That is a matter for the jury.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Was the Occupation of the Capitol Yesterday an Act of Sedition?
- Thread starter Wandering Monk
- Start date
tytlyf
Not Religious
I was never asked a question. You did it again. I understand it can be uncomfortable to answer certain questions
Perhaps no one wanted your answer?
Heyo
Veteran Member
I agree, they shouldn't be, but when it comes to terrorism, in court you're an accessory when you sold an alarm clock to the bombers mother's cousin.
This exemplifies how "terrorism" has been expanded to
the point of meaninglessness. It once referred to people
who threatened or committed violence in order to strike
fear in the populace. Now it's buying a clock with no
such intent.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
Sorry Ken, but I gotta call "Foul!" on this.
Portland was not an attempt to overthrow the results of an election by a sitting president and his cronies. Nor did any politician that I'm aware of tell his followers to riot and take over a building in Portland.
The fact of the matter is that which we painfully saw yesterday was basically orchestrated by a president who was encouraged by millions of people who call themselves "Republicans" and who was not obstructed by the vast majority of Republicans sitting on their fat arses in Congress.
'
IOW, Trump did not do this by himself, thus I think that people who call themselves "Republicans" should have a reality check and realize and admit what they've done, because if they don't, this could happen again. Even some Republicans have suggested that maybe a third major party is in order, maybe a truly "Conservative Party" going by that or a similar name.
Last edited:
1) I concur that what happened in the Capitol was wrong... and I cry foul
2) Yes... there were Republicans that were involved... and I cry foul
3) I usually make the point on the other side... because usually they cry foul on one side and are blind to the other
4) I certainly know that those who did that "particular" forced entry may not really be Trump supporters (but maybe some were). What I do know is that one of them was Pelosi's son-in-law (not a Trump supporter that I know of) and the other was a craziac - the one with the horns! (new word). Atifa WAS there and they banked off of peaceful protestors.
5) The VAST majority of the Republicans were peacefully protesting... those who flooded congress was a minority just as thousand of BLM protesters were peaceful but those who attacked the Federal building were the fringe elements and probably some antifa that banked off peaceful protesters.
All I am saying... is let us just make sure we have equal judgment on whosoever's side it happens to fall on. I am not condoning or supporting this violation of civil law.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
And this of course was the speech where Trump promised to walk down to the Capitol building with them.
I guess that he forgot about his bone spurs in all of the excitement.
McBell
Unbound
“Bad men need nothing more to compass their ends, than that good men should look on and do nothing.”
~John Stuart Mill - 1867
Maybe do some research of your own. It took me fifteen minutes after this claim that the horned guy was an antifa plant to find out who he was. He's a long time qanon right wing Trump supporter who even said in his Twitter that he is not or has ever been antifa. His userid is usawolfpack and here's him with qanon signs from other protests.
He even tweeted that effect but there's still comments saying 'no ur antifa' because some of you are so unbelievably twisted up in your conspiracy theories that you won't accept what's right in front of you.
Last edited:
Callisto
Hellenismos, BTW
That position would not hold up in a court, what you're suggesting is a mistake of fact which is not a viable defense in this type of situation. The person is aware of their surroundings, the nature of the group, the purpose and motives of the mob and has awareness, and likely participation in, the volatile opinions prevalent among the participants on their various social/media forums which quite commonly advocate hate, anarchy, violence, and disobedience. It's more reasonable for the person to assume (or fear) how quickly and how far such a gathering can escalate than to argue "I didn't know".
It could be successfully used as a defense if someone happened to be in town for unrelated reasons when this occurred, wholly unassociated with any group or individual present, but saw the situation forming and regrettably chose to see what was going on due to unwise curiosity. I.e., in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Citation needed. And the horny guy is a Trump supporter. Do you remember the claim of antifa being found by facial recognition software, it turns out that was a lie so please do not post that article. If you do I will have no problem refuting it.
I've enuf experience in court to know that the law is not
a fixed thing. If someone seems largely removed from
a plot with terrible consequences, they can expect much
lighter treatment.
So the person who bought a clock to tell time, & later
discovered it was used to make a bomb by someone
else, could expect to avoid prosecution.
Incidentally this one is also false. While it's true that Michiel Vos was there, ringwingers saw a picture of him with rioters in the frame and assumed he was a plant. Which is marvelous logic since he, you know, is a documentary filmmaker and journalist. On Jan. 6, 2021, he was a correspondent for the Dutch television network RTL 4, reporting from the Capitol riot.
Five minutes of googling instead of defaulting to and recirculating easily debunked rumor.
Last edited:
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
I'm not a lawyer but it sure looks that way.
ecco
Veteran Member
Some nameless people and Graham and Cruz - Yesterday "Yeah Trump" - Today "Bad Donald".
They are spineless and go wherever it's most convenient at the time. Shame.
Heyo
Veteran Member
Can't blame people for changing their mind with new information - only for doing it much too late.
ecco
Veteran Member
Perhaps you need to listen to what some of them actually said. Perhaps you need to open your eyes.
Already debunked.
Why are you swayed so easily by Sheeple nonsense?
Source? Evidence?
So far, the FBI has publicly identified six people who have been arrested. Along with their names, the FBI listed the organizations they belong to: Proud Boys, QAnon, and other right wing groups. None from Antifa or BLM as you seem to want to / need to believe.
Also, some people are getting fired from their jobs.
ecco
Veteran Member
Yeah - five years too late. Especially for Cruz, Trump, and people I won't name.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
Sorry, but what the above is is just what's called a "false equivalency". Plus, one wrong does not justify or excuse another.
I have not seen a single post here at RF whereas any violence at a BLM rally was justified as being acceptable. Nor does the BLM staff encourage violence. See: https://blacklivesmatter.com/about/
Also, you might want to check other media sources since we're reading and hearing all sorts of crap that appear to be just more conspiratorial nonsense. If one watches Newsmax, or even Fox, one is again leaving themselves open to "slants". Even the WSJ editorial page today blames this all on Trump and his supporters, and the WSJ is owned by Murdock.
The Republican Party needs to decide what it wants to be: a serious and respectable party, which it used to be, or the party of a man who attempted a coup to overthrow an election. And you, as a man of the cloth, also needs to make a choice as well, imo, namely are you going to deal with facts and call out that which is clearly wrong under the Constitution and basic Judeo-Christian teachings, or are you going to parrot secular right-wing politics? Sorry to be so blunt.
You know I love ya like a brother, but I honestly feel you need to sit down and make some tough choices, and also to deal with your congregation in a bluntly honest way. If you screwed up-- admit it-- and then ask for their forgiveness. I don't know what you did or didn't do with them, so I'm not assuming anything one way or the other, so that above advice, wanted or not, may not apply.
As it is, the priest at the church my wife and I attend overstepped his role and actually endorsed a presidential candidate and party, and some congregants are really upset with him on that, and it wouldn't surprise me if he hears something from the archdiocese. A priest at a downriver Catholic church did this a couple of months ago and was told by the archdiocese that he is not to endorse candidates nor parties, and he did publicly apologize days later. Yes, he has the right and the obligation to speak to the issues, but not to the point of endorsement. Matter of fact, to endorse a candidate or party is in violation of federal law if that body has tax-exempt status.
Take care, and I pray and hope you remain a friend after reading the above.