361–370 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 is absolutely a crime to conceal evidence in an ongoing criminal trial. The contents of the publications is absolutely irrelevant: the individual was asked to conceal evidence and agreed to do it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
These events were not unrelated. It's all part of the same conspiracy.
Nobody conspired to shoot a cop. People just happened to exert their First Amendment rights close to where it happened and got punished for speaking the wrong kind of speech.
Come on, man. It was a conspiracy to shoot a cop. How do you not realize this?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It may have been self defense in the moment, but he also went out there looking for trouble and found it.
If it was illegal to go somewhere "lookin for trouble" I think that you would see a whole lot of people arrested from certain groups that you likely wouldn't want to be in prison.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is an oversimplification. I am not in favor of shooting the police in the neck but I absolutely will not tolerate an hindering of peaceful first amendment expression even when it happens in proximity to violence. What are the police even protecting us from at that point?
Domestic terrorists who shoot people in the neck. Among millions of things that the government claims to protect mw from, this is one of a few things that I don't doubt I want to be protected from. There's absolutely zero free speech issues here.
Are we talking about those domestic terrorists who call themselves ICE?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> tampering with evidence in a terrorist-related crime that involved an officer shooting. Talk about an " emotional-based framing " meant to " radicalize the less-literate " ! For starters, terrorists attack civilians rather than de facto militaries. These are like the opposite of terrorists, however misguided we might think they are. Regardless of framing, the core argument here is that the contents of political pub…
Shooting a policeman is the "opposite of terrorists"? Nobody is going to agree with you on that, except Reddit-type people.
I thought the second amendment was all about stopping the bad guy with the gun?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Or are you saying you'd be happy to have one of these shot at your face? Given the choice between the fireworks and an actual grenade? Yeah, absolutely.
[flagged]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just to be clear, the January 6 defendants: - were a group of at least 1000 people - who, among other things, erected a noose on the capitol grounds, brought zip ties and weapons - forcefully overran several capital police barricades intended to deter their entrance - used any weapon available including poles etc to violently attack any police in their way Granted they did not explicitly shoot any federal agents with…
But they were largely convicted and jailed. One absolute moral abomination of a human is responsible for pardoning them. (Thanks founders!) The disparity in sentencing is likely that they credibly set an ambush to murder law enforcement
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
No the jan6 rioters just used poles and batons and such to beat the shit out of police- some who died afterward. https://youtu.be/DXnHIJkZZAs?si=zDKJcly9KMBY_GgJ I mean - seriously? It’s ok to do this?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In what way could that possibly have obstructed that investigation?
? He moved them because his wife asked him to, because his wife didn't want the police to find them, because they spoke to her motive. So it would have obstructed the investigation by making it harder to prove her motive. Like how is this complicated? Somebody commits a crime and then calls you and says "Hey can you hide X so the cops don't find it?" Always a crime to hide X in these circumstances.