The Conservative Cave

Seems to me they just admitted that the DOJ has been weaponized by the liberals.

Post removed. That one didn't last long. Glad I caught it before it disappeared. Thou shalt not disparage Merrick Garland.

newdayneeded (1,264 posts)


Garland and all the other DAs,
You've brought this on yourself. It's obvious trump is on the verge of asking his followers to flat out hit the streets with guns. Your delaying has made this monster even more boldened. No one here can tell me there isn't bulletproof clear cut evidence by the stacks to charge this guy.

Your weakness, and hesitation is only making this monstrous asshole gain power and followers. I can feel his base is coming back to him, I can feel their hatred is making them once again come back to the cult.

He needs to be arrested, if not, this is gonna spill over to a street war. Something this country doesn't need!

Worst DOJ ever.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100217758301

Worse than Bill Barr? 

No bonding out required with NY's new laws. You get released on PR without bail for non-violent and non-sex crimes.

But only if you're a democrat or one of the "protected" classes. If you're a republican, they will lock you up and put the key on a railroad track to be flattened by a train. And then throw it away.

Star Member Atticus (14,997 posts)
https://www.democraticunderground.com/100217756727

Could a statute be drafted that would establish "stochastic terrorism" as a crime while
not infringing on freedom of speech?

Can't intent to cause violence be proven with as much certainty as it is for other offenses?

WarGamer (8,262 posts)

1. Well...

So that a future GOP DoJ can arrest Left leaning folks for bullshit.

Doesn't sound good.

Just FYI, the goal here isn't to "out-authoritarian" the GOP...

Give the Fed Gov't that kind of power with a Trump behind them and the George Floyd protests would have resulted in thousands of heavy prison sentences for vandalism and burning down that police precinct.

"unintended consequences"


See Patriot Act.

Star Member Atticus (14,997 posts)

3. I asked a question. You respond with an attack. nt

 

Star Member Atticus (14,997 posts)

10. Uh-huh---accusing me of trying to "out-authoritarian" the authoritarians is not an attack? I have

yet to read anything you fear about mis-use of a "new" law that is unique. ANY EXISTING laws "could" be mis-used by "the other side" and sometimes have been.

I could go on, but I see no real prospect of productive discussion or knowledgable comments and that was the motive for the OP.

 

RockRaven (12,351 posts)

2. When considering expanding the power of law enforcement and diminishing freedoms of citizens

ask "how would a POTUS as evil as TFG, but highly competent, having staffed the DOJ entirely with corrupt disingenuous turds like Bill Barr, misuse this power?"

Star Member Fiendish Thingy (12,193 posts)

12. How would you go about proving someone's state of mind?

Sounds like a slippery slope to me…why wouldn’t existing laws on incitement suffice?

Star Member Atticus (14,997 posts)

14. Prosecutors are required to prove a defendant's state of mind every day in prosecutions where

intent is an element of the charged offense.

I may be wrong, but I believe the current laws making "incitement" a crime contemplate a specific person or group being encouraged to commit an offense against a specific person or group.

In stochastic terrorism, the speaker addresses the public at large in an effort to encourage one or some of them to harm a specific person or a large class of people, such as a race or a religion or a political party.

Zeitghost (2,386 posts)

21. Proving intent

With regards to actions is different than proving the "true" intent of their speech. It also doesn't come with the same potential to infringe on the free speech rights of everyone. That is why the Brandenberg Test exists; criminalizing vague speech because "We all know what they really meant" is a very slippery slope.