Utopia Talk - Politics - Case against Proud Boys

Welcome to the Utopia Forums! Register a new account
The current time is Fri Apr 26 12:01:22 2024

Utopia Talk / Politics / Case against Proud Boys

Im better then you
2012 UP Football Champ Mon Mar 01 22:24:05
These people were mistaken for ANTIFA by cultists.

http://www...3/01/proud-boys-capitol-472012

Cherub Cow
Member Tue Mar 02 02:30:43
"“All of this mayhem plainly envisioned that those carrying out Defendant’s stated vision ... would at least attempt to destroy federal government property and force their way inside the building,” the government brief said. “There was simply no other way for them to enter the Capitol building.”"

False; there do indeed exist alternate means of entry. Capitol Police are allowed to let people into the building during business hours at their discretion. At some point, the call was made to open the doors and allow protestors to enter ( http://twitter.com/christina_bobb/status/1347596278583197698 ). Whether or not this was a call due to the inevitability of entry or an attempt to stop destruction, the fact stands that property damage is not the only way to gain entry.

..
If the article is somewhat true otherwise (hard to say, since Politico was sure to insert a lot of bias and leave out the word "allegedly" from some key statements), it would seem that at least one or two of these protestors were taking tips from Antifa. Antifa is known in particular for coordinating with BaoFeng radios ( http://survivalblog.com/2020/09/01/intelligence-gathering-protests-j-d/ ). Antifa also crowd-sources travel arrangements and trades tactical gear for protests (though it is not unusual for militias to do the same). They also fan out their lieutenants to recruit useful idiots from the crowd (quietly inciting other people to take action without implicating themselves). They also record police attacks and selectively release edited video to make one side look like villains (falsely paint the initiators of violence to maximize public outcry).

Politico points out the presence of many of these Antifa symptoms in the article, which further shows that it was not at all absurd that "conspiracy theorists" were claiming Antifa presence at the Capitol.

But, it looks like courts have only one or two people under the Proud Boys umbrella to charge for coordination. As for Nordean, it sounds like the courts have abused their discretion, keeping him in solitary confinement well beyond reasonable precedent (pages 2–4 http://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000177-f0c0-d750-a77f-f4f1864c0000 ). They also have a flimsy chain of causality for Nordean's coordination of others (p5 of same). The government also misrepresented former rulings in their complaints (p6), and they have no evidence to back up the assertion that mass coordination occurred (p9). Nordean did not even have a radio until after the Capitol event (p11).

Chrestman, on the other hand, may have a legitimate violence case against him, but Politico does not mention him at all.

jergul
large member Tue Mar 02 02:51:49
wow, can you do holocaust denial next?

The assembly was already illegal and had pressed through police barricades outside the buildings.. Opening doors for whatever reason does not imply the insurrectionists now had legal access to the buildings.

Cherub Cow
Member Thu Mar 04 06:27:46
[jergul]: "Opening doors for whatever reason does not imply the insurrectionists now had legal access to the buildings."

Using direction quotations, show me where that claim was made. I'll give you a hint: you're retarded.

jergul
large member Thu Mar 04 08:17:57
I am happy for as long as you accept that force was used to enter federal property and that was the only way to enter federal property.

You seemed to have argued differently in your initial post, but I accept your full retreat from that position.

Rugian
Member Thu Mar 04 08:53:22
Turtle Crawler, can you write a script that automatically identifies every instance of jergul using the word "insurrectionists" and changes them to "rioters?"

I know that English is jergul's second language, but his confusion over those two terms is really annoying.

Rugian
Member Thu Mar 04 09:04:29
CC

Bit of a tangent, but Politico is a really frustrating source. They have great inside access in the Beltway, but their articles are so heavily slanted and editorialized that you're basically reading a blended news/opinion piece half the time.

The news media as a whole is reverting to the era of yellow journalism, and its sad.

patom
Member Thu Mar 04 09:04:33
They could rightly be described as Rioting Insurrectionists.

Rugian
Member Thu Mar 04 09:14:27
Patom

Here's the dictionary definition of insurrection:

"insurrection (against somebody/something) a situation in which a large group of people try to take political control of their own country with violence"

The question therefore is whether the rioters as a whole intended to *forcefully* seize control of the country by *compelling* legislators to overturn the election.

The answer for the large majority of the crowd is no. Yes, they broke into the Capitol, but then they just proceeded to march around and make a display of themselves. Outside a handful of individuals, no one was seriously attempting to find Congressmen, put guns to their heads, and force them to de-certify the election results.

They therefore were not insurrectionists. Rioters, yes, insurrectionists, no.

patom
Member Thu Mar 04 11:51:45
Red apples and green apples. They were dancing on a thin wire.

The vast majority of them had no idea that they were being manipulated into doing what Trump would never have the balls to do on his own. The fact remains that those who went inside the Capital Building were breaking the law. Whether they led the charge or just followed. They all inside were breaking the law. Those that remained outside the Capital Building were exercising their right to protest.

jergul
large member Thu Mar 04 11:52:18
Ruggy
I think a rather large % thought they were forcefully doing their part and expected their actions to result in Trump retaining power.

Rugian
Member Thu Mar 04 11:53:24
Patom

No one is disputing that they broke the law.

My point is that breaking the law and committing insurrection are two different things, and should not be conflate with each other.

habebe
Member Thu Mar 04 12:03:29
I beleive the charges are disorderly conduct and trespassing.

patom
Member Thu Mar 04 12:07:12
Habebe, those are just the present charges. As the investigation progress, I have a feeling that you are going to see many additional charges. I believe that there will be other charged who may never have even been there.

jergul
large member Thu Mar 04 12:37:34
Ruggy
You don't get to ask for nuance. Very few Americans do.

Cherub Cow
Member Mon Mar 08 00:52:55
lol.. look how Jergul builds his "evidence" in desperate ad hoc hypothesis — the fucking idiot :D

Jergul's initial claim:
[jergul]: "Opening doors for whatever reason does not imply the insurrectionists now had legal access to the buildings."

So here we see that Jergul misrepresents my position by claiming that I said that the protestors had "legal access to the buildings". I call him out on this:

[CC]: "show me where that claim was made."

He responds not by presenting evidence to support his claim but by changing his position but pretending that he didn't — in fact, he pretends that *I* changed my position:

[jergul]: "I am happy for as long as you accept that force was used to enter federal property and that was the only way to enter federal property. [/] You seemed to have argued differently in your initial post, but I accept your full retreat from that position."

See, now he pretends that the criteria was only ever that there were alternate means of entering the building besides force. That is, In his goldfish mind, he forgot that his initial position was actually that I had claimed that the protestors had "legal access to the buildings", but now he's changed it to "accept that force was used".

In other words, by being a complete fucking idiot who is so disingenuous and so retarded that he cannot put his socks on before his shoes, Jergul changes the debate around his own incompetence, creating even more incompetence in the process. He is the compounded interest formula of incompetence. He changed his position and hoped that no one would notice.

Meanwhile, to restate my actual position before Jergul's idiotic derailing:
[Government Brief]: "There was simply no other way for them to enter the Capitol building" except by
(1) destroying "federal government property and"
(2) [forcing] "their way inside the building"
[My claim]: "there do indeed exist alternate means of entry" besides (1) and (2); here's a video of Capitol Police letting people into the building ( http://twitter.com/christina_bobb/status/1347596278583197698 ); those people did not use force or destroy property in order to enter. This was the case for many of the people who entered; they simply walked in.

..
[Rugian]: "The news media as a whole is reverting to the era of yellow journalism, and its sad."

Definitely; your description of Politico applies also to CNN. Reading their articles, they apply the blanket term of "insurrectionists" in a matter-of-fact form to anyone who was at the Capitol protest. They accept that narrative as their "one truth" and just roll with it, hoping that their low-level discourse readers will accept it as fact.

..
[patom]: "The fact remains that those who went inside the Capital Building were breaking the law."
[Rugian]: "My point is that breaking the law and committing insurrection are two different things, and should not be conflate with each other."

Yep; insurrection ≠ any law-breaking.
Many of these people will at most be charged with misdemeanor trespassing, and many of them will be able to get the charges dropped by simply showing video of Capitol Police inviting them in. A bigger question will only be whether or not protestors who walked in peacefully will have good representation in court. Any competent lawyer could have charges dropped for most of the selfie-snapping dawdlers.

This same situation occurred with trespassers on the McCloskeys' shared/private street. Entering that street was illegal, but many protestors were just following the crowd. Lawyers at first readied a case against 9 protestors who entered the street (likely because lawyers may have found evidence that these protestors in particular knew it was illegal, were at the front, were identifiable, or took additional trespassing steps), but charges against those protestors were dropped ( http://www.ksdk.com/article/news/local/st-louis-city-counselors-refuse-charges-against-protesters-accused-of-trespassing-in-mccloskey-case/63-989a40d3-259c-482c-b182-1f419af867dc ). A difference for the Capitol is that political pressure insists that charges be brought against the protestors; the DNC wants to spend the money. And because there's DNC willpower to get convictions, and many protestors do not know that a decent lawyer can get charges dismissed, the DNC will make some petty charges stick as "proof" for their narrative.

jergul
large member Mon Mar 08 01:26:21
CC
Comon, do the holocaust now. You know you want to :).

Cherub Cow
Member Mon Mar 08 01:57:08
As always, Jergul's response shows what a total fucking impotent idiot he is :)

jergul
large member Mon Mar 08 02:42:52
CC
As always, your responses show you are a shrill cat lady.

Its fun to watch you justify the forced entry into the capitol as "perhaps they were let in".

I would like to see you do the same with cattlewagons - "Look, they are getting out by themselves and lining up in an orderly fashion"

Knock yourself out. English major.

Cherub Cow
Member Mon Mar 08 04:40:32
[jergul]: "Its fun to watch you justify the forced entry into the capitol as "perhaps they were let in"."

"Perhaps"? Like, "perhaps" that video I posted is "perhaps" real? Or "perhaps" the video of Capitol Police waving people into the building is "perhaps" real? Or "perhaps" you're a fucking idiot? :D

jergul
large member Mon Mar 08 05:02:59
CC
See, it is fun watching you justify the forced entry into the capitol. The saga of the cat lady continues to add new chapters :D

Your speculations on how capitol police invoked crowd control measures to limit the harm to people and property are entirely irrelevant.

No one is being let in anywhere after they breech police barricades.

Why do you care? New prison pen pals that need you to keyboard warrior for them before they will even entertain a marriage proposal?

Cherub Cow
Member Mon Mar 08 05:14:14
[jergul]: "No one is being let in anywhere after they breech police barricades."

False. Watch the videos, you evidence-denying retard :p

jergul
large member Mon Mar 08 05:27:57
CC
Crowd control tactics are not relevant after the breech, cat lady.

But lets wait and see if your boyfrieds are sentenced or not, shall we?

Let the courts weigh the evidence.

Cherub Cow
Member Mon Mar 08 08:18:19
[jergul]: "Crowd control tactics are not relevant after the breech"

False on several levels. Firstly, there was not one "breech", so "the breech" is fallacious language. Second, your "not relevant" non-point does not contradict that these criteria were not met in many cases:
(1) destroying "federal government property and"
(2) [forcing] "their way inside the building"

The simple fact remains that those two criteria did not have to be met by every person there in order for access to the Capitol Building to be achieved. Quite the opposite. We know that entries that were not breached by force were opened from the inside, allowing people to enter. To dispute this point is to dispute the facts themselves.

Anyways, this probably concludes my pro bono work with your Special Olympics appearance in this thread; I won't even put this on my taxes as a charitable donation of my time. I have appreciated the persistent comedy of your idiocy, however. Good luck, and wear your helmet! :D

jergul
large member Mon Mar 08 10:00:06
CC
The capitol was breeched by force and crowd control tactics after that point are irrelevant.

Though ultimately, we will just let the courts way the evidence and see what is proven beyond any reasonable doubt.

Though, that would only prove you wrong, not me.

Which are your boyfriends in particularly are you hoping with get off by way of seaman lawyering?

My money is on you being fond of the 60 year old to be kept in jail until May. He seems the cat lady type.

show deleted posts

Im better then you 2012 UP Football Champ	Mon Mar 01 22:24:05 These people were mistaken for ANTIFA by cultists. http://www...3/01/proud-boys-capitol-472012
Cherub Cow Member	Tue Mar 02 02:30:43 "“All of this mayhem plainly envisioned that those carrying out Defendant’s stated vision ... would at least attempt to destroy federal government property and force their way inside the building,” the government brief said. “There was simply no other way for them to enter the Capitol building.”" False; there do indeed exist alternate means of entry. Capitol Police are allowed to let people into the building during business hours at their discretion. At some point, the call was made to open the doors and allow protestors to enter ( http://twitter.com/christina_bobb/status/1347596278583197698 ). Whether or not this was a call due to the inevitability of entry or an attempt to stop destruction, the fact stands that property damage is not the only way to gain entry. .. If the article is somewhat true otherwise (hard to say, since Politico was sure to insert a lot of bias and leave out the word "allegedly" from some key statements), it would seem that at least one or two of these protestors were taking tips from Antifa. Antifa is known in particular for coordinating with BaoFeng radios ( http://survivalblog.com/2020/09/01/intelligence-gathering-protests-j-d/ ). Antifa also crowd-sources travel arrangements and trades tactical gear for protests (though it is not unusual for militias to do the same). They also fan out their lieutenants to recruit useful idiots from the crowd (quietly inciting other people to take action without implicating themselves). They also record police attacks and selectively release edited video to make one side look like villains (falsely paint the initiators of violence to maximize public outcry). Politico points out the presence of many of these Antifa symptoms in the article, which further shows that it was not at all absurd that "conspiracy theorists" were claiming Antifa presence at the Capitol. But, it looks like courts have only one or two people under the Proud Boys umbrella to charge for coordination. As for Nordean, it sounds like the courts have abused their discretion, keeping him in solitary confinement well beyond reasonable precedent (pages 2–4 http://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000177-f0c0-d750-a77f-f4f1864c0000 ). They also have a flimsy chain of causality for Nordean's coordination of others (p5 of same). The government also misrepresented former rulings in their complaints (p6), and they have no evidence to back up the assertion that mass coordination occurred (p9). Nordean did not even have a radio until after the Capitol event (p11). Chrestman, on the other hand, may have a legitimate violence case against him, but Politico does not mention him at all.
jergul large member	Tue Mar 02 02:51:49 wow, can you do holocaust denial next? The assembly was already illegal and had pressed through police barricades outside the buildings.. Opening doors for whatever reason does not imply the insurrectionists now had legal access to the buildings.
Cherub Cow Member	Thu Mar 04 06:27:46 [jergul]: "Opening doors for whatever reason does not imply the insurrectionists now had legal access to the buildings." Using direction quotations, show me where that claim was made. I'll give you a hint: you're retarded.
jergul large member	Thu Mar 04 08:17:57 I am happy for as long as you accept that force was used to enter federal property and that was the only way to enter federal property. You seemed to have argued differently in your initial post, but I accept your full retreat from that position.
Rugian Member	Thu Mar 04 08:53:22 Turtle Crawler, can you write a script that automatically identifies every instance of jergul using the word "insurrectionists" and changes them to "rioters?" I know that English is jergul's second language, but his confusion over those two terms is really annoying.
Rugian Member	Thu Mar 04 09:04:29 CC Bit of a tangent, but Politico is a really frustrating source. They have great inside access in the Beltway, but their articles are so heavily slanted and editorialized that you're basically reading a blended news/opinion piece half the time. The news media as a whole is reverting to the era of yellow journalism, and its sad.
patom Member	Thu Mar 04 09:04:33 They could rightly be described as Rioting Insurrectionists.
Rugian Member	Thu Mar 04 09:14:27 Patom Here's the dictionary definition of insurrection: "insurrection (against somebody/something) a situation in which a large group of people try to take political control of their own country with violence" The question therefore is whether the rioters as a whole intended to forcefully seize control of the country by compelling legislators to overturn the election. The answer for the large majority of the crowd is no. Yes, they broke into the Capitol, but then they just proceeded to march around and make a display of themselves. Outside a handful of individuals, no one was seriously attempting to find Congressmen, put guns to their heads, and force them to de-certify the election results. They therefore were not insurrectionists. Rioters, yes, insurrectionists, no.
patom Member	Thu Mar 04 11:51:45 Red apples and green apples. They were dancing on a thin wire. The vast majority of them had no idea that they were being manipulated into doing what Trump would never have the balls to do on his own. The fact remains that those who went inside the Capital Building were breaking the law. Whether they led the charge or just followed. They all inside were breaking the law. Those that remained outside the Capital Building were exercising their right to protest.
jergul large member	Thu Mar 04 11:52:18 Ruggy I think a rather large % thought they were forcefully doing their part and expected their actions to result in Trump retaining power.
Rugian Member	Thu Mar 04 11:53:24 Patom No one is disputing that they broke the law. My point is that breaking the law and committing insurrection are two different things, and should not be conflate with each other.
habebe Member	Thu Mar 04 12:03:29 I beleive the charges are disorderly conduct and trespassing.
patom Member	Thu Mar 04 12:07:12 Habebe, those are just the present charges. As the investigation progress, I have a feeling that you are going to see many additional charges. I believe that there will be other charged who may never have even been there.
jergul large member	Thu Mar 04 12:37:34 Ruggy You don't get to ask for nuance. Very few Americans do.
Cherub Cow Member	Mon Mar 08 00:52:55 lol.. look how Jergul builds his "evidence" in desperate ad hoc hypothesis — the fucking idiot :D Jergul's initial claim: [jergul]: "Opening doors for whatever reason does not imply the insurrectionists now had legal access to the buildings." So here we see that Jergul misrepresents my position by claiming that I said that the protestors had "legal access to the buildings". I call him out on this: [CC]: "show me where that claim was made." He responds not by presenting evidence to support his claim but by changing his position but pretending that he didn't — in fact, he pretends that I changed my position: [jergul]: "I am happy for as long as you accept that force was used to enter federal property and that was the only way to enter federal property. [/] You seemed to have argued differently in your initial post, but I accept your full retreat from that position." See, now he pretends that the criteria was only ever that there were alternate means of entering the building besides force. That is, In his goldfish mind, he forgot that his initial position was actually that I had claimed that the protestors had "legal access to the buildings", but now he's changed it to "accept that force was used". In other words, by being a complete fucking idiot who is so disingenuous and so retarded that he cannot put his socks on before his shoes, Jergul changes the debate around his own incompetence, creating even more incompetence in the process. He is the compounded interest formula of incompetence. He changed his position and hoped that no one would notice. Meanwhile, to restate my actual position before Jergul's idiotic derailing: [Government Brief]: "There was simply no other way for them to enter the Capitol building" except by (1) destroying "federal government property and" (2) [forcing] "their way inside the building" [My claim]: "there do indeed exist alternate means of entry" besides (1) and (2); here's a video of Capitol Police letting people into the building ( http://twitter.com/christina_bobb/status/1347596278583197698 ); those people did not use force or destroy property in order to enter. This was the case for many of the people who entered; they simply walked in. .. [Rugian]: "The news media as a whole is reverting to the era of yellow journalism, and its sad." Definitely; your description of Politico applies also to CNN. Reading their articles, they apply the blanket term of "insurrectionists" in a matter-of-fact form to anyone who was at the Capitol protest. They accept that narrative as their "one truth" and just roll with it, hoping that their low-level discourse readers will accept it as fact. .. [patom]: "The fact remains that those who went inside the Capital Building were breaking the law." [Rugian]: "My point is that breaking the law and committing insurrection are two different things, and should not be conflate with each other." Yep; insurrection ≠ any law-breaking. Many of these people will at most be charged with misdemeanor trespassing, and many of them will be able to get the charges dropped by simply showing video of Capitol Police inviting them in. A bigger question will only be whether or not protestors who walked in peacefully will have good representation in court. Any competent lawyer could have charges dropped for most of the selfie-snapping dawdlers. This same situation occurred with trespassers on the McCloskeys' shared/private street. Entering that street was illegal, but many protestors were just following the crowd. Lawyers at first readied a case against 9 protestors who entered the street (likely because lawyers may have found evidence that these protestors in particular knew it was illegal, were at the front, were identifiable, or took additional trespassing steps), but charges against those protestors were dropped ( http://www.ksdk.com/article/news/local/st-louis-city-counselors-refuse-charges-against-protesters-accused-of-trespassing-in-mccloskey-case/63-989a40d3-259c-482c-b182-1f419af867dc ). A difference for the Capitol is that political pressure insists that charges be brought against the protestors; the DNC wants to spend the money. And because there's DNC willpower to get convictions, and many protestors do not know that a decent lawyer can get charges dismissed, the DNC will make some petty charges stick as "proof" for their narrative.
jergul large member	Mon Mar 08 01:26:21 CC Comon, do the holocaust now. You know you want to :).
Cherub Cow Member	Mon Mar 08 01:57:08 As always, Jergul's response shows what a total fucking impotent idiot he is :)
jergul large member	Mon Mar 08 02:42:52 CC As always, your responses show you are a shrill cat lady. Its fun to watch you justify the forced entry into the capitol as "perhaps they were let in". I would like to see you do the same with cattlewagons - "Look, they are getting out by themselves and lining up in an orderly fashion" Knock yourself out. English major.
Cherub Cow Member	Mon Mar 08 04:40:32 [jergul]: "Its fun to watch you justify the forced entry into the capitol as "perhaps they were let in"." "Perhaps"? Like, "perhaps" that video I posted is "perhaps" real? Or "perhaps" the video of Capitol Police waving people into the building is "perhaps" real? Or "perhaps" you're a fucking idiot? :D
jergul large member	Mon Mar 08 05:02:59 CC See, it is fun watching you justify the forced entry into the capitol. The saga of the cat lady continues to add new chapters :D Your speculations on how capitol police invoked crowd control measures to limit the harm to people and property are entirely irrelevant. No one is being let in anywhere after they breech police barricades. Why do you care? New prison pen pals that need you to keyboard warrior for them before they will even entertain a marriage proposal?
Cherub Cow Member	Mon Mar 08 05:14:14 [jergul]: "No one is being let in anywhere after they breech police barricades." False. Watch the videos, you evidence-denying retard :p
jergul large member	Mon Mar 08 05:27:57 CC Crowd control tactics are not relevant after the breech, cat lady. But lets wait and see if your boyfrieds are sentenced or not, shall we? Let the courts weigh the evidence.
Cherub Cow Member	Mon Mar 08 08:18:19 [jergul]: "Crowd control tactics are not relevant after the breech" False on several levels. Firstly, there was not one "breech", so "the breech" is fallacious language. Second, your "not relevant" non-point does not contradict that these criteria were not met in many cases: (1) destroying "federal government property and" (2) [forcing] "their way inside the building" The simple fact remains that those two criteria did not have to be met by every person there in order for access to the Capitol Building to be achieved. Quite the opposite. We know that entries that were not breached by force were opened from the inside, allowing people to enter. To dispute this point is to dispute the facts themselves. Anyways, this probably concludes my pro bono work with your Special Olympics appearance in this thread; I won't even put this on my taxes as a charitable donation of my time. I have appreciated the persistent comedy of your idiocy, however. Good luck, and wear your helmet! :D
jergul large member	Mon Mar 08 10:00:06 CC The capitol was breeched by force and crowd control tactics after that point are irrelevant. Though ultimately, we will just let the courts way the evidence and see what is proven beyond any reasonable doubt. Though, that would only prove you wrong, not me. Which are your boyfriends in particularly are you hoping with get off by way of seaman lawyering? My money is on you being fond of the 60 year old to be kept in jail until May. He seems the cat lady type.
	show deleted posts

Your Name:
Your Password:
Your Message: