GSD82
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Nov 3, 2020
- Messages
- 3,461
- Likes
- 5,735
Don’t know that all of these would apply but an argument could be made for:I agree the shooting was legal but what felony was she committing?
A mob working in concert can all be charged together. So she's responsible for federal destruction of property charges the same as the guy smashing the window.I’m talking about her in particular. She was basically committed aggravated trespassing and maybe some kind of federal unlawful assembly charge. Neither of which are felonies. You might be able to squeeze out an assault on LE because she placed him in fear of his life but that’s iffy too
I’d say Assault, Threatening a Federal Official, Destruction of Federal property and failure to comply are slam dunks.How many of those is there proof she committed maybe 2-3? And only one or two of those are felonies.
I understand that. I just am curious at what people thought she did in terms of committing crimesA mob working in concert can all be charged together. So she's responsible for federal destruction of property charges the same as the guy smashing the window.
1666. Destruction Of Government Property -- 18 U.S.C. § 1361.
The Trumpites defending the Capitol rioters are lucky they had a playbook to steal from the people defending the rioters this summer. They are the defending exact thing they claimed to hate all summer with the exact arguments they denounced.
"There were plants in the crowd."
"They were acting out because they feel disenfranchised and their voices weren't heard."
"Only some of the people were doing bad things."
"The damage wasn't that bad."
Who is defending it? Also, were you defending the rioters last summer? Or were you ignoring them? If so you have no ground to stand on right now.The Trumpites defending the Capitol rioters are lucky they had a playbook to steal from the people defending the rioters this summer. They are the defending exact thing they claimed to hate all summer with the exact arguments they denounced.
"There were plants in the crowd."
"They were acting out because they feel disenfranchised and their voices weren't heard."
"Only some of the people were doing bad things."
"The damage wasn't that bad."
I hope you have several years. It may have a different name, but it's not going to get broken down anytime soon.I understand. But IMO that is crazy and proves why it can not be interpreted that way.
It highlights the importance of the "well regulated militia" part.
But I have zero desire to debate 2a,
I'd rather just enjoy watching the final breakdown of Trumpism.
Who is defending it? Also, were you defending the rioters last summer? Or where you ignoring them? If so you have no ground to stand on right now.