AntiFirstAmendment domestic terrorists trash Biden campaign office in Portland:

[Aidokea]

Go ahead and say what you want.

I don't need your permission to exercise my First Amendment constitutional rights, Skippy...

[retired137]

You’re a moron.

Let me know how that leather tasted after you pulled your shoe out of your mouth.

[scotty_appleton814]

I don't need your permission to exercise my First Amendment constitutional rights, Skippy...

Well then Gippy, go ahead and exercise those First Amendment Constitutional Rights.

[DM206]

Update to my previous comment...52 arrests (so far) including multiple firearms related charges. I also forgot to include the use of explosives (multiple pipe bombs found in different locations) and assault on law enforcement officers (at least 14 officers injured, including one with serious injuries requiring hospitalization).

Trespassing? Free speech? Still think they won't be able to come up with more serious charges? What do we call it when someone uses explosives in the furtherance of an ideology based offense?

[Badger99]

The easiest federal charges will be under 18 US Code Section 930 for unauthorized carry of a firearm or deadly weapons in a federal facility and 18 US Code Section 1752 for unauthorized trespassing of Government grounds/buildings. The big one is 1752 if the perpetrator is carrying a firearm or deadly weapon, where the punishment jumps up to a 10 year max sentence. FBI is already asking the public for video & tips on the folks that breached the capitol. I would imagine there's gonna be an uptick in related arrests by the FBI & ATF in the near future.

Sedition & Insurrection are covered in sections 2383 & 2384 of the US Code, and I suppose some US Attorneys could try to prosecute some of those that breached the capitol building. That said, the last successful conviction of sedition I can find was in 1995 of Omar Abdel-Rahman, aka the Blind Sheikh, and some of his co-conspirators for their involvement in the '93 World Trade Center bombing, and really before that it was mainly used around WWI & WWII. There's been some recent attempts to prosecure some neo-nazi groups on sedition but they've failed.

[retired137]

Update to my previous comment...52 arrests (so far) including multiple firearms related charges. I also forgot to include the use of explosives (multiple pipe bombs found in different locations) and assault on law enforcement officers (at least 14 officers injured, including one with serious injuries requiring hospitalization).

Trespassing? Free speech? Still think they won't be able to come up with more serious charges? What do we call it when someone uses explosives in the furtherance of an ideology based offense?

Trespass?

[Bing_Oh]

Trespassing? Free speech? Still think they won't be able to come up with more serious charges? What do we call it when someone uses explosives in the furtherance of an ideology based offense?

Once upon a time, I would have considered it domestic terrorism. However, people have been using explosives in the furtherance of their ideological beliefs all year with few if any repercussions.

Please don't think that I condone either side using these tactics, but the appearance of political interference and bias in selective enforcement brings the entire system into question.

[Krinkiboi2020]

Nope. Wrong again. Your ignorance of lega matters is staggering in its epic stupidity. Try opening a law book. Look up trespass.

How do agencies hire people and give them a badge that are so stupid..?

I suppose you think the killing of an unarmed protester who was shot through a barricaded door is ok...

I'm pretty sure that if, during any of my deployments, I had shot and killed someone through a barricaded door, I'd probably still be in Leavenworth. Regardless of their combatant/non-combatant status.

[Georgetime]

I suppose you think the killing of an unarmed protester who was shot through a barricaded door is ok...

Much the same as when blm and antifa burn down government buildings and kill cops. 1st Amendment. Plays both ways or it doesn’t.

Can't believe that I'm on CCCSD's side for a change, but 110% this. I wouldn't have gone into the Capitol building, but I can understand why people wanted to. These very same politicians fomented and poured copious amounts of fuel on an anarchist rebellion and anti-cop orgy of destruction for almost an entire year after the death of a drug addict from an overdose during a lawful arrest, and they (along with their celebrity friends) thought it was the height of hilarity when Trump "ran to the bunker" when anarchists attempted to overrun the White House in the Summer and literally set the entire city ablaze. The Young Turds christened him "Bunker Boy" and such.

Now, all of a sudden, they're wringing their hands in mock horror over what was, at worst, trespassing by people waving flags, chanting and taking selfies. They weren't laughing when the shoe was on the other foot, not one bit. Not one bit of graffiti was left inside the Capitol, not one fire was set, no statues were torn down to the ground and if someone can't understand the difference between people trying to address members of their government in the face of mountains of evidence that there were serious improprieties in the election and people looting stores and setting fire to businesses because a junkie OD'd during an arrest, that person does not possess the requisite G2 to be in law enforcement. As far as the gutless coward that shot an apparently unarmed woman (and veteran) to death, I hope he gets everything he deserves. I wonder why these women protesters who disrupted the sacred halls of Congress during the Kavanaugh confirmation hearings weren't summarily executed by Capitol Police? Something tells me some of the people on this thread just suddenly found a modicum of respect for the workings of Congress that they didn't formerly have, based on the convenience to their own political ideology.

peaceful.jpeg

[DM206]

Again, you paint this as harmless trespassing. Selfies with flags. You're ignoring the fact that many had guns. Multiple officers were injured, at least one seriously. The insurrectionists used their own tear gas or paper spray to get past officers. Law enforcement found pipe bombs in at least two locations. They broke into a federal building by breaking windows, they stole and damaged property.

This was not a group of peaceful protesters bringing their grievances to their representatives.

As to your statement that there were mountains of evidence of serious improprieties? Tell it to a judge. Oh wait...they tried that already.

For the record, yes there were peaceful protesters outside, and I have no problem with them even though I disagree with them. But those who forced their way into the Capitol broke the law, and they did worse than mere trespassing. I supported the arrest of liberal protesters who looted or set fire to buildings and cop cars. Why is it so hard for some people to apply the same standards to both sides? You seem to be blind to an obvious threat and serious violations of law because they're waving a flag you agree with.

[scotty_appleton814]

DM206,

It's very hard for some people to actually impose a fair and equal standard on people. Kudos to your effort

[retired137]

Popcorn, recliner and a soda, this event is going to transform the country. An assault on democracy.

[Georgetime]

So let's change the dynamics, police officer barricaded behind a door in a house in the inner city. A mob with some armed are attempting to gain entry with unknown intent. They have broken the door down and swarming in. Police officer shoots and kills one of the mob after the door is breached. Good shoot?

You have information that someone in the immediate vicinity was armed when Ashli Babbitt was shot? Share with the class, please. Post a link. To answer your question, though, the answer is NOT to shoot an unarmed veteran in the chest. Even a day-one recruit knows you ID your target and that you had better have Opportunity, Ability and Jeopardy before you pull the trigger.

[Badger99]

Eh, I suspect it's not as cut & dry as that. For one thing this is a breach of secured federal building. I work in a such a secure building, and I can assure you anyone who tries to breach it is getting shot if they can't be tackled first. Additionally, US Capitol Police have protection duties for senior Senators & Congress members, thus the rules are a bit different.

Someone from US Capitol Police will know more, but I've been around federal protection details and my experience is they have a wide latitude to dispose of any deemed threat to the protectee(s). There's a reason why you shouldn't try to bum rush a Secret Service/DipSec detail, regardless of if you're armed or not. And while Ashli may not have been armed, people around her were, thus likely in my giving US Capitol Police authorization to dispose of what they deem a threat to their protectees. It's unfortunate, and it's a total secirity failure. The group shouldn't have even been able to get anywhere near close to entering the US Capitol if proper security protocols were followed.

[Georgetime]

By the way, some more statements that have aged like a fine wine.

uprisings.jpeg

aoc post.jpeg

[DM206]

Aside from Cuomo, none of those statements are actually incompatible with nonviolent protest and none advocate for destruction of property or lawlessness. Kamala Harris and Joe Biden have specifically denounced lawlessness at BLM protests.

More to the point, I don't care what any talking head politician has to say on either side of this issue. Or rather, I care but it's not relevant to this discussion which is about LAW ENFORCEMENT. I would also hope that any law enforcement officer is capable of expressing themselves without resorting to memes.

If what happened yesterday was dangerous and unlawful, it doesn't matter what any elected official says. You can form your own opinion, right? And it shouldn't matter whether the protesters are conservative or liberal, right? Or did Justice lose the blindfold sometime in the past few years?

[merlin436]

This. We reap what we sow.

For years, the radical left has gone around in support of all sort of violent protests, all sorts of unlawful conduct, all sorts of negative and counterproductive behaviors.

The liberal chicken ideals are coming home to roost.

[retired137]

You have information that someone in the immediate vicinity was armed when Ashli Babbitt was shot? Share with the class, please. Post a link. To answer your question, though, the answer is NOT to shoot an unarmed veteran in the chest. Even a day-one recruit knows you ID your target and that you had better have Opportunity, Ability and Jeopardy before you pull the trigger.

Let's wait this one out. I'm sure there will be a complete and thorough unbiased investigation. It will end up one of two ways, either good or bad shoot.

[Aidokea]

...An assault on democracy.

Democracy is two wolves and a lamb, voting on what to have for lunch.

That's why the United States of America is a Constitutional Republic.

[Georgetime]

For the record, yes there were peaceful protesters outside, and I have no problem with them even though I disagree with them. But those who forced their way into the Capitol broke the law, and they did worse than mere trespassing. I supported the arrest of liberal protesters who looted or set fire to buildings and cop cars. Why is it so hard for some people to apply the same standards to both sides? You seem to be blind to an obvious threat and serious violations of law because they're waving a flag you agree with.

The most serious violation of the law was the shooting of a woman who was clearly unarmed whose most egregious offense was climbing through a window in broad daylight in front of four armed cops, one of which who shot her dead:

https://nypost.com/2021/01/06/video-...ign=SocialFlow

Arrest them and charge them with whatever they charged the Kavanaugh protesters with, I'm fine with that. Don't shoot unarmed women in the chest/neck. We literally watched the same politicians who are now decrying protests excuse and promote violence by BLM for a use of force that was exponentially more arguably justified than this. But now, some of the very same people I quoted above where in that chamber and have no problems with the cops ACTUALLY committing an act of unjustified brutality when they feel it's in their interest. If you can't see that for what it is, no combination of words in any language will be able to make you understand.

[Aidokea]

DM206, let's leave your racial bias out of the discussion...

[DM206]

Racial bias? Or actual scenario that has presented itself repeatedly over time? And when it does happen, I am confident that you and Georgetime would both call for patience as the facts come in, rather than jumping to conclusions against the officer. Which, unless it's very obvious one way or another, I agree with.

The guy who killed Floyd, by the way, has been charged with a crime. After review of the evidence. As it should be. When they make a decision on this shooting, one way or the other, it should be based on evidence and not internet chatter.

Doing anything OTHER than that would be a sign of racial or ideological bias.

[Aidokea]

DM206, what do you mean when you say that an "actual scenario that has presented itself repeatedly over time"? George Floyd only died once, so what the heck are you talking about?

[DM206]

You asked about racial bias. The only time I mentioned race was the last portion of my comment above: "So let's get the facts before we spew off. I'm pretty sure you would say the same thing if we were talking about a black guy shot by cops on the street."

That scenario has presented itself and has been under dispute many times in recent history.

You need to work on your reading comprehension if you couldn't follow that.

[Georgetime]

Let's wait this one out. I'm sure there will be a complete and thorough unbiased investigation. It will end up one of two ways, either good or bad shoot.

I don't share your faith in the federal government, sorry.