First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next  Last
Some Inauguration Day protesters arrested will be charged with felony rioting [original misleading title removed by mod]
23258 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
The White House
Offline
Posted 1/22/17 , edited 1/23/17
A little background on what is happening:



http://dfw.cbslocal.com/2017/01/21/many-inauguration-day-protesters-will-face-felony-rioting-charges-prosecutors-say/


The law that is being used to arrest many of them:

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/hr347/text






So anyone that is mad "Trump" is arresting protesters can thanks Malik Obama's brother for allowing that stupid law to pass.
Posted 1/22/17 , edited 1/23/17

Rujikin wrote:

So anyone that is mad "Trump" is arresting protesters can thanks Malik Obama's brother for allowing that stupid law to pass.


You should read the link that you posted. I'll quote the summary:


"[T]here is no Federal law that expressly prohibits unlawful entry to the White House and its grounds or the Vice President's residence and its grounds. The Secret Service must therefore rely upon a provision in the District of Columbia Code, which addresses only minor misdemeanor infractions, when someone attempts to or successfully trespasses upon the grounds of the White House or Vice President's residence."


If you read further into their summary, you'll also see this little gem:


Some say those existing provisions made protests illegal at political events where the Secret Service is protecting a candidate for office. Our understanding is that this is incorrect. The law applies to "cordoned off" areas or where a restriction is posted and where the general public has been cleared from. Additionally, it is unlikely the courts would uphold a restriction on access based on a political viewpoint.


Try to at least read what you're linking to when it contradicts your actual post. It kind of causes a great disconnect on the thread and pretty much invites the entire thread to derail from whatever intention you may have had for it to begin with.

To clarify:

Your analysis that you've posted of this bill is incorrect (which shouldn't be surprising due to your initial source being "The Daily Mail"). In order for this bill to apply to the protesters that you've mentioned, they would have to have been protesting in an area that was section off and all of the public had been removed from said area prior to the protesting or unlawful entry. Now if they had done this on the lawn of the White House, that would fall into the category of the law.
mxdan 
11925 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / A Husk.
Offline
Posted 1/22/17 , edited 1/24/17
Ejanss 
17105 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Online
Posted 1/22/17 , edited 1/23/17
I thought Trump already made it illegal to protest Trump.

(Prosecutable by mass hounding, orchestrated Twitter outrage, messenger-shooting, symbolic scapegoat-boycotts, and search for any excuse that will result in the offenders' arrest or job-removal.)
14313 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
☆Land of sweets☆
Online
Posted 1/22/17 , edited 1/23/17
great. CR ate my post away.

The office said most of those arrested will be released without having to post bail and must return to court in February.

(source: 1st link)
there's a difference between peacefully voicing your opinion and going around breaking windows / setting cars on fire.
i'm pretty sure there was always a consequence for wrecking havoc in public, before Obama came to office - the constitution only protects the right for peaceful assembly and breaking windows is anything but peaceful. regardless, most protesters will still be released anyway, without the need to pay for bail.
mxdan 
11925 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / A Husk.
Offline
Posted 1/22/17 , edited 1/23/17
Man, with material already dieing out to blame Obama for the next couple of years is gonna be really rough for you, huh?
48129 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 1/22/17 , edited 1/23/17
Sooooooo I currently have been on a business trip and wasn't really able to follow the inauguration. However everything I have heard is that people who were protesting peacefully were not arrested that it was people who were legitimately rioting, and doing things like smashing windows and attacking bystanders and things of the like. I fully admit the possibility of being wrong and many peaceful protesters could have been arrested, but would need some proof of it. The article linked in the OP reinforces what I have heard especially as only 230 people were arrested out of the potentially thousands I have heard showed up to protest.

I don't agree with arresting people standing there and holding signs or chanting or even screaming. But if you're damaging property you don't own or injuring people, there is NOTHING wrong with getting arrested and charged with felony rioting.
23258 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
The White House
Offline
Posted 1/22/17 , edited 1/23/17



"Most of the approximately 230 protesters arrested on Inauguration Day will be charged with felony rioting, federal prosecutors said.

The U.S. Attorney’s Office said the offense is punishable by up to 10 years in prison and a fine of up to $250,000. The office said most of those arrested will be released without having to post bail and must return to court in February."


Meanwhile in real life: Police and lawyers are not concerned with what someone on the internet has to say they are following it as they interpret it. Arresting 230 protesters is how they interpret it.
5214 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
31 / M / United States
Offline
Posted 1/22/17 , edited 1/23/17

bakasama99 wrote:

Sooooooo I currently have been on a business trip and wasn't really able to follow the inauguration. However everything I have heard is that people who were protesting peacefully were not arrested that it was people who were legitimately rioting, and doing things like smashing windows and attacking bystanders and things of the like. I fully admit the possibility of being wrong and many peaceful protesters could have been arrested, but would need some proof of it. The article linked in the OP reinforces what I have heard especially as only 230 people were arrested out of the potentially thousands I have heard showed up to protest.

I don't agree with arresting people standing there and holding signs or chanting or even screaming. But if you're damaging property you don't own or injuring people, there is NOTHING wrong with getting arrested and charged with felony rioting.


Still pretty damn funny to see Richard Spencer, the Alt-Right founder, get knocked down with a punch to the jaw! On camera while talking to a news crew.
Posted 1/22/17 , edited 1/23/17

Rujikin wrote:

Meanwhile in real life: Police and lawyers are not concerned with what someone on the internet has to say they are following it as they interpret it. Arresting 230 protesters is how they interpret it.


Keep in mind that you were the one who tried to cite that as a reference, man. It's not my fault that you're not double checking the references that you're making. Plus, the cited quotation that you made in this above post does not correlate to them arresting protesters under the H. R. 347 bill/law. Try to at least use some type of linear "real life" facts before you end up like White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer -- who even the republicans are making fun of for out-right lying through his teeth.

Edit:
Essentially, it feels like you got caught BS'ing and you're trying to go on the defense. Just because I called you out doesn't mean that you have to get all defensive about it - just own up to not having any facts to back your original statement. "The Daily Mail" would be similar to quoting "The Enquirer" - it's tabloid material in the UK based off of loose strings/pseudo-information. What was/is the actual point of this thread that you decided that it should be separate from the "First 100 Days of Trump" thread?
qwueri 
24130 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
32 / M / TN
Offline
Posted 1/22/17 , edited 1/23/17
The title is incredibly misleading. Even from the cited source of the DFW article:

Also Saturday, hundreds of thousands of protesters took to the streets in Washington for the Women’s March on Washington. Demonstrators also turned out in cities across the U.S. and the world.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/inauguration-day-protests-felony-rioting-charges-federal-prosecutors-say/

And those protestors got along fine. Trying to claim it's illegal to protest Trump is obviously false and disingenuous.

As for the protestors charged with rioting: they were charged for property destruction, so long as the charges are by the books this shouldn't be a partisan issue at all.
14313 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
☆Land of sweets☆
Online
Posted 1/22/17 , edited 1/23/17

Whenever people engage in conduct that is likely to cause a disturbance or lead to some sort of non-peaceful event, this behavior is often prosecuted as disorderly conduct, sometimes referred to as “breach of the peace.”
Washington: Disorderly conduct, including funeral picketing, failure to disperse, and drinking on a public transit vehicle are misdemeanors, punishable by a fine of up to $1,000, up to 90 days in jail, or both.

http://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/crime-penalties/federal/disorderly-conduct.htm

the protests seem to fall under "disorderly conduct", at least in my view. this misdemeanor is supposed to carry up to 3 months in jail and/or up to $1000 in fine (edit: in Washington). either this isn't a disorderly conduct for some reason, or the article linked is greatly exaggerating the fine and punishment.

CR forum keeps dying for some reason.
Dragon
69443 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 1/22/17 , edited 1/23/17
Just out of curiosity, what does H.R. stand for? Almost like it's a thing that came from Congress. Kinda hard to pin this all on Obama, who doesn't pen the laws, while ignoring that little detail. Besides all the other points brought up, that is.
14313 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
☆Land of sweets☆
Online
Posted 1/22/17 , edited 1/23/17

MakotoKamui wrote:

Just out of curiosity, what does H.R. stand for? Almost like it's a thing that came from Congress. Kinda hard to pin this all on Obama, who doesn't pen the laws, while ignoring that little detail. Besides all the other points brought up, that is.


H.R. stand for House bills - that is, laws proposed by the House of Representatives.
congressional bills can be found here: https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/browse/collection.action?collectionCode=BILLS
(its worth noting that not all bills were sent to gpo, so it's not available there)

edit - if anyone is interested
here's a link to the bill: https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/browse/collection.action?collectionCode=BILLS&browsePath=112%2Fhr%2F%5B300+-+399%5D&isCollapsed=false&leafLevelBrowse=false&isDocumentResults=true

direct (pdf) from the government print office:
https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112hr347enr/pdf/BILLS-112hr347enr.pdf
HR 347 is ‘Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011’
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.