But became complicity in felonies when, as the article states, they simply didn't walk away from the bad actors when given the opportunity. The guy driving the get away car gets charged with murder, too, when the bank teller is killed. And being masked in the first place shows intent to commit a crime, otherwise, peaceful protest is always welcome. Their intent was to disrupt the inauguration. They'll even admit that. But as with so many, they expect to do so with no consequences. Even the civil rights and war protestors of the sixties went into it knowing they may face charges, and accepted that. And they didn't attempt to hide who they were so they could escape those consequences. Clearly I have no compassion for the gutless sworn to violating other's rights to attend an event peacefully.
[+]mamwad1 point-1 points0 points
ago
(edited ago)
[–]mamwad[S]1 point
-1 points
0 points
(+0|-1)
ago
(edited ago)
But became complicity in felonies when, as the article states, they simply didn't walk away from the bad actors when given the opportunity
As the article states, this sets a dangerous precedent. All that's needed to shut down a protest is a few agent provocateurs. Do you understand how dangerous that is to freedom of speech?
And being masked in the first place shows intent to commit a crime, otherwise, peaceful protest is always welcome.
Being masked shows the intent of not being identified by the state surveillance apparatus.
You're problem here is the blind assumption that the government doesn't have an invested interest in criminalizing dissent.
[–] Owlchemy 0 points 3 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago
But became complicity in felonies when, as the article states, they simply didn't walk away from the bad actors when given the opportunity. The guy driving the get away car gets charged with murder, too, when the bank teller is killed. And being masked in the first place shows intent to commit a crime, otherwise, peaceful protest is always welcome. Their intent was to disrupt the inauguration. They'll even admit that. But as with so many, they expect to do so with no consequences. Even the civil rights and war protestors of the sixties went into it knowing they may face charges, and accepted that. And they didn't attempt to hide who they were so they could escape those consequences. Clearly I have no compassion for the gutless sworn to violating other's rights to attend an event peacefully.
[–] mamwad [S] 1 point -1 points 0 points (+0|-1) ago (edited ago)
As the article states, this sets a dangerous precedent. All that's needed to shut down a protest is a few agent provocateurs. Do you understand how dangerous that is to freedom of speech?
Being masked shows the intent of not being identified by the state surveillance apparatus.
You're problem here is the blind assumption that the government doesn't have an invested interest in criminalizing dissent.