Arrests Happening for Church Rioters

[Marener]

Abortion is not a civil right but it is also something I would never do.

It's a violation of the same act that the church protestors violated, but the DoJ policy is to apply the law selectively in favor of those they politically align with.

Which makes one wonder if there is a grounds for dismissal based on selective prosecution.

 

[Papageorgio]

So?

They didn't blockade the church or intimidate anyone with physical force.

Which is the letter of the law.

Just disrupting a religious service can be a violation of people’s enjoyment of one’s religious civil rights. 18 U.S.C. § 247

 

[toobfreak]

We are All paying the price of the effect the HATE IS CAUSING america.

Yes, true, but the solution is to end the hate in others doing the hating rather than merely conquer hate alone just in ourselves (typically CAUSED by their hate in the first place), after all, tolerance for the hate vented by others is what brought us to this point, and left to their designs, will only hate us more by tolerating them.

 

[Papageorgio]

It's a violation of the same act that the church protestors violated, but the DoJ policy is to apply the law selectively in favor of those they politically align with.

Which makes one wonder if there is a grounds for dismissal based on selective prosecution.

No, abortion rights do not fall under the same law.
18 U.S.C. § 247 — Damage to Religious Property; Obstruction of Persons in the Free Exercise of Religious Beliefs
Core prohibition
“Whoever, in any of the circumstances referred to in subsection (b), intentionally obstructs, by force or threat of force, any person in the enjoyment of that person’s free exercise of religious beliefs, or attempts to do so…”

 

[Marener]

No, abortion rights do not fall under the same law.
18 U.S.C. § 247 — Damage to Religious Property; Obstruction of Persons in the Free Exercise of Religious Beliefs
Core prohibition
“Whoever, in any of the circumstances referred to in subsection (b), intentionally obstructs, by force or threat of force, any person in the enjoyment of that person’s free exercise of religious beliefs, or attempts to do so…”

It's part of the FACE act.

18 U.S. Code § 248 - Freedom of access to clinic entrances

www.law.cornell.edu

 

[Papageorgio]

By the letter of what law?

Take your time.

Already stated.

18 U.S.C. § 247 — Damage to Religious Property; Obstruction of Persons in the Free Exercise of Religious Beliefs.

 

[Papageorgio]

It's part of the FACE act.

18 U.S. Code § 248 - Freedom of access to clinic entrances

www.law.cornell.edu

Correct a different law.

 

[Failzero]

No they didn't force anything. You made that up. Words have meaning.

Anyone could have stayed. Any employee of the church could have asked them to leave.

I watched it with my own eyes on 3 different News shows / outlets and many congregants & the pastor demanded they leave ( multiple times ) thus the charges & arrests

 

[Oddball]

Should have lugged the two bloated bitches at 6 AM with a SWAT team, like Roger Stone.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I see Bondi's collection of incompetent dipshits embarrassed themselves in court again.

The judge asked for copies of the arrest warrants, and they were not prepared.

 

[OhPleaseJustQuit]

Worshiped with a white nationalist pastor.

That's who was being protested.

"Sad" and "illegal" are not synonyms.

.

Prove it, and do a better, more credible job than some useless leftist blog.







.

 

[struth]

It's a violation of the same act that the church protestors violated, but the DoJ policy is to apply the law selectively in favor of those they politically align with.

Which makes one wonder if there is a grounds for dismissal based on selective prosecution.

Wouldn’t be successful

They’d have to show they’re being prosecuted because of bias not because of their actions

 

[Oddball]

Looks like they lugged the insane violent goon too....

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Has nothing to do with free speech--what are you saying? A church is PRIVATE property. If someone breaks into your home and starts screaming at you, "free speech" is not the defense here. How about: breaking and entering, trespassing, harassment, etc

GEEZ

The terrorists also locked the doors which is kidnapping, if the prosecutor wants to go there.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Just disrupting a religious service can be a violation of people’s enjoyment of one’s religious civil rights. 18 U.S.C. § 247

That law doesnt say that.

And nobody physically forced anyone to stop worshiping.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The terrorists also locked the doors which is kidnapping, if the prosecutor wants to go there.

Liar. Didn't happen.

 

[OhPleaseJustQuit]

The terrorists also locked the doors which is kidnapping, if the prosecutor wants to go there.

.

If they really did that, it's exactly what it is.

.

 

[struth]

The demklan mob was out for a lynching

 

[JGalt]

Don Lemon is SHOOK on his live....ha

Call me a bad person, but I hope Don Lemon ends up in a cell with a big burly guy who likes to squeeze his lemons.

 

[struth]

That law doesnt say that.

And nobody physically forced anyone to stop worshiping.

There isn’t just the FACE act but also the Klan act that prohibits going on the property of another to violate the constitutional rights

It was created to deal with you and your fellow demklan pals from doing just what you all did here