Discussion in 'Law & Justice' started by JoakimFlorence, Jul 8, 2016.
That's quite a fantastic imagination you show Bill. And a desire to dodge an uncomfortable question.
What uncomfortable beyond a hell of a lot of dead and wounded children
In the case of the nightclub a lot of dead or wounded gay men and women
You offer 2 lines of text, and neither is a sentence. What am I supposed to do with that?
A friend of mine was there. People died, but she was unharmed. It was a staged event. There were play actors.
Have to agree with you on this one, Sheriff.
The FBI or Justice Department can stop anyone from engaging in threats against the peace of society under other circumstances, not just for online threats. If someone called in such threats via telephone (or by notes under one's door) their actions can result in a court issued warrant as well. While I share the OP's concern about any possible slippery slope, the government retains the authority to prevent crimes such as terrorism in order to keep society safe (or perhaps, I should use the term safer).
In doing all this, the government still needs to protect people's right of privacy. This is why it must answer to Congressional oversight through the Surveillance Committee.
So English is not your primary language.
It has nothing to do with gay people, other than humorous references that suggest that the militia boyz are very nearly "gay FOR" their ammunition.
Let me express about governmental law.
Just I want the safety to walk street in the town.
This post sounds like it might have been from the script of "Minority Report" with Tom Cruise. Beyond Orwellian.
Rather than criticize, can you at least try to prove any "flaws" you perceive in it and offer alternatives?
Do try at the very least.
Sure, you bet.
I would agree that the government has the necessary legal authority on paper to "prevent crimes such as terrorism", as long as it complies with the restrictions placed upon it by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
The pragmatic question becomes "does it have the ability to prevent such crimes?" Is it actually able to prevent such crimes? That is very much in question, indeed, unlikely. That might be one reason the government spends so much time setting people up to engage in the fantasy of committing such crimes.
prove this statement.
Your mind is closed, but here is a brief synopsis.
My friend was there and unharmed. She observed, and posted to FB that she saw 2 shooters. Within 48 hours her comments had been taken down.
The play actors were numerous and obvious, from the guy with the US flag shirt blabbing away to any camera that would film him, to 5 guys carrying their "wounded friend" who, after leaving in front of the camera, playfully jumped out of the arms of his friends and walked on. Carelessly, they were carrying him TOWARD the scene of the shooting.
Much much more, but I'm sure you're not interested.
So you can’t prove your statement. I didn’t think so.
<Rule 2> When everything the American people believe is false, we will know the efficacy of our propaganda efforts.
you didn't provide any facts. You made a baseless assertion, got called on it, and then just restated your assertion. You provided no evidence what so ever to support your claim.
I examine the evidence and make an educated decision. I don't make moronic, baseless and batshit crazy conspiracy allegations.
There have been times when government agents have succeeded in preventing acts of terrorism or organized crime activities. You don't often hear of this news as the government does not want to tip its hand under such circumstances. So long as the government restricts itself to this type of preventive action, that it should be OK with the public. As always, Congressional oversight committees need to be in place to insure that government does not over step its bounds.
Agreed about the difference. If a RWers on this forum solicited a hit on Hillary, most of the LWers would not consider it "free speech". In fact, there are rules on forums like this for NOT threatening violence against other members since that crosses the line from free speech to an illegal action; conveying a violent threat.
Another example from the OP is this: "Rahatul Khan, a University of Texas student who was sentenced in September to 10 years in prison after pleading guilty to a terrorism charge. "
He pled guilty. He took a plea for 10 years. That tells me they had enough on him to put him away for 30-50 years and he opted for the shorter prison term. Innocent people don't plead guilty and accept a 10 year prison term with no recourse for appeal.
The Democratic Party INTENSELY opposes Congressional oversight over the FBI and DOJ claiming doing so obstructs justice.
Occam might suggest that the reason we don't hear about it is because it didn't happen. The authorities like to brag, rightfully so, when they actually do something right. Of course they also like to brag when they have to stage events like DeLorean's "bust".
Using the Boston Mob as an example, what the FBI did in order to "succeed" in its fight against organized crime was in itself criminal behavior.
I will not dismiss this possibility. After all, despite Congressional hearings, the Gulf of Tonkin matter (which, of course, never happened) remained a mystery with the result being that 58,000 Americans got killed by their own government.
Oostburg man accused of making terrorist threat on social media
An Oostburg man accused of making threats of terrorism to local schools went before a judge in Sheboygan County on Wednesday afternoon, November 6 (2019).
22-year-old Aaron Mauer is charged with making a terrorist threat and disorderly conduct for a Snapchat story picture prosecutors say he posted for Halloween.
"He had a friend take a picture of him in dressed in a quote-unquote costume," said Brock Peters, Sheboygan County Sheriff's Deputy.
The Sheboygan County Sheriff's Office is not yet releasing the picture which allegedly shows Mauer dressed in a mask and holding an AR-15 with the caption, "Coming to a school near you."
Investigators say they later found six guns inside Mauer's home.
"It was Halloween Day. He was in a Halloween costume, and posted a picture of himself in his costume," said Barbara Kirchner, Mauer's defense attorney. "He told me he put it on his story as a joke; because of his dark humor."
Deputies say Mauer's friend reported the post.
"He wasn't sure if Aaron would be acting on this due to his recent deployment across seas," Peters said.
The defense said Mauer recently returned home from serving overseas with the Wisconsin National Guard.
The judge ultimately decided the criminal case will move forward.
"It did provoke a disturbance," said Judge Rebecca Persick.
Mauer's bond was lowered from $10,000 to $5,000. One of the conditions of his bond is that he have no guns in his home.
Fox 6 News, article by Hannah Jewell, November 6, 2019
Really?Just a big soap opera, huhh? Fake news?
There was actually an example of this in the infamous "swatting" case. A young man named Shane Gaskill, age 19, was arrested and charged with "wire fraud" basically for giving a false address in a casual internet chat. He was playing an online game and apparently got into a verbal fight with another player, Casey Viner, who threatened to find out where he lived and get the SWAT team to show up with a fake emergency call. Gaskill then gave a fake address (implying that was where he lived) and taunted the other player to carry out his threat by typing the message "please try some s**t."
The reason Gaskill actually was charged was because Casey Viner did indeed carry out the threat, getting a third player to make the phone call. A man in Kansas (who coincidently happened to be at the fake address) then was killed after a SWAT team surrounded his house and mistakenly shot him.
Eventually Gaskill ended up making a deal for deferred prosecution, where the prosecutor dropped the charges but Gaskill had to pay $1,000 in restitution and court costs, as well as be subject to certain other restrictions for a period of time (likely being forbidden from playing online computer games for 2 years). (But keep in mind he would very likely have been in prison for more than a year if his family had not put up the bail money.)
young man sentenced to 20 years for false emergency phone call
It's kind of an unusual and bizzarre type of situation.
That's because we still live in a free country, but it's changing quickly. No, you won't get a knock on your door for posting your anger and dissatisfaction with the government because you are not very effective or influencing enough people, but try opening a YouTube channel and do the same. Once you become effective by gaining thousands of followers & subscribers, the situation changes. You still won't get a knock on the door, but you will quickly find yourself getting censored or even banned.
This is exactly what's happening to many conservative voices today as the most powerful social media outlets collude with certain leftist political forces. It's the beginning of the end of free speech in America.
No you won't get a knock on your door anytime soon, but you may already be on a government list that classifies what your political status is. Many years down the road if we are unable to stop this this country from changing, you will eventually be impacted in a negative way.
Study what's happening in China. In China they have a system of social status. If you do everything as the government dictates, you are allowed more freedom. I only learned of this recently so I can't go into much detail, but this is the direction we are headed and social media is the one of the tools used to implement such a socialist communist system.
Here, i just googled it...
Maybe try doing a google search "How to make a pipe bomb" and then visit a couple of neo-Nazi sites.
Read what happened to one of the members in this forum, Peter Dow, in the UK. He was arrested for angrily making some comments on Twitter against the Queen, using moderately violent words, but in a way that was obviously in a figurative context. They searched his house, took his computer, and he said they took some of his important research papers from his house and never returned them.
He ranted on about it in a thread here:
Peter Dow's political defence to the "criminal tweets" charge (in Western Europe section)
It happened, but the narrative was contrived. There were 2 shooters, the girl saw them. Somebody died for sure, but the place was full of play actors, several caught on non-mainstream videos.
It was a staged, not spontaneous, event.
Separate names with a comma.