Page 15 of 17 FirstFirst ... 51314151617 LastLast
Results 421 to 450 of 491

Thread: US protests against police violence

  1. #421
    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?
    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    ℬeing upset is understandable, but be upset at yourself for poor planning, not at the world by acting like a spoiled bitch during an interview.

  2. #422
    Lmao at Lewk lapping up the unreliable testimony of an incel groyper.
    “Humanity's greatest advances are not in its discoveries, but in how those discoveries are applied to reduce inequity.”
    — Bill Gates

  3. #423
    Quote Originally Posted by Lewkowski View Post
    This video proves nothing and of course the vehicle will start accelerating after being struck by another vehicle and *after gun fire.* If the goal was mass murder why didn't the jeep swerve into the protesters? From the absolute get go the voice over is peddling a false narrative.

    Here's a wonderful idea. Stay out of the road.

    https://kdvr.com/news/local/passenge...st-speaks-out/

    And of course people who intend to murder folks always pull over to the side of the road after getting clear and call 911.
    The video clearly proves the gunfire is after the Jeep was accelerating towards the crowd.

    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?
    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    ℬeing upset is understandable, but be upset at yourself for poor planning, not at the world by acting like a spoiled bitch during an interview.

  4. #424
    Senior Member Flixy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    6,074
    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?
    Keep on keepin' the beat alive!

  5. #425
    Quote Originally Posted by RandBlade View Post
    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?
    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.
    Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"

  6. #426
    Quote Originally Posted by RandBlade View Post
    The video clearly proves the gunfire is after the Jeep was accelerating towards the crowd.

    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?
    And RB's leftward descent continues. Quite sad.

  7. #427
    Quote Originally Posted by Lewkowski View Post
    And RB's leftward descent continues. Quite sad.
    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.
    “Humanity's greatest advances are not in its discoveries, but in how those discoveries are applied to reduce inequity.”
    — Bill Gates

  8. #428
    Quote Originally Posted by Lewkowski View Post
    And RB's leftward descent continues. Quite sad.
    Opposing terrorism is leftward now?
    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    ℬeing upset is understandable, but be upset at yourself for poor planning, not at the world by acting like a spoiled bitch during an interview.

  9. #429
    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.
    Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"

  10. #430
    “Humanity's greatest advances are not in its discoveries, but in how those discoveries are applied to reduce inequity.”
    — Bill Gates

  11. #431
    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.

  12. #432
    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.
    Hope is the denial of reality

  13. #433
    Quote Originally Posted by Loki View Post
    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?

  14. #434
    BLM Leftists Are Extorting Small Businesses, Vandalize Cuban Man's Restaurant For Not Paying Up
    Freedom - When people learn to embrace criticism about politicians, since politicians are just employees like you and me.

  15. #435
    Quote Originally Posted by Loki View Post
    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.
    Pretty certain "kill the Jews" could be considered illegal despite the first amendment.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    ℬeing upset is understandable, but be upset at yourself for poor planning, not at the world by acting like a spoiled bitch during an interview.

  16. #436
    Quote Originally Posted by RandBlade View Post
    Pretty certain "kill the Jews" could be considered illegal despite the first amendment.
    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).
    Hope is the denial of reality

  17. #437
    Quote Originally Posted by Lewkowski View Post
    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?
    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?
    Hope is the denial of reality

  18. #438
    A group of snowflakes tried to paint a mural in front of the city police headquarters over night.

    Click to view the full version

    People are still trying to figure out if its written in Wingdings.
    "In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."

  19. #439
    Lmao that is the ugliest rendition of "back the blue" I've ever seen
    “Humanity's greatest advances are not in its discoveries, but in how those discoveries are applied to reduce inequity.”
    — Bill Gates

  20. #440
    Quote Originally Posted by RandBlade View Post
    Pretty certain "kill the Jews" could be considered illegal despite the first amendment.
    Brandenburg v. Ohio
    Who can now look back with a sense of pride?

  21. #441
    Quote Originally Posted by Loki View Post
    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.

  22. #442
    Quote Originally Posted by Lewkowski View Post
    Do you think it should be legal to walk up to a group of people in scrubs screaming at them
    Quote Originally Posted by Steely Glint View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Lewkowski View Post
    And yelling? YELLING is what you want people arrested for?
    another dumbass debates himself example.
    "In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."

  23. #443
    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    another dumbass debates himself example.
    Did you somehow miss the threat part? Oh look a liberal being disingenuous... shocked. :0

  24. #444
    because the folks in the picture are simply asking the officers out for a cup of tea
    "In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."

  25. #445
    Quote Originally Posted by Lewkowski View Post
    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?
    Last edited by Loki; 08-03-2020 at 07:32 PM.
    Hope is the denial of reality

  26. #446
    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    because the folks in the picture are simply asking the officers out for a cup of tea
    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.

  27. #447
    I'm sure he was inviting the cop over for a cup of tea.
    Hope is the denial of reality

  28. #448
    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.
    “Humanity's greatest advances are not in its discoveries, but in how those discoveries are applied to reduce inequity.”
    — Bill Gates

  29. #449
    Quote Originally Posted by Aimless View Post
    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.

  30. #450
    Quote Originally Posted by Loki View Post
    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?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •