4 ms·

> Those people were already indicted…. These are new unrelated people That’s not how these investigations work. You indict a few people, some of them snitch, n

> Those people were already indicted…. These are new unrelated people That’s not how these investigations work. You indict a few people, some of them snitch, now you have probable cause to expand the investigation. > And now these unrelated, unindicted people, are having their lives ruined just because they went to a protest. A “protest” that featured planned and premeditated acts of arson? Just out of curiosity, how do you feel about the prosecution of people who participated in the January 6th protest? Or is that different because it doesn’t agree with your political ideology? > It's been a few days since this post and I've looked. There have been no more indictments. It takes more than “a few days” to indict people. Sometimes it takes months—in the example I already cited to you, it took the better part of a year.

superkuh 3y ago
>A “protest” that featured planned and premeditated acts of arson? Citation needed. That is certainly what the police are trying to claim to justify their lashing out but there's no indication it applies to this second group at all. I will not respond to your second attempt to make this about unrelated flamewar politics instead.
- philwelch 3y ago
  > I will not respond to your second attempt to make this about unrelated flamewar politics instead. That wasn’t my intention. I was genuinely curious whether or not you actually had a principled stance against protesters facing legal repercussions for being involved in a disorderly protest in which a minority of protesters committed acts of mayhem and destruction. If so, it should have been easy for you to apply that standard across the board. Instead, it appears that you actually do apply a double standard based upon your personal sympathy with the cause being protested. Which has left you in a closed circle in which you hate the police, so when a “protest” is little more than an organized smokescreen for acts of domestic terrorism against the construction site for a police facility, it’s automatically the police who are the bad guys for investigating the incident and not the people trying to burn down a public facility. And it is rather funny of you to accuse me of “flamewar politics” when you are the one advocating for people whose form of political protest entails literal flames.

superkuh 3y ago

>A “protest” that featured planned and premeditated acts of arson? Citation needed. That is certainly what the police are trying to claim to justify their lashing out but there's no indication it applies to this second group at all. I will not respond to your second attempt to make this about unrelated flamewar politics instead.

philwelch 3y ago
> I will not respond to your second attempt to make this about unrelated flamewar politics instead. That wasn’t my intention. I was genuinely curious whether or not you actually had a principled stance against protesters facing legal repercussions for being involved in a disorderly protest in which a minority of protesters committed acts of mayhem and destruction. If so, it should have been easy for you to apply that standard across the board. Instead, it appears that you actually do apply a double standard based upon your personal sympathy with the cause being protested. Which has left you in a closed circle in which you hate the police, so when a “protest” is little more than an organized smokescreen for acts of domestic terrorism against the construction site for a police facility, it’s automatically the police who are the bad guys for investigating the incident and not the people trying to burn down a public facility. And it is rather funny of you to accuse me of “flamewar politics” when you are the one advocating for people whose form of political protest entails literal flames.