@averagejoe1 saidbingo!
Big day, Shav? Isn't this when checks arrive in the mailboxes for you and Zhalanzi?
@averagejoe1 saidI have no idea what you mean.
Big day, Shav? Isn't this when checks arrive in the mailboxes for you and Zhalanzi?
Do you mean Czechs? And why would someone from there arrive by mail? And how would they fit in a mailbox. Which we don’t have in Europe anyways?
Are you on drugs again?
2 edits
@averagejoe1 saidShouting “fire!” in a theater when there is no fire and triggering a stampede is not covered by “freedom of speech.” That is established precedent. What Trump said in front of an angry and armed mob on Jan. 6, 2021 was the equivalent of shouting “fire!” in a theater, as the sequel plainly showed: Trump’s words and tone incited a mob to riot with intent to disrupt congressional proceedings. That makes it a criminal offense, not merely expressing an opinion about the result of the election.
So, you state here that what he said is not a crime, but then you are saying he was obstructing the transfer,,,,,,,,,but that was speech, phranny.
So, is his speech a crime, or is it not a crime?
It remains to be seen what evidence there is to back up the other charges.
@averagejoe1 saidI never said they were "divvying up the money"; the premise is Person B is committing the crime for Person A's benefit after being convinced by Person A to do so.
I see now you two are divvying up the money, missed that. Then both are the criminals, of course. My subconscious naturally thought you were applying it to Jan 6, when Trump was only speaking. Speech. But it has me wonder how you would do such an analogy about Trump telling everyone to fight like hell. So your analogy means nothing in this thread. That is, one cann ...[text shortened]... oint of a bank robber and a wheel man robbing a bank. I don't get it. Run it by Sonhouse, maybe?
That is analogous to what happened on January 6, 2021; Trump convinced certain members of the crowd he was the victim of a wrong and they needed to do something about it i.e. stop the certification of the election. That's why many of the defendants claimed they were only following his orders. He, of course, has vowed to pardon them.
@shavixmir saidI ran across this article about the joys of socialism in Netherlands. There is nothing like this when one googles the USA, so it was quite revealing. Govt control gives me the creeps.
I have no idea what you mean.
Do you mean Czechs? And why would someone from there arrive by mail? And how would they fit in a mailbox. Which we don’t have in Europe anyways?
Are you on drugs again?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism_in_the_Netherlands
@no1marauder saidThen learn me something. If I tell a guy to go rob a bank, and he robs the bank, I am guilty of that crime to some extent? (this assumes that we do not divvy up, that I am just a bystander, amazed that he actually robs the bank).
I never said they were "divvying up the money"; the premise is Person B is committing the crime for Person A's benefit after being convinced by Person A to do so.
That is analogous to what happened on January 6, 2021; Trump convinced certain members of the crowd he was the victim of a wrong and they needed to do something about it i.e. stop the certification of the ele ...[text shortened]... the defendants claimed they were only following his orders. He, of course, has vowed to pardon them.
@moonbus saidI would love to see a lawyer argue this one. It is no where near shouting fire. I quite disagree. Just intent alone is absent.
Shouting “fire!” in a theater when there is no fire and triggering a stampede is not covered by “freedom of speech.” That is established precedent. What Trump said in front of an angry and armed mob on Jan. 6, 2021 was the equivalent of shouting “fire!” in a theater, as the sequel plainly showed: Trump’s words and tone incited a mob to riot with intent to disrupt congressiona ...[text shortened]... sult of the election.
It remains to be seen what evidence there is to back up the other charges.
1 edit
@moonbus said“What Trump said in front of an angry and armed mob”
Shouting “fire!” in a theater when there is no fire and triggering a stampede is not covered by “freedom of speech.” That is established precedent. What Trump said in front of an angry and armed mob on Jan. 6, 2021 was the equivalent of shouting “fire!” in a theater, as the sequel plainly showed: Trump’s words and tone incited a mob to riot with intent to disrupt congressiona ...[text shortened]... sult of the election.
It remains to be seen what evidence there is to back up the other charges.
why do you lie?
1 edit
I found this on the internet posted by a real lawyer in 2014.
In civilian terms, if all you do is tell someone to commit a crime, and they do nothing, that is not a criminal offense. If either of you make any other steps toward the commission of the crime, then you are both guilty of conspiracy to commit whatever crime was ordered or planned. In the bank robbery example you provide, performing surveillance, getting blueprints, or really any act in furtherance of the underlying crime, would be sufficient to support a charge of conspiracy on all parties involved and perhaps even attempt, depending on the exact facts and where precisely they stopped the plan
@no1marauder saidprotesting is not a crime f boy
I never said they were "divvying up the money"; the premise is Person B is committing the crime for Person A's benefit after being convinced by Person A to do so.
That is analogous to what happened on January 6, 2021; Trump convinced certain members of the crowd he was the victim of a wrong and they needed to do something about it i.e. stop the certification of the ele ...[text shortened]... the defendants claimed they were only following his orders. He, of course, has vowed to pardon them.
@phranny saidIs that a crime? Can you cite the law? Did he request that anyone protest in any way that wasn't peaceful?
You are correct. What he thinks is not a crime. He is not being charged for speech. He is being charged for conspiring to obstruct the peaceful transfer of presidential election results.
And was anyone charged for "conspiring to object peaceful transfer" after all the riots when Trump took office?
@averagejoe1 saidIf your speech is designed to obstruct justice, then yes, it's a crime. Maybe compare it to yelling fire in a theater.
So, you state here that what he said is not a crime, but then you are saying he was obstructing the transfer,,,,,,,,,but that was speech, phranny.
So, is his speech a crime, or is it not a crime?
@techsouth saidThat is for the judge and jury to decide.
Is that a crime? Can you cite the law? Did he request that anyone protest in any way that wasn't peaceful?
And was anyone charged for "conspiring to object peaceful transfer" after all the riots when Trump took office?
@techsouth saidYou must be another right winger who refuses to read the indictment.
Yet we have opinions on almost everything else.
Are you okay living in a country where rival politicians are charged with "crimes" that don't exist on the books?
The Federal Conspiracy charges Trump faces are most certainly "on the books".