Arrests Happening for Church Rioters

[Marener]

You are misrepresenting why they were arrested in the first place here....Earlier when talking about Vaughn, you had to concede that they arrested Vaughn for blocking the entrance to the clinic, NOW you used the word INSIDE....You're just a pathetic liar dude....

23 people were pardoned. Some blocked the outside of clinics, some got into clinics. Both are equally illegal as part of the FACE act.

I know it's difficult, but you have to stop conflating different people doing different things.

 

[Hafar1014]

The apologist for this invasion of the church uses a first amendment defense. Stop and think how dumb this is. Freedom of religion is the first amendment The crime cant be the defense. The left is a special kind of stupid

 

[Marener]

Violent threats isn’t free speech. You not only don’t condemn what they did. You support it. Eye opening. This is why I enjoy making you look stupid.

Please explain what they said that constitutes a violent threat.

 

[hadit]

They were outside the clinic not inside. The didn’t threaten little kids. And I still don’t think they should have been there.

You won’t condemn the Minny church rioters. You’re a coward.

Abortion clinics can also have buffer zones. If you're doing nothing more than walking a public sidewalk carrying a sign, you can be arrested if you get too close to one. The same should apply to churches.

 

[hadit]

The apologist for this invasion of the church uses a first amendment defense. Stop and think how dumb this is. Freedom of religion is the first amendment The crime cant be the defense. The left is a special kind of stupid

They are madly contorting themselves to get around the law they championed as long as it was only used to protect abortion clinics.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Please explain what they said that constitutes a violent threat.

Sure. Please answer my one question first. I have Answered multiple questions from you.

 

[hadit]

That's why they picked a Church....Because like all terrorists, they thought it was a safe place to terrorize....

These people in RL are really pussies....

At some point, they're going to pick the wrong one (ever notice they don't target southern churches?), and they'll be running around here screaming about how unfair it is for a protester to get punched out for making a kid fear for his/her life. The parent doing the punching will not care. Southern moms are all sweetness and light until you mess with their kids.

 

[Marener]

The problem is, the law doesn't care what YOU think the charges should be....Like I said, narcissistic pukes.

Maybe, maybe not. The court will decide and I think the first amendment might come into play.

The extent of their crime was being in the church and being loud.

I could be wrong, but they weren't violent and they didn't threaten anyone. They didn't stop people from going in or leaving.

The main thing they did was be loud and interrupting. The first amendment is likely to come into play because the government can't criminalize being loud and interrupting.

I wish they hadn't done it. I think it's stupid and harmful to the cause. I don't agree or support what they did. That said, David Easterwood, a pastor at that church, is a terrible human being that probably should be charged with crimes in his official capacity as acting ICE director in St. Paul.

 

[Marener]

Sure. Please answer my one question first. I have Answered multiple questions from you.

I'll answer relevant questions to the discussion. Let me know when you have one.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

I'll answer relevant questions to the discussion. Let me know when you have one.

It’s a relevant question to gauge your stance. Do you support what the rioters did? Yes or no? Sounds like a yes to me.

 

[Marener]

Did you read what you posted. You confirmed what I said. It’s hilarious. You lost another debate

I highlighted the part that proved you don't know what you're talking about.

They were outside the clinic not inside.

That was when she and her co-defendants pushed their way into the waiting room and blocked its doors with their bodies, furniture, chains and ropes.

Moreover, the fact that some were outside the clinic obscures the fact that blocking the entrances from outside is still very much illegal. As I explained. So your point is incomplete to the point of being irrelevant.

 

[Marener]

It’s a relevant question to gauge your stance. Do you support what the rioters did? Yes or no? Sounds like a yes to me.

My stance is that the law should be applied equally.

That's not the stance of the Trump administration.

No, I don't support them at all.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

I highlighted the part that proved you don't know what you're talking about.


That was when she and her co-defendants pushed their way into the waiting room and blocked its doors with their bodies, furniture, chains and ropes.

Moreover, the fact that some were outside the clinic obscures the fact that blocking the entrances from outside is still very much illegal. As I explained. So your point is incomplete to the point of being irrelevant.

They didn’t scream at little kids

 

[hadit]

Maybe, maybe not. The court will decide and I think the first amendment might come into play.

The extent of their crime was being in the church and being loud.

I could be wrong, but they weren't violent and they didn't threaten anyone. They didn't stop people from going in or leaving.

The main thing they did was be loud and interrupting. The first amendment is likely to come into play because the government can't criminalize being loud and interrupting.

I wish they hadn't done it. I think it's stupid and harmful to the cause. I don't agree or support what they did. That said, David Easterwood, a pastor at that church, is a terrible human being that probably should be charged with crimes in his official capacity as acting ICE director in St. Paul.

"Probably should be charged with crimes" reveals that you're being every bit as emotional about him as you think everyone else is being about the protesters. IOW, if you're willing to dance around what they did and insist on whether they violated specific details of the law in an attempt to excuse what they did, you should be willing to extend the same courtesy to him, something I don't believe you are willing to do. Now, if you can point to laws he personally has actually broken, that's a different story.

 

[Marener]

They didn’t scream at little kids

Which has nothing to do with the FACE act.

You claimed they were outside the clinic, which isn't totally true and also doesn't make their actions automatically legal.

Are you going to admit that your statement is false?

 

[hadit]

My stance is that the law should be applied equally.

That's not the stance of the Trump administration.

No, I don't support them at all.

Your complaint really should be with the power of the president to pardon those he wants to pardon, not with the current administration doing it. Did you, for example, have any problem with Quid Pro Joe pardoning his son before he was even found guilty of any crimes?

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

My stance is that the law should be applied equally.

That's not the stance of the Trump administration.

No, I don't support them at all.

Here is what they did in Minny

Intimidation means conduct intended to make someone stop exercising a legal right (like worship), or conduct that a reasonable person would see as coercive.





This can include:

• Screaming inches from someone’s face
• Surrounding or cornering people
• Blocking movement
• Refusing to leave when told

They yelled “hands up don’t shoot” into the faces of little kids. These kids have no clue what that means. Sounds like a violent threat. They were crying and clinging to their parents. They yelled “why aren’t you fighting for humanity”

Into kids faces

That’s 100% intimidation by the letter of the law. Kids understand shoot and fight. They were shaking. It’s in the video.

 

[struth]

Maybe, maybe not. The court will decide and I think the first amendment might come into play.

The extent of their crime was being in the church and being loud.

I could be wrong, but they weren't violent and they didn't threaten anyone. They didn't stop people from going in or leaving.

The main thing they did was be loud and interrupting. The first amendment is likely to come into play because the government can't criminalize being loud and interrupting.

I wish they hadn't done it. I think it's stupid and harmful to the cause. I don't agree or support what they did. That said, David Easterwood, a pastor at that church, is a terrible human being that probably should be charged with crimes in his official capacity as acting ICE director in St. Paul.

The First Amendment certainly comes into play, the law they are charged with violating was designed to protect people's first amendment rights. You and your brownshirts, don't care about people's rights....hence why they are being brought to justice.

 

[Marener]

"Probably should be charged with crimes" reveals that you're being every bit as emotional about him as you think everyone else is being about the protesters. IOW, if you're willing to dance around what they did and insist on whether they violated specific details of the law in an attempt to excuse what they did, you should be willing to extend the same courtesy to him, something I don't believe you are willing to do. Now, if you can point to laws he personally has actually broken, that's a different story.

Since he's responsible for ICE in the area which is going around and violating civil rights under the color of the law, that makes him legally culpable.

Details of just a handful of these instances are detailed in this court case.

Tincher v. Noem et al. - ACLU of Minnesota

The ACLU of Minnesota, Ciresi Conlin, Forsgren Fisher, and Riach Law filed a lawsuit against Immigration and Customs Enforcement on behalf of six community members whose constitutional rights were violated by ICE and other federal agents. In recent months, the Trump Administration has increased...

www.aclu-mn.org

Easterwood attempts to justify the constitutional violations which makes him part of the conspiracy.

 

[Marener]

Your complaint really should be with the power of the president to pardon those he wants to pardon, not with the current administration doing it. Did you, for example, have any problem with Quid Pro Joe pardoning his son before he was even found guilty of any crimes?

There's a difference that comes into play when you're pardoning illegal tactics of political actors, in my opinion.

For example, let's say the president announces that he will pardon any federal law enforcement officer who is convicted of beating up protestors who he disagrees with. Wouldn't that be out of bounds?