You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

0
1

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

One of the nowhere near enough to know things I've learned from a lot of time with lawyers is that words in the law have to be interpreted as per a hell of a lot of stuff.

Now it MAY be that there really is case law where "use of force" has been nothing but "capacity to persuade" but it sounds a stretch and I'd want to see it before giving credibility to the idea that that is the legal meaning in a context such as this.

If so minor, then why bother repeatedly adding the qualifaction about force. Nearly everyone has some ability to persuade or convince.

0
0

[–] Six_Cents ago 

Yes, nearly everyone has some ability to persuade or convince and if someone's ability to persuade or convince causes persons to attempt an overthrow of the government via Coup d'état, then that someone should be charged, tried and if convicted, imprisoned per the law.

However, I do agree with you that "force" was probably "meant" as violent force, but that is not the wording used. Therefore, it is plausible that a proficient lawyer could argue that those in the media, politics et al, used their position of authority to force or otherwise persuade or convince peoples that attempting to overthrow the government of the USA was needed and correct. Just sayin'.