Biden AG Pick: Antifa Attacks On Federal Courthouses Not Domestic Terrorism Because They Happened At Night

[postman]

Terrorism isn't doing damage to empty buildings, it's doing harm or potential harm to people.

No federal court house is ever empty. Even after the clerks leave in the wee hours of the morning, security personnel remain.

That doesn't change that most federal buildings are empty at night. And even those occupied have maybe 1-2 people in them at night, while in the daytime there would be hundreds of people in them.

Just look at the Nashville bombing

FBI source: Christmas Day bombing not domestic terrorism

An FBI source close to the Christmas day bombing investigation tells News4 Investigates that evidence indicates it was not an act of domestic terrorism.

www.wsmv.com

An FBI source close to the Christmas day bombing investigation tells News4 Investigates that evidence indicates it was not an act of domestic terrorism.
The FBI has a series of conditions it has to meet to declare a bombing domestic terrorism, including intimidating civilians and affecting the conduct of a government.

 

[postman]

Any persons or PROPERTY.....

DISMISSED

Why do you people always cut out half the requirements.

in furtherance of political or social objectives

And don't forget the statement: Merrick Garland: Attacking a government building during the day is terrorism. Attacking the same building at night is just a crime.

He was talking about an mob, not a bomb.

 

[Gdjjr]

Caucasian?

Don't remain ignorant- it doesn't help overcoming ignorance to keep exercising it.

 

[candycorn]

What kind of lunatic logic is this? And this man is a judge!

So all those buildings that BLM & Antifa burned down wasn't an act of terrorism but WALKING through the Capitol was???

Nah, c'mon ....what did he really say?

Listen for yourself.

Translation: He didn't say it. Otherwise, you'd post the quote.

Do you get paid to drive traffic to YouTube or something?

Why post the quote when I linked to the man himself saying it directly?

Just because you won't watch it doesn't mean it wasn't said.

Your dishonesty runs deep.

Almost as deep as your ability to mis-characterize what was said. I know you have a lot of time on your hands being out of work and everything but really dude...go down to Texas and try to contribute something other than these silly lies you post everyday.

 

[postman]

Timothy McVeigh disappeared from your lexicon?

What does Timothy McVeigh have to do with anything I stated.

Oklahoma city was terrorism
Nashville (Christmas bombing) was not.

The difference is as clear as night and day.

 

[FA_Q2]

Terrorism isn't doing damage to empty buildings, it's doing harm or potential harm to people.

No federal court house is ever empty. Even after the clerks leave in the wee hours of the morning, security personnel remain.

That doesn't change that most federal buildings are empty at night. And even those occupied have maybe 1-2 people in them at night, while in the daytime there would be hundreds of people in them.

Just look at the Nashville bombing

FBI source: Christmas Day bombing not domestic terrorism

An FBI source close to the Christmas day bombing investigation tells News4 Investigates that evidence indicates it was not an act of domestic terrorism.

www.wsmv.com

An FBI source close to the Christmas day bombing investigation tells News4 Investigates that evidence indicates it was not an act of domestic terrorism.
The FBI has a series of conditions it has to meet to declare a bombing domestic terrorism, including intimidating civilians and affecting the conduct of a government.

Are you seriously going to say that burning a building down does not intimidate the citizens? Really?

The article was clear, they really could not attribute it to terrorism because the intent was not known. Not because of the target. The thing that marks terrorism as separate from most other violence is intent.

 

[FA_Q2]

Timothy McVeigh disappeared from your lexicon?

What does Timothy McVeigh have to do with anything I stated.

Oklahoma city was terrorism
Nashville (Christmas bombing) was not.

The difference is as clear as night and day.

And?

That has nothing to do with anything I said.

And the difference in those 2 cases was the intent.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Any persons or PROPERTY.....

DISMISSED

Why do you people always cut out half the requirements.

in furtherance of political or social objectives

And don't forget the statement: Merrick Garland: Attacking a government building during the day is terrorism. Attacking the same building at night is just a crime.

He was talking about an mob, not a bomb.

You're either too stupid or just dishonest to bother with

 

[postman]

Are you seriously going to say that burning a building down does not intimidate the citizens? Really?

You still have to prove intimidation. Which is far easier when you put hundreds of peoples lives in danger, and it's a fact certain that the person knew the building was occupied.

 

[postman]

The article was clear, they really could not attribute it to terrorism because the intent was not known. Not because of the target. The thing that marks terrorism as separate from most other violence is intent.

Attacking an occupied building shows defacto intent. The jury can take that as a given, even if no other evidence is presented.

Attacking an occupied building full of people, shows an intent to do harm to innocent people. And no matter what specific motive, or even lack of specific motive, will defend the attack itself on face, is terrorism.

 

[postman]

That has nothing to do with anything I said.

And the difference in those 2 cases was the intent.

No the difference in those 2 cases was occupation by people.

The streets of Nashville were empty. The Murrah building was fully occupied with men, women and children.

 

[FA_Q2]

Are you seriously going to say that burning a building down does not intimidate the citizens? Really?

You still have to prove intimidation. Which is far easier when you put hundreds of peoples lives in danger, and it's a fact certain that the person knew the building was occupied.

Wow. The intimidation is crystal clear. It even had real world impacts on policy - policy was changed over the rioting in the past several months not to mention entire areas being abandoned by emergency services. The capital riots had no policy impact whatsoever.

And I do not need to prove anything at all, my original point was that none of these groups should be labeled as terrorists because that means something when the government labels a group a terrorist.

 

[FA_Q2]

That has nothing to do with anything I said.

And the difference in those 2 cases was the intent.

No the difference in those 2 cases was occupation by people.

The streets of Nashville were empty. The Murrah building was fully occupied with men, women and children.

That is not what your link stated in the slightest.

They could not determine intent.

 

[FA_Q2]

The article was clear, they really could not attribute it to terrorism because the intent was not known. Not because of the target. The thing that marks terrorism as separate from most other violence is intent.

Attacking an occupied building shows defacto intent. The jury can take that as a given, even if no other evidence is presented.

Attacking an occupied building full of people, shows an intent to do harm to innocent people. And no matter what specific motive, or even lack of specific motive, will defend the attack itself on face, is terrorism.

No.

It cannot be terrorism if there is no intent. That is a simple fact.

 

[postman]

And don't forget the statement: Merrick Garland: Attacking a government building during the day is terrorism. Attacking the same building at night is just a crime.

He was talking about an mob, not a bomb.

You're either too stupid or just dishonest to bother with

Look what the OP now says,

Biden AG Pick: Antifa Attacks On Federal Courthouses Not Domestic Terrorism Because They Happened At Night

Antifa is a mob.

Now say you're sorry.

 

[postman]

Wow. The intimidation is crystal clear. It even had real world impacts on policy - policy was changed over the rioting in the past several months not to mention entire areas being abandoned by emergency services. The capital riots had no policy impact whatsoever.

So did the burning of flags. And the USSC said that was speech, and protected by the 1st amendment.

They have a plausible defense that their actions were a redress of grievances.

 

[FA_Q2]

Wow. The intimidation is crystal clear. It even had real world impacts on policy - policy was changed over the rioting in the past several months not to mention entire areas being abandoned by emergency services. The capital riots had no policy impact whatsoever.

So did the burning of flags. And the USSC said that was speech, and protected by the 1st amendment.

They have a plausible defense that their actions were a redress of grievances.

No, they do not.

Burning down a building is not a redress of grievances. Violence is not a lawful reaction.

And yes, you can burn your own flag as a form of freedom of speech. Once again, a statement that has nothing to do with what we are talking about whatsoever.

 

[postman]

Attacking an occupied building full of people, shows an intent to do harm to innocent people. And no matter what specific motive, or even lack of specific motive, will defend the attack itself on face, is terrorism.

No.

It cannot be terrorism if there is no intent. That is a simple fact.

The very fact that you are attacking innocent people, putting them at peril of life or limb is defacto intent.

Just like pointing a loaded firearm at somebody is clear intent to do them harm, even if the perp just thought he was brandishing his weapon.

If you brandish, wave around, point at or just display your firearm or deadly weapon in an angry, threatening, rude or offensive manner, you have satisfied this element. Your intent may have been to merely frighten another person and not to physically harm them but this is irrelevant.

9 Things You Should Know About Brandishing A Firearm - PC ...
aizmanlaw.com › penal-code-417-brandishing-a-firearm-.

 

[postman]

They have a plausible defense that their actions were a redress of grievances.

No, they do not.

Burning down a building is not a redress of grievances. Violence is not a lawful reaction.

Potato potata

 

[FA_Q2]

Attacking an occupied building full of people, shows an intent to do harm to innocent people. And no matter what specific motive, or even lack of specific motive, will defend the attack itself on face, is terrorism.

No.

It cannot be terrorism if there is no intent. That is a simple fact.

The very fact that you are attacking innocent people, putting them at peril of life or limb is defacto intent.

Just like pointing a loaded firearm at somebody is clear intent to do them harm, even if the perp just thought he was brandishing his weapon.

If you brandish, wave around, point at or just display your firearm or deadly weapon in an angry, threatening, rude or offensive manner, you have satisfied this element. Your intent may have been to merely frighten another person and not to physically harm them but this is irrelevant.

9 Things You Should Know About Brandishing A Firearm - PC ...
aizmanlaw.com › penal-code-417-brandishing-a-firearm-.

Attacking people shows intent to force political change?

Care to try that one again? Terrorism is not intent to intimidate. It is intimidating with the intent to effect political change.

Intent matters. If your intent on brandishing that weapon was to rob the till or make someone do something then it is not a terrorist act. If it was to institute a policy (don't seat Biden, defund the police, control freedom of speech etc) then it falls under terrorism. Attacking a group of people, any group, does not infer POLITICAL intent.