291–300 of 577 posts
Freedom of speech is absolute. It doesn't matter what the government thinks of the situation. It isn't a "crime" to move publications, even if the police think that. It's sickening how this could even possibly happen.
It's a crime to deliberately conceal another crime, whether you do it by raking leaves, deleting Internet posts, or setting your car on fire. It's called accessory after the fact.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Chilling effect on demonstrations. If you attend one were someone starts shooting you become an accomplice. And ofcourse this also leaves the door open for a "false flag" incident.
[flagged]
A single individual did.
What you're calling for is collective punishment (a war crime in Geneva convention), and guilt by association (a perversion of justice).
Kindly, abscond and desist.
The wonderful thing about our current culture is that each side thinks that further empowering the federal government is the solution. And it will only be used by their side against their enemies (other american citizens). No thought at all to the fact that the other side will take power in 4 years. No, no.. short term power is all that matters. The Biden administration started targeting "right-wing terrorists", now…
Where can I read more about this?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't know that i agree. If you intend to commit a crime but due to circumstances beyond your knowladge your actions did not amount to the crime even though you intended them to, i think that is still a crime.
>your actions didn't amount to a crime >it is still a crime Pardon me, but effin what ? Ah yes. There's a word for it. You're literally calling for prosecuting thoughtcrimes . Good job, making Orwell proud.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So do you > https://www.newsweek.com/full-list-capitol-rioters-jailed-se... The longest sentence of an actual rioter was 22 years. Compare that to this and explain why he got more for less
[flagged]
Again your turn for an explanation.
Let me get this right… all these people got from 70-100 years in prison for spray painting slogans on the side of some ICE infrastructure, and setting off fireworks. Then fair enough, one of them shot a police officer, but the officer survived, and even the FBI employee described in the trial that he’s not sure who shot first. The US is insane. What’s to stop any future antifa group from immediately opening up on all…
A lot of HN visitors align right wing because capital usually aligns with the right wing, and people here are better off than most.
In my opinion capital will no longer serve as the reliable survival signal that it has upto now, and we're in a transitional era.
Optimizing purely for capital is not likely to ensure the survival of the human race, neither collective nor individual. Infact it is the very drive to maximize capital which is threatening our survival.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
One obvious distinction is that Tarrio was convicted of leading & planning the Proud Boys operation on Jan 6 while this defendant was convicted of moving zines. Tarrio wasn’t at the insurrection on Jan 6 because he’d already been barred from traveling to the city… And he got less of a sentence. I don’t think your argument equating these 2 is arguing what you think it is.
Underselling it by omission - was it intentional? Zines related to a shootout and murder by an armed group after retrieving them from the home of one of the parties involved, discussing it on a jail call, and placing them in a third person's apartment.
Oh yes, how could we have forgotten the crucial detail that every single person in the group had their hands on the trigger.
Wait, that's because it didn't happen.
One individual fired their weapon. (And whether that's a murder is very questionable, but let's set that aside).
Nobody else should've been facing prosecution in this case.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Unless one is a right wing protestor like Kyle Rittenhouse.
Still dont see how people could have watched the videos and not seen a clear self defense angle.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm sorry, I meant in terms of discussion, not in terms of legal proceedings. Obviously these people were formally charged in a court of law on legal grounds and I assume had their constitutional rights afforded to them. I meant more along the lines of "30 years for hiding a zine" being a weird take. It is logically inconsistent, IMO, to both want to fight a system, and want to be afforded its privileges.
I disagree if only because the clarification you make in your first two sentences doe not square with your last sentence. Why do we read people their rights or formally charge them? If someone has committed a crime is that not in some sense "fighting [the] system"? Why would then the same apparent contradiction you highlight in your last sentence not arise? Even in cases of extreme conflict, there is a certain base s…
Thank you for putting it together.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Let's say someone is driving 35MPH. They think "oh snap, I think the speed limit is 30MPH here!". The posted speed limit is actually 40MPH. There is a difference between incorrect belief in what the law is vs incorrect belief in what actions you are taking. Although maybe that is not the most compelling. If you see the speed limit is 40, but you want to go faster so you hit the gas until you are going 60 and then b…
Intending to murder someone is often directly a crime though, so yes. And murdering people is illegal. Moving some magazines isn't normally illegal. I wouldn't normally assume having some magazines is evidence of a crime. And if they are, what crime was owning the magazines involved in? That you happen to read some of the same articles as someone else who committed a crime? Is sharing the same books as others now imp…
Neither is shooting a gun (at e.g. a gun range). This case has about as much to do with moving magazines as a murder charge has with discharging a firearm. Its intrinsic to the crime, but not what the actual crime is.
> I wouldn't normally assume having some magazines is evidence of a crime.
If someone called you up and told you that the magazine contained evidence of a crime, the police ard looking for them, and asked you to hide the magazines, would your assumptions change? Because that seems to be what happened here.
> And if they are, what crime was owning the magazines involved in? That you happen to read some of the same articles as someone else who committed a crime? Is sharing the same books as others now implicating you as a terrorist?
That is not even remotely what happened here. Nobody got in trouble for owning or reading the magazines in question.