Ottawa under seige by truck protestors

[VitaMan]

Blocking infrastructure passages, bridges, wrecking the economy, causing job losses.


Truckers are only doing damage.

[HedonistForever]

But it was sure as hell OK when Black Lives Matter was doing it. Remember "this is what democracy looks like"? Well, this is what Democracy looks like by "working people" exercising their right to protest.


I see several Canadian Provinces have or will soon drop vaccine mandates. So why doesn't Trudeau drop this authoritarian bullshit and end this. And would somebody please show me all these swastika's and Confederate flags because I have been watching this for a couple of weeks and I have seen one yet.


What do you get when you start calling working men and women Nazi's, when they are asking for the freedom to make decisions best for them and their family?


Run out of office, I hope.

[VitaMan]

Peaceful protest is fine and good, so your voice is heard. It doesn't give anyone the right to commit criminal acts.


Trumpites anyone ? Jan 6 riot is quickly being explained away by using terms such as "Pelosi led security failure" and "FBI government informants." Invented by Mr. Trump and his handlers and his former speech writer.

[winn dixie]

rioting and looting is ok but Truckers parked is not?

um k

[Salty Again]

... The truckers blocked the bridgeway and created
a Antifa-inspired Chop Zone...

What's wrong with that?

#### Salty

[HedonistForever]

Originally Posted by VitaMan

Peaceful protest is fine and good, so your voice is heard. It doesn't give anyone the right to commit criminal acts.


Trumpites anyone ? Jan 6 riot is quickly being explained away by using terms such as "Pelosi led security failure" and "FBI government informants." Invented by Mr. Trump and his handlers and his former speech writer.

Could you please list these "criminal acts" so we know what you are talking about. And didn't BLM commit the same acts without criminal prosecution and instead were hailed as hero's. And talk about criminal acts, is seizing private property, gas cans , etc. without a court order legal?

Did Pelosi lead a security failure? Wouldn't we have to see HER e-mails and documents to know but we aren't privy to those documents, are we.

And is it so out of the realm of possibility that the government had informants in the group in the face of the trial in Michigan where we find out that there were more informants in the gang than gang members?

And how in the world do you explain Ray Epps not being charged? He was by any account, a leader who said "let's go into the Capital" on live TV. If that isn't instigating insurrection which nobody has been charged with BTW, what the hell is?

And with all these murders and car jackers being let out of jail with no bond by Democrats, why are people guilty of only trespass, no assault, being held without bond?

[VitaMan]

You post logical posts, you have your agenda, and most of the above is WRONG.

[HedonistForever]

Originally Posted by VitaMan

You post logical posts, you have your agenda, and most of the above is WRONG.

Nice, you say most of what I say is wrong but you won't make any attempt to explain what is wrong and why. Kinda of cowardly in my book.


New rule, you can't say "you're wrong" and not explain how and why unless of course you can't.

[69in2it69]

Rioting, Inciting to Riot, and Related Offenses

Most states have their own laws that define what constitutes a riot and incitement to riot. Federal law defines a riot as a public disturbance involving three or more persons engaging in acts of violence with a clear and present danger of damage to property or injury to people. The law includes threats of violence if those involved have the ability to immediately act on the threat.

Inciting a riot, according to federal law, is defined as the acts of "organizing, promoting, encouraging, participating in a riot" and urging others to riot.

The criminal code clarifies that incitement is not the same as simply advocating ideas or expressing beliefs in speech or writing. In order to qualify as incitement, the speech must advocate violence, the rightness of violence, or the right to commit acts of violence.
Protected Speech Versus Incitement

Citizens have a right to free speech, granted by the First Amendment of the Constitution. The extent of that right has been continually tested, and strongly protected at all levels of government. But that right is not unlimited.

The Supreme Court found, in the case of Brandenburg v. Ohio, that speech is not constitutionally protected if it is intended to produce imminent lawless action and is likely to do so. However, the limits of free speech are still being defined in the courts. A recent Ninth Circuit decision found that statutory language in the federal riot statute that criminalizes "promoting" or "encouraging" a riot was overly broad.
Unlawful Assembly

The right to freedom of assembly found in the First Amendment of the Constitution is also not unlimited. Cities can regulate the right of peaceable assembly by requiring permits or limiting demonstrations to a designated area. If a group of people gathers with the intent to disturb the public peace, they could be charged with unlawful assembly or a similar offense.

The laws regarding unlawful assembly have been challenged on First Amendment grounds but have recently been upheld by the courts in New York and Massachusetts.

State and Federal Jurisdiction

State laws apply to anyone present in the state for the commission of the criminal act.

So, when would a person be charged under federal law?

If rioting occurs on federal lands, federal government buildings, VA hospitals, military bases, etc.
If the person traveled between states or countries to participate in a riot. (Though the law specifically states it is not intended to prevent travel for legitimate purposes.)
If the person used interstate or foreign commerce (internet, mail, telephone, radio, television, or social media) to communicate intent to:
"Incite a riot
Organize, promote, encourage, participate in, or carry on a riot
Commit any act of violence in furtherance of a riot
Aid or abet any person in inciting or participating in or carrying on a riot or committing any act of violence in furtherance of a riot."

I'd say maybe they don't have enough -yet- to get Ray if he didn't make any reference to violence or damage to property. My guess is they are going after the low hanging fruit and will circle back for clean up later and get a lot more. I wouldn't be sleeping well if I was him in any case.

[VitaMan]

Originally Posted by HedonistForever

Nice, you say most of what I say is wrong but you won't make any attempt to explain what is wrong and why. Kinda of cowardly in my book.


New rule, you can't say "you're wrong" and not explain how and why unless of course you can't.

When posts state this:


"And is it so out of the realm of possibility"


any discussion or explanation is already over with. Looks like you need a new book.

[The_Waco_Kid]

Originally Posted by HedonistForever

Nice, you say most of what I say is wrong but you won't make any attempt to explain what is wrong and why. Kinda of cowardly in my book.


New rule, you can't say "you're wrong" and not explain how and why unless of course you can't.

remember who you are dealing with. a guy who became "independently wealthy" because he said so on the internet.

Originally Posted by VitaMan

When posts state this:


"And is it so out of the realm of possibility"


any discussion or explanation is already over with. Looks like you need a new book.

if you say so

[HedonistForever]

Originally Posted by VitaMan

When posts state this:


"And is it so out of the realm of possibility"


any discussion or explanation is already over with. Looks like you need a new book.

Now that's funny. IT WAS QUESTION NOT A STATEMENT! Now if I had said "IT IS OUT OF.... ), that might be problematic but I didn't say that. Asking a question ends a discussion? WTF? I would say you need a new book but apparently, you don't read so good or is it your comprehension we should be talking about?

"Any discussion is already over with"? Why? Who is stopping you from further discussion especially if you think you can prove me wrong or get the better of me in debate.

You debate for shit.

[HedonistForever]

Originally Posted by 69in2it69

Rioting, Inciting to Riot, and Related Offenses

Most states have their own laws that define what constitutes a riot and incitement to riot. Federal law defines a riot as a public disturbance involving three or more persons engaging in acts of violence with a clear and present danger of damage to property

I don't see any property being damaged nor have I heard anybody say their property was damaged. Businesses have been shut down just like businesses were shut down when BLM rioted and burned down businesses and these were hero's to Democrats not criminals. Some Democrats actually went as far as to say "it's just property that can be replaced", so they weren't the least bit interested in protecting property and seemed to be cheering for the destruction of property. Many police dept. have now adopted the rule not to go after people only involved in the destruction of property only assault on people and only then depending on one's color, gender. If you are a Black, LBGTQ+, I guess you can do anything you damn well please.

or injury to people.

The only report I saw of somebody getting injured was when two cops tried to drag a 70 year old man out of his car for honking his horn and they injured him. But I'm here to be informed, how many people have been injured by the truckers?

The law includes threats of violence if those involved have the ability to immediately act on the threat.

Haven't heard a single threat of violence, but if you have, please post what you have found.They are saying they won't leave if you want to call that violence. No burning buildings, no assaults on innocent bystanders

Inciting a riot, according to federal law, is defined as the acts of "organizing, promoting, encouraging, participating in a riot" and urging others to riot.


Wait a minute, what was the definition of a RIOT?


persons engaging in acts of violence


So where is the violence?


The criminal code clarifies that incitement is not the same as simply advocating ideas or expressing beliefs in speech or writing.In order to qualify as incitement, the speech must advocate violence, the rightness of violence, or the right to commit acts of violence.
Protected Speech Versus Incitement


I mean, I've only watched a dozen hours or so, so I could have missed the interviews with truckers advocating violence or talking about the "righteousness of violence". FOX News has interviewed many of them and I didn't hear a single trucker advocate violence, NOT ONE! But maybe CNN or MSNBC found some, I couldn't say. At this point, I'm wondering if you have watched a single minute of this story because it sounds like you haven't or that you don't understand the definition of violence and "advocating". From what I have seen and my admittedly limited knowledge of the law, none of this would hold up in a court of law without proof. Where is the proof of violence which in my book is "physically injuring someone". Where is that clip?


Citizens have a right to free speech, granted by the First Amendment of the Constitution. The extent of that right has been continually tested, and strongly protected at all levels of government. But that right is not unlimited.

The Supreme Court found, in the case of Brandenburg v. Ohio, that speech is not constitutionally protected if it is intended to produce imminent lawless action and is likely to do so. However, the limits of free speech are still being defined in the courts. A recent Ninth Circuit decision found that statutory language in the federal riot statute that criminalizes "promoting" or "encouraging" a riot was overly broad.
Unlawful Assembly


Kinda damaged your argument, no? Again, after watching literally hours of film, I haven't seen or heard a single trucker ( I acknowledge that there could be ) "promote or encourge", a riot defined as "acts of violence".


The right to freedom of assembly found in the First Amendment of the Constitution is also not unlimited. Cities can regulate the right of peaceable assembly by requiring permits or limiting demonstrations to a designated area. If a group of people gathers with the intent to disturb the public peace, they could be charged with unlawful assembly or a similar offense.


Now THAT is all true but why wasn't that criminal when BLM or ANTIFA did it? All I'm asking for is equal justice under the law but after a whole summer of love with assaults, deaths and burning buildings, that went off without punishment, why is this "actual" peaceful protest now criminal?


The laws regarding unlawful assembly have been challenged on First Amendment grounds but have recently been upheld by the courts in New York and Massachusetts.

State and Federal Jurisdiction

State laws apply to anyone present in the state for the commission of the criminal act.


I'd say maybe they don't have enough -yet- to get Ray if he didn't make any reference to violence or damage to property.



Then you would agree that no trucker that hasn't made reference to violence or committed property damage, shouldn't be arrested? Just like EPPS?


My guess is they are going after the low hanging fruit and will circle back for clean up later and get a lot more. I wouldn't be sleeping well if I was him in any case.

If they can't get the man on TV saying "let's go into the Capital ( let's trespass ) then I guess he should sleep well because it sure sounds like he is a protected informant to me which of course I cannot prove, just an opinion. Wait, are we still allowed to have opinions on here?

[VitaMan]

Originally Posted by HedonistForever

Now that's funny. IT WAS QUESTION NOT A STATEMENT! Now if I had said "IT IS OUT OF.... ), that might be problematic but I didn't say that. Asking a question ends a discussion? WTF? I would say you need a new book but apparently, you don't read so good or is it your comprehension we should be talking about?

"Any discussion is already over with"? Why? Who is stopping you from further discussion especially if you think you can prove me wrong or get the better of me in debate.

You debate for shit.

Interesting


If you want play games with the outrageous question you put up, which is actually a statement that attempts to draw a conclusion, that part can be ended quickly.......no, it is not in the realm of possibility.

There is not a reason for Ray Epps to be charged. Is this that FBI government informant conspiracy theory shit again ?

Pelosi did not lead a security failure any more that McConnell did. But Trump sure wishes she did. Your hero.

What else ? That's about enough to demonstrate where you are coming from.

[VitaMan]

Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

remember who you are dealing with. a guy who became "independently wealthy" because he said so on the internet.

if you say so

It's the "if you say so" guy. Still obsessed worrying about other people's money.


How many "if you say sos" is it now.....2,800 ?