US protests against police violence

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

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."

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?

---

There are a number of different state and federal laws that could apply. Terrorist threats, menacing, intimidation, obstruction of justice etc. Keep in mind that the example being used isn't someone on the internet saying "fry them like bacon" they are people literally screaming these at cops physically in front of them. Do you think it should be legal to walk up to a group of people in scrubs screaming at them that you are going to immolate all doctors? No, of course not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lewkowski

Do you think it should be legal to walk up to a group of people in scrubs screaming at them

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steely Glint

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EW5gux4X...jpg&name=small

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lewkowski

And yelling? YELLING is what you want people arrested for?

---

---

another dumbass debates himself example.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer

another dumbass debates himself example.

---

Did you somehow miss the threat part? Oh look a liberal being disingenuous... shocked. :0

because the folks in the picture are simply asking the officers out for a cup of tea :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lewkowski

There are a number of different state and federal laws that could apply. Terrorist threats, menacing, intimidation, obstruction of justice etc. Keep in mind that the example being used isn't someone on the internet saying "fry them like bacon" they are people literally screaming these at cops physically in front of them. Do you think it should be legal to walk up to a group of people in scrubs screaming at them that you are going to immolate all doctors? No, of course not.

---

It would be legal (assuming you weren't impeding their movement or something of the sort). The anti-abortion crowd regularly shouts worse material near abortion clinics.

Are you against free speech?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer

because the folks in the picture are simply asking the officers out for a cup of tea :rolleyes:

---

There is clearly a difference between yelling and angry speech and threats. It isn't necessary to agree with Lewk about anything, including whether or not it is protected speech, to recognize that. If you have specific information that what was being yelled was threatening, I'm sure Lewkowski would be willing to apply the same standard.

I'm sure he was inviting the cop over for a cup of tea.

Look, none of the protesters in question were seen carrying stoves and frying pans large enough to fry an actual policeman like bacon. There's no way "fry em like bacon" falls under the rubric of prohibited speech.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aimless

Look, none of the protesters in question were seen carrying stoves and frying pans large enough to fry an actual policeman like bacon. There's no way "fry em like bacon" falls under the rubric of prohibited speech.

---

"You a nice business there, sure would be a shame if an untimely accident were to happen." Clearly not a mob threat at all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

I'm sure he was inviting the cop over for a cup of tea.

---

Are the only two options inviting someone over for a cup of tea, and specific and unequivocal threats of bodily harm?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lewkowski

"You a nice business there, sure would be a shame if an untimely accident were to happen." Clearly not a mob threat at all.

---

"Fry em like bacon" isn't like "nice business there, sure would be a shame if an untimely accident were to happen."

But you know what is? "I need you to do me a favor though."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aimless

"Fry em like bacon" isn't like "nice business there, sure would be a shame if an untimely accident were to happen."

But you know what is? "I need you to do me a favor though."

---

Where do you think "sell your company and give me a substantial cut or I'm going to ban it" fits in this scale?

Right out of the Tyrant's Textbook! I'll bet AG Barr is "looking into the constitutionality" of this. :bored:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lewkowski

There are a number of different state and federal laws that could apply. Terrorist threats, menacing, intimidation, obstruction of justice etc.

---

Lewk, it doesn't matter what law you try to apply. Loki's citing the test used for when you can and cannot take action against speech, in proper adherence to the 1st amendment. He's referencing the Constitutional standard. Whatever law it is you want to apply, whether it's from a state or the Feds, whether it's terrorism, obstruction, whatever, they ALL have to meet the exact same standard. They all have to pass the test laid out in Brandenburg and clarified in one or two later cases. They may also have to meet further standards above and beyond that of Brandenburg, depending on the context, but if they can't pass the Brandenburg tests than they're out regardless.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Enoch the Red

Are the only two options inviting someone over for a cup of tea, and specific and unequivocal threats of bodily harm?

---

Well, seeing as the literal words of one prong of the Brandenburg test is "the threat is so unequivocal, unconditional, and specific as to convey a gravity of purpose and immediate prospect of execution," I'm going to have to say regardless of where one of the lines is, that yes, the other option is "specific and unequivocal threats of bodily harm". Among other necessary unmentioned but included descriptors.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J4K2kI2KoSk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gHSVjmO4iJY&t=116s

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy

Well, seeing as the literal words of one prong of the Brandenburg test is "the threat is so unequivocal, unconditional, and specific as to convey a gravity of purpose and immediate prospect of execution," I'm going to have to say regardless of where one of the lines is, that yes, the other option is "specific and unequivocal threats of bodily harm". Among other necessary unmentioned but included descriptors.

---

I'm probably being unclear - I chose those words precisely for that reason. What I was attempting to get at is that it seems to me there is a world of possibilities that exist beyond inviting the police to come over for tea, and making threats, regardless of whether or not the threats extend beyond what is protected by the first amendment. I could very vocally tell a police officer I disagree with the actions they are taking, the system they are representing, or the job they are doing without threatening them, even abstractly.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Eesz8e8V...pg&name=medium

Militarized Police: unsafe at any speed.

Also, is there anything phrase in the English language more pathetically craven than "officer involved shooting"?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steely Glint

Also, is there anything phrase in the English language more pathetically craven than "officer involved shooting"?

---

How about "Guns don't kill people"?

Twitter Link

https://www.miamiherald.com/news/loc...244849592.html

To a man with a hammer

I'm currently reading a book with the title "Rapport: The four ways to read people". It's written by two professional interrogators and forensic psychologists.

Fascinating stuff and it's rather sad that the US cops' training does not seem to include deescalation tactics in the slightest. They even include an example where a police officer managed to talk down a belligerent guy, only for her colleagues to swoop in after he was agreeing to come down to the station and manhandle him in a way that all her work was for nothing.

They also give several arguments why, for example, torture does not work.

Breaking News: George Floyd killed himself!

https://nypost.com/2020/08/21/lawyer...illed-himself/

:picard:

And the cops were fulfilling their duty to protect and serve!!!

:picard:

This is just left-wing liberals trying to scapegoat the police!

:picard:

Because they want chaos and anarchy instead of Law & Order!

:picard:

https://censored.tv/newsposts/far-le...to-the-streets

They sure are winning hearts and minds out there in Portland.

"censored.tv" :haha: :haha: :haha:

meanwhile, arguments for abolishing the police keep mounting:

Twitter Link

and

https://champ.gothamist.com/champ/go...ar-lawyers-say

and this fucked-up story:

Twitter Link

(read the entire thread)

Abolishing lol, not even Bernie wants that.

Twitter Link

Twitter Link

The ACLU also demanded the cops stop filming (you know the same thing body cameras do) the riots. They are a bit of a joke these days.

It's telling that you consider all protests to be riots (well, all protests by people you disagree with). They have no problem with police taping people engaged in criminal actions.

https://www.oregonlive.com/crime/202...inquiries.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lewkowski

The ACLU also demanded the cops stop filming (you know the same thing body cameras do) the riots. They are a bit of a joke these days.

---

The ACLU demanded the cops comply with Oregon state law? Those dastardly fiends!

Waitaminute. The Oregon cops have been breaking the law with their filming? Doesn't that usually mean you think they should be severely punished to deter them from more lawbreaking?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy

The ACLU demanded the cops comply with Oregon state law? Those dastardly fiends!

Waitaminute. The Oregon cops have been breaking the law with their filming? Doesn't that usually mean you think they should be severely punished to deter them from more lawbreaking?

---

So do you think body cams are good or not? Also they weren't breaking the law. The police are absolutely allowed to film people breaking the law.

https://twitter.com/MinneapolisPD/st...00001951453185

Watch till the end if you aren't a pussy. (Guy offs himself on camera).

This is why Minneapolis rioted today. This entire "movement" is joke.

Oh my God, you really are such a little pussy of a manling :haha: flex more you creepy little fucker :haha:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aimless

Oh my God, you really are such a little pussy of a manling :haha: flex more you creepy little fucker :haha:

---

Do you still agree with riots in Minneapolis over this example of police brutality? Speaking of which - the people who claimed the cops murdered him, do you think they should face charges for inciting a riot?

God Hath Spoken: Fine I'll do it myself

Might not have made a difference to the tragic outcome either way, but this video is a clear sign that American cops not only have a crappy attitude towards human life, but they're also... fucking dumb:

Twitter Link

ACAB applies if the first A stands for American.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

ACAB applies if the first A stands for American.

---

Okay then AACABoBA so that the bastard-adjacent ones don't feel left out.

I guess not even 'all lives matter' to the police.