Arrests Happening for Church Rioters

[Marener]

Yeah it does. You can bring additional charges and these can’t be disputed as free speech. Much easier case. The fact that you won’t denounce this shows you’re a dink. I disagree With protesters at abortion clinics. Do you condone what this mob did? Yes or no?

Show me where children have any relevance in the statutes.

 

[struth]

It's a building that is open to the public, so it's not illegal just to enter until you're trespassed from the building.

It seems a lot harder to specifically outlaw speech, even if it occurs on private property.

Of course it's not illegal just to enter, nobody said it was.

Another dembot deflection.

 

[westwall]

Oh shut up. Your are just tiresome.

It's a troll, ignore it and let it die.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Show me where children have any relevance in the statutes.

Answer my question. You won’t. Harassing kids brings additional charges is what I said. Why won’t you answer my question?

Here is what happens when you push people like me too far.

 

[Marener]

Are you listening to yourself? What is happening in Minny is ridiculous. Interfering with law enforcement is a crime. It’s also an unwise decision. People only have so much patience for leftards.

Interfering with law enforcement is only okay with right wingers do it. Protesting inside private property is only okay with right wingers do it.

This administration is ridiculous.

 

[Marener]

Answer my question. You won’t. Harassing kids brings additional charges is what I said. Why won’t you answer my question?

Here is what happens when you push people like me too far.

I heard what you said. Show me where the law says anything relevant about the presence of children.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Interfering with law enforcement is only okay with right wingers do it. Protesting inside private property is only okay with right wingers do it.

This administration is ridiculous.

Never said that. But it’s generally leftards that get in the face of law enforcement. Antifa, BLM, Alphabet Mafia, etc

 

[Marener]

Never said that. But it’s generally leftards that get in the face of law enforcement. Antifa, BLM, Alphabet Mafia, etc

Trump says it and you support him.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

I heard what you said. Show me where the law says anything relevant about the presence of children.

Answer my question first. If not. You’re a *****. Do you condemn what that mob did in that church. If you won’t answer then I accept your surrender.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Trump says it and you support him.

He never said it either. Lmao. Your TDS is awesome.

 

[Marener]

Answer my question first. If not. You’re a *****. Do you condemn what that mob did in that church. If you won’t answer then I accept your surrender.

You can't substantiate your own claim because it's untrue.

You can admit it. I might actually respect you a little more. It's difficult to admit you're wrong, and the inability to do so is a mark of intellectual fragility and cowardice.

 

[Marener]

He never said it either. Lmao. Your TDS is awesome.

Sure he did. He said it when he pardoned people for doing these things when they were on his political side.

Not only that, Trump obstructed justice and was in the middle of being prosecuted for it when you voted for him.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

You can't substantiate your own claim because it's untrue.

You can admit it. I might actually respect you a little more. It's difficult to admit you're wrong, and the inability to do so is a mark of intellectual fragility and cowardice.

So you didn’t answer: you’re wrong. Read below, coward. Having kids there equates to additional charges. That’s what I said. You lose again. You don’t condemn what happened. You hate kids. You’re a *****. You lost yet another debate to me.


Many states, including Minnesota, criminalize situations in which an adult’s conduct knowingly or recklessly places a child in substantial risk of harm — physically, mentally, or emotionally. For example, Minnesota’s child endangerment statutes make it a crime to expose a child to a situation that could substantially harm them; the penalties range from gross misdemeanors (up to about 1 year in jail and fines) to felonies (up to several years, depending on harm).

 

[hadit]

Maybe, but isn't that making speech illegal?

No. Having a Constitutional right to free speech means you can't be arrested for speaking, but that doesn't apply in private organizations. You, for example, have no Constitutional right to come into my house and protest something. I can throw you out without facing any penalties and if you refuse to stop, I can have you arrested. Now, if you stand on the public road near my house with a sign and shout that Joe Biden is a poopy-head, you won't be arrested and I can't legally stop you. Hasn't anyone explained to you what free speech actually means?

There are many intrusions on the First Amendment and on one says it's absolute. What you are doing is taking it to an absurd extreme to claim basically that anyone can say anything at any time with no legal repercussions. You have, for example, no Constitutional right to go into the Senate and yell that your dogcatcher votes Republican so you hate him. You would be ejected rapidly and forcefully. You can't make public threats on a politician's life without legal consequences.

The bottom line is, you have no Constitutional right to invade a church and protest. They have the right to control what speech happens in their building. Have you tried doing that in a mosque?

Yes, it is illegal but the Trump administration's formal policy is that it wont be prosecuted.

1. Show us the written documentation. If it's a formal policy, it should be written somewhere so we can see it.
2. Administrations routinely decide what they are going to prosecute and what they will not. Case in point, cities and states that announce they are going to ignore and violate federal law should land mayors and governors in hot water but usually do not.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Sure he did. He said it when he pardoned people for doing these things when they were on his political side.

Not only that, Trump obstructed justice and was in the middle of being prosecuted for it when you voted for him.

None of that ever happened. I also Didn’t like that he pardoned everyone. See. I respectfully answer your questions. You’re a dishonest debater and a *****

 

[Marener]

So you didn’t answer: you’re wrong. Read below, coward. Having kids there equates to additional charges. That’s what I said. You lose again. You don’t condemn what happened. You hate kids. You’re a *****. You lost yet another debate to me.


Many states, including Minnesota, criminalize situations in which an adult’s conduct knowingly or recklessly places a child in substantial risk of harm — physically, mentally, or emotionally. For example, Minnesota’s child endangerment statutes make it a crime to expose a child to a situation that could substantially harm them; the penalties range from gross misdemeanors (up to about 1 year in jail and fines) to felonies (up to several years, depending on harm).

One, that's not a federal charge and they're being prosecuted by the federal government.

Two, the protestors were loud and noisy, but they weren't violent. It's absolutely absurd that it could be used against them.

 

[Marener]

None of that ever happened. I also Didn’t like that he pardoned everyone. See. I respectfully answer your questions. You’re a dishonest debater and a *****

Absolutely he did. He believes that you can obstruct and protest inside an abortion clinic. He believes they shouldn't be prosecuted. His DoJ adopted a policy that makes this belief official.

Trump pardons anti-abortion protesters convicted of blocking clinics, harassing patients

The protesters had been charged under the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act, which was signed into law in 1994.

pennsylvaniaindependent.com

The activists had been charged under the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act. “They should not have been prosecuted,” Trump said during the pardon signing. “This is a great honor to sign this.”

 

[hadit]

One, that's not a federal charge and they're being prosecuted by the federal government.

Two, the protestors were loud and noisy, but they weren't violent. It's absolutely absurd that it could be used against them.

How many times have we seen a loud and noisy protest erupt in violence? Too many to ignore, especially when professional liberal protesters get involved. They don't know when or how to stop a mob from becoming violent.

IOW, the children were exposed to a potentially dangerous situation, so additional charges are in order.

 

[j-mac]

I am struck by the absolute childishness of the leftist argument in all of this....I mean really?

Look, I think everyone can agree that when children are in proximity of these sorts of things then people of conscience hesitate to do anything that would harm them. It's why for a moment in these protests, the left was signaling that they were going to bring their children to these protests...They wanted to create a scenario where LE would hesitate to enforce their actions in dispersing these protesters.

Now, that they recognized that children a powerful tool, they take their bullshit to a place where children are...They don't understand that they look like monsters, terrorists, or worse...Or, maybe they just don't care.

In any case, they are displaying exactly why Democrats can NOT be voted for come November. These people are not only just wrong, they are stunningly stupid, and evil....

 

[Marener]

No. Having a Constitutional right to free speech means you can't be arrested for speaking, but that doesn't apply in private organizations. You, for example, have no Constitutional right to come into my house and protest something. I can throw you out without facing any penalties and if you refuse to stop, I can have you arrested. Now, if you stand on the public road near my house with a sign and shout that Joe Biden is a poopy-head, you won't be arrested and I can't legally stop you. Hasn't anyone explained to you what free speech actually means?

There are many intrusions on the First Amendment and on one says it's absolute. What you are doing is taking it to an absurd extreme to claim basically that anyone can say anything at any time with no legal repercussions. You have, for example, no Constitutional right to go into the Senate and yell that your dogcatcher votes Republican so you hate him. You would be ejected rapidly and forcefully. You can't make public threats on a politician's life without legal consequences.

The bottom line is, you have no Constitutional right to invade a church and protest. They have the right to control what speech happens in their building. Have you tried doing that in a mosque?

1. Show us the written documentation. If it's a formal policy, it should be written somewhere so we can see it.
2. Administrations routinely decide what they are going to prosecute and what they will not. Case in point, cities and states that announce they are going to ignore and violate federal law should land mayors and governors in hot water but usually do not.

You can be arrested for trespassing once they've thrown you out, but they can't prosecute speech.

Let's say you show up at a business and protest. The business says you have to leave, so you do. Can you be prosecuted for the speech prior to being asked to leave? Not at all.