HackerTrans
TopNewTrendsCommentsPastAskShowJobs

mycodendral

no profile record

Submissions

[untitled]

1 points·by mycodendral·2 tháng trước·0 comments

comments

mycodendral
·tháng trước·discuss
Look up camping EDM festivals.
mycodendral
·4 tháng trước·discuss
It's giving ensloppification
mycodendral
·5 tháng trước·discuss
In this case conspiracy is using communication to coordinate illegal impediment.
mycodendral
·5 tháng trước·discuss
Insurrection is a choice with consequences
mycodendral
·5 tháng trước·discuss
Ah yes, the typical language of peaceful protestors
mycodendral
·5 tháng trước·discuss
Are you capable of accurately describing the other sides argument?
mycodendral
·5 tháng trước·discuss
Trump’s speech does not meet that standard. It lacked coordination, targeting, or intent to physically interfere. The Minnesota case is different because it includes coordinated dispatch, targeting of ICE activity, and sharing de-arrest material with the stated intent to impede operations. That coordination and intent is the legal difference.
mycodendral
·5 tháng trước·discuss
"molest, interrupt, hinder, or impede him in the discharge of his official duties"

The explicit coordination of things like: vehicle blocking, personnel blocking, personnel removal, disruptive distraction could clearly qualify.

How the courts choose to interpret & prosecute is up to them.
mycodendral
·5 tháng trước·discuss
The statute defines a crime that is distinguishable from peaceful protest/1A. You are free to interpret that however you like in relation to what is occurring.
mycodendral
·5 tháng trước·discuss
Yes, they are federal officers. There is no pattern of mass kidnappings by impersonators occurring here.

Interpreting masked officers in tactical gear as kidnappers, or claiming that a patch saying “ICE” is insufficient identification, is not a legally valid basis for suspicion or resistance.
mycodendral
·5 tháng trước·discuss
This statute defines the conditions where free speech transitions to criminal activity.

You can interpret it however you like.
mycodendral
·5 tháng trước·discuss
18 U.S.C. § 372 - Conspiring to impede or interfere with a federal officer
mycodendral
·5 tháng trước·discuss
18 U.S.C. § 372 - Conspiring to impede or interfere with a federal officer

Freedom of expression does not include freedom from prosecution for real crimes.
mycodendral
·5 tháng trước·discuss
Federal felony, not free speech.

18 U.S.C. § 372 - Conspiring to impede or interfere with a federal officer
mycodendral
·5 tháng trước·discuss
18 U.S.C. § 372 — Conspiracy to impede or injure officer

If two or more persons in any State, Territory, Possession, or District conspire to prevent, by force, intimidation, or threat, any person from accepting or holding any office, trust, or place of confidence under the United States, or from discharging any duties thereof, or to induce by like means any officer of the United States to leave the place where his duties as an officer are required to be performed, or to injure him in his person or property on account of his lawful discharge of the duties of his office, or while engaged in the lawful discharge thereof, or to injure his property so as to molest, interrupt, hinder, or impede him in the discharge of his official duties, each of such persons shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than six years, or both.

Federal felony
mycodendral
·6 tháng trước·discuss
you have a more direct way?
mycodendral
·6 tháng trước·discuss
the value is the directness, not implied origination

not everyone cares about playing voldemort
mycodendral
·9 tháng trước·discuss
It’s incoherent if you value rule of law, markets, property, rights, or stability.

If you’re willing to abandon all that over your police grievance, then sure, it’s coherent as anarchy.
mycodendral
·9 tháng trước·discuss
I don't need to prove that FBI investigations are crime-related. That's the presumed norm, not a claim requiring evidence.

If you claim otherwise, the burden of proof is on you.
mycodendral
·9 tháng trước·discuss
Sure, that works. Wasn't my original point, but it's more related to our recent discussion, and I don't think either of us disagree with that.

I'd say yours is:

This isn't a criminal investigation