LogFAQs > #962073001

LurkerFAQs, Active DB, DB1, DB2, DB3, DB4, DB5, DB6, DB7, DB8, Database 9 ( 09.28.2021-02-17-2022 ), DB10, DB11, DB12, Clear

Topic List	Page List: 1
Topic	9 y/o Sobs UNCONTROLLABLY as she and 6 ANTI-VAXXERS are ARRESTED!!!
adjl 01/25/22 5:59:53 PM #48:	SKARDAVNELNATE posted... No, the 6 wouldn't get arrested because they're part of a protest. Where are you getting this nonsense? Is some nebulous concept of protest-related immunity to prosecution really the only way you can rationalize people getting away with crimes during a protest? You can't look at the basic details of the example that I just outlined and realize that there are practical limitations on what police are capable of? SKARDAVNELNATE posted... I know you have difficulty with abstract thinking I have no difficulty with abstract thinking. You're just making up nonsense that has nothing to do with reality for no apparent reason. SKARDAVNELNATE posted... Now you might think that the people who set the fire are guilty of arson, They are, but that guilt is only going to amount to anything if you can catch them. That's the practical reality of law enforcement. SKARDAVNELNATE posted... the other protesters are accomplices They are not accomplices. They did not participate in the act of arson in any way, they did not deliberately act to cover it up or protect the perpetrator, they were just in the same area at the same time as the crime was committed. Some local governments did try to push laws amounting to "you can be arrested for being in the same area as somebody that commits a violent act during a protest even if you don't do anything yourself," but I don't believe any of those ever really took off because they're very obviously an assault on first amendment rights (in addition to being blatant nonsense that would never hold up in any higher court). SKARDAVNELNATE posted... and the news reporter who downplayed the seriousness of the crime are complicit in it and inciting people to commit more. That's going to depend on the exact things they're saying, but generally speaking, that's not true either. Nobody is obligated to comment on a burning building just because it's there. Not commenting on it is not a deliberate effort to aid the arsonist, nor does it encourage further arson. SKARDAVNELNATE posted... Since as a whole it's still mostly peaceful it qualifies as being part of a protest and the arson isn't that much of an issue. It's more that the protest is more interesting than the fire, so that's what the reporter reports on. Being part of a protest does not make it legal. Having such a crime happen in a large, chaotic crowd, however, makes it difficult to do anything about it. SKARDAVNELNATE posted... I don't know where you got those note or what they're for but they don't pertain to anything I've said. You're alleging that any violent crimes that are part of protests are somehow forgiven for the sake of the protest, which would be a legal decision made by governments . The protests in question sought to hold police accountable for overstepping their bounds in the process of enforcing the law, with the added refrain of reducing the scale of police departments and their budgets for the sake of reallocating that support to initiatives that reduce crime without the need to involve law enforcement (such as mental health and social work supports). The former represents a conspiracy by the government to favour protests above all else. The latter describes protests that seek to erode the power the government holds by limiting their enforcement resources. Therefore, you are suggesting that the government is conspiring to enable and encourage protests against its own ability to hold power. That's not a very sensible suggestion, I'm afraid. --- This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts. <cite>adjl posted [p:962073001] in 9 y/o Sobs... [t:79865413]...</cite> <quote>SKARDAVNELNATE posted... </cite> <quote>No, the 6 wouldn't get arrested because they're part of a protest.</quote> Where are you getting this nonsense? Is some nebulous concept of protest-related immunity to prosecution really the only way you can rationalize people getting away with crimes during a protest? You can't look at the basic details of the example that I just outlined and realize that there are practical limitations on what police are capable of? SKARDAVNELNATE posted... </cite> <quote>I know you have difficulty with abstract thinking</quote> I have no difficulty with abstract thinking. You're just making up nonsense that has nothing to do with reality for no apparent reason. SKARDAVNELNATE posted... </cite> <quote>Now you might think that the people who set the fire are guilty of arson,</quote> They are, but that guilt is only going to amount to anything if you can catch them. That's the practical reality of law enforcement. SKARDAVNELNATE posted... </cite> <quote>the other protesters are accomplices</quote> They are not accomplices. They did not participate in the act of arson in any way, they did not deliberately act to cover it up or protect the perpetrator, they were just in the same area at the same time as the crime was committed. Some local governments did try to push laws amounting to "you can be arrested for being in the same area as somebody that commits a violent act during a protest even if you don't do anything yourself," but I don't believe any of those ever really took off because they're very obviously an assault on first amendment rights (in addition to being blatant nonsense that would never hold up in any higher court). SKARDAVNELNATE posted... </cite> <quote>and the news reporter who downplayed the seriousness of the crime are complicit in it and inciting people to commit more.</quote> That's going to depend on the exact things they're saying, but generally speaking, that's not true either. Nobody is obligated to comment on a burning building just because it's there. Not commenting on it is not a deliberate effort to aid the arsonist, nor does it encourage further arson. SKARDAVNELNATE posted... </cite> <quote>Since as a whole it's still mostly peaceful it qualifies as being part of a protest and the arson isn't that much of an issue.</quote> It's more that the protest is more interesting than the fire, so that's what the reporter reports on. Being part of a protest does not make it legal. Having such a crime happen in a large, chaotic crowd, however, makes it difficult to do anything about it. SKARDAVNELNATE posted... </cite> <quote>I don't know where you got those note or what they're for but they don't pertain to anything I've said.</quote> You're alleging that any violent crimes that are part of protests are somehow forgiven for the sake of the protest, which would be a legal decision made by governments . The protests in question sought to hold police accountable for overstepping their bounds in the process of enforcing the law, with the added refrain of reducing the scale of police departments and their budgets for the sake of reallocating that support to initiatives that reduce crime without the need to involve law enforcement (such as mental health and social work supports). The former represents a conspiracy by the government to favour protests above all else. The latter describes protests that seek to erode the power the government holds by limiting their enforcement resources. Therefore, you are suggesting that the government is conspiring to enable and encourage protests against its own ability to hold power. That's not a very sensible suggestion, I'm afraid. --- This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1