3 ms·
I’d be curious to know what they plan to charge people with.
by quickthrowman 8mo ago
I’d be curious to know what they plan to charge people with.
- netsharc 8mo agoJaywalking, misappropriating funds during a renovation? Whatever the police state wants...
- Pwntastic 8mo agodomestic terrorism, of course
- q34tlR4y 8mo ago[dead]
- missingcolours 8mo agoPresumably Seditious Conspiracy, like many people involved in J6. Conspiracy to use force to prevent or delay enforcement of laws.
- deleted 8mo ago[deleted]
- lenerdenator 8mo agoOr, at the very least, what they want to try to convince a grand jury to indict people on. That's another angle that needs to be discussed more often with respect to Trump's DoJ: if you're impaneled on a grand jury for charges coming out of these investigations, you don't have to give them a bill.
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 8mo agoI hope they're just looking for foreign influence I'm not sure what you could charge peaceful protestors with that would survive in court.
- hsbauauvhabzb 8mo agoThey don’t need to if they just shoot them on the street.
- adrr 8mo agoTerrorism seems to be their default claim if you're against the Trump admin.
- mycodendral 8mo ago18 U.S.C. § 372 — Conspiracy to impede or injure officer If two or more persons in any State, Territory, Possession, or District conspire to prevent, by force, intimidation, or threat, any person from accepting or holding any office, trust, or place of confidence under the United States, or from discharging any duties thereof, or to induce by like means any officer of the United States to leave the place where his duties as an officer are required to be performed, or to injure him in his person or property on account of his lawful discharge of the duties of his office, or while engaged in the lawful discharge thereof, or to injure his property so as to molest, interrupt, hinder, or impede him in the discharge of his official duties, each of such persons shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than six years, or both. Federal felony
- deleted 8mo ago[deleted]
- nkohari 8mo ago> by force, intimidation, or threat You seem to be glossing over the key piece of that statute. Peaceful protest is protected by the first amendment (free speech, right to assembly).
- sb057 8mo agoIf you threaten to kill somebody then follow them around for days at a time, is that intimidation?
- knubie 8mo agoIntimidation, or threat at the very least seems applicable here if you have any idea of what's going on in Minnesota and what these Signal chats are being used for.
- refurb 8mo agoBlocking law enforcement's vehicles and their person (I saw several protestors put hands on officers), when they are conducting arrests, certainly seems to fit the bill.
- 8mo ago
- advisedwang 8mo agoThe article subhead implies obstruction of justice.
- deleted 8mo ago[deleted]
- jihadjihad 8mo agoComing soon, treason.
- mothballed 8mo agoI heard a totally unsubstantiated rumor that the participants were sending (ICE agent) plate numbers to people with NCIC access to run the plates. If that's the case it would be a pretty easy felony charge for all involved. I have no reason to believe that's true, just what word on the street was they might be charged with.
- sjsdaiuasgdia 8mo agoIf you have no reason to believe it's true, and understand the rumor to be unsubstantiated, why bother to spread it?
- mothballed 8mo agoBecause the question was what they might be charged with, not what they did. Did you expect the government to charge people in good faith? It doesn't matter it if it's true or not, even putting them in the slammer for a long time while awaiting trial and forcing them to hire expensive attorneys is a win.
- sjsdaiuasgdia 8mo agoNo, I don't expect the Trump administration to operate in good faith. The post you replied to didn't ask what they might be charged with. It asked what they "plan" to charge. And you replied with internet rumor nonsense. It's actually fine to say "I don't know" or simply not reply at all when someone asks a question to which you do not have an answer.
- andreygrehov 8mo agoSeveral undercover reporters have reported this. They are obviously lying. If the administration confirms the same, they are obviously lying. Who shall we believe then? The NYTimes?
- plorg 8mo ago
- cdrnsf 8mo agoNot voting for them.
- q34tlR4y 8mo ago[dead]
- zahlman 8mo agohttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4e_BbsDgLmI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4e_BbsDgLmI gives a pretty good summary of the possibilities.