Domestic Terrorism?

[Lewkowski]

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/blm...ys-of-policing

""If he thinks that they’re going to go back to the old ways of policing, then we are going to take to the streets again. There will be riots, there will be fire and there will be bloodshed because we believe in defending our people," Newsome told the paper. He said that the group prays for peace but prepares "for the worst.""

Call a spade a spade, demanding the city government not police a certain way or "there will be fire, riots and bloodshed" is a literal act of domestic terrorism. This is no different than a conservative saying unless Planned Parenthood stops doing abortions there will be "fire and bloodshed" but of course hypocrites will be hypocritical.

[Ominous Gamer]

Is Lewk honestly whining about hypocrisy while quoting Fox News?

[Ziggy Stardust]

Lewk's always whining while being a hypocrite.

I think the term is: lewking.

[Aimless]

It's not hypocrisy... lewk hates theft and this black leftist clearly stole his rhetoric from mainstream Republicans and "libertarians" who're terrified of their own dicks.

[Ominous Gamer]

I wonder where cringy anime threats fall in his spectrum of stuff from the right he ignores.

[Lewkowski]

Is Lewk honestly whining about hypocrisy while quoting Fox News?

Do you think threatening city officials with "bloodshed and fire" is an act of domestic terrorism?

[Ziggy Stardust]

Don't thread on me.

[Lewkowski]

Don't thread on me.

Do you think threatening city officials with "bloodshed and fire" is an act of domestic terrorism?

[Aimless]

Do you think threatening city officials with "bloodshed and fire" is an act of domestic terrorism?

It's not, even if we presume the comment is being accurately reported; it is, however, more or less normal right wing discourse, and is therefore the kind of thing you can hear from all manner of "conservatives", "libertarians", "republicans", etc—including the terrorists who attacked the Capitol on Jan 6th. In contrast, the person who purportedly said this is a fringe nutjob, who has been unequivocally disavowed by the BLM movement, and is in no way affiliated with it—yet, the useless assclowns at NYDailyNews etc. continue to refer to him as some sort of BLM leader. Honest to God Lewk you're such a fucking moron that I'm surprised you know how to operate any form of computer.

[Lewkowski]

It's not, even if we presume the comment is being accurately reported; it is, however, more or less normal right wing discourse, and is therefore the kind of thing you can hear from all manner of "conservatives", "libertarians", "republicans", etc—including the terrorists who attacked the Capitol on Jan 6th. In contrast, the person who purportedly said this is a fringe nutjob, who has been unequivocally disavowed by the BLM movement, and is in no way affiliated with it—yet, the useless assclowns at NYDailyNews etc. continue to refer to him as some sort of BLM leader. Honest to God Lewk you're such a fucking moron that I'm surprised you know how to operate any form of computer.

So is your argument that it isn't Domestic Terrorism or is your argument that this is some random ass clown that is a Domestic Terrorist but he's a nobody and not part of a larger organization?

[LittleFuzzy]

Armed takeover of the Capitol seeking to violently overturn the election and, including murder and felony murder of police officers? Not domestic terrorism according to Lewk. Words at a press conference or in a journalist's interview? Domestic terrorism according to Lewk.

Lewk, since you asked directly "was this domestic terorrism" permit me to provide an educational response. Domestic terrorism in the US is defined by federal statute, specifically chapter 113B of Section 18 of the US Federal Code, (2331). For something to be an act of domestic terrorism in the US, it must "involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;" as the first precondition. This condition is dispositive. If it cannot be satisfied, then the act cannot be domestic terrorism. Can you elucidate what part of making a verbal or written response to a journalist is an act dangerous to human life and a violation of criminal law in this country? Particularly in light of the quite strong constitutional prohibitions against criminalizing speech or press?

[Lewkowski]

Armed takeover of the Capitol seeking to violently overturn the election and, including murder and felony murder of police officers? Not domestic terrorism according to Lewk. Words at a press conference or in a journalist's interview? Domestic terrorism according to Lewk.

Lewk, since you asked directly "was this domestic terorrism" permit me to provide an educational response. Domestic terrorism in the US is defined by federal statute, specifically chapter 113B of Section 18 of the US Federal Code, (2331). For something to be an act of domestic terrorism in the US, it must "involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;" as the first precondition. This condition is dispositive. If it cannot be satisfied, then the act cannot be domestic terrorism. Can you elucidate what part of making a verbal or written response to a journalist is an act dangerous to human life and a violation of criminal law in this country? Particularly in light of the quite strong constitutional prohibitions against criminalizing speech or press?

Where did I say that Jan 6 rioters weren't domestic terrorists? Kindly point that out. I may have drawn the distinction that those simply protesting that day (those that didn't conduct violence physically break in) weren't terrorists but absolutely anyone who assaulted police or forced their way in would fit the bill.

As far as Domestic Terrorism definition goes do you consider threats of violence to be against the law or no? If I go to a Planned Parenthood and tell them that I will "unleash fire and bloodshed" if they don't stop doing abortions am I breaking the law? The answer is yes. Or say a racist person threats to kill people of a particular skin color and threatens them from doing a certain activity? Do you think incitement to violence such as "lets burn this shit down" is legal?

[Ziggy Stardust]

I may have drawn the distinction that those simply protesting that day (those that didn't conduct violence physically break in) weren't terrorists but absolutely anyone who assaulted police or forced their way in would fit the bill.

So you're saying those who only shouted Mike Pence should be hanged but stayed out of the Capitol aren't domestic terrorists (after all, they fit the "those that didn't conduct violence physically break in" category), but those who actually acted violently are?

[Aimless]

So is your argument that it isn't Domestic Terrorism or is your argument that this is some random ass clown that is a Domestic Terrorist but he's a nobody and not part of a larger organization?

I'm not sure why you're phrasing that as some sort of clever gotcha. If you read my post, you'll see that I'm saying the statement is not domestic terrorism and that you're a fucking moron for linking to a sketchy article describing this fringe nutjob—who has been unequivocally disavowed by BLM—as a BLM leader. There is no "or" there—one part of my post speaks towards the merits of the claim that his statement was an act of domestic terrorism, and the other speaks towards you being a moron; these two things aren't mutually exclusive.

[Lewkowski]

I'm not sure why you're phrasing that as some sort of clever gotcha. If you read my post, you'll see that I'm saying the statement is not domestic terrorism and that you're a fucking moron for linking to a sketchy article describing this fringe nutjob—who has been unequivocally disavowed by BLM—as a BLM leader. There is no "or" there—one part of my post speaks towards the merits of the claim that his statement was an act of domestic terrorism, and the other speaks towards you being a moron; these two things aren't mutually exclusive.

So to clarify you do not think these examples would be domestic terrorism:

*Going to a school board meeting and demanding they change the curriculum or fire and bloodshed will be the result
*Protesting outside of a planned parenthood and demanding they stop performing abortions and if they don't "fire and bloodshed" would occur
*Yelling that unless a jury finds a person not guilty / guilty there will be fire and bloodshed

[Lewkowski]

So you're saying those who only shouted Mike Pence should be hanged but stayed out of the Capitol aren't domestic terrorists (after all, they fit the "those that didn't conduct violence physically break in" category), but those who actually acted violently are?

It would depend on the full context. If you are making an argument that Pence was committing treason, which does carry a potential death penalty, you would be very stupid but not a domestic terrorist. If you were saying "lets go lynch him right now and hang him" then yeah that would be domestic terrorism.

[LittleFuzzy]

Where did I say that Jan 6 rioters weren't domestic terrorists? Kindly point that out. I may have drawn the distinction that those simply protesting that day (those that didn't conduct violence physically break in) weren't terrorists but absolutely anyone who assaulted police or forced their way in would fit the bill.

You said it wasn't terrorism.

As far as Domestic Terrorism definition goes do you consider threats of violence to be against the law or no?

It would have to run afoul of the Imminent Lawless Action test. Words spoken to a reporter very clearly do not.

If I go to a Planned Parenthood and tell them that I will "unleash fire and bloodshed" if they don't stop doing abortions am I breaking the law?

The answer is yes. Or say a racist person threats to kill people of a particular skin color and threatens them from doing a certain activity?

It would depend on other factors establishing context.

Do you think incitement to violence such as "lets burn this shit down" is legal?

It certainly is incitement. . . after the violence has occurred. Incitement with no forseeable follow-on action is legal because it wasn't actually incitement, nothing illegal occurred. Incitement is one of those crimes like felony-murder. It's a means of charging people involved and responsible but who were at a step removed from the actual act you want to charge. There are jurisdictions where it remains a fully inchoate offense but it still requires a far higher bar than you're setting (when your targets are black people, anyway). The requirement that the incitement be "more than merely preparatory" is certainly still murky by legal language standards but not wrt your usage. In this case, the applicable standard would still clearly be "imminent lawless action." If the person saying it is in front of a rioting mob and has a torch in their hands? That's gonna be incitement. If they're sitting down in an air-conditioned office talking to a bunch of people sitting with their legs crossed? Not incitement unless they're engaged in some kind of white-collar cybercrime. At a podium to a crowd of protestors shortly before they move to storm the Capitol building? Incitement. As an individual interviewed in the middle of a protest by a photojournalist? Not incitement.

I will add for general clarity that drawing a physical or verbal line in the sand is a definitional example of what does not and cannot constitute impermissible speech. Setting conditions is exactly the sort of thing that is thought of as "merely preparatory" and cannot be considered "imminent." I recall discussing this back in the thread on the Bundy Ranch showdown.

[Ominous Gamer]

It would depend on the full context. If you are making an argument that Pence was committing treason, which does carry a potential death penalty, you would be very stupid but not a domestic terrorist. If you were saying "lets go lynch him right now and hang him" then yeah that would be domestic terrorism.

The mob built literal gallows on the steps of the capital and yet you still try to spin it.

[Lewkowski]

The mob built literal gallows on the steps of the capital and yet you still try to spin it.

They did not build a functioning gallows they built a retarded photo-op. A great example of horse shoe politics as fake guillotines have been used at commie protests.

[LittleFuzzy]

There are jurisdictions where it remains a fully inchoate offense but it still requires a far higher bar than you're setting (when your targets are black people, anyway).

Thank you for the prompt demonstration Lewk. Any excuse you can come up with to declare it not a crime when done by conservative white people but when the same "category" ("photo op" vs sound byte) is done by a non-conservative black person, it's domestic terrorism.

[Ziggy Stardust]

If you are making an argument that Pence was committing treason

You really are a fucking moron.

[Lewkowski]

Thank you for the prompt demonstration Lewk. Any excuse you can come up with to declare it not a crime when done by conservative white people but when the same "category" ("photo op" vs sound byte) is done by a non-conservative black person, it's domestic terrorism.

You realize the likelihood of an event occurring and reasonability of the statement matters right? When was the last time a politician was hung by a mob versus when the last time a police station was burned down by a mob? Or someone was murdered during a riot? Not excusing the retarded behavior, if you paid attention I just compared their actions to similar actions that *commies* do. Considering how vile I think commies are that should make you see how I view it. But just for the record - are you suggesting Littlefuzzy that a fake guillotine at a protest is a real threat?

[Ominous Gamer]

You really are a fucking moron.

I was wondering why he was trying to slide in an excuse for his favorite fake news sources to behave the way they do. This seems like the best answer.

You realize the likelihood of an event occurring and reasonability of the statement matters right?

This is very much not how this works, especially with treason, insurrection, and Ya'llquada. Understanding this has always been something you have been unable to comprehend. It's like you heard "sticks and stones" and built a moral philosophy around it.

[LittleFuzzy]

You realize the likelihood of an event occurring and reasonability of the statement matters right? When was the last time a politician was hung by a mob versus when the last time a police station was burned down by a mob? Or someone was murdered during a riot? Not excusing the retarded behavior, if you paid attention I just compared their actions to similar actions that *commies* do. Considering how vile I think commies are that should make you see how I view it. But just for the record - are you suggesting Littlefuzzy that a fake guillotine at a protest is a real threat?

It's a lot closer to imminent lawless action and speech that can be criminalized than a conditional statement made to a reporter. But not to you somehow. And we all know the real reason why.

[Dreadnaught]

I don't think anyone should downplay the threats of these activists any more than they should downplay people talking about killing libs at rural town council meetings or the like.

Toxic rhetoric is toxic. Shouldn't be illegal, but we should stop holding up examples and saying "this is [their] side's problem".

[GGT]

I don't think anyone should downplay the threats of these activists any more than they should downplay people talking about killing libs at rural town council meetings or the like.

Like making death threats to elected School Board members and their families? Agreed.

Toxic rhetoric is toxic. Shouldn't be illegal, but we should stop holding up examples and saying "this is [their] side's problem".

Toxic "rhetoric" isn't illegal. But making death threats and inciting violence is not protected legal speech, either.

Lewk's problem is that he sees everything in black & white and ignores the nuanced grey areas (where our politics lives); he's just like any other extremist, including the leftists he likes to call "commies". It's gonna be interesting to see how the GOP will treat Freee Speech and Domestic Terrorism, or if they'll have the same compartmentalized problem as Lewk. (see Rep. Gosar's retweeting the same video he was Censured for.)