Quote Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy View Post
snip


The jurisprudence governing criminalizing dangerous speech has not changed. I can't see that because it hasn't happened. You see it because you're under the misapprehension that everything you see under the sun is actually the specific subtopic you're addressing at the time somehow.

I'd maybe give a bit more credence if you'd actually go take a look at the legal standards. Hard to see a difference when you've got no flipping idea what one of them is.
I've been talking about BLM's attempts to follow court orders (seize cattle and recoup fees/fines) while considering the political/cultural climate in Bunkerville -- people with anti-government sentiments who saw this as a First and Second Amendment issue (Free Speech + guns) -- who'd made it clear they were up for a battle. The enforcement agents faced a real dilemma on how to legally follow-through in an already dangerous situation, without escalating things further.

He hasn't violated any explicit criminal laws and there are very, very few "implied" (which I assume means common law) criminal offenses anymore. I don't think there are any at the federal level. WRT criminal law, the US has switched almost entirely over to a codified collection of statutes rather than the old English common law system, though common law still predominates for procedure. You can put quotation marks around whatever words you want, either be quiet or take responsibility for your errors and many flatly-wrong statements and assertions.
And you can be as pedantic all you like, citing statutes and precedents and procedural details on Bundy's behalf...but you haven't shown that BLM was doing anything outside its legal scope. Let alone how those agents were expected to proceed when faced with an armed mob.

I've never hid that I have a number of objections to the workings of the US criminal justice system. I doubt they're the same as your objections since I expect most of your objections have way more to do with your vivid imagination than they do with reality but it's got nothing at all to do with this thread.
This thread isn't about my imagination, but realities happening in real time. That includes applying legal standards, with all its conflicting interests (and agencies), to a particular scenario that has real influences, and impacts, on multiple levels.

Cliven Bundy carries a copy of the US Constitution in his shirt pocket, but claims the federal gummint has no jurisdiction in the state of Nevada. Fuzzy, you're obviously smarter and more academically informed than Bundy, but you're just carrying a copy of papers in your shirt pocket, too.

You can use your academic smarts to whip every lay person to shame, but only on specifics (that many attorneys would also fail)....but you haven't been able to apply those details to the situation at hand, let alone explain how to things move forward in a just and peaceful way.

It's not sufficient to claim you're not particularly "exercised" about the ways/means people "exercise" their 1st Amendment Rights of Free Speech, Association/Assembly, or civil disobedience...but then ignore how it plays into the 2nd Amendment, when armed militiamen overtly threaten federal agents. Why are you deliberately ignoring the larger context and its ramifications?