law. There is no general immunity. The qualfied immunity doctrine is about liability, it offers no protection against criminal prosecution, and it doesn't apply if your conduct was criminal anyway. Could and would are still two very different things, and even if they did charge people who is to say whether they would get anywhere in trying to do so? It depends on precisely who you are trying to charge, and precisely what charges you're making.Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
The amount of people who don't understand this hurts my brain.Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy
In other words, those federal agents could/might (and probably will) continue to hide behind fuzzy interpretations of federal law, and not be held accountable for treating citizen protestors like *terrorists*?
I'll reiterate my opinion that the DHS has too many "missions", and the executive branch has too many "powers". It's a shame that our AG acts more like Trump's personal attorney, but it's a real tragedy that he hasn't been impeached -- because our impeachment process has failed. That's on congress. They could have restructured the DHS, and taken back their authority of oversight, but they didn't.
So much for draining the swamp and Making America Great Again, huh. :rolleyes:
Qualified immunity is garbage and needs to be done away with. Cops (and other government officials) should not be protected from civil claims just because their actions were technically lawful. Civil liability is a mix of how best to apportion blame for things which go wrong (not the same as unlawful) and responsibility for remedying whatever went wrong. Something being lawful doesn't mean it was right, nor does it mean you can't or shouldn't bear a measure of the responsibility for fixing it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
I'm going with LittleFuzzy. Lewk's brain seems to be fuzzy. :haha:Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy
Anecdote: I visited Portland several years ago, and it was clear the city had a history of protests (including anarchists). That seemed to be part of the city's fabric, and no big deal. They had even created a public square where protesters and activists could "do their thing", alongside coffee shops and bistros -- it was a beautiful mix of architecture where "form meets function". I remember sitting on tiered steps, with a water fountain nearby, like an ampitheater where people could listen to the drum beats and music of 'protesters', watching all kinds of folks express themselves, and eat lunch. Graffiti was present, but it looked more like mural art. The streets were cleaned every night (compared to Philly that's a monumental task). It had a really good vibe, I never felt unsafe, and I thoroughly enjoyed my experience. :D
I can see why Portlanders found federal agents an "occupying force" that wasn't really there to do anything but stoke division, and inflame things for a Trump campaign photo-op. :bored:
None of that can be inferred from any available evidence, and witness reports suggest the exact opposite. I understand your desire to come to the defense of your creepy incel groyper brother, but you don't have a leg to stand on.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
Setting aside whether that's true or not, as long as the shooter thought the car was a threat, isn't that enough reason for you to applaud him opening fire?Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
This video proves nothing and of course the vehicle will start accelerating after being struck by another vehicle and *after gun fire.* If the goal was mass murder why didn't the jeep swerve into the protesters? From the absolute get go the voice over is peddling a false narrative.
Here's a wonderful idea. Stay out of the road. :)
https://kdvr.com/news/local/passenge...st-speaks-out/
And of course people who intend to murder folks always pull over to the side of the road after getting clear and call 911.
Because playing in traffic can you get you killed.
https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle...-guilty-pleas/
Now the guy may have been high on something, we'll have to find out but there seems no intent to wake up that morning and kill someone. Play in the streets you might get killed. Protest if you will but don't block traffic (vehicle or pedestrian). Your right to throw your fist ends at my nose, your right to protest and assembly ends at blocking other's rights to freely move about their business.
https://www.texastribune.org/2020/07...-self-defense/
Surrounding a vehicle and threatening the occupants is a good way to get killed. Try not to do that. :)
In this case the driver was nearly killed. The automatic assumption anyone should have if their vehicle is surrounded by an angry savage mob is that their life is in imminent danger and to act accordingly.
https://www.deseret.com/utah/2020/6/...police-say-blm
Another example of a driver almost killed.
https://krdo.com/news/2020/06/05/ala...rsday-protest/
You're such a ridiculous fucking bootlicker.
Lewk claiming its normal to race away from the scene of an accident is very bizarre.
In this country at least if you've been in an accident then driving away from the scene of an accident is a criminal offence. Is hit and run not a crime in America?
Lmao at Lewk lapping up the unreliable testimony of an incel groyper.
The video clearly proves the gunfire is after the Jeep was accelerating towards the crowd.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
Terrorism pure and simple.
The shooter was a f***ing moron for shooting, even if he'd hit and killed the terrorist what would he have achieved? The Jeep wouldn't magically stop.
But that's never stopped you approving shooting at terrorists in the past. What's changed?
Don't get me wrong, I also think the shooter is an idiot. But according to your regular logic, as long as the shooter reasonably believed the driver was a threat (which is more than reasonable in this case, whether it was true or not), he should be applauded for opening fire. How comes you suddenly think he should be punished instead, Lewk?
It is but in this case it's also pretty clear the runner's car was deliberately collided with. No one's going to prosecute someone for hit and run for fleeing from someone else TRYING to drive them off the road, even if they're the ones who instigated the confrontation.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
And RB's leftward descent continues. Quite sad.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Sorry mate, condescension is only a viable strategy for people who don't have shit for brains. You need to find something better suited to your strengths.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
Opposing terrorism is leftward now?Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
Lewk has now embraced the idea that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. Soon his descent to the dark side will be complete.
https://www.inquirer.com/news/pennsy...-20200731.html
"SCRANTON — A Northeastern Pennsylvania man who was convicted of threatening President Donald Trump and a district attorney has been sentenced to 20 years in prison.
Authorities charged Shawn Christy, 28, of McAdoo, with threatening to “put a bullet” in Trump and then-Northampton County District Attorney John Morganelli, and threatening “lethal force” against police. He led police on a three-month manhunt through several states before his September 2018 capture in Ohio."
The same should be done to the Antifa folks threatening to immolate police officers. "Pigs in a blanket, fry them like bacon" is a clear death threat toward law enforcement. Made all the more obvious by the use of incendiary devices and homemade explosives in places like Portland.
Not a fan of the first amendment I take it? Threatening a specific individual is not covered by it; making general statements about a group (including racial groups, like certain Trump fanboys) is.
Threatening a group of people is not covered under the 1st amendment. "I'm going to blow up all the students at X high-school" is threatening a group. "We should kill abortion doctors... here's a list of all the Planned Parenthood locations" is also threatening a group. Should those be legal under the 1st amendment according to you Loki?Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
BLM Leftists Are Extorting Small Businesses, Vandalize Cuban Man's Restaurant For Not Paying Up
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VbBSvxSJe0E
Pretty certain "kill the Jews" could be considered illegal despite the first amendment.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
It would not be illegal under most circumstances. The current standard used by SCOTUS is the imminent lawless action test. For speech to be illegal, it would have to have a high likelihood of imminently leading to an illegal action. "Kill Group X" would be illegal if it was being said by someone at the front of a mob about to attack members of that group or a key political figure who provided a time and target. There's a reason people calling for a race war are staying out of legal trouble. Realistically, the only way racist language will lead to punishment if it's said during the commission of a crime (which would turn it into a hate crime in a lot of states).Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
In both cases, you listed a specific location and an intent to be part of that action. A simple "kill the teachers" or "kill the abortion doctors" would not lead to charges. In fact, even your examples wouldn't be slam dunk cases. Here are the federal requirements for making terroristic threats, for example (a felony): "the threat is made with the specific intent that it be taken as a threat; the threat is so unequivocal, unconditional, and specific as to convey a gravity of purpose and immediate prospect of execution; the threat actually causes fear in the victim; and the fear is reasonable."Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
So in your examples, threats not made public or communicated to the targets would not be illegal. Threats made by someone far away and with no local influence would not be illegal. Threats that are conditional ("kill them if they do x") would likely not be illegal.
Is this the point where you join the far left and far right in claiming we have too much free speech in this country, Lewk?
A group of snowflakes tried to paint a mural in front of the city police headquarters over night.
People are still trying to figure out if its written in Wingdings.
Lmao that is the ugliest rendition of "back the blue" I've ever seen
Brandenburg v. OhioQuote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
