Liberals Willing To Destroy The Livelihoods Of Children

Author: Vader

Posts

Total: 133
#61
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,988
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
Peaceful accessory to peaceful violence is something the constitution guarantees.

Fuck Orangemanbad.



An accessory after the fact is a person who knowingly assists another person who committed a crime to avoid arrest or punishment. Accessories after the fact are not accomplices in the crime itself. Their assistance to the criminal is grounds for punishment in and of itself. If the crime was a felony, every accessory after the fact is subject to a Class 1 misdemeanor. However, much more serious punishments await those who helped another commit a more serious crime, such as murder or an act of terrorism against Federal property.
#62
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 15,167
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
-->
@Greyparrot
Is he seriously saying the Feds started the shitshow in Portland?
#63
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,988
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@ILikePie5
Yep. And those peaceful protestors shielding a few radical Antifa from lawful arrest were not accessories to felony crimes.
#64
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 15,167
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
-->
@Greyparrot
Yep. And those peaceful protestors shielding a few radical Antifa from lawful arrest were not accessories to felony crimes.
Delusional😒
#65
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@Greyparrot
I agree, the few radical left fucktards in Antifa should be allowed to peacefully assault federal buildings without getting the Tim McVeigh treatment from Trump's goons.

The FBI should respect the shield of innocent peaceful protestors just like they respect the Mosques and children Islamic terrorists hide behind.
wow, that is incredibly authoritarian. You appear to be arguing the govnerment can shoot, beat or pepper spray anyone, no matter if they are innocent or not. If you believe that, then you don't really believe in a free society. 
#66
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,988
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@HistoryBuff
 You appear to be arguing Antifa can shoot, beat or pepper spray, or blind with lasers anyone, no matter if they are innocent or not. If you believe that, then you don't really believe in a free society. 

wow, that is incredibly anarchist.
#67
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@Greyparrot
 You appear to be arguing Antifa can shoot, beat or pepper spray, or blind with lasers anyone, no matter if they are innocent or not. If you believe that, then you don't really believe in a free society. 
I don't believe I ever said that. You are just making shit up. What I said is that there were a handful of rioters causing damage. Then Trump send in shock troops to attack protesters at random. This caused the protesters to arm themselves in response to the attacks by trump's thugs. Sending in the troops only escalated the violence. 

#68
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,988
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@HistoryBuff
What I said is that there were a handful of rioters causing damage. 

An accessory after the fact is a person who knowingly assists another person who committed a crime to avoid arrest or punishment. Accessories after the fact are not accomplices in the crime itself. Their assistance to the criminal is grounds for punishment in and of itself. If the crime was a felony, every accessory after the fact is subject to a Class 1 misdemeanor. However, much more serious punishments await those who helped another commit a more serious crime, such as murder or an act of terrorism against Federal property or lawful Federal agents.
#69
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@Greyparrot
An accessory after the fact is a person who knowingly assists another person who committed a crime to avoid arrest or punishment. Accessories after the fact are not accomplices in the crime itself. Their assistance to the criminal is grounds for punishment in and of itself. 
in order for this to be true, the accessory has to know about the crime. If you help someone and it turns out they committed a crime (which you didn't know about) then you are not an accessory. So the crowd of innocent people being attacked by federal troops is just a crowd of innocent people being attacked by federal troops. They are not accomplices, they are not terrorists. They are using the constitutionally protected right to protest and trump wants to have them shot in a vain attempt to boost his poll numbers. 

Trump is literally having US citizens shot in the street to boost his poll numbers and right wing lunatics are cheering him on. It doesn't take much to go from shooting protesters to shooting other people. Given how much the right loves to cry about a "slippery slope", the fact that you are ok with government violence against innocent people is disturbing and very much highlights your hypocrisy. 
#70
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 15,167
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
-->
@Greyparrot
What type of peaceful protestors willingly stands next to a person who’s throwing Molotov cocktails at a federal courthouse lol
#71
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@ILikePie5
What type of peaceful protestors willingly stands next to a person who’s throwing Molotov cocktails at a federal courthouse lol
what kind of police officer stands next to someone shooting innocent protesters in the head? Sadly, most of them are willing to do so. 

And being on the receiving end of violence from the police tends to make people very forgiving of violence against the police. You want protesters to condemn violence against the police? Then stop allowing the police to commit violence against protesters. 

#72
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 15,167
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
-->
@HistoryBuff
what kind of police officer stands next to someone shooting innocent protesters in the head? Sadly, most of them are willing to do so. 

And being on the receiving end of violence from the police tends to make people very forgiving of violence against the police. You want protesters to condemn violence against the police? Then stop allowing the police to commit violence against protesters. 
Nice dodge.
#73
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,988
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@ILikePie5
What type of peaceful protestors willingly stands next to a person who’s throwing Molotov cocktails at a federal courthouse lol
This violence could be over immediately if these complicit "peaceful protesters" turned their phone cameras away from the police and started filming the bottle throwers and laser shiners, and arsonists, and then had them removed.
#74
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,988
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
And being on the receiving end of violence from the police tends to make people very forgiving of violence against the police. You want protesters to condemn violence against the police? Then stop allowing the police to commit violence against protesters. 

We already tried that with Chop. After a few dead people, the most liberal mayor in the history of the USA said enough with the lies.

This isn't a summer of love. Without the police, you have a summer of violence, death, and hate. Chop is a history lesson for you.
#75
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 15,167
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
-->
@Greyparrot
This violence could be over immediately if these complicit "peaceful protesters" turned their phone cameras away from the police and started filming the bottle throwers and laser shiners, and arsonists, and then had them removed.
If I was near someone with a Molotov cocktail, I’d go somewhere far from that person. Once a protest goes violent it’s violent no matter how many peaceful people there are. It’s the job of the peaceful protestors to prevent the violence, but they just let it happen anyways and then gaslight the nation.
#76
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@ILikePie5
Nice dodge.
it's not a dodge. there were a few violent rioters. Then trump sent in shock troops to attack everyone. Once you get attacked by police, you are much more likely to be ok with people attacking the police. You are much more likely to do so yourself. 

So sending in the shock troops to abuse peaceful protests has massively amplified the problem. 

#77
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@Greyparrot
We already tried that with Chop. After a few dead people, the most liberal mayor in the history of the USA said enough with the lies.

This isn't a summer of love. Without the police, you have a summer of violence, death, and hate. Chop is a history lesson for you.
and we are right back to the extremes again. To you everything is an all or nothing. Either police need to shoot innocent people on the street, or we need to have no police. No one is advocating for that. We want police that don't shoot innocent protesters. why is that so hard to understand?
#78
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 15,167
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
-->
@HistoryBuff
it's not a dodge. there were a few violent rioters. Then trump sent in shock troops to attack everyone. Once you get attacked by police, you are much more likely to be ok with people attacking the police. You are much more likely to do so yourself. 

So sending in the shock troops to abuse peaceful protests has massively amplified the problem. 
So how do you propose the violent protestors get arrested? I’m genuinely curious.
#79
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@ILikePie5
So how do you propose the violent protestors get arrested? I’m genuinely curious.
the same way anyone gets arrested. Police work. Not by mass assault on people engaging in their constitutionally protected rights. 

If stopping violence is the goal, then the gestapo tactics obviously failed. It didn't stop or even reduce the violence. It massively fueled it. 
#80
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 15,167
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
-->
@Greyparrot
You think the federal courthouse would still be there if federal marshals weren’t there? HB would lead you to believe yes. Any man with common sense after viewing the destruction would say no

#81
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 15,167
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
-->
@HistoryBuff
the same way anyone gets arrested. Police work. Not by mass assault on people engaging in their constitutionally protected rights. 

If stopping violence is the goal, then the gestapo tactics obviously failed. It didn't stop or even reduce the violence. It massively fueled it. 

More detailed please. Do you want federal agents coming  in front of the violent protestors and arresting them? They tried that. They were assaulted and injured lol. Not to mention you saying they’re arresting peaceful protestors lol.
#82
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 15,167
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
-->
@HistoryBuff
Lemme phrase it’s this way: should violent rioters be tear gassed?
#83
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@ILikePie5
More detailed please. Do you want federal agents coming  in front of the violent protestors and arresting them? They tried that.
it isn't always going to be possible to arrest every rioters. It never is. But police can protect property without shooting and clubbing peaceful protesters. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of videos of police attacking people who are not attacking police. 

Lemme phrase it’s this way: should violent rioters be tear gassed?
depends on context. The point of these tactics is to protect property and reduce violence. If firing tear gas at protesters is increasing violence, obviously doing so is stupid. 
Topic's author
#84
Vader
Vader's avatar
Debates: 30
Posts: 14,984
5
8
11
Vader's avatar
Vader
5
8
11
-->
@HistoryBuff
You're delusional for not wanting to arrest rioters. These people are committing crimes and you are allowing them to riot. You wanna judge the police off their violent ones, I will do the same for yours. Arrest the rioters, keep the peaceful protesters, it's not hard to catch rioters
#85
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 15,167
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
-->
@HistoryBuff
it isn't always going to be possible to arrest every rioters. It never is. But police can protect property without shooting and clubbing peaceful protesters. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of videos of police attacking people who are not attacking police. 
So they should stand there and do nothing while Molotov cocktails shoot over their heads, lasers blind police officers, caustic liquid gets thrown at them, federal property gets broken into? What type of fantasy do you live in lol. How the hell do “protect” property lmao.

depends on context. The point of these tactics is to protect property and reduce violence. If firing tear gas at protesters is increasing violence, obviously doing so is stupid.
In what context should it be used? I’m really curious. If you attack federal agents they are going to reciprocate and they have the right to whether you like it or not. If you are in the vicinity of the rioter you are going to be hit by tear gas and other tactics, cause guess what? Cops can’t come out cause they’d be killed and your “peaceful protestors” would stand there and let it happen.
#86
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,988
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@HistoryBuff
Not by mass assault on people engaging in their constitutionally protected rights. 

There is no constitutional right to shield Antifa from a lawful arrest. If you obstruct the police, you are a criminal.

People are being gaslit by the media to believe they have a constitutional duty to obstruct the police. It's absolute bullshit. If you walk up to a police officer while he is in the process of apprehending a criminal and you "peacefully" shove a phone in front of his face, you are 100% absolutely going to jail for choosing to engage in criminal behavior, namely, obstructing the police. It is a crime, not a constitutional right. Get it through your soft soy skull, or be prepared for more of the results of Chop.
#87
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@Vader
You're delusional for not wanting to arrest rioters. These people are committing crimes and you are allowing them to riot. You wanna judge the police off their violent ones, I will do the same for yours. Arrest the rioters, keep the peaceful protesters, it's not hard to catch rioters
the main problem is that the tactics used by the federal thugs is causing alot of the violence. If you need to shoot innocent people to catch a few guilty ones, those innocent people are much more likely to respond with resistance of violence in the future. So every time the police abuse protesters to go after "rioters" they are creating more people they would label as "rioters". It is a self defeating strategy. 

#88
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@Greyparrot
There is no constitutional right to sheild Antifa from a lawful arrest. If you obstuct the police, you are a criminal.
as far as trump's thugs are concerned, if you are protesting you are somehow antifa and they have the right to beat you or shoot you. 

#89
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 15,167
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
-->
@HistoryBuff
the main problem is that the tactics used by the federal thugs is causing alot of the violence. If you need to shoot innocent people to catch a few guilty ones, those innocent people are much more likely to respond with resistance of violence in the future.
Why the fuck are they there in the first place. It’s stupidity to peacefully protest next to a person who’s throwing Molotov cocktails lol. At that point you’re asking for it.
#90
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@ILikePie5
So they should stand there and do nothing while Molotov cocktails shoot over their heads, lasers blind police officers, caustic liquid gets thrown at them, federal property gets broken into? What type of fantasy do you live in lol. How the hell do “protect” property lmao.
ok, but most of what you described only happened after the feds started attacking protesters. You are using the violence happening now to justify the events that caused the violence to happen. It's like using a suicide bombing in Iraq today to justify the invasion years ago. 

In what context should it be used? I’m really curious. If you attack federal agents they are going to reciprocate and they have the right to whether you like it or not.
why? you keep saying they should attack, but why? what is the goal of unleashed violence from the feds? Is it to stop the violence? it isn't doing that. Is it to arrest the criminals? Since it is fueling more violence, it is only creating more criminals. By pretty much any metric, the violence unleashed by the feds has failed. so why would you advocate it as a strategy?