Current Events > Democrat bill: Federal charges for anyone who attacks a reporter

(+) Yeah! (+)

DuranOfForcena posted...

LordRazziel posted...

DuranOfForcena posted...

LordRazziel posted...

No.
I was using your rationale against you.

i don't know what the fuck exactly you think you were doing with that post, but i can assure you, it's not that.

It was. What would make you say otherwise?

because your post and your rationale has absolutely nothing to do with my point and is an objectively logically bankrupt comparison

Your point was people thought he did nothing wrong, so that's reason for the law.
The whole point was that the logic doesn't pan out.
---

bs

journalists are the isis of america
---

Doom_Art posted...

Imagine opposing this

Ah, yes - the "government must provide" crowd.

It's ALREADY a crime. Why spend tax money to make it a crime twice?
---

It's already illegal to assault someone. What's the real purpose of this bill?
---

CaptainCrunch posted...

It's already illegal to assault someone. What's the real purpose of this bill?

Expansion of federal powers into state-level affairs. Typical lib bullshit.
---

DuranOfForcena posted...

darkjedilink posted...

DuranOfForcena posted...

Bio1590 posted...

Was that guy from Montana ever charged?

misdemeanor assault, sentenced to 40 hours of community service, 20 hours of anger management, 180-day deferred sentence, and a $300 fine along with an $85 court fee. fuckin bullshit.

So, the standard sentence for a first offense.

for the charge, perhaps. that doesn't mean that the charge was correct. it should have been aggravated assault at least.

Was he armed? Like, did he use a weapon?
---

DuranOfForcena posted...

darkjedilink posted...

Was he armed? Like, did he use a weapon?

why are you asking that? do you think that's the only factor that determines whether an assault is a misdemeanor or a felony?

No. That's the difference between misdemeanor assault and aggravated assault. Ergo, if he wasn't armed, misdemeanor assault was the correct charge.
---

darkjedilink posted...

DuranOfForcena posted...

darkjedilink posted...

Was he armed? Like, did he use a weapon?

why are you asking that? do you think that's the only factor that determines whether an assault is a misdemeanor or a felony?

No. That's the difference between misdemeanor assault and aggravated assault. Ergo, if he wasn't armed, misdemeanor assault was the correct charge.

Laws like that vary.
---

DuranOfForcena posted...

darkjedilink posted...

DuranOfForcena posted...

darkjedilink posted...

Was he armed? Like, did he use a weapon?

why are you asking that? do you think that's the only factor that determines whether an assault is a misdemeanor or a felony?

No. That's the difference between misdemeanor assault and aggravated assault. Ergo, if he wasn't armed, misdemeanor assault was the correct charge.

>says no, he doesn't think that's the only difference
>says it's the only difference

?????????

Are you suggesting that aggravated assault is the ONLY felony assault charge?

Like, are you for real?
---

The only difference between aggravated assault and misdemeanor assault are committing the act while in possession of a deadly weapon, i.e a firearm.
---

Does this apply to citizen journalists recording police brutality?
---

Those who are crying about liberal overreach, do you also hate laws that specifically make it illegal to assault police officers or politicians (including the president)?
---

ChainedRedone posted...

Those who are crying about liberal overreach, do you also hate laws that specifically make it illegal to assault police officers or politicians (including the president)?

"Reporters" always shove shit in someone's face so it's no wonder you'll see someone kick their ass.
---

god help us
---

CaptainCrunch posted...

It's already illegal to assault someone. What's the real purpose of this bill?

It becomes a federal crime. When federal and state crimes overlap the government can double dip the same offense with the dual sovereignty rule without violating double jeopardy.
---

ChainedRedone posted...

Those who are crying about liberal overreach, do you also hate laws that specifically make it illegal to assault police officers or politicians (including the president)?

No, because those laws make sense
---

Renault posted...

bs

journalists are the isis of america

You're disgusting. Journalists are required to maintain order and hold everyone accountable for their actions, especially people in power like Donald Trump.

Are there corrupt journalists? Absolutely. But, there are corrupt people in every occupation ever in the history of the world.
---

Funbazooka posted...

ChainedRedone posted...

Those who are crying about liberal overreach, do you also hate laws that specifically make it illegal to assault police officers or politicians (including the president)?

No, because those laws make sense

Upholding the first amendment, freedom of the press, doesn't make sense? If you can't figure out why journalists may be given special treatment maybe you should read the constitution.
---

Mr_MacPhisto posted...

Good. The government should make journalists a protected class.

Isn't Chris Cuomo literally the guy who said CNN was going to go easy on Hillary?
---

fenderbender321 posted...

So why is it more damaging for reporters to be assaulted than non-reporters? Why make it a federal crime?

Because reporters have been under fire and scrutiny since the Trump Administration took charge.
---

I don't think these people understand what a country without a vigilant and present press looks like... y'all in for a rude awakening.
---

Mr_MacPhisto posted...

Good. The government should make journalists a protected class.

Do journalist call each other fake news?
---

I'm ambivalent towards this. But if you really want to protect the press, the owners of news outlets are a bigger threat to reporters than random crazies attacking them.
---

This is absurd and I cant believe people are defending it. This law would make journalists more brazen about getting in the face of targets and being far more inflammatory. This would be a terrible law and shouldnt even make it to the floor. We already have assault and battery laws.

http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-charges/aggravated-assault.html

you people are so fucking lazy.

Some assaults become aggravated assaults depending on the status of the victim. For example, many states punish assault on police officers, fire fighters and even teachers as aggravated assault. Typically, for such an assault to constitute aggravated assault, the victim must have been performing his or her duty when assaulted and the perpetrator must have known of the victims status.

It's quite clear that the intent of this bill is to spread the 'identity classification' from cops/firefighters/teachers' to reporters. Which would not be a 'spread of federal power' since this power has already been "spread" for a great many types of victim identities.

Whether the press deserve to be treated the same as cops/firefighters is a separate question, one I'd love to hear people's responses to--and it's the only actual subject for which debate can be held.

Having a weapon is absolutely not the only way assault can be classified as aggravated assault, and anyone who suggests otherwise is lying.
---

If punching a reporter for their snide insinuations, disingenuous assertions, or tabloid journalism is good enough for Commander Shepard, then it should be good enough for us.
---

I'm okay with this, in fact, anyone that attacks someone over exercising their explicate constitutional rights should face extra charges.
---

Darkman124 posted...

Whether the press deserve to be treated the same as cops/firefighters is a separate question, one I'd love to hear people's responses to--and it's the only actual subject for which debate can be held.

For things like this, I find that the important measure is whether or not people are willing to evenly apply the law to ALL reporters. Firefighters and police have jobs that benefit everyone regardless of politics so protecting them is an easy sell. The question is whether the people supporting this law are ALSO willing to see people go to jail for getting aggressive against InfoWars or Brietbart. I think by the very nature of the fact that far right/left publications can get press credentials means we should be more careful with giving them blanket protections.

To use an inflammatory example, we need to consider what this means if a literal nazi starts a newspaper and starts showing up to major events. Do we want to extend these federal protections to them as well? If the law can't be applied evenly to all participants, then it isn't a good law.
---

s0nicfan posted...

Do we want to extend these federal protections to them as well?

We already do under the First amendment
---

s0nicfan posted...

Darkman124 posted...

Whether the press deserve to be treated the same as cops/firefighters is a separate question, one I'd love to hear people's responses to--and it's the only actual subject for which debate can be held.

For things like this, I find that the important measure is whether or not people are willing to evenly apply the law to ALL reporters. Firefighters and police have jobs that benefit everyone regardless of politics so protecting them is an easy sell. The question is whether the people supporting this law are ALSO willing to see people go to jail for getting aggressive against InfoWars or Brietbart. I think by the very nature of the fact that far right/left publications can get press credentials means we should be more careful with giving them blanket protections.

To use an inflammatory example, we need to consider what this means if a literal nazi starts a newspaper and starts showing up to major events. Do we want to extend these federal protections to them as well?

I agree with you on this.

I think if we pass this law, we should extend such protections to The Hitler Herald, Nazi News Daily, and any other facism-related pun news headline titles. Dirty commies too.

Really, I think the issue is more that anyone with a violent criminal record, such as for assault, should not be eligible to serve in government. I don't really see the press as equivalent to firefighters.
---

Antifar posted...

s0nicfan posted...

Do we want to extend these federal protections to them as well?

We already do under the First amendment

I'm aware of that. My point is pushing for additional federal protections is simply a case of determining whether what's being asked is protections for all or protections for "my press" and not "the press"
---

MorbidFaithless posted...

I don't think these people understand what a country without a vigilant and present press looks like... y'all in for a rude awakening.

We've been without such a press for almost a decade.
---

does this provide any extra protections for garbo paparazzi
---