31–38 of 38 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> As it turns out, when someone (your wife) gets arrested and tells you to do "whatever you need to do" and "move whatever you need to move at the house", it is highly illegal to then proceed to do so. If it was my wife, I'd probably do my best to save her.
This didn't save his wife. You are free to help your wife in non-illegal ways.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> They showed up with weapons and body armor, clearly prepared ahead of time for violence How come this argument doesn't hold water in so many other cases? Americans can't be anti-second amendment but only for people who disagree with the government.
Body armor. Showing up with weapons is normal in some places, including Texas. Body armor, not so much. It's the body armor that's the real evidence of preparation. P.S. Also, there's no inconsistency. Simply apply basic logic. You have the right to be armed. You do not have the right to shoot at law enforcement officials ; that's a felony. Nor do you have the right to plan ahead of time to commit a felony, including…
You're shifting the goalposts rather a lot here; at first you said that just bearing arms (allowed by 2nd amendment) and wearing body armour (not forbidden) was proof that they're 'clearly prepared ahead of time for violence', and now you're saying that they're simply not allowed to shoot at law enforcement, which no one disputed.
Which is it? And why don't you apply that standard evenly?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Body armor. Showing up with weapons is normal in some places, including Texas. Body armor, not so much. It's the body armor that's the real evidence of preparation. P.S. Also, there's no inconsistency. Simply apply basic logic. You have the right to be armed. You do not have the right to shoot at law enforcement officials ; that's a felony. Nor do you have the right to plan ahead of time to commit a felony, including…
Is wearing body armour illegal? You're shifting the goalposts rather a lot here; at first you said that just bearing arms (allowed by 2nd amendment) and wearing body armour (not forbidden) was proof that they're 'clearly prepared ahead of time for violence', and now you're saying that they're simply not allowed to shoot at law enforcement, which no one disputed. Which is it? And why don't you apply that standard even…
But if you put on body armor before going into the confrontation, a prosecutor is likely to argue that you were preparing ahead of time for a fight, and that it's evidence that you were planning ahead of time to get into a gunfight. Which means he may well charge you with murder in the first degree, premeditated murder. Whether the jury buys his argument that you were planning the confrontation is up to them, and the other evidence the prosecution advances.
Perhaps I was unwise to assume that people would read the indictment and that I didn't need to repeat what it contained. So, to be clear: the evidence of pre-planning in the indictment included purchasing rifles ahead of time because "Cops are not trained or equipped for more than one rifle so it tends to make them back off" (direct quote by the guy who ended up sentenced to 100 years for, among several other crimes, shooting an ICE officer in the neck). This suggests that the intent was to use the weapons to shoot at law enforcement officers. Carrying weapons is protected under the Second Amendment, but preparing to commit a violent crime is not.
That's the standard. The only thing that's been shifting is my opinion of whether you're actually looking at the evidence vs. forming an opinion ahead of time and not letting yourself be budged by evidence. Which is why I will no longer engage with you after this comment.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is wearing body armour illegal? You're shifting the goalposts rather a lot here; at first you said that just bearing arms (allowed by 2nd amendment) and wearing body armour (not forbidden) was proof that they're 'clearly prepared ahead of time for violence', and now you're saying that they're simply not allowed to shoot at law enforcement, which no one disputed. Which is it? And why don't you apply that standard even…
I'm going to lose interest in this conversation soon, but to clarify for anyone else who might be reading: wearing body armor is not common, and tends to be evidence that you are preparing for violence. When you commit a crime of violence, such as attempted murder, preparations ahead of time become evidence of prior intent, which raises the level of the felony involved. E.g., if you get into a verbal confrontation an…
Body armor is the most obviously genuine "self defense" item a person could have. A gun, knife or pepper spray might be used for self defense or attack, but armor is purely defensive.
Your whole argument makes no sense. You just hate liberals and are happy to have your perceived enemy behind bars, no matter what degree of authoritarian police state it requires to achieve that end.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hiding evidence is the normal manner of conducting business for a lot of company managers. Therefore the sentence seems unusually harsh in comparison with the lenience in other equivalent cases.
Hiding evidence of terrorism is something that I hope not many company managers do.