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?
Printable View
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
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 Loki
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
another dumbass debates himself example.Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Glint
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
Did you somehow miss the threat part? Oh look a liberal being disingenuous... shocked. :0Quote:
Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer
because the folks in the picture are simply asking the officers out for a cup of tea :rolleyes:
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
Are you against free speech?
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer
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.
"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 Aimless
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 Loki
