- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Garland does not think attacking fed buildings is terrorism as long as it is done at night
Posted on 2/22/21 at 3:08 pm to Bobby OG Johnson
Posted on 2/22/21 at 3:08 pm to Bobby OG Johnson
quote:
capitol bombing
1
Posted on 2/22/21 at 3:12 pm to Mickey Goldmill
quote:So, he was drawing a distinction between (i) attacking a governmental building during the business day, with the specific intent of interfering with the business of government and (ii) attacking an empty building at night ... while also acknowledging that both actions would constitute serious crimes?
“An attack on a courthouse while in operation, trying to prevent judges from trying cases, that plainly is domestic extremism, domestic terrorism,” Garland said. “An attack simply on a government property at night or under other circumstances is a clear crime, and a serious one, and should be punished.”
Posted on 2/22/21 at 3:14 pm to AggieHank86
quote:https://mobile.twitter.com/DailyCaller/status/1363955067313917969
Daily Caller
@DailyCaller
HAWLEY: "Do you believe that illegal entry at America's border should remain a crime?"
GARLAND: "I just haven't thought about that question... I don't know of a proposal to decriminalize but still make it unlawful to enter."
More video of him uh uh uhhhing through his answers.
Posted on 2/22/21 at 3:15 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
So, he was drawing a distinction between (i) attacking a governmental building during the business day, with the specific intent of interfering with the business of government and (ii) attacking an empty building at night ... while also acknowledging that both actions would constitute serious crimes?
That's how I took it. It seems that most on here are just upset with how he defines "terrorism/terrorist."
But as I said, I think that definition is meaningless when it comes to prosecuting.
This post was edited on 2/22/21 at 3:16 pm
Posted on 2/22/21 at 3:16 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
I was simply showing one example in which the law draws a distinction between identical acts committed at night vs. during the daylight hours ... and asking whether Garland might have been referencing a statute which makes a similar distinction.
And my post was about how states, according to my admittedly limited evidence (I could be wrong and I just choose my examples poorly), don't seem to see any point in making a night versus day distinction in criminal statutes/law/etc.
Accordingly, the common law seems to a poor justification for Garland's statement.
quote:
Or it COULD have just been a stupid comment by Garland. My post allowed for that possibility as well.
It wasn't a stupid mistake. It was an attempt to create a distinction where no distinction exists.
Let's not act like we don't know the most likely explanation: Garland is scared to say that the riots at the federal courthouse in Portland are the same as what happened at the Capitol because it makes them look bad.
And "them" is the Democrats who at best were ambivalent to the riots in Portland.
Posted on 2/22/21 at 3:32 pm to Mickey Goldmill
quote:
But as I said, I think that definition is meaningless when it comes to prosecuting.
Are you naive enough to think both will be prosecuted with equal vigor? Calling it a crime is also meaningless when it’s ignored by prosecutors.
Posted on 2/22/21 at 3:33 pm to Flats
quote:
Are you naive enough to think both will be prosecuted with equal vigor? Calling it a crime is also meaningless when it’s ignored by prosecutors.
I didn't comment on who they would be "targeting" to prosecute. I was commenting on what crimes they would be charging them with.
Posted on 2/22/21 at 3:35 pm to Bobby OG Johnson
He's further left than rbg was.
Posted on 2/22/21 at 3:44 pm to Mickey Goldmill
quote:
I didn't comment on who they would be "targeting" to prosecute. I was commenting on what crimes they would be charging them with.
They won't be charging them with jack shite. You know it, I know it. That response was his attempt at justifying that. Garland wasn't making some finer distinction about the law, he was signaling his intentions. This was exactly what it looks like, so why do you pretend otherwise?
Posted on 2/22/21 at 3:45 pm to Mickey Goldmill
quote:
I didn't comment on who they would be "targeting" to prosecute. I was commenting on what crimes they would be charging them with.
Well, his views on what is or is not "domestic terrorism" is certainly relevant to how all orgs under Justice Department's umbrella which he will oversee, including the FBI, target and investigate perceived "domestic terrorists."
The 1/6/21 psyops at the Capital will be used to perpetrate the FBI's claims that right wings groups (including Trump supporters) are an existential & the most immediate threat to democracy.
Posted on 2/22/21 at 4:08 pm to Mickey Goldmill
quote:
That's how I took it. It seems that most on here are just upset with how he defines "terrorism/terrorist."
But as I said, I think that definition is meaningless when it comes to prosecuting.
And when the trial is being heard, you don't think that the jury will be more likely to convict a "domestic terrorist" as opposed to someone that is just "breaking and entering?". And you don't think being labeled a terrorist will affect sentencing? You're either naive or dishonest.
Posted on 2/22/21 at 4:13 pm to TenWheelsForJesus
quote:
And when the trial is being heard, you don't think that the jury will be more likely to convict a "domestic terrorist" as opposed to someone that is just "breaking and entering?". And you don't think being labeled a terrorist will affect sentencing? You're either naive or dishonest.
I meant simply in terms of the specific crimes they will be prosecuting. Obviously the word "terrorist" has an emotional connotation to it that can be used as a tool. I wasn't commenting on that aspect though.
Posted on 2/22/21 at 4:16 pm to Mickey Goldmill
quote:
That's how I took it. It seems that most on here are just upset with how he defines "terrorism/terrorist."
We call all kinds of people terrorists who aren't committing crimes against the Govt or Govt buildings. I don't see why there is a distinction now between rioters and the people in DC Jan 6. Wouldn't attacking a Govt building at night still interfere with business of the Govt the next day? It might just be me, but destroying Govt property at any time would seem to qualify as specifically intending to interfere with Govt business
Posted on 2/22/21 at 4:16 pm to Bobby OG Johnson
These people are shite stains on a torn piece of shite wipe floating in a wave of shite sewage being released into a shite sea...
Posted on 2/22/21 at 4:18 pm to Mickey Goldmill
quote:Mickey, you (unlike TWJ) know that the word "terrorism" would not be included in the jury charge, and a motion in limine would likely prevent the prosecution from uttering the word during the trial.quote:I meant simply in terms of the specific crimes they will be prosecuting. Obviously the word "terrorist" has an emotional connotation to it that can be used as a tool. I wasn't commenting on that aspect though.
And when the trial is being heard, you don't think that the jury will be more likely to convict a "domestic terrorist" as opposed to someone that is just "breaking and entering?". And you don't think being labeled a terrorist will affect sentencing? You're either naive or dishonest.
Posted on 2/22/21 at 4:18 pm to roadtrash77
quote:
But one is because DEMOCRATS keep allowing cops who F their job up face no repercussions
dem ran cities with black politicians, black police chiefs, black cops, black criminals.
This post was edited on 2/22/21 at 4:19 pm
Posted on 2/22/21 at 4:20 pm to Bobby OG Johnson
quote:
Garland does not think attacking fed buildings is terrorism as long as it is done at night
So if someone were to kill someone else at night, are they any less dead?
Posted on 2/22/21 at 4:21 pm to jchamil
blm stopped people from going into the courthouse in new orleans. According to democrats thats terrorism.
Posted on 2/22/21 at 4:23 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
So, he was drawing a distinction between (i) attacking a governmental building during the business day, with the specific intent of interfering with the business of government and (ii) attacking an empty building at night ... while also acknowledging that both actions would constitute serious crimes?
Not that I am suggesting anything nefarious, I am simply trying to interpret his moronic deflection. So according to this asshat, if the courthouse were blown up at night, it would be fully functioning (magically) the next day. So the courthouse in Portland never had one second of unscheduled downtime due to Korstand’s friends? I would have guessed otherwise.
Posted on 2/22/21 at 4:26 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
Mickey, you (unlike TWJ) know that the word "terrorism" would not be included in the jury charge, and a motion in limine would likely prevent the prosecution from uttering the word during the trial.
Right, which leads back to my point that we currently don't have a federal statute that defines domestic terrorism. So there wouldn't be a prosecutor using that term to charge someone in the first place. It would be whatever the underlying crime is. Calling someone a domestic terrorist does nothing from a legal standpoint.
Page 3 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News