You do realize how ridiculous that is, right? How many people have gone to trial and been charged with having a firearm? One. You finally have it. Your non-smoking gun.
(08-02-2022, 01:27 PM)Lucky2Last Wrote: [ -> ]You do realize how ridiculous that is, right? How many people have gone to trial and been charged with having a firearm? One. You finally have it. Your non-smoking gun.
You think every single one that was carrying had a family member turn them in afterwards? Of course not. Most people try to help their family members avoid prison.
(08-02-2022, 12:08 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (08-02-2022, 11:54 AM)Sneakers Wrote: [ -> ]LOL. His new narrative is an "armed" mob of insurrectionists.
I said all along some of them were armed. You haven't been paying attention to anything I say. Most people don't comment on things they choose not to pay attention to. You're pretty weird.
You've also insisted
every person there was violent yet when a man was found to not have done the violence he was charged with you agreed that he wasn't violent and shouldn't have been convicted or even arrested. Forgive us if we aren't able to keep us with your double speak.
(08-02-2022, 02:56 PM)americus 2.0 Wrote: [ -> ] (08-02-2022, 12:08 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]I said all along some of them were armed. You haven't been paying attention to anything I say. Most people don't comment on things they choose not to pay attention to. You're pretty weird.
You've also insisted every person there was violent yet when a man was found to not have done the violence he was charged with you agreed that he wasn't violent and shouldn't have been convicted or even arrested. Forgive us if we aren't able to keep us with your double speak.
I do forgive you. Breaking down a barrier is against the law. Walking through a barrier that was already broken down is inadvisable but not criminal. Everyone who went in that day was intent on re-installing Trump and following his orders. They showed up when he said to, fought like hell when he said to, then left when he said to. So all of them were committing violence against the constitution. But not all of them were breaking the law, as I said.
(08-02-2022, 03:14 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (08-02-2022, 02:56 PM)americus 2.0 Wrote: [ -> ]You've also insisted every person there was violent yet when a man was found to not have done the violence he was charged with you agreed that he wasn't violent and shouldn't have been convicted or even arrested. Forgive us if we aren't able to keep us with your double speak.
I do forgive you. Breaking down a barrier is against the law. Walking through a barrier that was already broken down is inadvisable but not criminal. Everyone who went in that day was intent on re-installing Trump and following his orders. They showed up when he said to, fought like hell when he said to, then left when he said to. So all of them were committing violence against the constitution. But not all of them were breaking the law, as I said.
LOL. Do you EVER think before you hit Post Reply?
“Fought like Hell”? Lmfao. I’m not even sure CNN reported that one.
(08-02-2022, 07:57 PM)Jags Wrote: [ -> ]“Fought like Hell”? Lmfao. I’m not even sure CNN reported that one.
You didn't know? Here's a picture.
![[Image: 85290.jpg?v=1610483901]](https://idsb.tmgrup.com.tr/ly/uploads/images/2021/01/12/thumbs/800x531/85290.jpg?v=1610483901)
(08-02-2022, 08:15 PM)Sneakers Wrote: [ -> ] (08-02-2022, 07:57 PM)Jags Wrote: [ -> ]“Fought like Hell”? Lmfao. I’m not even sure CNN reported that one.
You didn't know? Here's a picture.
Oh [BLEEP]. I didn’t even realize it was that bad. Thoughts and prayers towards the statues and paintings that have had their pictures taken without consent. Statue Lives Matter!
(08-02-2022, 08:31 PM)Jags Wrote: [ -> ] (08-02-2022, 08:15 PM)Sneakers Wrote: [ -> ]You didn't know? Here's a picture.
Oh [BLEEP]. I didn’t even realize it was that bad. Thoughts and prayers towards the statues and paintings that have had their pictures taken without consent. Statue Lives Matter!
Statues lives don't even matter to other statues..
(08-02-2022, 07:41 PM)Sneakers Wrote: [ -> ] (08-02-2022, 03:14 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]I do forgive you. Breaking down a barrier is against the law. Walking through a barrier that was already broken down is inadvisable but not criminal. Everyone who went in that day was intent on re-installing Trump and following his orders. They showed up when he said to, fought like hell when he said to, then left when he said to. So all of them were committing violence against the constitution. But not all of them were breaking the law, as I said.
LOL. Do you EVER think before you hit Post Reply?
Do you not understand the difference between criminal law and the constitution?
Criminal law is for helping juries decide who should pay fines and go to jail.
The Constitution is for deciding who makes the laws and who enforces them and when those people have to give way to a successor. There isn't always a criminal law to correspond to every possible violation of the constitution.
(08-02-2022, 03:14 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (08-02-2022, 02:56 PM)americus 2.0 Wrote: [ -> ]You've also insisted every person there was violent yet when a man was found to not have done the violence he was charged with you agreed that he wasn't violent and shouldn't have been convicted or even arrested. Forgive us if we aren't able to keep us with your double speak.
I do forgive you. Breaking down a barrier is against the law. Walking through a barrier that was already broken down is inadvisable but not criminal. Everyone who went in that day was intent on re-installing Trump and following his orders. They showed up when he said to, fought like hell when he said to, then left when he said to. So all of them were committing violence against the constitution. But not all of them were breaking the law, as I said.
I don't need your forgiveness.
If I had the time and inclination I'd find and share with you the times you said every single person who entered the Capitol that day were criminals and should all go to prison.
You could if this site had a decent search function. I hate using it. If there were one thing I could change about this message board, that would be it.
(08-02-2022, 10:58 PM)americus 2.0 Wrote: [ -> ] (08-02-2022, 03:14 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]I do forgive you. Breaking down a barrier is against the law. Walking through a barrier that was already broken down is inadvisable but not criminal. Everyone who went in that day was intent on re-installing Trump and following his orders. They showed up when he said to, fought like hell when he said to, then left when he said to. So all of them were committing violence against the constitution. But not all of them were breaking the law, as I said.
I don't need your forgiveness.
If I had the time and inclination I'd find and share with you the times you said every single person who entered the Capitol that day were criminals and should all go to prison.
Pretty sure I called them insurrectionists, not criminals. But OK.
(08-03-2022, 08:22 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (08-02-2022, 10:58 PM)americus 2.0 Wrote: [ -> ]I don't need your forgiveness.
If I had the time and inclination I'd find and share with you the times you said every single person who entered the Capitol that day were criminals and should all go to prison.
Pretty sure I called them insurrectionists, not criminals. But OK.
Is insurrection a crime?
(08-03-2022, 12:25 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ] (08-03-2022, 08:22 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]Pretty sure I called them insurrectionists, not criminals. But OK.
Is insurrection a crime?
Insurrectionist is a vague term which could mean someone who violated the insurrection statute, someone who participated in an insurrection but without fully violating the statute, or someone who supports or agrees with those who participate in insurrections.
(08-03-2022, 12:30 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (08-03-2022, 12:25 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]Is insurrection a crime?
Insurrectionist is a vague term which could mean someone who violated the insurrection statute, someone who participated in an insurrection but without fully violating the statute, or someone who supports or agrees with those who participate in insurrections.
Soooooo, yes or no?
(08-03-2022, 02:18 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ] (08-03-2022, 12:30 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]Insurrectionist is a vague term which could mean someone who violated the insurrection statute, someone who participated in an insurrection but without fully violating the statute, or someone who supports or agrees with those who participate in insurrections.
Soooooo, yes or no?
Yes, it's a crime in the US Code. If you're a federal prosecutor, that's the definition you would use. If you're anyone else, you're free to use other definitions of "insurrection" and "crime" that may be less formal.
(08-03-2022, 02:54 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (08-03-2022, 02:18 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]Soooooo, yes or no?
Yes, it's a crime in the US Code. If you're a federal prosecutor, that's the definition you would use. If you're anyone else, you're free to use other definitions of "insurrection" and "crime" that may be less formal.
So yeah, by your own admission you called all of them criminals. Keep on spinning it however you want, you just keep ending up in the corner surrounded by paint.
(08-03-2022, 03:56 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ] (08-03-2022, 02:54 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]Yes, it's a crime in the US Code. If you're a federal prosecutor, that's the definition you would use. If you're anyone else, you're free to use other definitions of "insurrection" and "crime" that may be less formal.
So yeah, by your own admission you called all of them criminals. Keep on spinning it however you want, you just keep ending up in the corner surrounded by paint.
https://tenor.com/XClr.gif![[Image: XClr.gif]](https://tenor.com/XClr.gif)