Anyone Keeping Up With the January 6th Riot?

Post Reply New Topic

Oh dear god, that takes me back. When I was in school, other kids would aggravate my autism and my reactions would piss off the teachers. By the time I got my autism diagnosis, I tried to explain I had autism, but they kept telling me "That's no excuse!" I wasn't making any excuses, but they didn't want to hear me out. All my teachers were so goddamn mean to me and refused to stop the other kids from tormenting me. I hated school so much.

[ We used to have a saying on Wrong Planet “Autism is an explanation not an excuse”. Whatever happened to that? .

What’s really horrible is that photo will be in history books.

Angeli could get a job after prison posing for pictures at Disneyland in his "Shaman" regalia

In a statement, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi called Hashida a hero “who risked his life to save our Capitol, the Congressional community and our very Democracy. All Americans are indebted to him for his great valor and patriotism on January 6 and throughout his selfless service.”

Compare that to what Trump said about the officers
https://www.businessinsider.com.au/trum ... ?r=US&IR=T

Let's see how he'd handle it after trying to hold back a murderous army of lunatics.

He lived in a gated community with armed guards 24-7

The only crazed lunatics he sees are his own supporters when he holds his rallies

There are also republicans who called for the killing of democrats prior to Jan 6th who mysteriously aren't arrested. Anyone know why Marjorie Greene isn't behind bars?

What a tough guy Trump is!
Let's see how he'd handle it after trying to hold back a murderous army of lunatics.

Hold back lunatics? Trump's whole schtick is egging on imbeciles. He can't empathize with someone in the position of placing duty above Trump's ego. Those are the bad guys in his mind.

Agreed.

There are also republicans who called for the killing of democrats prior to Jan 6th who mysteriously aren't arrested. Anyone know why Marjorie Greene isn't behind bars?

Two weeks before the 2008 election, a California man left a vicious message about Barack Obama on a Yahoo finance message board. "Re: Obama fk the niggar, he will have a 50 cal in the head soon." He followed it up with another ugly post, which began simply: "Shoot the nig."

There was more to come. On Election Day, the same poster sent disturbing emails about shooting someone that, as one court put it, "would appear to confirm the malevolent nature of the previous statements" - as well as the poster's "own malignant nature."

With Yahoo's help, it traced the messages to the home computer of Walter Bagdasarian, now 49, a resident of La Mesa, Calif. When agents searched his house, they found that he had weapons in his home, including a .50 caliber muzzle-loading rifle - the caliber of bullet the post said would soon be in Obama's head.

In July of 2009, Bagdasarian was convicted of violating 18 USC s 879(a)(3), a federal law that makes it a felony to threaten a major presidential candidate with death or bodily harm. Last week, a federal appeals court in California reversed his conviction - which had gotten him sentenced to 60 days in a halfway house — ruling that his posts did not fall under the law, and that his speech was protected by the first amendment.

United States v. Bagdasarian was the latest attempt by the federal courts to police the blurry line between criminal threats and protected speech — a line that has become more important than ever as the Internet has given rage-filled people unprecedented opportunities to spew hate.

Regardless of how offensive it can often get, the courts are rightly reluctant to let political speech be criminalized. To be convicted under 879(a)(3), it is not enough that someone has made menacing statements. They have to have intended to threaten injury or death, and people viewing the words objectively have to regard them as threatening. In addition to these requirements under 879(a)(3), there is a separate first amendment test: the speaker's words must be a "true threat" — which in this case the court defined as "a statement which, in the entire context and under all the circumstances, a reasonable person would foresee would be interpreted by those to whom the statement is communicated as a serious expression of intent to inflict bodily harm upon that person."

The San Francisco-based U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit ruled, by a 2-1 vote, that Bagdasarian's posts did not meet these tests. The majority was deeply unhappy with Bagdasarian - "an especially unpleasant fellow," the court said - and his words. But the judges in the majority also insisted that the posts were not illegal. There was not enough evidence, they said, to find that Bagdasarian actually intended to put Obama at risk, or that a reasonable observer would think that he did. What's more, the posts were not "true threats." The court contrasted Bagdasarian's words with those from another case, in which an enraged discharged employee posted threats like "I will kill you" and "I will personally send you back to the hell from where you came."

On the other hand, threats can go too far. In 2002, the 9th Circuit reviewed a damage award against a website with an online "wanted poster" that included home addresses and other personal information about abortion workers. In that case, a sharply divided court ruled that the website contained "true threats" that were not protected by the first amendment. The court considered not only the words and images but the reality that abortion providers were actually being shot and killed in parts of the U.S. around the same time.