• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Protestor to be tried again for ***LAUGHING****

Laughter isn't the actual reason she was arrested. She and other "Code Pink" demonstrators had a couple times before been arrested for disrupting Congress. Yes, she did laugh but was also disruptive with the demonstration and refused to leave the chamber when asked to by security so they arrested her and drug her out.


 
OK. So her crime is disrupting a bunch of jerks.

Sounds like she deserves a reward.
 
skepticalbip said:
Laughter isn't the actual reason she was arrested. She and other "Code Pink" demonstrators had a couple times before been arrested for disrupting Congress. Yes, she did laugh but was also disruptive with the demonstration and refused to leave the chamber when asked to by security so they arrested her and drug her out.
Click to expand...

So it's a drug bust?
 
She is a nutburger anyway.
yiwvtgbnatzoyrscb7ye.jpg
 
untermensche said:
OK. So her crime is disrupting a bunch of jerks.

Sounds like she deserves a reward.
Click to expand...

As the ole saying goes, there's a time and place for all things. What I object to is the farsical notion that she is being tried for laughing. Laughing isn't illegal. It's no more illegal than is walking, and when a person trespasses by walking on prohibited land, it's not the walking that is unlawful but the trespassing. In the case of the original post, the crime might very well be the distruption, but it's certainly not the form of disruption that constitutes the behavior as unlawful.

When a driver leads the police on a high speed chase, he might understandably be charged with felony evasion. The assertion that he was arrested for driving is absurd. Yes, it's illegal to drive as depicted in the example, yet it's highly misleading to argue that since that instance was an instance where he was driving illegally that he was arrested for driving. It's the evasion, not the form of it, that constitutes the behavior as wrongful.

Now to you. To make this easy for you, I'll stipulate that the crime is a disruption (since it might very well be that the disruption is unlawful), but an important distinction 'sounds' like it might have escaped you. Even if it's true she criminally disrupted a bunch of jerks, the purported fact that a bunch of jerks were disrupted plays no part in what constitutes the crime. In other words, the crime is not disrupting a bunch of jerks --even if it's true that she criminally disrupted a bunch of jerks. That a bunch of jerks might have been disrupted is incidental. What is unlawful (or so it appears to be) is the disruption in that venue.

Perhaps your ears need adjusting.
 
fast said:
untermensche said:
OK. So her crime is disrupting a bunch of jerks.

Sounds like she deserves a reward.
Click to expand...

As the ole saying goes, there's a time and place for all things. What I object to is the farsical notion that she is being tried for laughing. Laughing isn't illegal. It's no more illegal than is walking, and when a person trespasses by walking on prohibited land, it's not the walking that is unlawful but the trespassing. In the case of the original post, the crime might very well be the distruption, but it's certainly not the form of disruption that constitutes the behavior as unlawful.

When a driver leads the police on a high speed chase, he might understandably be charged with felony evasion. The assertion that he was arrested for driving is absurd. Yes, it's illegal to drive as depicted in the example, yet it's highly misleading to argue that since that instance was an instance where he was driving illegally that he was arrested for driving. It's the evasion, not the form of it, that constitutes the behavior as wrongful.

Now to you. To make this easy for you, I'll stipulate that the crime is a disruption (since it might very well be that the disruption is unlawful), but an important distinction 'sounds' like it might have escaped you. Even if it's true she criminally disrupted a bunch of jerks, the purported fact that a bunch of jerks were disrupted plays no part in what constitutes the crime. In other words, the crime is not disrupting a bunch of jerks --even if it's true that she criminally disrupted a bunch of jerks. That a bunch of jerks might have been disrupted is incidental. What is unlawful (or so it appears to be) is the disruption in that venue.

Perhaps your ears need adjusting.
Click to expand...

No. Your worshiping of complete assholes with power needs adjusting.
 
untermensche said:
fast said:
As the ole saying goes, there's a time and place for all things. What I object to is the farsical notion that she is being tried for laughing. Laughing isn't illegal. It's no more illegal than is walking, and when a person trespasses by walking on prohibited land, it's not the walking that is unlawful but the trespassing. In the case of the original post, the crime might very well be the distruption, but it's certainly not the form of disruption that constitutes the behavior as unlawful.

When a driver leads the police on a high speed chase, he might understandably be charged with felony evasion. The assertion that he was arrested for driving is absurd. Yes, it's illegal to drive as depicted in the example, yet it's highly misleading to argue that since that instance was an instance where he was driving illegally that he was arrested for driving. It's the evasion, not the form of it, that constitutes the behavior as wrongful.

Now to you. To make this easy for you, I'll stipulate that the crime is a disruption (since it might very well be that the disruption is unlawful), but an important distinction 'sounds' like it might have escaped you. Even if it's true she criminally disrupted a bunch of jerks, the purported fact that a bunch of jerks were disrupted plays no part in what constitutes the crime. In other words, the crime is not disrupting a bunch of jerks --even if it's true that she criminally disrupted a bunch of jerks. That a bunch of jerks might have been disrupted is incidental. What is unlawful (or so it appears to be) is the disruption in that venue.

Perhaps your ears need adjusting.
Click to expand...

No. Your worshiping of complete assholes with power needs adjusting.
Click to expand...
No, right and wrong went out the window a long time ago. I was taught by the legal authority in later life that I have to obey the law, morality be damned, so fuck people in tent city; if they are breaking the law, crucify them. Now, when we can live by whatever shades of moral gray we individually see fit with the laws governing our behavior, law be damned, we can talk. Until then, let the righteous suffer and cry. If you have broken the law, then reason and logic and compassion and dare I say humanity is brought to a crippling halt. I'm all for changing the law, but until it happens, if hiding a slave is unlawful, then you oughta go down right along with your moral convictions. In other words, if I'm going to be held to abide by the law with no moral consideration, then blessed is the day people in the right go down by laws that should not be.
 
Don't attend conferences if you can't keep your mouth shut. Why is this such a hard thing for some people to understand?
 
There is no precedent that behavior being so disruptive that it requires arrest. None.
Assuming that it was truly disruptive (as opposed to embarrassing a Republican congressman), an escort out of the chamber was sufficient.

When laughing (even uncontrollably or too loudly) during a Congressional committee hearing is considered to a justification for arrest and prosecution, this country has a serious mental health problem.
 
whichphilosophy said:
Kosh said:
Where is the outrage over this?

http://www.cnn.com/2017/09/01/politics/doj-woman-laughed-jeff-sessions-confirmation-hearing/index.html

Bad enough they did it once, the Nazi hoods just went let it go.
Click to expand...


Whether we agree or disagree doesn't people the right to try to ridicule government appointments and anything else in the US democratic traditions and has nothing to do with bogeymen such as Nazi hoods.

Unless she has priors, a caution should have been sufficient.
Click to expand...

You're right, the first ammendment does that, you know that first ammendment which people on the right get all wet for up until its no longer convenient for them? So where's the libertarian outrage?
 
Last edited:
fast said:
untermensche said:
No. Your worshiping of complete assholes with power needs adjusting.
Click to expand...
No, right and wrong went out the window a long time ago. I was taught by the legal authority in later life that I have to obey the law, morality be damned, so fuck people in tent city; if they are breaking the law, crucify them. Now, when we can live by whatever shades of moral gray we individually see fit with the laws governing our behavior, law be damned, we can talk. Until then, let the righteous suffer and cry. If you have broken the law, then reason and logic and compassion and dare I say humanity is brought to a crippling halt. I'm all for changing the law, but until it happens, if hiding a slave is unlawful, then you oughta go down right along with your moral convictions. In other words, if I'm going to be held to abide by the law with no moral consideration, then blessed is the day people in the right go down by laws that should not be.
Click to expand...

So, you are agreeing with unter that you have a slavish, groveling, devotion to authority?
 
LordKiran said:
whichphilosophy said:
Whether we agree or disagree doesn't people the right to try to ridicule government appointments and anything else in the US democratic traditions and has nothing to do with bogeymen such as Nazi hoods.

Unless she has priors, a caution should have been sufficient.
Click to expand...

You're right, the first ammendment does that, you know that first ammendment which people on the right get all wet for up until its no longer convenient for them? So where's the libertarian outrage?
Click to expand...

The First Amendment is a bring-your-own-soapbox rule. You don't get to go into someone else's private space and protest.
 
Loren Pechtel said:
LordKiran said:
You're right, the first ammendment does that, you know that first ammendment which people on the right get all wet for up until its no longer convenient for them? So where's the libertarian outrage?
Click to expand...

The First Amendment is a bring-your-own-soapbox rule. You don't get to go into someone else's private space and protest.
Click to expand...
She was not in someone else's private space - she was at a public Congressional hearing at the Capitol.
 
J842P said:
fast said:
No, right and wrong went out the window a long time ago. I was taught by the legal authority in later life that I have to obey the law, morality be damned, so fuck people in tent city; if they are breaking the law, crucify them. Now, when we can live by whatever shades of moral gray we individually see fit with the laws governing our behavior, law be damned, we can talk. Until then, let the righteous suffer and cry. If you have broken the law, then reason and logic and compassion and dare I say humanity is brought to a crippling halt. I'm all for changing the law, but until it happens, if hiding a slave is unlawful, then you oughta go down right along with your moral convictions. In other words, if I'm going to be held to abide by the law with no moral consideration, then blessed is the day people in the right go down by laws that should not be.
Click to expand...

So, you are agreeing with unter that you have a slavish, groveling, devotion to authority?
Click to expand...
I'm pretty confident that it's philosophically unacceptable for Unter and I to agree on anything.
 
laughing dog said:
Loren Pechtel said:
The First Amendment is a bring-your-own-soapbox rule. You don't get to go into someone else's private space and protest.
Click to expand...
She was not in someone else's private space - she was at a public Congressional hearing at the Capitol.
Click to expand...

But attempting to disrupt such an event is worthy of the Bum's rush. A democracy also attracts undemocratic elements such as those fantasize about a violent people's revolution.

She is just a reflection of the Butt Hurt collectives who continue to vocally shut down free speech of others by any means possible.

There's no need to glorify such characters with trials etc unless this sort of thing becomes a commonplace tactic.

Can you imagine what would happen if someone did that in a communist country??
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom