More "largely peaceful" Portland protests

[fredtoast]

(09-07-2020, 11:17 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: If there was then why didn't the DA file charges?  Your story presupposes that the fact that the police didn't arrest anyone precluded charges from ever being filed.  I have to say, Fred, you display an odd amount of naivete where criminal law is concerned.

I have already explained this. Police an DA don't arrest or prosecute the 2A guys because they see them as being on their same side.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(09-08-2020, 03:34 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I have already explained this. Police an DA don't arrest or prosecute the 2A guys because they see them as being on their same side.

Yes, you've stated you unsupported opinion in this regard.  I, for one, was shocked.

[fredtoast]

(09-07-2020, 11:17 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Neither did the people in the gated community of the McCloskey's.  How many of those protesters were charged?

There is a distinct diffetence between "exclusive" private property and "communal" privatw property also callef "common areas". Since the McCloskey's had no right to keep other people from using the street or sidewalk they can not claim that the presence of other people in these common areas was a direct threat to them.4

[fredtoast]

(09-08-2020, 03:38 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Yes, you've stated you unsupported opinion in this regard.  I, for one, was shocked.

I have provided facts to support my opinion. 2A protestors trespassed on property of Governors Mansion but were not charged.

[Belsnickel]

(09-08-2020, 03:44 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I have provided facts to support my opinion. 2A protestors trespassed on property of Governors Mansion but were not charged.

That's just anecdotal, though. I could pull up a video of some Proud Boys attacking a BLM protester and cops breaking it up and arresting the assailants in Portland, recently. Without any real data your assertion is highly subjective.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(09-08-2020, 03:42 PM)fredtoast Wrote: There is a distinct diffetence between "exclusive" private property and "communal" privatw property also callef "common areas". Since the McCloskey's had no right to keep other people from using the street or sidewalk they can not claim that the presence of other people in these common areas was a direct threat to them.4

But the McCloskey's felt "intimidated", that's apparently all you think is needed to be charged.

(09-08-2020, 03:44 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I have provided facts to support my opinion. 2A protestors trespassed on property of Governors Mansion but were not charged.

Because they didn't break the law.  You always ignore what you can't nitpick or explain away, just refer to my post above about protected speech and criminal threats.  The SCOTUS solved this little conundrum for you decades ago.  

[fredtoast]

(09-07-2020, 11:17 PM)Sociopathicsteel Wrote:  
Oh, the protesters burned a cross?  

No they burnef an image of the governor but this is very similar under the law to the burning of a cross.

Without any other facts both would be protected symbolic speech. But if there is other evidence of an intent to cause fear or intimidation they can lead to criminal charges.

[fredtoast]

(09-08-2020, 03:48 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Because they didn't break the law.  

How did they not commit a trespass if they were on exclusive private property without the owners consent?

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(09-08-2020, 03:49 PM)fredtoast Wrote: No they burnef an image of the governor but this is very similar under the law to the burning of a cross.

Without any other facts both would be protected symbolic speech. But if there is other evidence of an intent to cause fear or intimidation they can lead to criminal charges.

Isn't protesting outside someone's house the very definition of attempting to intimidate them?  Also, the key word is "can", not will or shall.  You're still ignoring the SCOTUS ruling btw.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(09-08-2020, 03:57 PM)fredtoast Wrote: How did they not commit a trespass if they were on exclusive private property without the owners consent?

Were they?  Is the Governor's residence on exclusive private property in KY?  Is it not paid for with public funds, therefore making it the exact opposite of exclusively private?  I do appreciate your starting to show a modicum of respect for private property rights though, although you threw in the word "exclusive" for obvious reasons.  But, regardless trespassing on private property, exclusive or not, is still trespassing.

[fredtoast]

(09-08-2020, 03:48 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: But the McCloskey's felt "intimidated", that's apparently all you think is needed to be charged

No. There has to be evidence of an intent to intimidate or evidence that a "reasonable person" would have felt intimidated.

Dozens of people lived all around the McCloskey's and none of them felt intimidated. Hard to claim the McCloskey's were the only reasonable people in the entire neighbirhood. Especially with all the evidence that they are extreme assholes and pretty much the opposite of "reasonable" people.

[fredtoast]

(09-08-2020, 04:01 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Were they?  Is the Governor's residence on exclusive private property in KY? 

Yes it absolutely is.  If it was not then they would not be building a wall around it now to keep protestors out in the future.

You are welcome for the education.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(09-08-2020, 04:04 PM)fredtoast Wrote: No. There has to be evidence of an intent to intimidate or evidence that a "reasonable person" would have felt intimidated.

Would a reasonable person be intimidated by protected speech?

Quote:Dozens of people lived all around the McCloskey's and none of them felt intimidated. Hard to claim the McCloskey's were the only reasonable people in the entire neighbirhood. Especially with all the evidence that they are extreme assholes and pretty much the opposite of "reasonable" people.

I doubt the first part of that statement is entirely true.  Also, "assholes" are just as subject to being intimidated as anyone else.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(09-08-2020, 04:08 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Yes it absolutely is.  If it was not then they would not be building a wall around it now to keep protestors out in the future.

A wall like the one around the McCluskey's community?

Quote:You are welcome for the education.

Tucker Carlson called, he's coming to your place for his smarmy lessons around 5 PM. 

[fredtoast]

(09-08-2020, 03:47 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: That's just anecdotal, though. I could pull up a video of some Proud Boys attacking a BLM protester and cops breaking it up and arresting the assailants in Portland, recently. Without any real data your assertion is highly subjective.

But in the same state in the same month peaceful unarmed protestors were arrested for doing the exact same thing (trespassing) at the Attorney Generals home.

Got any video of police in Portland breaking up an assault committed by BLM members and letting the assailant go to contrast with them arresting the Proud Boy? 

[fredtoast]

(09-08-2020, 04:29 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: A wall like the one around the McCluskey's community?

No.  This is a wall around exclusive private property.  The governor can actually lock the gates and  keep anyone he wants from coming through it.  The wall around the McCroskey's community had open gates for walking and driving through that the McCroskey's could not lock or prevent other people form using.

Much different.

[fredtoast]

(09-08-2020, 04:27 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Would a reasonable person be intimidated by protected speech?

Language used the threaten or intimidate is not protected.

You can stand outside someone's house and protest, but if you threaten violence or intimidation it is not legal.

Cases are decided on what actually constitutes "intimidation".  Just walking down the street past a house is usually not considered a threat of violence or intimidation.

Burning someone in effigy and then intruding on his exclusive private property carrying guns usually is.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(09-08-2020, 06:39 PM)fredtoast Wrote: No.  This is a wall around exclusive private property.  The governor can actually lock the gates and  keep anyone he wants from coming through it.  The wall around the McCroskey's community had open gates for walking and driving through that the McCroskey's could not lock or prevent other people form using.

Much different.

A wall around private property nonetheless.  It is different though, you're right, in that it can be accessed by people given permission by those residing within the walls, otherwise it is still trespassing.  I do not recall the protesters ever stating they had permission or anyone else stating so.  hence, trespassing.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(09-08-2020, 06:45 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Language used the threaten or intimidate is not protected.

You can stand outside someone's house and protest, but if you threaten violence or intimidation it is not legal.

Cases are decided on what actually constitutes "intimidation".  Just walking down the street past a house is usually not considered a threat of violence or intimidation.

Burning someone in effigy and then intruding on his exclusive private property carrying guns usually is.

Well, clearly not in this case since no charges were filed or arrests made.  You still haven't addressed the SCOTUS case that directly addresses this issue.

[fredtoast]

(09-08-2020, 04:27 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I doubt the first part of that statement is entirely true.  

Of course you do.  But as usual you have zero evidence to back up your beliefs.  24 different families who were neighbors of the McCroskey's signed a letter condemning their actions..  .  .  https://www.kmov.com/news/mccloskey-condemn-neighbors-letter-gun-st-louis/article_6107683c-bc13-11ea-a3d4-2f87860c3f2f.html

(09-08-2020, 04:27 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Also, "assholes" are just as subject to being intimidated as anyone else.

True, "asshole" is subjective.  But there is plenty of evidence that the McCroskey's are not "reasonable" people.