Arrests Happening for Church Rioters

[j-mac]

https://www.justice.gov/media/1386461/dl

Ok, we’ll have to see how it plays out then.

 

[Papageorgio]

Words have meaning. You can't say people who were shouting or screaming are being violent.

Violence involves physical acts to injure other or property.

I never said they were violent, I said it was not peaceful.

Storming a church and violating others civil rights is not considered peaceful.

You can not be violent and not be peaceful.

 

[Papageorgio]

Let's see.

We disagree on what the facts mean. This did come before SCOTUS and was rejected. Did they ignore the evidence?

Religious exemptions were allowed.

Fair. The extent to which it "hurt this country", is debatable.

The pullout was messed up. As for the gentleman, saying he "saved Biden's life" is a bit of an exaggeration.

I agree, that's untrue.

Some yes, but other's less so. There was one time where he was quoting someone else critically, and that was taken out of context.

We literally pressured him until he dropped out of the race.

You don't have evidence. You have an argument from incredulity. I say show me the evidence and your reply can be summarized by "don't be naive, of course he did it".

No one is perfect, but MAGA is completely delusional.

Thanks for proving my point!

 

[hadit]

What does it say about his supporters when they vote for the guy who tried to take away the votes of millions of Americans in 2020?

That they preferred that over the dreadful alternative. That they saw he wasn't prosecuted for it, and if the democrats were okay with that, should they not be? That they preferred voting for someone who actually got primary votes for the nomination instead of the candidate being forced on them by the party. That they recognize the other party is guilty of the same machinations, putting up screens so people can't observe them counting ballots.

Need I go on?

 

[Rawley]

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.

Good luck with that

 

[Marener]

That’s not what they were giving the 23 you were concerned about?

That's because the 23 who were given pardons had committed a more serious offense because they were using physical force while committing the crime.

No more so than you are…

I'm not speculating on facts, merely how the courts will weigh people's rights.

Only if you’re trying to be less than honest with your argument…

My argument has nothing to do with whether I support their actions or not.

They are only “terrorized” because they’re here illegally.

I know you know this, but I'm going to have to say it anyway. Just because someone is a minority doesn't mean they're here illegally. Your statement implies that all minorities are illegal immigrants.

Constitutional rights do not mean that you can violate law. They have the right to an administrative hearing, and those removed have had that, and are ordered removed.

Constitutional rights mean you can peacefully protest and film police.

About what?

Lots of things. For instance, an ICE agent accidentally shot a person they were detaining. Instead of admitting it, they fabricated a story claiming they intentionally shot them because the individual was using their car as a weapon to try and kill someone. After dragging their feet, the government finally submitted the video of the encounter to court where it was shown their story was false. Charges were dropped.

Case dropped against TikTok streamer who was shot by US immigration agents

Carlitos Ricardo Parias, who livestreams LA breaking news, was accused of ramming car into federal officers’ vehicles

www.theguardian.com

Enforcement is what they’re doing.

They're doing a lot more than that, because enforcement does not require constitutional violations.

 

[Marener]

That they preferred that over the dreadful alternative. That they saw he wasn't prosecuted for it, and if the democrats were okay with that, should they not be? That they preferred voting for someone who actually got primary votes for the nomination instead of the candidate being forced on them by the party. That they recognize the other party is guilty of the same machinations, putting up screens so people can't observe them counting ballots.

Need I go on?

Trump was prosecuted for it. Did you really not know that?

 

[Marener]

I never said they were violent, I said it was not peaceful.

Storming a church and violating others civil rights is not considered peaceful.

You can not be violent and not be peaceful.

Not violent. Not peaceful. It's like a superposition until it's politically convenient.

 

[Failzero]

Not violent. Not peaceful. It's like a superposition until it's politically convenient.

Mostly peaceful ?

 

[hadit]

Trump was prosecuted for it. Did you really not know that?

I know they yammered on in Congress about it, but what was he charged with and tried for again? The voters EXPECT democrats to be outraged if the wind blows the wrong direction, so their grandstanding has no impact on them.

 

[Marener]

Thanks for proving my point!

I thought you'd want to actually debate. I guess not.

 

[Failzero]

Mostly peaceful ? qft

 

[Marener]

I know they yammered on in Congress about it, but what was he charged with and tried for again? The voters EXPECT democrats to be outraged if the wind blows the wrong direction, so their grandstanding has no impact on them.

Oh my god, you actually don't know it!

https://www.justice.gov/storage/US_v_Trump_23_cr_257.pdf

 

[hadit]

Oh my god, you actually don't know it!

https://www.justice.gov/storage/US_v_Trump_23_cr_257.pdf

Did you forget the "tried for" part?

 

[Marener]

Did you forget the "tried for" part?

Oh so you're moving the goalposts.

 

[Papageorgio]

Not violent. Not peaceful. It's like a superposition until it's politically convenient.

No it’s not, many protests aren’t peaceful, coming into a church chanting and disrupting a religious service was not violent but it wasn’t peaceful either and it probably struck fear into many parishioners that day, so it want peaceful.

It doesn’t have to be either other, at least to reasonable people.

 

[hadit]

Oh so you're moving the goalposts.

I put them there in my post, I'm not moving them.

 

[Marener]

I put them there in my post, I'm not moving them.

This is you moving the goalposts.

That they saw he wasn't prosecuted for it,

but what was he charged with and tried for again?

He was prosecuted for it, which is why you moved the goalpost to "tried for".

 

[j-mac]

That's because the 23 who were given pardons had committed a more serious offense because they were using physical force while committing the crime.

So you say....I don't actually know the seriousness of the offenses that got them arrested in the first place...

I'm not speculating on facts, merely how the courts will weigh people's rights.

But, you don't truly know how the courts are going to weigh in here, so let's be clear, you're speculating as to what YOU think they will rule...

My argument has nothing to do with whether I support their actions or not.

Never said you did or didn't, but my goodness, It's not bullying to try and understand where you're coming from....Now, if you don't want to answer me, that says volumes to me where your argument is coming from...

I know you know this, but I'm going to have to say it anyway. Just because someone is a minority doesn't mean they're here illegally. Your statement implies that all minorities are illegal immigrants.

Of course not...BUT, I will say, not all minorities are illegals, but most illegals are minorities. If that makes sense.

Look, there are lots of these deportations that include Canadians, Russians, M. Easterners, etc. that are deported, but the MSM won't report on that, because it doesn't fit the narrative like what you're trying to do here, which is say that we're "only going after brown, or black people" so on....And why do you suppose they won't report on that?

Constitutional rights mean you can peacefully protest and film police.

If you are a citizen, protest all you want....

Lots of things. For instance, an ICE agent accidentally shot a person they were detaining. Instead of admitting it, they fabricated a story claiming they intentionally shot them because the individual was using their car as a weapon to try and kill someone. After dragging their feet, the government finally submitted the video of the encounter to court where it was shown their story was false. Charges were dropped.

Case dropped against TikTok streamer who was shot by US immigration agents

Carlitos Ricardo Parias, who livestreams LA breaking news, was accused of ramming car into federal officers’ vehicles

www.theguardian.com

I am not familiar with that case, but it's anecdotal to this discussion....

They're doing a lot more than that, because enforcement does not require constitutional violations.

Illegals are afforded an administrative hearing, and if they are determined to be removed, then their "rights" have been upheld. End of story....

 

[Marener]

So you say....I don't actually know the seriousness of the offenses that got them arrested in the first place...

I've linked various instances several times in this thread.

But, you don't truly know how the courts are going to weigh in here, so let's be clear, you're speculating as to what YOU think they will rule...

I never claimed to know how the courts are going to rule.

Never said you did or didn't, but my goodness, It's not bullying to try and understand where you're coming from....Now, if you don't want to answer me, that says volumes to me where your argument is coming from...

I still don't like bullies.

Of course not...BUT, I will say, not all minorities are illegals, but most illegals are minorities. If that makes sense.

Look, there are lots of these deportations that include Canadians, Russians, M. Easterners, etc. that are deported, but the MSM won't report on that, because it doesn't fit the narrative like what you're trying to do here, which is say that we're "only going after brown, or black people" so on....And why do you suppose they won't report on that?

Treating all minorities like illegal aliens and terrorizing them is wrong. That's not enforcing the law. That's unconstitutionally racially profiling.

If you are a citizen, protest all you want....

Until ICE comes and assaults you for doing so.

I am not familiar with that case, but it's anecdotal to this discussion....

Just an example of the kinds of lies being perpetuated by this administration. There are other examples

Illegals are afforded an administrative hearing, and if they are determined to be removed, then their "rights" have been upheld. End of story....

As stated above, ICE is violating the rights of citizens while they go after illegal aliens.