1
-1

[–] mamwad [S] 1 point -1 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.

0
1

[–] Owlchemy 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

No dangerous precedent here. People protest every day peacefully in this country without legal consequences. However, when you violate the law, you violate the law. Hide your face is your paranoia not mine. For most sensible folks, it simply shows intent to disrupt ... the stated goal of this 'demonstration'. And when you do so, you're violating my rights ... isn't the other side permitted rights in your world ... protest is fine ... this crossed the line. But as I said before, this is why we have courts. It's not up to me to decide, or you. Or the one who wrote this op ed. Unless of course, we're all on the jury.

0
1

[–] mamwad [S] 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

This is a precedent-setting event. Mass felony charges are unusual, even for an all out riot. This is an obvious move to set a precedent whereby the government could easily shutdown any protest they wish to.