4 ms·

Huh. None of your first three points is meant to be illegal. - coordinating using a Signal group - bringing firearms, body armor, and first aid kits to a loca

Huh. None of your first three points is meant to be illegal. - coordinating using a Signal group - bringing firearms, body armor, and first aid kits to a location just outside a federal facility - taking up a concealed position along a tree line For you to even list them shows a fascist bent. As for fireworks, they might not be illegal either. The only possible crime is the shooting, and only if it was not done in self defense.

paisawalla 4mo ago
[flagged]
- OutOfHere 4mo ago
  > I think if you append "with the intention to commit a violent crime" to each item on the list, you'll see the issue. No, that doesn't fly, and the intent isn't clear. Even if there were intent, those three bullet points still are not an crime or valid charges. As a member of the jury, I would reject them 100%. Extending your pitiful logic just a few steps, people would be locked up for 30 years just for being born. > If you want to concede that it's fascist to want violent criminals prosectued No relation. Violent crime must of course be prosecuted, but it shouldn't have to depend on trumped up charges or weak accusations of intent.
  - 9x39 4mo ago
    The actual members of the jury convicted the defendants though, accepting the .gov's evidence and witnesses that these individually innocuous elements together established their links to each other, collectively murdering an officer in the course of an attack.
    - duskdozer 4mo ago
      What officer was murdered?
      - 9x39 4mo ago
        Ah, attempted murder since he surprisingly lived, it looks like. No harm, no foul, right?
- ipython 4mo ago
  I do want violent criminals prosecuted. But the problem is that there is a very clear signal given that prosecution is highly selective. I made my point earlier - if this administration cared about prosecuting violent criminals, they would never have even considered pardoning the J6 criminals. They would additionally call for swift and thorough investigations on the use of force against the killings of protesters in Minneapolis in order to ensure that law enforcement is seen as accountable to the public. But none of that has happened. And won’t happen. It astounds me that this hypocrisy isn’t screaming like nails on a chalkboard!
  - paisawalla 4mo ago
    [flagged]
    - ipython 4mo ago
      Ok sure not every of the 1500 people pardoned by Trump could be considered “violent”. Have you watched the videos? There’s definitely more than one. And you’re shifting the goalposts by implying (falsely) that the person covered in the article also personally committed all the offences you mentioned earlier, including shooting a federal officer. And don’t just take my word for it. There is a good amount of recidivism by those who received pardons. Almost 100 have subsequently been charged with other crimes, including child molestation. I’d consider someone who, after getting pardoned for the j6 riot, continuing on to diddle kids, a violent criminal. > Perhaps most strikingly, five recipients of presidential clemency were arrested in connection with conduct that occurred at least in part subsequent to Trump’s freeing them from prison—meaning that Trump’s clemency order on the first day of his second term may have actively facilitated criminal conduct. These include: > Andrew Paul Johnson, who was freed from prison as a result of the pardon in 2025, was convicted of five charges, including child molestation, in February 2026, and sentenced to life in prison. The criminal conduct for which he was convicted took place both before and after his pardon. > Zachary Alam, who was convicted of felony charges of grand larceny and burglary just months after his pardon. > Ryan Nichols, who was charged with deadly conduct and harassment on May 10, 2026, after allegedly threatening a person with a gun in a church parking lot. https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/the-jan-6-pardons--how-many-clemency-recipients-have-faced-other-charges https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/the-jan-6-pardons--how-...
- goatlover 4mo ago
  ICE has behaved as violent criminals during Trump's 2nd term. Renee Good and Alex Pretty were murders. There have been other shootings ICE initiated. How many have died in ICE facilities under suspicious circumstances?
- ndsipa_pomu 4mo ago
  > I think if you append "with the intention to commit a violent crime" to each item on the list, you'll see the issue. That's problematic as you could literally append that to any action and thus condemn it as illegal e.g. met to have some coffees and a chat ... with the intention to commit a violent crime. The problem is that there's not necessarily any connection between the activity and the alleged violent crime - that's what needs to be proven such as highlighting specific signal conversations that were evidence of planning the crime. Also, what is problematic about first aid kits? How is being in a "concealed" position problematic?
  - paisawalla 4mo ago
    > met to have some coffees and a chat ... with the intention to commit a violent crime I'm sorry, do you believe it's legal to meet someone for coffee and credibly plan the commission of a crime, which you then go on to commit?
    - ndsipa_pomu 4mo ago
      My point is that there has to be evidence to link the "meeting up for coffee" and the commission of a crime. If a group of people meet for coffee and then later one of them commits a crime, it's not necessarily a conspiracy to commit that crime unless there's evidence (e.g. recorded conversation or witnesses) that the crime was being discussed and planned whilst having a coffee. Simply appending the phrase "with the intention to commit a violent crime" should not be allowed without evidence of that intention.
- ipython 4mo ago
  Btw - > If you want to concede that it's fascist to want violent criminals prosecuted, I believe it is fascist to bring trumped up charges for ridiculousness. Say for example the case of “sandwich guy” who the DoJ spent three attempts at a grand jury to bring federal charges. For throwing a fully loaded Subway sandwich at a kitted out ICE officer. Started by sending a full swat team of twenty armed agents to his apartment. Complete with a slickly produced propaganda video for your enjoyment! https://x.com/WhiteHouse/status/1956114803295953325 https://x.com/WhiteHouse/status/1956114803295953325 Mind you this is, once again, for the violent crime of throwing an Italian hoagie at a federal officer with full body armor. Then they failed to get a grand jury to indict him on felony assault … finally charging him with misdemeanor assault. Thankfully he was acquitted. Tell me that’s not fascist.
  - JuniperMesos 4mo ago
    [flagged]
    - deleted 4mo ago
      [deleted]

paisawalla 4mo ago

[flagged]

OutOfHere 4mo ago
> I think if you append "with the intention to commit a violent crime" to each item on the list, you'll see the issue. No, that doesn't fly, and the intent isn't clear. Even if there were intent, those three bullet points still are not an crime or valid charges. As a member of the jury, I would reject them 100%. Extending your pitiful logic just a few steps, people would be locked up for 30 years just for being born. > If you want to concede that it's fascist to want violent criminals prosectued No relation. Violent crime must of course be prosecuted, but it shouldn't have to depend on trumped up charges or weak accusations of intent.
- 9x39 4mo ago
  The actual members of the jury convicted the defendants though, accepting the .gov's evidence and witnesses that these individually innocuous elements together established their links to each other, collectively murdering an officer in the course of an attack.
  - duskdozer 4mo ago
    What officer was murdered?
    - 9x39 4mo ago
      Ah, attempted murder since he surprisingly lived, it looks like. No harm, no foul, right?
ipython 4mo ago
I do want violent criminals prosecuted. But the problem is that there is a very clear signal given that prosecution is highly selective. I made my point earlier - if this administration cared about prosecuting violent criminals, they would never have even considered pardoning the J6 criminals. They would additionally call for swift and thorough investigations on the use of force against the killings of protesters in Minneapolis in order to ensure that law enforcement is seen as accountable to the public. But none of that has happened. And won’t happen. It astounds me that this hypocrisy isn’t screaming like nails on a chalkboard!
- paisawalla 4mo ago
  [flagged]
  - ipython 4mo ago
    Ok sure not every of the 1500 people pardoned by Trump could be considered “violent”. Have you watched the videos? There’s definitely more than one. And you’re shifting the goalposts by implying (falsely) that the person covered in the article also personally committed all the offences you mentioned earlier, including shooting a federal officer. And don’t just take my word for it. There is a good amount of recidivism by those who received pardons. Almost 100 have subsequently been charged with other crimes, including child molestation. I’d consider someone who, after getting pardoned for the j6 riot, continuing on to diddle kids, a violent criminal. > Perhaps most strikingly, five recipients of presidential clemency were arrested in connection with conduct that occurred at least in part subsequent to Trump’s freeing them from prison—meaning that Trump’s clemency order on the first day of his second term may have actively facilitated criminal conduct. These include: > Andrew Paul Johnson, who was freed from prison as a result of the pardon in 2025, was convicted of five charges, including child molestation, in February 2026, and sentenced to life in prison. The criminal conduct for which he was convicted took place both before and after his pardon. > Zachary Alam, who was convicted of felony charges of grand larceny and burglary just months after his pardon. > Ryan Nichols, who was charged with deadly conduct and harassment on May 10, 2026, after allegedly threatening a person with a gun in a church parking lot. https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/the-jan-6-pardons--how-many-clemency-recipients-have-faced-other-charges https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/the-jan-6-pardons--how-...
goatlover 4mo ago
ICE has behaved as violent criminals during Trump's 2nd term. Renee Good and Alex Pretty were murders. There have been other shootings ICE initiated. How many have died in ICE facilities under suspicious circumstances?
ndsipa_pomu 4mo ago
> I think if you append "with the intention to commit a violent crime" to each item on the list, you'll see the issue. That's problematic as you could literally append that to any action and thus condemn it as illegal e.g. met to have some coffees and a chat ... with the intention to commit a violent crime. The problem is that there's not necessarily any connection between the activity and the alleged violent crime - that's what needs to be proven such as highlighting specific signal conversations that were evidence of planning the crime. Also, what is problematic about first aid kits? How is being in a "concealed" position problematic?
- paisawalla 4mo ago
  > met to have some coffees and a chat ... with the intention to commit a violent crime I'm sorry, do you believe it's legal to meet someone for coffee and credibly plan the commission of a crime, which you then go on to commit?
  - ndsipa_pomu 4mo ago
    My point is that there has to be evidence to link the "meeting up for coffee" and the commission of a crime. If a group of people meet for coffee and then later one of them commits a crime, it's not necessarily a conspiracy to commit that crime unless there's evidence (e.g. recorded conversation or witnesses) that the crime was being discussed and planned whilst having a coffee. Simply appending the phrase "with the intention to commit a violent crime" should not be allowed without evidence of that intention.
ipython 4mo ago
Btw - > If you want to concede that it's fascist to want violent criminals prosecuted, I believe it is fascist to bring trumped up charges for ridiculousness. Say for example the case of “sandwich guy” who the DoJ spent three attempts at a grand jury to bring federal charges. For throwing a fully loaded Subway sandwich at a kitted out ICE officer. Started by sending a full swat team of twenty armed agents to his apartment. Complete with a slickly produced propaganda video for your enjoyment! https://x.com/WhiteHouse/status/1956114803295953325 https://x.com/WhiteHouse/status/1956114803295953325 Mind you this is, once again, for the violent crime of throwing an Italian hoagie at a federal officer with full body armor. Then they failed to get a grand jury to indict him on felony assault … finally charging him with misdemeanor assault. Thankfully he was acquitted. Tell me that’s not fascist.
- JuniperMesos 4mo ago
  [flagged]
  - deleted 4mo ago
    [deleted]