1. #69501
    Merely a Setback Kaleredar's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    phasing...
    Posts
    26,839
    Quote Originally Posted by tehdang View Post
    You're gonna jail a lot of minorities in this country if you only assume/deduce vague intent, and measure any deaths from strokes, cardiac arrest, anything with heightened risk from stress, and shove them both together.
    No, you’re not.

    Kaleredar tripped a guy, he happened to fall in such a way as to cause hospitalization and death, so clearly Kaleredar intended to cause harm, harm was caused, punish him for the harm.

    You don't really need to engage in such logical leaps to increase the "victim count" of January 6th.
    If I broke into someone’s house screaming “trip him! Trip him!” and tripped a guy and he suffered bodily harm or death from it I’d say yeah, I should be culpable. Because that’s actually a metaphor for what happened on the 6th, instead of whatever nonsense you just described.

    Are you not aware that the January 6th insurrectionists were a violent mob that broke numerous federal laws with the express intent of terrorizing and coercing elected officials into overturning a just and fair election? And no, it doesn’t matter if the insurrectionists thought the election was “stolen” any more than it would matter if a back robber thought they deserved the money in a bank.

    You seem to be extending an awful lot of “innocent” points to these people that they clearly do not deserve.
    “Do not lose time on daily trivialities. Do not dwell on petty detail. For all of these things melt away and drift apart within the obscure traffic of time. Live well and live broadly. You are alive and living now. Now is the envy of all of the dead.” ~ Emily3, World of Tomorrow
    Quote Originally Posted by Wells View Post
    Kaleredar is right...
    Words to live by.

  2. #69502
    Quote Originally Posted by gondrin View Post
    The best part of the whole speech is that he prefaced it with the theme song of the movie "Titanic".
    And that he slurred his speech more than a drunk person loaded on a 5th of Jack Daniels.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by gondrin View Post
    The best part of the whole speech is that he prefaced it with the theme song of the movie "Titanic".
    And that he slurred his speech more than a drunk person loaded on a 5th of Jack Daniels. https://www.rawstory.com/trump-dementia-2653250004/

  3. #69503
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    81,957
    Quote Originally Posted by tehdang View Post
    You're gonna jail a lot of minorities in this country if you only assume/deduce vague intent, and measure any deaths from strokes, cardiac arrest, anything with heightened risk from stress, and shove them both together. Kaleredar tripped a guy, he happened to fall in such a way as to cause hospitalization and death, so clearly Kaleredar intended to cause harm, harm was caused, punish him for the harm.

    You don't really need to engage in such logical leaps to increase the "victim count" of January 6th.
    Just by being part of the group, they're guilty of insurrection or rebellion. There's also myriad "accessory" type charges that could be applied, even if they weren't the individuals responsible for specific harm.

    Y'know, basic legal shit, dude. Stop carrying water for anti-democratic cryptofascists.


  4. #69504
    Old God PhaelixWW's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Washington (né California)
    Posts
    10,876
    Quote Originally Posted by postman1782 View Post
    So, Trump gave a speech last night, where he sounded like he is literally going fucking crazy with dementia. But the funny thing is, he either was wearing stretch pants or his dress slacks backwards.

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E3MdXJHW...g&name=900x900

    I am not going to embed it to make people throw up, but look at the front there. There is no zipper there, and the wrinkles on the front, look like they would be, right where your ass meets your legs.

    And before you claim that is photoshopped, I will link a video of him wearing it like this. https://twitter.com/travisakers/stat...03475696025600

    What the actual fuck? Did he drop mustard on the front and think flipping them around was a good idea? What a fucking dumbass.
    Mark Hamill, channeling his Joker persona, had the best twitter response, I think:
    He’s clearly on the “no fly” list. #DiaperDon
    R.I.P. Democracy


    "The difference between stupidity
    and genius is that genius has its limits."

    --Alexandre Dumas-fils

  5. #69505
    Void Lord Breccia's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    NY, USA
    Posts
    41,411
    So amongst the...sigh. Hold on.

    Quote Originally Posted by tehdang View Post
    Kaleredar tripped a guy, he happened to fall in such a way as to cause hospitalization and death
    If @Kaleredar happened to trip a guy unintentionally while walking down a crowded street, maybe this would be relevant.

    Problem is, the context was the murderous insurrection. And you're defending the murderers. If I intentionally rob a bank, and while doing so bump into an old lady who falls and breaks her hip and dies, guess who goes to jail forever? Me.

    It's called Felony Murder. @cubby will likely school you on the issue, but until that happens, it means "if you intentionally commit a felony and because of that felony someone dies, it doesn't matter if you killed them on purpose or even if you pulled the trigger, that's murder and you're fucked son." It happens during crimes that are inherently dangerous, such as "breaking through a federal guarded barricade to storm the Capitol building". Oh, and since this was the Capitol, it doesn't matter which states do or don't have felony murder rules -- there's a federal one. It's absolutely viable in exactly this context. Even those people who didn't directly murder anyone are in trouble -- they could 100% be charged and have to defend themselves. And while the death must have been in some way related to the felony, "we forced our way through federal guards trying to block the trespass and during such one of them was killed" is textbook.

    I strongly recommend your next post be "whoa, I didn't know about that" because just about anything else you type, is defending first-degree murderers. Even something like "well some of the people at the back didn't know--" and any nontroll respose to that is "They were were breaking and entering the Capitol, they knew or they're legally incompetent". No rational American adult thinks the Capitol building is open for random people to roam around in. Neither do you.

    Back down from this one. At best, you're defending traitors who broke into the Capitol, by saying "but they didn't murder anyone". That's already horrible. At worse, you're defending first-degree murderers. There is no outcome to your stance that makes you look good. Just walk away.

    Back to what I was going to say: in yet another lawsuit about the murderous insurrection, Alabamer Rep. Mo Brooks has been subpoena'd in a lawsuit about his role. Other defendents include Trump, Donnie Dum-Dum Jr, and Giuliani.

    "Oh my God! They broke into his house to serve the subpoena? That's illegal!"

    What? Oh, you read Brook's tweet. No, that didn't happen.

    "How can you be so sure?"

    Well for one, in a debate between "member of the rabid fanbase" and "carbon-based life form chosen at random" I'll choose the latter as more honest without asking if they're even sentient. But secondly and more importantly, committing a felony to serve a subpoena is catastrophically stupid. In addition to, oh, committing a felony, you risk the entire lawsuit if you commit a felony while pursuing it. Can you imagine a judge treating the lawsuit's merits fairly after that? Also, you risk getting shot. No, until I see the police report where Rep. Brook's wife called 911, or any other evidence, I will assume Brooks is lying.

    As a reminder, the reason the subpoena couldn't just be deliverd to Rep. Brook's office was due to security added because of the murderous insurrection. There was even an extention granted because Brooks kept evading the serving (and this evasion was well-documented).

    "Man, serving Trump must have been hard."

    Oh, Trump waived the need for the subpoena. Only Brooks made this an issue by demanding a serving, then hiding like a little bitch, then claiming his house was burgled. From his actions, one might suspect he's fucking terrified of testifying. (Trump might be too, but he's just saying he'll file a motion to dismiss because of "absolute immunity" no really those were his exact words)

    "What did Brooks even say?"

    He said Antifa caused the murderous insurrection.

    Evidence growing that fascist ANTIFA orchestrated Capitol attack with clever mob control tactics.
    -- tweeted within 24 hours

    "Okay that's stupid, but I meant, what did he say that got him sued?"

    Today is the day American patriots start taking down names and kicking ass
    "...you sure?"

    Best I could find.

    "That sounds pretty tame, honestly. Why didn't he just fight the lawsuit on the merits? He'd probably win. It's not like 'kicking ass' is super specific."

    Well again, I think he's afraid to testify. There are direct, relavent questions he could be asked on the stand that he doesn't want to answer, such as "When you told the crowd the election was stolen, did you believe it?" If he says "no" the rabid fanbase fucks his next election to death. If he says "yes" it's safer politically but he still has that on his "permanent record" so to speak.

    As I've said plenty of times, lying to the American people isn't a crime, but lying on the stand is. Team Trump is desperate to avoid any form of enforced honesty. Even to the point, apparently, of making up phantom felonies just to avoid what looks like a lackluster lawsuit that doesn't have any real teeth.

  6. #69506
    The Lightbringer tehdang's Avatar
    7+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    3,201
    Quote Originally Posted by Breccia View Post
    So amongst the...sigh. Hold on.



    If @Kaleredar happened to trip a guy unintentionally while walking down a crowded street, maybe this would be relevant.

    Problem is, the context was the murderous insurrection. And you're defending the murderers. If I intentionally rob a bank, and while doing so bump into an old lady who falls and breaks her hip and dies, guess who goes to jail forever? Me.

    It's called Felony Murder. @cubby will likely school you on the issue, but until that happens, it means "if you intentionally commit a felony and because of that felony someone dies, it doesn't matter if you killed them on purpose or even if you pulled the trigger, that's murder and you're fucked son." It happens during crimes that are inherently dangerous, such as "breaking through a federal guarded barricade to storm the Capitol building". Oh, and since this was the Capitol, it doesn't matter which states do or don't have felony murder rules -- there's a federal one. It's absolutely viable in exactly this context. Even those people who didn't directly murder anyone are in trouble -- they could 100% be charged and have to defend themselves. And while the death must have been in some way related to the felony, "we forced our way through federal guards trying to block the trespass and during such one of them was killed" is textbook.

    I strongly recommend your next post be "whoa, I didn't know about that" because just about anything else you type, is defending first-degree murderers. Even something like "well some of the people at the back didn't know--" and any nontroll respose to that is "They were were breaking and entering the Capitol, they knew or they're legally incompetent". No rational American adult thinks the Capitol building is open for random people to roam around in. Neither do you.

    Back down from this one. At best, you're defending traitors who broke into the Capitol, by saying "but they didn't murder anyone". That's already horrible. At worse, you're defending first-degree murderers. There is no outcome to your stance that makes you look good. Just walk away.

    Back to what I was going to say: in yet another lawsuit about the murderous insurrection, Alabamer Rep. Mo Brooks has been subpoena'd in a lawsuit about his role. Other defendents include Trump, Donnie Dum-Dum Jr, and Giuliani.

    "Oh my God! They broke into his house to serve the subpoena? That's illegal!"

    What? Oh, you read Brook's tweet. No, that didn't happen.

    "How can you be so sure?"

    Well for one, in a debate between "member of the rabid fanbase" and "carbon-based life form chosen at random" I'll choose the latter as more honest without asking if they're even sentient. But secondly and more importantly, committing a felony to serve a subpoena is catastrophically stupid. In addition to, oh, committing a felony, you risk the entire lawsuit if you commit a felony while pursuing it. Can you imagine a judge treating the lawsuit's merits fairly after that? Also, you risk getting shot. No, until I see the police report where Rep. Brook's wife called 911, or any other evidence, I will assume Brooks is lying.

    As a reminder, the reason the subpoena couldn't just be deliverd to Rep. Brook's office was due to security added because of the murderous insurrection. There was even an extention granted because Brooks kept evading the serving (and this evasion was well-documented).

    "Man, serving Trump must have been hard."

    Oh, Trump waived the need for the subpoena. Only Brooks made this an issue by demanding a serving, then hiding like a little bitch, then claiming his house was burgled. From his actions, one might suspect he's fucking terrified of testifying. (Trump might be too, but he's just saying he'll file a motion to dismiss because of "absolute immunity" no really those were his exact words)

    "What did Brooks even say?"

    He said Antifa caused the murderous insurrection.


    -- tweeted within 24 hours

    "Okay that's stupid, but I meant, what did he say that got him sued?"



    "...you sure?"

    Best I could find.

    "That sounds pretty tame, honestly. Why didn't he just fight the lawsuit on the merits? He'd probably win. It's not like 'kicking ass' is super specific."

    Well again, I think he's afraid to testify. There are direct, relavent questions he could be asked on the stand that he doesn't want to answer, such as "When you told the crowd the election was stolen, did you believe it?" If he says "no" the rabid fanbase fucks his next election to death. If he says "yes" it's safer politically but he still has that on his "permanent record" so to speak.

    As I've said plenty of times, lying to the American people isn't a crime, but lying on the stand is. Team Trump is desperate to avoid any form of enforced honesty. Even to the point, apparently, of making up phantom felonies just to avoid what looks like a lackluster lawsuit that doesn't have any real teeth.
    You, like him, are eliding over the connection of a cop suffering a stroke after an extremely stressful event, and applying the guilt of murder towards the people invading the capital in a fairly-deemed insurrection. You are completely unable to apply the same standard to other extreme events in the line of duty, and would literally jail minorities involved in rioting should any cop's heart fail or blood clot form leading to death in the next couple of days. I see all this as stemming from three parallel strains of thought: 1) It just doesn't feel right that victims of the violence were primarily insurrectionists 2) If we can't call the insurrectionists effectively murderers, any other charges are insufficient in a moral sense 3) The insurrection was unique in many ways compared to other events with police at risk, therefore we choose to deny a general rule that would impact other matters of justice such as riots.

    And you're really pleading against your own case with the heavy bad faith. "At best, you're defending traitors who broke into the Capitol, by saying "but they didn't murder anyone." Like, really? You can't even debate these events without laying out these asides like I have a hope of justifying their actions by the body count? Say that to all the good defense attorneys that have utterly criminal clients, but weren't guilty of the specific crime mentioned. In fact, trash the entire justice system if you can't examine the facts of the case and moral guilt, because internet randos think you can't do that unless you're secretly a bad person trying to excuse the totality of the event. These are some really bad parts of your post or character that you should examine about yourself if you want to engage with others. Seriously. This isn't just another culture war zinger with dehumanized opponents that you can accuse, at will, of motivations totally devoid of empathy and understanding.
    "I wish it need not have happened in my time." "So do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us."

  7. #69507
    Old God PhaelixWW's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Washington (né California)
    Posts
    10,876
    Quote Originally Posted by Breccia View Post
    Problem is, the context was the murderous insurrection. And you're defending the murderers. If I intentionally rob a bank, and while doing so bump into an old lady who falls and breaks her hip and dies, guess who goes to jail forever? Me.

    It's called Felony Murder. @cubby will likely school you on the issue, but until that happens, it means "if you intentionally commit a felony and because of that felony someone dies, it doesn't matter if you killed them on purpose or even if you pulled the trigger, that's murder and you're fucked son." It happens during crimes that are inherently dangerous, such as "breaking through a federal guarded barricade to storm the Capitol building". Oh, and since this was the Capitol, it doesn't matter which states do or don't have felony murder rules -- there's a federal one. It's absolutely viable in exactly this context. Even those people who didn't directly murder anyone are in trouble -- they could 100% be charged and have to defend themselves. And while the death must have been in some way related to the felony, "we forced our way through federal guards trying to block the trespass and during such one of them was killed" is textbook.
    I'm sensing a glitch in the Matrix. It's almost like...

    Quote Originally Posted by PhaelixWW View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by jonnysensible View Post
    does DC have those gang laws of joint enterprise. You know when like some guys rob a store and one of them shoots the clerk but they all get tried for murder?
    It's called felony murder, and we discussed it here a bit yesterday:
    Quote Originally Posted by PhaelixWW View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Ripster42 View Post
    The federal gov't has a felony murder rule.
    That was one of my first thoughts, too. Theoretically, they could all be charged with murder.
    Quote Originally Posted by cubby View Post
    If I were the federal prosecutor, the simplest way would be felony murder - vis a vis the felony of entering the Capital Building with intent to cause harm and/or damage, combined with a woman being shot by Capital Police.

    That charge carries the death penalty. And Trump has recently ramped up federal executions.
    Yes, it is possible in this situation.
    (Pardon the quote-ception...)

    And those original posts date back to January 6th-8th. Nobody should be saying "whoa, I didn't know about that", because I guarantee this was quite honestly one of the first thoughts many people had in the immediate aftermath of the violent insurrection. If you're not aware of this, then you've been living under a rock. Or getting all your news from Fox News... which is, yeah, same difference.
    R.I.P. Democracy


    "The difference between stupidity
    and genius is that genius has its limits."

    --Alexandre Dumas-fils

  8. #69508
    Merely a Setback Kaleredar's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    phasing...
    Posts
    26,839
    Quote Originally Posted by tehdang View Post
    You, like him, are eliding over the connection of a cop suffering a stroke after an extremely stressful event, and applying the guilt of murder towards the people invading the capital in a fairly-deemed insurrection. You are completely unable to apply the same standard to other extreme events in the line of duty, and would literally jail minorities involved in rioting should any cop's heart fail or blood clot form leading to death in the next couple of days.
    You keep citing "minorities" as some sort of dog whistle and you keep claiming that this would retroactively apply to "a lot of them" to try and cultivate some sort of false outrage. It's not working.

    Give specific examples, cited news articles, etc. Which police officers died due to medical complications antagonized by the hands of "minorities?"

    I see all this as stemming from three parallel strains of thought: 1) It just doesn't feel right that victims of the violence were primarily insurrectionists
    Sorry, you can't really be a victim of the violence you yourself started.

    They are not "victims" and they are not innocent, not a single one of them.

    2) If we can't call the insurrectionists effectively murderers, any other charges are insufficient in a moral sense
    I wouldn't be calling them murderers, and no one else would be, if they hadn't, you know, by merit of the felony murder law murdered someone.

    3) The insurrection was unique in many ways compared to other events with police at risk, therefore we choose to deny a general rule that would impact other matters of justice such as riots.

    And you're really pleading against your own case with the heavy bad faith. "At best, you're defending traitors who broke into the Capitol, by saying "but they didn't murder anyone." Like, really? You can't even debate these events without laying out these asides like I have a hope of justifying their actions by the body count? Say that to all the good defense attorneys that have utterly criminal clients, but weren't guilty of the specific crime mentioned. In fact, trash the entire justice system if you can't examine the facts of the case and moral guilt, because internet randos think you can't do that unless you're secretly a bad person trying to excuse the totality of the event. These are some really bad parts of your post or character that you should examine about yourself if you want to engage with others. Seriously. This isn't just another culture war zinger with dehumanized opponents that you can accuse, at will, of motivations totally devoid of empathy and understanding.
    Yeah this is all a strawman.
    Last edited by Kaleredar; 2021-06-07 at 05:28 AM.
    “Do not lose time on daily trivialities. Do not dwell on petty detail. For all of these things melt away and drift apart within the obscure traffic of time. Live well and live broadly. You are alive and living now. Now is the envy of all of the dead.” ~ Emily3, World of Tomorrow
    Quote Originally Posted by Wells View Post
    Kaleredar is right...
    Words to live by.

  9. #69509
    Banned cubby's Avatar
    15+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    the Quiet Room
    Posts
    35,050
    Quote Originally Posted by tehdang View Post
    You, like him, are eliding over the connection of a cop suffering a stroke after an extremely stressful event, and applying the guilt of murder towards the people invading the capital in a fairly-deemed insurrection. You are completely unable to apply the same standard to other extreme events in the line of duty, and would literally jail minorities involved in rioting should any cop's heart fail or blood clot form leading to death in the next couple of days. I see all this as stemming from three parallel strains of thought: 1) It just doesn't feel right that victims of the violence were primarily insurrectionists 2) If we can't call the insurrectionists effectively murderers, any other charges are insufficient in a moral sense 3) The insurrection was unique in many ways compared to other events with police at risk, therefore we choose to deny a general rule that would impact other matters of justice such as riots.

    And you're really pleading against your own case with the heavy bad faith. "At best, you're defending traitors who broke into the Capitol, by saying "but they didn't murder anyone." Like, really? You can't even debate these events without laying out these asides like I have a hope of justifying their actions by the body count? Say that to all the good defense attorneys that have utterly criminal clients, but weren't guilty of the specific crime mentioned. In fact, trash the entire justice system if you can't examine the facts of the case and moral guilt, because internet randos think you can't do that unless you're secretly a bad person trying to excuse the totality of the event. These are some really bad parts of your post or character that you should examine about yourself if you want to engage with others. Seriously. This isn't just another culture war zinger with dehumanized opponents that you can accuse, at will, of motivations totally devoid of empathy and understanding.
    Even a bystander suffering a stroke and dying during a felony is cause to invoke felony murder. The officer who died during the insurrection was actively defending the Nation's Capital from people seeking to overthrow an election by means of violence is the very definition and intent of the felony murder laws.

    Even if every person involved in the commission of a felony had no intent for anyone to die, it's irrelevant, because intention is immaterial to the events in felony murder. In fact, the Felony Murder statutes were resolved to ignore intent.

  10. #69510
    Merely a Setback Kaleredar's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    phasing...
    Posts
    26,839
    Quote Originally Posted by cubby View Post
    Even a bystander suffering a stroke and dying during a felony is cause to invoke felony murder. The officer who died during the insurrection was actively defending the Nation's Capital from people seeking to overthrow an election by means of violence is the very definition and intent of the felony murder laws.

    Even if every person involved in the commission of a felony had no intent for anyone to die, it's irrelevant, because intention is immaterial to the events in felony murder. In fact, the Felony Murder statutes were resolved to ignore intent.
    And by all accounts they didn't just "bluster by" this officer or "accidentally give him a hard push;" he was one they directly assaulted.
    “Do not lose time on daily trivialities. Do not dwell on petty detail. For all of these things melt away and drift apart within the obscure traffic of time. Live well and live broadly. You are alive and living now. Now is the envy of all of the dead.” ~ Emily3, World of Tomorrow
    Quote Originally Posted by Wells View Post
    Kaleredar is right...
    Words to live by.

  11. #69511
    Quote Originally Posted by postman1782 View Post
    So, Trump gave a speech last night, where he sounded like he is literally going fucking crazy with dementia. But the funny thing is, he either was wearing stretch pants or his dress slacks backwards.

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E3MdXJHW...g&name=900x900

    I am not going to embed it to make people throw up, but look at the front there. There is no zipper there, and the wrinkles on the front, look like they would be, right where your ass meets your legs.
    I'm reminded of the Spaceballs scene where Mel Brooks is teleported with his head on backwards. "Why didn't anyone tell me my ass was so big!"

  12. #69512
    Quote Originally Posted by Nastard View Post
    I'm reminded of the Spaceballs scene where Mel Brooks is teleported with his head on backwards. "Why didn't anyone tell me my ass was so big!"
    Oh, absolutely, I saw that on tiktok today, and people were saying the same thing. I didn't think of it til I saw the tiktok today.

  13. #69513
    The Lightbringer uuuhname's Avatar
    3+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Apr 2021
    Posts
    3,897
    And you're really pleading against your own case with the heavy bad faith. "At best, you're defending traitors who broke into the Capitol, by saying "but they didn't murder anyone." Like, really? You can't even debate these events without laying out these asides like I have a hope of justifying their actions by the body count? Say that to all the good defense attorneys that have utterly criminal clients, but weren't guilty of the specific crime mentioned. In fact, trash the entire justice system if you can't examine the facts of the case and moral guilt, because internet randos think you can't do that unless you're secretly a bad person trying to excuse the totality of the event. These are some really bad parts of your post or character that you should examine about yourself if you want to engage with others. Seriously. This isn't just another culture war zinger with dehumanized opponents that you can accuse, at will, of motivations totally devoid of empathy and understanding.
    I pity you for thinking there is some sort of debate here. there isn't. a bunch of right wing dullards goaded by a wannabe fascists tried to overthrow our democracy. that is what happened. they do not deserve some "oppressed minority" status because you sympathize with them. which is really at the heart of the issue here, isn't it? no one is asking you to die on a hill for these people. the only people who feel compelled to defend the January 6th rioters are either people who were there and are now trying to skip prison time, or people who WISH they were there. this isn't some nuanced debate, you trying to make it into one doesn't make what you're doing here any less obvious.

  14. #69514
    Quote Originally Posted by tehdang View Post
    You, like him, are eliding over the connection of a cop suffering a stroke after an extremely stressful event, and applying the guilt of murder towards the people invading the capital in a fairly-deemed insurrection.
    What do you mean by fairly deemed insurrection? Are you saying it's fair to call it an insurrection or that the insurrection itself is fair?

    You are completely unable to apply the same standard to other extreme events in the line of duty, and would literally jail minorities involved in rioting should any cop's heart fail or blood clot form leading to death in the next couple of days.
    One, you're misspelling "criminals." If the criminal so happens to be a minority, then they SHOULD be jailed. That's like...the law. Or are you saying they shouldn't be? If so, why?

    Two, I'm fairly certain that the main difference between these random riots you're talking about and the Jan 6th insurrection are that the folks involved in the Jan 6th insurrection are taking credit for it, or were posting about it constantly and are therefore fairly easily found and able to be arrested. Random rioters are not easily identifiable, and therefore not easily found after the fact and able to be arrested. But if they could be, you're right, the folks involved in those riots SHOULD be treated exactly the same as the folks involved in the Jan 6th insurrection, as both sets of actions are criminal in nature, and specifically, a felony.

    I see all this as stemming from three parallel strains of thought: 1) It just doesn't feel right that victims of the violence were primarily insurrectionists 2) If we can't call the insurrectionists effectively murderers, any other charges are insufficient in a moral sense 3) The insurrection was unique in many ways compared to other events with police at risk, therefore we choose to deny a general rule that would impact other matters of justice such as riots.
    It's partially number 3. It was unique in the way that those involved were able to be identified and tracked down after the fact. In most riots, unless you're caught at the time, there's practically no way for the police to identify who was there/ involved...unless the people involved are stupid enough to publicize on things like Instagram and Facebook that they're committing a crime. No one is denying anything.

  15. #69515
    Quote Originally Posted by Vegas82 View Post
    It’s so funny seeing this lot ignore every law they find inconvenient while claiming to be the party of “law and order”.

  16. #69516
    Quote Originally Posted by Dontrike View Post
    It's "only the flu" and a "lab made super weapon that we should fear." A "98% survival rate" and a "masks infringe on my rights."

    They don't understand what science is, it changes until it's understood. They can only trust the words of a conman, not anyone with any intellect.
    Don’t have to be anti-science to note the guy has clear messaging issues for a man in his position, not unlike Trump or even Biden for that matter.

  17. #69517
    The Unstoppable Force Belize's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Gen-OT College of Shitposting
    Posts
    22,570
    Quote Originally Posted by UnifiedDivide View Post
    Interesting use of "accounting" here.
    We just need to go back to living in caves and rolling around in our own shit.

    I bet people from West Virginia wouldn't even see the difference

  18. #69518
    https://thehill.com/blogs/in-the-kno...h-bill-oreilly

    PAPPY BEAR AND DEAR LEADER ARE DOING A SPEAKING TOUR!!!!

    “Additionally, it will be fun, fun, fun, for everyone who attends!”
    I see he's re-using the same thinking he had for the "Cut, cut, cut tax act". This should be amusing, two old has-beens with plenty of credible allegations of sexual harassment/assault against them and quite a few settlements just shooting the shit about the good old days.

  19. #69519
    Quote Originally Posted by D3thray View Post
    Don’t have to be anti-science to note the guy has clear messaging issues for a man in his position,not unlike Trump or even Biden for that matter.
    MTG's a man? Also, you're kidding, right?

    Dontrike/Shadow Priest/Black Cell Faction Friend Code - 5172-0967-3866

  20. #69520
    Banned cubby's Avatar
    15+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    the Quiet Room
    Posts
    35,050
    I'm reading The Fall; or Dodge in Hell, and while struggling through most of the last half (because it turns out to be a fantasy novel) there is a section in the first third that talks about a group of protagonists traveling through Ameristan, or the midwest, where people live within their own device/media fed echo chamber, fact and reality averse, primarily brought upon because of the Internet.

    I mention this here, because those paying attention have seen the GQP become completely unhinged with reality, fact averse, and willfully lying about events. While it was already brewing, the Trump campaign and Residency seems to have brought it to the forefront and locked this phenomenon in place, setting a new course for both the United States and the rest of the world.

    It seems we've reached the Post-Fact Era. And I don't see a way out or through.

Posting Permissions

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