Message from @O'Possum
Discord ID: 613180801802043459
I think there should be laws that protects unmasked individuals from violence that they perpetrate on masked individuals.
15 years? Murderers get less than that
Sure, you can go out in public with your face covered, but if you do so and someone beats you over the head with a club, you have less of a case against them.
Ikr?
15 years is wayyy to much for this, especially when they can't press charges against Antifa since they can't verify their identity.
Antifa would have been charged similarly if not for that.
That's maximum possible sentence, right?
So I would hope they don't actually get that
The bikelock basher got a slap on the wrist.
I doubt Antifa would have been charged similarly
They would have at least gotten charged with something. Or at least that's what some people involved in the conviction said.
In most of these Proud Boy situations, they're just defending themselves, but they still get charged! It's so frustrating
In this case the proud boys were antagonized into being the aggressor.
But still. Antifa was a guilty party, but can't be charged because their faces were covered.
Hence why I believe sentencing should be reduced against people that perpetrate violence against masked individuals. (With limits)
In this case I think it's fair to say they went beyond self defense but this certainly isn't the worst example of assault possible so I don't see why they should get the maximum sentence
Obviously I don't think it's justification, that was me saying that they were the aggressor, whether the other party was innocent or not.
@FrostyCrits
They did get to the bottom of 9/11.
If you don't like it I'm not sorry, it *is* what it *is*; A good plan, well executed, exploiting every single error the enemy (*US*) was making.
I'll check out the Tim POOL video in a minute, but my hunch (already) is it's the Minds event... Glad I sent Daisy her belt buckles already, wish I could find a mailing address for Blair... 😔
I mean, sacrifices have to be made and all, but I'd rather not be the one to choose who lives and who dies... Much less by default of *"I couldn't find an address for her, so she ended up dying."* 😥
@Beebs Magoo @grant,
Er... Yes. He goes on about four times what he needs to, and God damn it give us a link to what you're looking at.
And "Fuck" antifa. ("Fuck" being a euphemism.) Those boys, assholes they may be, did nothing wrong.
I bet the judge just wanted to make an example of them.
I actually think that wasn't that crowder video wasn't good. The case is pretty simple. Antifa is using violence to achieve a political goal. They've stated on numerous occasions they're trying to try and make people afraid to gather and voice opinions. a goal they try to achieve by assaulting people and destroying property.
They're clearly terrorists, the actual argument should be how severe a threat they are.
my dad, who works as a social worker at an elementary school, has talked to me about how horrible his union is
if there's anything that I think will red pill him one of these days, it'll either be trans children continuing to get pushed so hard, or his union crossing a major line
My dad stopped supporting the union after obama's first election. he felt they were supporting candidates that didn't have his families interests at heart.
His health insurance got worse as a result of obama care, and that was also when all my siblings were in college so he saw how much we all paid in tuition and what we got in return.
@grant
*"Membership In Violent Political Organizations: Any person convicted of organizing, instigating, or aiding a violent political protest, or a protest intended to create violence, even if no violence occurs, or interferes or attempts to interfere with voting, peaceful assembly, emergency services or public safety personnel, or elected or other public officials in the performance of their duties."*
?
@grant If Antifa was not a violent group, I would have no problem with them expressing opinions. But they are a violent gang that is detrimental to the cohesiveness of society. I think the real question is how to deal with them within the bounds of our society. We can't just arrest them, that would be a civil rights crime. We need a way to discourage them, the police need to arrest them when they commit crimes.
Classifying them as a terrorist group is fine and I agree they are, but we need an answer to the problem not a label.
@FrostyCrits
*"We can't just arrest them, that would be a civil rights crime."*
No it's not; Rioting, fighting, assault and battery, felony vandalism, obstructing traffic, arson, brandishing, possession of a prohibited weapon (ussually batons, but there's an increasing number of brass knuckles and related weaps), robbery, and for the rest RICO and conspiracy to commit.
Admittedly, some of these are more of *"And you know what else, I got 5 **MORE** books I can throw at you!"* charges...
Hell, I got arrested for fucking too loudly... And then charged with fucking with paintball armor on... 🙄
Classifying a group as a terrorist group doesn't auto arrest members. but it does allow us to allocate resources toward enforcing laws against them. Also it allows feds to step in and stop local jurisdiction from allowing them to run wild.
Ahh, then there is a good reason for the label. Hopefully, if this classification gets made the feds can clean it up.
Still have to wonder why the cops are told to stand down
Tell that to the KKK.
https://www.nytimes.com/1987/11/01/magazine/the-woman-who-beat-the-klan.html
Well the mayor can't order the police to beat up republicans
but he can ignore people who do that
Good point