'Trump Designates Antifa "A Terrorist Organization"'

[TECSHARE]

TECSHARE, did you read about how the actual bombing charges were dropped by the federal prosecutors?  It's been linked a cited to you several times now from the NYTimes article.  You're citing the NYTimes, so I'm just wondering...do you not understand or are you doing the whole willful ignorance thing again.

Nobody is saying she's innocent by the way.  Do you understand the difference?\

And topic sliding...really? We're only discussing this because you brought it up - and I only mentioned Flynn because Spendulus brought him up.  Would you prefer to be ignored?  Of course not.

TwattySqueal have you seen that squirrel over there? It is right next to that shiny object. I say confessed and convicted for supplying bombs for the purposes of violent terrorism and murder. You say "bombing charges dropped", as if oh well she isn't directly responsible for terrorist activity, so its not reprehensible so HEY LOOK OVER THERE! Did I mention Michael Fynn? You are defending terrorism. I don't give a shit if you ignore me. Have fun.

[1715209651]

1715209651

[1715209651]

1715209651

[1715209651]

1715209651

[1715209651]

1715209651

[Spendulus]

Interesting you never used the phrase "Plea Bargain" there, right? Because that's what both Rosenberg, and Flynn did, isn't it? "Plea Bargain" means do and say what the prosecutors tell you to do and say, and it does not matter if it's a pack of lies.

You think it's a shitty system and you're definitely not alone.

I'm just explaining what it means to be convicted of a crime in America, not saying it's the right or wrong way.

Good, we're almost in agreement on that except that I hold you can't trust the facts of what someone plea bargained to as what happened. Basically never. You can malign their character all you want, call them Felons or whatever, but you can't believe the DA's documents the guy was forced to sign as representing what actually happened.

[Spendulus]

...
I'm sure there will be plenty of avenues for this guys defense to consider, and maybe it really was an honest mistake.  All of my recent responses have simply been in response to the 'he was just driving down the highway, he can only be guilty of a traffic violation, the protesters were wrong first so that makes him less wrong' argument coming from tecshare and spendulus. 

What this situation boils down to is that if some people purposefully create chaos on the street, to the extent it occurred here, people are going to get hurt. That's part of the calculus of the puppet masters creating the chaos.

If you really want to look at the driver, you're really just one of the puppets.

[suchmoon]

Not trying to open a can of worm here, nor picking a side, but Techsahre pointed out that "closed" and "restrain" and "limit access" are different.
If the WSP had no authority to close it, then a good defense lawyer should be able to reduce the charges or even dismiss the case.

The police said the road was closed. There is no proof to the contrary. The accident was investigated and the driver was charged with vehicular homicide. Those are the facts that TECSHARE is trying to deny in favor of something he made up. If the driver or his lawyers can prove something else that's great but for now that's just baseless speculation.

[TwitchySeal]

...
I'm sure there will be plenty of avenues for this guys defense to consider, and maybe it really was an honest mistake.  All of my recent responses have simply been in response to the 'he was just driving down the highway, he can only be guilty of a traffic violation, the protesters were wrong first so that makes him less wrong' argument coming from tecshare and spendulus.  

What this situation boils down to is that if some people purposefully create chaos on the street, to the extent it occurred here, people are going to get hurt. That's part of the calculus of the puppet masters creating the chaos.

If you really want to look at the driver, you're really just one of the puppets.

What you're suggesting is that we should decriminalize criminal negligence based on who the victim is or what they were doing.

Think about that for a bit.  Look up the word negligent if you need to.

[TECSHARE]

What you're suggesting is that we should decriminalize criminal negligence based on who the victim is or what they were doing.

Think about that for a bit.  Look up the word negligent if you need to.

Yes, that is literally the existing criminal and to a lesser extent civil law on negligence.

I am going to quote this again, maybe you will read it this time.

Vehicular homicide is a thing and that's what you can get charged with if you go the wrong way (or do something similarly reckless with your car) and kill someone. A ticket is what you get when you're pulled over before killing someone.

The problem with your logic is that fault does not rest on the driver alone. If a bicycler was on a restricted highway for example, they would share some if not all of the liability. These roadways are restricted form pedestrians for a reason. Even on non-restricted roadways, if a person crosses the street outside of a crosswalk, they are legally seen to have partial if not full liability for any injuries.

You are also glossing over the fact that the driver did not cause injury while in the act of driving negligently. You argue the road was closed, but it was not officially closed, but "attempted" to be closed as an emergency protective measure for the people violating the law by blocking it. You seem to want to hold the driver fully responsible when the "protestors" made the most significant contributions towards making themselves unsafe.

"Criminal Negligence Law and Legal DefinitionCriminal negligence is negligence which requires a greater degree of culpability than the civil standard of negligence. The civil standard of negligence is defined according to a failure to follow the standard of conduct of a reasonable person in the same situation as the defendant. To show criminal negligence, the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt the mental state involved in criminal negligence."

https://definitions.uslegal.com/c/criminal-negligence/


"Contributory Negligence

The concept of contributory negligence is used to characterize conduct that creates an unreasonable risk to one's self. The idea is that an individual has a duty to act as a reasonable person. When a person does not act this way and injury occurs, that person may be held entirely or partially responsible for the resulting injury, even though another party was involved in the accident.For example, Dave, a motorist, strikes Sally, a pedestrian who was crossing the street without carefully checking traffic or heeding the warning of the do-not-cross sign of the nearby streetlight. Who's at fault in this situation?After an injured party files a negligence claim, the defendant (the person sued) may then assert a contributory negligence claim against the plaintiff (the person bringing the lawsuit), effectively stating that the injury occurred at least partially as a result of the plaintiff's own actions. This would be a contributory negligence counterclaim, a common defense to negligence claims.If the defendant is able to prove the contributory negligence claim, the plaintiff may be totally barred from recovering damages or her damages may be reduced to reflect her role in the resulting injury. The pedestrian in the example, Sally, probably would be considered at least partially at fault (and therefore liable for contributory negligence) for carelessly crossing the street.


Comparative Negligence

Most states have now adopted a comparative negligence approach to contributory negligence, wherein each party's negligence for a given injury is weighed when determining damages.Traditionally, the courts viewed contributory negligence as a total bar to the recovery of any damages. Under the traditional view, if a person had contributed to the accident in any way, the person was not entitled to compensation for his or her injuries. In an attempt to reduce the harsh, oftentimes unfair outcomes resulting from this approach, most states have now adopted a comparative negligence approach."

https://injury.findlaw.com/accident-injury-law/contributory-and-comparative-negligence.html



Under civil law, if a person fails to act reasonably and acts in such a manner to endanger themselves, the defendant may be liable for less, or have no liability at all. As you can see, criminal law sets a higher bar for negligence claims than does civil law, thus it is clear that a claim of criminal negligence on the part of the plaintiff simply would not hold water. This prosecution is purely a political one designed to appease the riot mob and has no basis in law.

The police said the road was closed. There is no proof to the contrary. The accident was investigated and the driver was charged with vehicular homicide. Those are the facts that TECSHARE is trying to deny in favor of something he made up. If the driver or his lawyers can prove something else that's great but for now that's just baseless speculation.

I haven't denied any of those things. Everything I am saying is fact. I sourced the criminal statutes as well as the relevant civil law on the matter. You strawman and distract with your old faithful, "NO U!"

[Spendulus]

What you're suggesting is that we should decriminalize criminal negligence based on who the victim is or what they were doing.

Think about that for a bit.  Look up the word negligent if you need to.

Yes, that is literally the existing criminal and to a lesser extent civil law on negligence.

I am going to quote this again, maybe you will read it this time.

Vehicular homicide is a thing and that's what you can get charged with if you go the wrong way (or do something similarly reckless with your car) and kill someone. A ticket is what you get when you're pulled over before killing someone.

The problem with your logic is that fault does not rest on the driver alone. If a bicycler was on a restricted highway for example, they would share some if not all of the liability. These roadways are restricted form pedestrians for a reason. Even on non-restricted roadways, if a person crosses the street outside of a crosswalk, they are legally seen to have partial if not full liability for any injuries.

You are also glossing over the fact that the driver did not cause injury while in the act of driving negligently. You argue the road was closed, but it was not officially closed, but "attempted" to be closed as an emergency protective measure for the people violating the law by blocking it. You seem to want to hold the driver fully responsible when the "protestors" made the most significant contributions towards making themselves unsafe.

"Criminal Negligence Law and Legal DefinitionCriminal negligence is negligence which requires a greater degree of culpability than the civil standard of negligence. The civil standard of negligence is defined according to a failure to follow the standard of conduct of a reasonable person in the same situation as the defendant. To show criminal negligence, the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt the mental state involved in criminal negligence."

https://definitions.uslegal.com/c/criminal-negligence/


"Contributory Negligence

The concept of contributory negligence is used to characterize conduct that creates an unreasonable risk to one's self. The idea is that an individual has a duty to act as a reasonable person. When a person does not act this way and injury occurs, that person may be held entirely or partially responsible for the resulting injury, even though another party was involved in the accident.For example, Dave, a motorist, strikes Sally, a pedestrian who was crossing the street without carefully checking traffic or heeding the warning of the do-not-cross sign of the nearby streetlight. Who's at fault in this situation?After an injured party files a negligence claim, the defendant (the person sued) may then assert a contributory negligence claim against the plaintiff (the person bringing the lawsuit), effectively stating that the injury occurred at least partially as a result of the plaintiff's own actions. This would be a contributory negligence counterclaim, a common defense to negligence claims.If the defendant is able to prove the contributory negligence claim, the plaintiff may be totally barred from recovering damages or her damages may be reduced to reflect her role in the resulting injury. The pedestrian in the example, Sally, probably would be considered at least partially at fault (and therefore liable for contributory negligence) for carelessly crossing the street.


Comparative Negligence

Most states have now adopted a comparative negligence approach to contributory negligence, wherein each party's negligence for a given injury is weighed when determining damages.Traditionally, the courts viewed contributory negligence as a total bar to the recovery of any damages. Under the traditional view, if a person had contributed to the accident in any way, the person was not entitled to compensation for his or her injuries. In an attempt to reduce the harsh, oftentimes unfair outcomes resulting from this approach, most states have now adopted a comparative negligence approach."

https://injury.findlaw.com/accident-injury-law/contributory-and-comparative-negligence.html



Under civil law, if a person fails to act reasonably and acts in such a manner to endanger themselves, the defendant may be liable for less, or have no liability at all. As you can see, criminal law sets a higher bar for negligence claims than does civil law, thus it is clear that a claim of criminal negligence on the part of the plaintiff simply would not hold water. This prosecution is purely a political one designed to appease the riot mob and has no basis in law.

The police said the road was closed. There is no proof to the contrary. The accident was investigated and the driver was charged with vehicular homicide. Those are the facts that TECSHARE is trying to deny in favor of something he made up. If the driver or his lawyers can prove something else that's great but for now that's just baseless speculation.

I haven't denied any of those things. Everything I am saying is fact. I sourced the criminal statutes as well as the relevant civil law on the matter. You strawman and distract with your old faithful, "NO U!"

I'd be okay with a court assigning 1/3, 1/3, 1/3 fault for negligence to each of the parties involved. The two that were struck and the driver.

[TECSHARE]

I'd be okay with a court assigning 1/3, 1/3, 1/3 fault for negligence to each of the parties involved. The two that were struck and the driver.

That might be the case if there were civil action. Criminally the standards are too high and there is court precedent showing this. The DA or whoever charged him knows this, this is just to appease the frothing mobs now, and furthermore use the fact that these charges won't stick as a way to rile up these mobs again later. This poor guy is just a scapegoat.

They are using peoples lives like toys to acheive their hive mind cultural revolutionary goals. Nothing they say means anything, everything is relative, postmodern, group think and they walk around injecting themselves into everyone else's lives for no other reason than the fact that they are allowed to. This isn't about race, they don't care about race, this is about ideology. It doesn't matter what color your skin is, if you don't agree with them then you are the untouchable class. They are happy to include people of all colors, just as long as they all think exactly the same.

[TwitchySeal]

What you're suggesting is that we should decriminalize criminal negligence based on who the victim is or what they were doing.

Think about that for a bit.  Look up the word negligent if you need to.

Yes, that is literally the existing criminal and to a lesser extent civil law on negligence.

No it's not. If someone dies due to your recklessness, it doesn't matter if they were also being reckless.  If the outcome was you dead and they survived, they'd be the one getting charged.\

I'd be okay with a court assigning 1/3, 1/3, 1/3 fault for negligence to each of the parties involved. The two that were struck and the driver.

That might be the case if there were civil action.

So more victims = less fault. And victims can be charged with manslaughter of themselves.  (Doesn't make sense)

[Spendulus]

What you're suggesting is that we should decriminalize criminal negligence based on who the victim is or what they were doing.

Think about that for a bit.  Look up the word negligent if you need to.

Yes, that is literally the existing criminal and to a lesser extent civil law on negligence.

No it's not. If someone dies due to your recklessness, it doesn't matter if they were also being reckless.  If the outcome was you dead and they survived, they'd be the one getting charged.\

I'd be okay with a court assigning 1/3, 1/3, 1/3 fault for negligence to each of the parties involved. The two that were struck and the driver.

That might be the case if there were civil action.

So more victims = less fault. And victims can be charged with manslaughter of themselves.  (Doesn't make sense)

May I throw out a scenario?

Marxist organizer (various invective stream here deleted) tells A, B, C, and D...

"Go up and take over that freeway. Stand in the way of any cars that try to get by. Don't worry they'll all stop."

I sure would charge this guy. Maybe not 100%.

[TECSHARE]

Yes, that is literally the existing criminal and to a lesser extent civil law on negligence.

No it's not. If someone dies due to your recklessness, it doesn't matter if they were also being reckless.  If the outcome was you dead and they survived, they'd be the one getting charged.\...

No. Determining fault in a criminal trial by definition includes the examination of what the plaintiff in the case potentially may have done to contribute to the damages. The standards for civil fault are pretty restrictive. The standards for criminal fault are very strict as far as the level of evidence needed. I have sourced these statues, and legal precedents above. You just keep denying this is the case and substantiate nothing.

[Gyfts]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t7vlKbR3Gcs

Exact reason why Antifa was declared a terrorist organization. Like clock work, because Trump takes a stance against antifa and sends in federal troops to protect federal property, he's made Nancy Pelosi inadvertently defend antifa.

[Spendulus]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t7vlKbR3Gcs

Exact reason why Antifa was declared a terrorist organization. Like clock work, because Trump takes a stance against antifa and sends in federal troops to protect federal property, he's made Nancy Pelosi inadvertently defend antifa.

Not the whole story, though. People on this forum were more or less "defending" Antifa. At the least, they were arguing that it was untouchable due to being an amorphous blob.

And the Democratic Party is morphing into a very different thing. First it went authoritarian totalitarian, now it brings back the Brownshirts.

Script that's definitely been played out before.

[nutildah]

Exact reason why Antifa was declared a terrorist organization.

Uh, except that didn't happen. Antifa has never been "declared a terrorist organization."

Trump can declare Antifa a terrorist organization like I can declare rare-cooked steak to be gross. Both have zero impact on any sort of legality or standing of anything. This whole thread is based on a non-event, but why let that get in the way of righteous reinforcement of manufactured indignation.


"NRA Accidentally Forgets To Rise Up Against Tyrannical Government"

https://www.theshovel.com.au/2020/06/04/nra-accidentally-forgets-to-rise-up-against-tyrannical-government

[TECSHARE]

Exact reason why Antifa was declared a terrorist organization.

Uh, except that didn't happen. Antifa has never been "declared a terrorist organization."

Trump can declare Antifa a terrorist organization like I can declare rare-cooked steak to be gross. Both have zero impact on any sort of legality or standing of anything. This whole thread is based on a non-event, but why let that get in the way of righteous reinforcement of manufactured indignation.


"NRA Accidentally Forgets To Rise Up Against Tyrannical Government"

https://www.theshovel.com.au/2020/06/04/nra-accidentally-forgets-to-rise-up-against-tyrannical-government

"Feds Have Reportedly Classified Their Activities as 'Domestic Terrorist Violence'"

https://www.newsweek.com/are-antifa-terrorists-658396

[TwitchySeal]

Exact reason why Antifa was declared a terrorist organization.

Uh, except that didn't happen. Antifa has never been "declared a terrorist organization."

Trump can declare Antifa a terrorist organization like I can declare rare-cooked steak to be gross. Both have zero impact on any sort of legality or standing of anything. This whole thread is based on a non-event, but why let that get in the way of righteous reinforcement of manufactured indignation.


"NRA Accidentally Forgets To Rise Up Against Tyrannical Government"

https://www.theshovel.com.au/2020/06/04/nra-accidentally-forgets-to-rise-up-against-tyrannical-government

If you believe Trump then anything is possible and comes with plenty of click bait to show as proof to the poor fools who suffer from TDS.

[Spendulus]

Exact reason why Antifa was declared a terrorist organization.

Uh, except that didn't happen. Antifa has never been "declared a terrorist organization."

Trump can declare Antifa a terrorist organization like I can declare rare-cooked steak to be gross. Both have zero impact on any sort of legality or standing of anything. This whole thread is based on a non-event, but why let that get in the way of righteous reinforcement of manufactured indignation.


"NRA Accidentally Forgets To Rise Up Against Tyrannical Government"

https://www.theshovel.com.au/2020/06/04/nra-accidentally-forgets-to-rise-up-against-tyrannical-government

If you believe Trump then anything is possible and comes with plenty of click bait to show as proof to the poor fools who suffer from TDS.

If you believe ORANGEMANBAD then

Russia, Mueller, Impeachment, Antifa Good, ...

But who's pulling your strings? Who has made a puppet out of you?

(Twitch don't need to answer, he done been figured out)

[yhiaali3]

In fact Antifa is a left-wing anti-fascist and Nazi protesters movement opposed to capitalism, neoliberalism and the extreme right as defined in the Wikipedia encyclopedia, and since Trump is an extreme right-wing, it is not surprising that he describes them as a terrorist organization.
In fact, Trump does not describe Antifa only as terrorist, but any organization that opposes Trump's plans and interests. In his view, it is terrorism. This is not only Trump's policy but it is the policy of the United States in general, they use these designations as they like, for example the United States was supporting the organization Al Qaeda when it was fighting the Soviets in Afghanistan and did not call it a terrorist, but when the Soviet Union disintegrated the United States began fighting Al Qaeda and calling it a terrorist organization.

[TwitchySeal]

Exact reason why Antifa was declared a terrorist organization.

Uh, except that didn't happen. Antifa has never been "declared a terrorist organization."

Trump can declare Antifa a terrorist organization like I can declare rare-cooked steak to be gross. Both have zero impact on any sort of legality or standing of anything. This whole thread is based on a non-event, but why let that get in the way of righteous reinforcement of manufactured indignation.


"NRA Accidentally Forgets To Rise Up Against Tyrannical Government"

https://www.theshovel.com.au/2020/06/04/nra-accidentally-forgets-to-rise-up-against-tyrannical-government

If you believe Trump then anything is possible and comes with plenty of click bait to show as proof to the poor fools who suffer from TDS.

If you believe ORANGEMANBAD then

Russia, Mueller, Impeachment, Antifa Good, ...

But who's pulling your strings? Who has made a puppet out of you?

(Twitch don't need to answer, he done been figured out)

The idea that someone who thinks Trump is bad must also think Antifa is good is a pretty good political message for Trump to keep repeating as the election gets closer. Part of the "I am good they are bad, if I lose the country will be destroyed" mantra.  Antifa has basically become a tool for Trump to label all who are against him and then openly attack.

Only minimal critical thinking skills are needed to realize how ridiculous this is - but people with those skills mostly have TDS now.

[Gyfts]

Exact reason why Antifa was declared a terrorist organization.

Uh, except that didn't happen. Antifa has never been "declared a terrorist organization."

Trump can declare Antifa a terrorist organization like I can declare rare-cooked steak to be gross. Both have zero impact on any sort of legality or standing of anything. This whole thread is based on a non-event, but why let that get in the way of righteous reinforcement of manufactured indignation.


"NRA Accidentally Forgets To Rise Up Against Tyrannical Government"

https://www.theshovel.com.au/2020/06/04/nra-accidentally-forgets-to-rise-up-against-tyrannical-government

What never surprises me is the reluctance to condemn Antifa behavior by people for the mere fact that Trump is in the picture and takes a strong stance against mob terrorist-like actions by white college aged kids dressed in all black. You get caught up in the declaration of a label more-so than the fact that Antifa has caused over 20 million dollars worth of damage in the last 6 weeks alone and have repeatedly tried to deface federal buildings including numerous attacks on law enforcement and innocent civilians.

But I guess these actions are considered nonevents.