Arrests Happening for Church Rioters

[AzogtheDefiler]

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?

Define “out of bounds”

I would 100% support this. Elections have consequences. You’re only allowed to peacefully protest

 

[Marener]

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.

Your argument relies not on the meaning of the words but a misinterpretation of the meaning. That's not as easy an argument to make in the court because you won't be able to prove intent.

 

[Marener]

Define “out of bounds”

I would 100% support this. Elections have consequences. You’re only allowed to peacefully protest

I just said beating up protestors, not beating up violent protestors. Are we allowed to peacefully protest? Im not so sure.

Let's say the president says he'll pardon any federal law enforcement officer that is convicted of beating up peaceful protestors, but only if he disagrees with the protestors.

So if people are peacefully protesting ICE, they are able to just beat the shit out of them. Trump pardons them because he doesn't like anti-ICE protestors.

Is that impeachable?

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Your argument relies not on the meaning of the words but a misinterpretation of the meaning. That's not as easy an argument to make in the court because you won't be able to prove intent.

Easier when you have a video of rioters yelling in kids faces and chasing them to their cars.

 

[Marener]

Easier when you have a video of rioters yelling in kids faces and chasing them to their cars.

It's rarely easy to prove intent. Free speech includes the right to say things that can make people upset.

Calling them rioters is pretty silly considering they did nothing violent.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

I just said beating up protestors, not beating up violent protestors. Are we allowed to peacefully protest? Im not so sure.

Let's say the president says he'll pardon any federal law enforcement officer that is convicted of beating up peaceful protestors, but only if he disagrees with the protestors.

So if people are peacefully protesting ICE, they are able to just beat the shit out of them. Trump pardons them because he doesn't like anti-ICE protestors.

Is that impeachable?

You moved the goal posts.

Peacefully means you don’t block roads, yell in their faces, confront them physically.

I have yet to see that. So far they have been overtly non peaceful.

 

[Marener]

You moved the goal posts.

Peacefully means you don’t block roads, yell in their faces, confront them physically.

I have yet to see that. So far they have been overtly non peaceful.

I never specified anything about being violent or peaceful.

The hypothetical is whether Trump can announce he will pardon federal law enforcement for breaking the law by beating up protestors. You'd have to assume that they weren't violent protestors because that behavior wouldn't require a pardon. Sorry if this logic escapes you.

But you're avoiding the hypothetical with a "I have yet to see that".

I've seen ICE go after peaceful protestors. Maybe your media or your deep seated political bias is the reason you haven't seen it.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

It's rarely easy to prove intent. Free speech includes the right to say things that can make people upset.

Calling them rioters is pretty silly considering they did nothing violent.

When you block passage it’s called intimidation. When you have a video it’s a clear violation of the Face act and screaming at kids will mean it’s enforced for maximum penalties.

 

[hadit]

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?

Since we've been talking about the law, there are few restrictions on whom the president can pardon. Presidents are famous for pardoning political allies while leaving political opponents alone. It would be foolish for a president to make such an announcement, smarter for him to do thousands of pardons on his last day in office, when complaining would do nothing. Sound familiar?

 

[Marener]

When you block passage it’s called intimidation. When you have a video it’s a clear violation of the Face act and screaming at kids will mean it’s enforced for maximum penalties.

If they blocked the entrance, that would be a totally different category of behavior beyond singing and chanting and would be similar to the pardoned protestors at abortion clinics. But I haven't seen that alleged in any of the stories I'd seen.

Going after Don Lemon is particularly sad. That's just using the government to go after someone based on pure hatred.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

I never specified anything about being violent or peaceful.

The hypothetical is whether Trump can announce he will pardon federal law enforcement for breaking the law by beating up protestors. You'd have to assume that they weren't violent protestors because that behavior wouldn't require a pardon. Sorry if this logic escapes you.

But you're avoiding the hypothetical with a "I have yet to see that".

I've seen ICE go after peaceful protestors. Maybe your media or your deep seated political bias is the reason you haven't seen it.

No you haven’t

That’s a lie. Where have you seen ICE do that?

 

[hadit]

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.

The problem is you don't have a specific crime that he committed. A police chief doesn't get charged with a crime when one of his cops violates a suspect's civil rights. The chief can justify the cops' actions all day long and not be charged.

 

[Marener]

Since we've been talking about the law, there are few restrictions on whom the president can pardon. Presidents are famous for pardoning political allies while leaving political opponents alone. It would be foolish for a president to make such an announcement, smarter for him to do thousands of pardons on his last day in office, when complaining would do nothing. Sound familiar?

Actually, it would be extremely useful for the president to say something, as that would send notice to his people that there will be no repercussions of overtly illegal acts.

 

[Marener]

The problem is you don't have a specific crime that he committed. A police chief doesn't get charged with a crime when one of his cops violates a suspect's civil rights. The chief can justify the cops' actions all day long and not be charged.

Deprivation of rights under the color of law.

18 U.S. Code § 242​

You have a case against the chief when they're part of a conspiracy to deprive those rights. If Easterwood has been part of conversations with the officers justifying those actions then he becomes legally culpable.

 

[Marener]

No you haven’t

That’s a lie. Where have you seen ICE do that?

All over Minneapolis and St. Paul.

Of course, these guys are safe and will never be prosecuted by this administration who is fully in support of people on their side who choose to break the law. That's why they won't prosecute anyone who obstructs and interrupts abortion clinics unless they literally kill someone.

 

[hadit]

Actually, it would be extremely useful for the president to say something, as that would send notice to his people that there will be no repercussions of overtly illegal acts.

The power to pardon usually applies AFTER the person has gone through the entire process of being indicted, tried and sentenced, then began serving whatever time they were given. Quid Pro Joe, of course, did it pre-emptively, preventing prosecution of his son, and I've even said TRUMP! should use his power the same way and just issue pre-emptive pardons for everyone in his administration for the 4 years of his term.

It is false, therefore, to say there would be no repercussions. A person loses years and a lot of money when they fight charges, and a pardon doesn't replace that.

 

[Blaster]

All over Minneapolis and St. Paul.

Of course, these guys are safe and will never be prosecuted by this administration who is fully in support of people on their side who choose to break the law. That's why they won't prosecute anyone who obstructs and interrupts abortion clinics unless they literally kill someone.

You are the most ignorant person posting here.

 

[hadit]

Deprivation of rights under the color of law.

18 U.S. Code § 242​

You have a case against the chief when they're part of a conspiracy to deprive those rights. If Easterwood has been part of conversations with the officers justifying those actions then he becomes legally culpable.

And that hasn't been established. You're hoping he has been and emotionally saying he probably should be charged with crimes. There's no reason at this point to credibly say that.

 

[Marener]

The power to pardon usually applies AFTER the person has gone through the entire process of being indicted, tried and sentenced, then began serving whatever time they were given. Quid Pro Joe, of course, did it pre-emptively, preventing prosecution of his son, and I've even said TRUMP! should use his power the same way and just issue pre-emptive pardons for everyone in his administration for the 4 years of his term.

Therefore, it is false to say there would be no repercussions. A person loses years and a lot of money out of their lives when they try to fight charges, and a pardon doesn't replace that.

The power to pardon can apply to any prior act, and does not have to be indicted, tried or sentenced. Many presidents, including Trump in his first term, pardoned people before conviction and sentencing.

Therefore it is not false to say there would be no repercussions since they can be pardoned for their actions without having faced any repercussions.

 

[Marener]

And that hasn't been established. You're hoping he has been and emotionally saying he probably should be charged with crimes. There's no reason at this point to credibly say that.

It's a strong suspicion and based on the widespread abuses we've seen from ICE as well as his stated defense of those abuses, there's more than enough reason to suggest it's true.