You can login if you already have an account or register by clicking the button below.
Registering is free and all you need is a username and password. We never ask you for your e-mail.
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.
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.
view the rest of the comments →
[–] 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.
[–] Owlchemy 0 points 1 point 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.