Good News: Trump Protestors Accused Of 'Hiding Behind The First Amendment' Acquitted

from the first-amendment-still-works dept

Last week we wrote about the insanity of the DOJ’s argument in trying to convict a group of protestors at Trump’s inauguration. As we noted, the DOJ didn’t even try to connect the defendants with any violence or property damage, but merely said that by being near the property damage they were accomplices, because they made the actual perpetrators harder to catch. When talking about the First Amendment and the right to assemble, Assistant US Attorney Rizwan Quereshi, incredibly, claimed that the defendants were “hiding behind the First Amendment.” Even more incredibly, on Monday of this week another Assistant US Attorney, Jennifer Kerkhoff, tried to tell the jury that the judge’s instruction about reasonable doubt “doesn’t mean a whole lot”, leading the judge to jump in and say that Kerkhoff clearly didn’t mean to say that:

Kerkhoff: The defense has talked to you a little bit about reasonable doubt. You’re going to get an instruction from the Judge. And you can tell it’s clearly written by a bunch of lawyers. It doesn’t mean a whole lot. But look at the last line.

The Court: So wait…

Kerkhoff: I apologize.

The Court: I know she didn’t mean to say what she just said. But —

Kerkhoff:: It means a lot.

The Court: I just need to say, ladies and gentlemen, you will be instructed on reasonable doubt. You must follow each and every word of my instructions on reasonable doubt.

Kerkhoff: Yes.

The Court: Ms. Kerkhoff did not mean to trivialize any portion of it, and it’s just as important that you understand —

Kerkhoff: I apologize.

The Court: — that every word of the reasonable doubt instructions, like all the rest of my instructions, are very important.

Kerkhoff: It’s an important instruction.

Well, it appears that the jury did, in fact, pay attention to the reasonable doubt instructions, and has acquitted all six defendants on all charges. That includes Alexei Wood, the journalist who was covering the protests, as well as two other defendants who were there as medics to treat anyone injured (the DOJ tried to paint them as accomplices who helped fix people up to do more damage).

This case was important for trying to criminalize reporting, but to an even larger extent for trying to criminalize protesting as a group, where all members of a protest would somehow be considered liable for any damage done by any member. Thankfully, the jury saw through it and found all defendants not guilty on all charges. One hopes that the Justice Department (which rarely loses cases) will maybe think more carefully in the future about bringing such bullshit charges against people for exercising their First Amendment rights. And that matters quite a bit, as there are 188 other defendants from the same protest who are still awaiting trial.

Filed Under: , , , , , , , , ,

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Good News: Trump Protestors Accused Of 'Hiding Behind The First Amendment' Acquitted”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
111 Comments
Ryunosuke (profile) says:

so two things I learned today:

Unfavorable speech is still protected free speech: See – Snyder vs Phelps.

also, according to HuffPo, DC courts handle both federal and local cases, so the federal prosecutors also have a certain… bias? In the case? as in they work for the govt, who the protesters happen to be protesting about. if that makes sense.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: wow if the defence had said that

Just to be pedantic, you can have a “literal translation (word for word, without placing it in the specific context of the current reader), OR an interpretation (infrequently known as a liberal translation because it is placed in a certain context).

A “literal interpretation” is a frequent abuse of the English language, wedding the inflexible to the flexible.

For example, the French phrase “direction assistée” is commonly translated as “power steering”, but this is actually an interpretation. A word for word translation could include “assisted following”. If the context for “direction assistée” is automotive it’s clear what it should mean, but otherwise it could be someone called upon to help you get about, such as a pilot or guide.

In any case, I agree that the guvmint lawyer was about to commit not just contempt of the court, but, worse, contempt of the people.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: wow if the defence had said that

Yes, informing jurors that a thing called jury nullification is a crime and should be punishable by contempt of cop charges…

The courts are not the highest power in the land, we the people are, we just need to wake up and start overruling the laws we don’t agree with until they are repealed.

If every jury on copyright cases returned a ‘not guilty’ verdict, how much longer would copyright be respected (haha… like its respected now). How long after this until all cases are tried and judged by an appointed judge without a jury?

It would never happen, right /s

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Jury Nullification

“…prosecutor—tried to undermine the “reasonable doubt” instructions from the judge in order to secure convictions. Jury nullification is…not that.”

_________________

yes it is that — and NOT a crime

A jury has full legal authority to decide both the facts of the case before it & validity/applicability of the specific law(s) being applied in that case. Juries may use their discretion (judgement) to either acquit or convict defendants.

In that regard, judges have no authority to command (“instruct”) juries upon how they must interpret the law, including what constitutes ‘reasonable doubt’.
Commanding juries to use a particular interpretation of a law is de facto jury tampering.

The prosecutor here was correct in implying the jury could make its own judgement about reasonable doubt and ignore the judge’s instruction. But the prosecutor was just trying anything to win the case… and no doubt strongly opposes jury nullification. The judge here was totally wrong.

Note that “jury nullification” is a casual term that does not convey the full scope of the underlying constitutional principle.

Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Jury Nullification

Jury nullification is a concept where members of a trial jury can vote a defendant not guilty if they do not support a government’s law, do not believe it is constitutional or humane, or do not support a possible punishment for breaking a government’s law.

Wikipedia is not precisely the best place to go for the research of the intricacies of trial law and whatnot, but I tend to trust this definition of the concept of jury nullification over yours.

Anonymous Coward says:

The communist terrorists should have been thrown in to Guantanamo but then again, I forgot I live in a country that’s trying to commit cultural suicide.

Also, it’s common practice for ALL of these low-level domestic terrorists to bring first aid with them:

https://www.amazon.com/Antifa-Anti-Fascist-Handbook-Mark-Bray/dp/1612197035

It’s not uncommon for them to lie their asses off to police to protect their own after committing a crime:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K-IFcCY0m3E
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0H27Ul9ZsHk

“One hopes that the Justice Department (which rarely loses cases) will maybe think more carefully in the future about bringing such bullshit charges against people for exercising their First Amendment rights.”

Do you actually believe the bullshit coming out of your mouth?

Rioting and violently assaulting people for ideological reasons is domestic terrorism:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tGrvfL2mzUw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cGUCq5fpMGo

These deranged morons LARPing as revolutionaries could give two shits less about the first amendment:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8kIQA7ER0EY

Seriously TD, never go full retard.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

If you have evidence that these people were antifa and that they committed crimes, you should really turn it over to the Office of the United States Attorney for the District of Columbia because they don’t seem to have any evidence to convince a jury with but you seem to know they’re guilty.

Come on right honorable keyboard lawyer with a pre-law from Breitbart and a JD from 4chan, show us your evidence.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

The only reason the so-called ‘medics’ were acquitted is because they couldn’t be identified given the fact they were all wearing masks…accept perhaps the so-called journalist that was egging them on but we never got to see if he was wearing a mask at the Communist RIOTS down in DC.

An Ominous Cow Herd says:

Re: Re: Re:4 Re:

He accuses others of cognitive dissonance, then follows it up with some of his own. In fact, his post may possibly be one of the best examples I’ve ever seen of it. Combined with his unhealthy fixation on Techdirt, I’d wager this commenter is fairly unhinged in real life. Definitely not someone you’d ever want to come across in person. I pity those who do.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:4 Re:

I find it hilarious that he thinks that communists would be the main group opposing fascists instead of capitalists. How does some big self proclaimed flag waving patriot not support those defending freedom and opposing Nazis? Oh right. Because there were some very fine people on both sides.

The Wanderer (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:6 Re:

More likely, he sees the “communism”/”socialism” association, sees “Nazi” / “National Socialist Party”, and infers that Nazism is in some way socialism which is communism therefore the Nazis are obviously pro-Communist and vice versa because they’re actually the same category.

That “logic” completely ignores nuance, of course, as well as little things like “words that are capable of having multiple meanings” – but that sort of thing seems to be a relatively common factor with that mindset.

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:7 Re:

In that case, he also misses the reality that just because someone calls themselves something, that doesn’t mean that’s what they are. The Nazis used the word socialist in the name of their party because that encouraged support, not because they were actually socialist, in the same way that North Korea isn’t suddenly a democracy because they have that word in their name.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

I’d almost say you were one of the regulars playing dumb just to score points off an AC sock puppet. If I didn’t know for a ceretainly that you really believe all that drivel you spew and furthermore you really, really think you have a cleaver argument with a real gotcha at the end. It’s cute and sad. Kinda like watching a retarded puppy with a box on its head, piss itself after running into a wall.

Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re:

How would you justify throwing protestors-turned-rioters into prison indefinitely with no trial? How do you know, with the certainty of God, what everyone at that protest-turned-riot was there to do? How do you know the state of mind of even one of those defendants? And what actual arguments or sentiments do you have for us besides “everyone who isn’t right-of-center is an antifa communist Nazi out to destroy America, so we should kill them all and let Donald Trump sort it out”?

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

So, you’d cut down all the laws in America, in order to get after the "Communist terrorists."

And when the last law was down, when the political cycle turned and your ideological opponents were in power – where would you hide, the laws all being flat?

You should really consider giving people you don’t agree with the benefit of law, if only for your own safety’s sake.

(Apologies to Robert Bolt)

Anonymous Coward says:

Lawyers engage in these kinds of shenanigans all the time. It was no slip of the tongue. It was a deliberate attempt to get the jury to feel free to disregard the judge’s instructions. They do the same thing all through the trial by saying things they know will result in sustained objections. It is all about psychological manipulation of the jury. She knew she would have to apologize for it, but she also knew there would probably not be a penalty. I have seen lawyers take even bigger risks (e.g. of a mistrial) just to slip an illegal instruction into the jury’s ears, knowing full well the judge would smack it down. The damage is done once it is said, even if the judge tells the jury to ignore what they just heard.

Anonymous Coward says:

That jury jus6t proved that we have socialists who want to overthrow the government. Business owners? It’s time to arm yourselves with guns so the next time someone attempts to vandalize or destroy your property, just shoot them where they stand. This is just going to force business owners to protect their businesses, armed to the teeth.

protesters who exercise their first amendment rights, meet the people who are exercising their second amendment rights.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: Rioting is not a First Amendment protected activity. Peaceful protests are.

Guns? What guns? None of the protests during the inauguration had citizens wielding guns. Rocks yes, guns no.

And even if some of the protesters did have guns, that is entirely beside the point because unless the 6 people who were acquitted each had their own gun and used it (remember, in most cases it isn’t illegal to simply carry a gun), then they are still innocent. They committed no crime, therefore they should not be punished.

Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re:

protesters who exercise their first amendment rights, meet the people who are exercising their second amendment rights.

If protestors are not carrying out violent or destructive actions and you still choose to exercise a “Second Amendment remedy” over your annoyance at said protestors, what reason would you give to justify having committed murder?

OGquaker (user link) says:

Re: Re: Re: print the lies

suuurre… a man with a gun on a roof? Suicide, or scripted.
A few months before, a Korean shop owner was given ‘Community Service’ and a $fine for shooting a 15 year old black girl dead, that same week a white man got jail time for hurting his dog… reported on the same front page.

Yes, many local stores were looted; the stores that were friendly (and gave back your change through the plastic shields) were not. The shields kept us from beating up all the overcharging clerks. Four ‘Ralphs’ supermarkets and Walmart have left, ever hear of a ‘Food Desert’?
At a cocktail party in Bel-Air, an insurance underwriter told me that of the 3,767 buildings that burned, 70% were owner-arson and that many buildings were started twice. One of my parishioners burned all three of his father’s vacant buildings on Vermont and put his daughter into UCLA.
We hated Samy’s Camera on Melrose, thus we burned it /s.
The future zoning ‘General Plan’ map matched the burn zones like a glove; Nero WAS fiddling.
Light green I.C.E. vans were everywhere, freeway on-ramps were blocked (not off-ramps) limiting escape, LA County and citys put in curfews at sundown -except Pasadena with a large black population.
TV News helicopters were tracking ‘illegals’ from above, you can tell from the special Mexican hats. 12,000 arrest were made by LAPD and about 5,000 of Bush’s soldiers from the 7th & 40th Infantry Division and 1st Marine Division. Of the 63 people that died, ONE prosecution resulted. God knows how many people were ‘disappeared’.
Within the same 10 months the ONLY film on ‘JFK’ was released, the US invaded Iraq sending 100,000 troops around the world to shoot brown people and the ‘Rodney King’ footage ran 15,000 times on TV; a complete match to the ‘Philadelphia police footage’ of the beating of the M.O.V.E. that I saw screened at Laird Studios…
The Highway Patrol & LAPD got to participated in Rodney’s beat down; our Sheriff had their own beat-down that next week. Total social engineering:(

Disclaimer: I have lived on Normandie since 1988, this church was 80% Korean at the time.

Anonymous Coward says:

venue

The venue of any trial can make a huge difference. It should not surprise us that a jury from D.C., which voted overwhelmingly against Trump, would be sympathetic toward anti-Trump protesters.

Had the protesters been hit with federal charges and tried across the river, in one of those conservative Northern Virginia counties with an extraordinarily high conviction rate, the outcome could very well have turned out much differently.

It might be worth noting that on the other end of the political spectrum, Bundy Militia “protesters” were also acquitted.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: venue

It should not surprise us that a jury from D.C., which voted overwhelmingly against Trump, would be sympathetic toward anti-Trump protesters.

Everyone needs to be sorry that they ruined his day.
I mean, he lost the popular vote, had a shitty crowd, it rained, protests, and now this.

Poor, poor man.

conservative Northern Virginia counties with an extraordinarily high conviction rate

Yeah! Put them in jail! Gitmo, even!

Anonymous Coward says:

They've all gone mad!

Good grief! What’s with all the insanity in the comments coming out against the result of this case? **There is video evidence proving that they did not partake in the riots from start to finish, making them innocent.**

The jury made the right call, you don’t commit a crime, you don’t go to jail. How hard is that to understand?

What is wrong with you people?

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: They've all gone mad!

What is wrong with you people?

Trump had to deal with losing the popular vote, a turnout less than Obama’s, rain, and protests on a day when he just wanted to feel special. In short, his little feelings were hurt, and his supporters are upset that they can’t put some innocent people in jail to make him feel better.

They’re butthurt that so many people think he’s an asshole, and want some payback. That’s what’s wrong with them. Anger with nowhere to channel it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Oh look

more moronic fighting over the Constitution by two sides that seek to destroy it!

The R’s and the D’s don’t always agree on HOW to destroy the Constitution but they damn sure agree on destroying it SOMEHOW!

These people should have obviously been acquitted.
The lawyers being held in contempt is a tricky one. Sure the judge can instruct the Jury but there is no legal requirement for the Jury to act like a puppet on a string for either the Judge, the Prosecution, or the defense.

Jury Nullification is the principal that jurors are seeking to render a “not guilty” verdict because they believe that the law in question is either “unjust on its face” or “unjust in application in this specific instance”

Yes the entire legal community does not want you know about it because their life blood revolves around tricking jurors into thinking they can only judge a defendant by the law and not on principal.

If jurors were only intended to judge by the law, then we would not need jurors, any Judge can create the same injustice and tyranny against the people, just faster.

http://fija.org/

Thomas Jefferson wrote, “I consider [trial by jury] as the only anchor yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution.”

In short the Father of the Constitution clearly indicated that “The Jury” is your most sacred and honorable duty you can perform for your fellow citizens. When government tries to oppress you with tyrannical law then it is up to your fellow citizens to come to your aid.

Well… good luck with that… based on the back and forth I frequently see at TD none of you understand shit!

Every Nation gets the government it deserves! Stop voting in incumbent that have done wrong, avoid political parties and force candidates to come out into the light instead of hiding behind their party and politics.

If you are pissed off at the other guys for being corrupt, clean your own house first!

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Oh look

“It has fuck all to do with the topic at hand, but progress is progress I suppose.”

So a comment about Thomas Jefferson talking about jury has fuck all to do with the topic here, about a Jury rendering a not guilty verdict?

I think you have just proven a point I mentioned earlier…

“based on the back and forth I frequently see at TD none of you understand shit!”

You don’t understand shit, but you sure do seem to be full of it!

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:

People getting acquitted based on the First Amendment just grinds your gears, doesn’t it?

Would you like to demand that police shoot anyone wearing a motorcycle helmet? Or maybe without, too. You’ve already proven that you don’t need to wear or hold a damn thing for the police to justify gunning you down…

MyNameHere (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

Hi Paul, you are a moron.

I said that dressing in a manner that made it clear they were looking for a fight and looking not to be identified was an issue. Padding, dark clothing, gas masks or ski goggles…

Like I said, I guess it’s okay to do whatever you like as long as your record it and call it “news”.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Re:

No, you’re a moron. People can dress however they want, there are no laws against it (aside from indecent exposure, even then that’s only if you are out in public, in private there is no law).

I took my car to the mechanic one day when I was in college. I had a 17″ laptop and all my books stuffed in my backup so it was very large. On that particular day I happened to wear jeans and a black zip up hoodie (the hood was down if you must know). While standing at the counter waiting for the mechanic, a guy in the waiting room spoke up and said “You got a pressure cooker bomb in there? You going to blow us all up?” I was not amused.

Are we all supposed to now avoid wearing jeans and black hoodies because we could be mistaken for another Boston Marathon bomber? That is the most ludicrous thing I’ve ever heard.

Even if they were wearing full combat fatigues it still means nothing because you know what? Off-duty military personnel are easy to spot in public because many times they wear their BDU’s in public.

And ski goggles? Really? Oh the horror!

MyNameHere (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:4 Re:

They wore protective clothing to (a) make it harder to identify them, and (b) to protect them from tear gas and anything thrown by others, to protect against police batons, etc. They went there ready for a fight.

Oh, and if there wasn’t one, they seemed also prepared to create it.

At the very least, they were prepared to protect themselves because they knew what was going to happen. They wanted it to happen, because without it, the video would have been useless. Reporting on peaceful protests doesn’t get you views on YouFaceGram.

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:5 Re:

“and (b) to protect them from tear gas and anything thrown by others, to protect against police batons, etc.”

Is this because they were a) looking for a fight or b) know that authoritarian thugs have a history of hitting and/or tear gassing peaceful protesters with no provocation, and no matter how important their cause would like to get home to their family in one piece after the day?

Your bootlicking ass insists only a) can be true, intelligent people know that b) is very much the real answer.

Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:5 Re:

They wore protective clothing to (a) make it harder to identify them, and (b) to protect them from tear gas and anything thrown by others, to protect against police batons, etc.

A person out in public has no legal obligation to make themselves identifiable unless a city or state has a law against masks. And despite my rather limited imagination these days, even I can imagine why people would wear protective clothing to a protest held in a country with a history of LEOs breaking up completely peaceful protests with water hoses, police dogs, and pepper spray.

They went there ready for a fight. Oh, and if there wasn’t one, they seemed also prepared to create it.

Your argument amounts to mere speculation that every person who wore protective clothing at that protest-turned-riot was there just to take part in violent acts. You could have argued that some people wearing such clothing were there to start a riot—that, I could believe. But saying “they were all there to riot” without a shred a proof to back that sentence up makes you sound willing to convict someone of a crime based only on how they were dressed.

At the very least, they were prepared to protect themselves because they knew what was going to happen.

That proves they committed a crime…how, exactly? I mean, we could assume they knew with the certainty of God that the protest would turn into a riot. But how would their being prepared for either the riot or the police response prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that they went to the protest with the sole intent to either start or participate in a riot?

They wanted it to happen, because without it, the video would have been useless. Reporting on peaceful protests doesn’t get you views on YouFaceGram.

Not everyone does things for a hit count, you know. And a videographer being there, no matter where he came from, does not prove intent to either start or take part in a riot.

Your entire argument rests on conjecture and assumptions that you cannot prove beyond a reasonable doubt. You have no argument. All you have is the wailing of a whiny asshole who thinks he is 100% right all the time. (You are not.) I do not know with absolute certainty whether the people who were acquitted in this case went there just to protest. But at least I have the common sense to admit that I lack the certainty of God.

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Re:

“I said that dressing in a manner that made it clear they were looking for a fight and looking not to be identified was an issue. Padding, dark clothing, gas masks or ski goggles… “

So, you admit that you believe that wearing dark clothing is a reason to be suspicious of someone’s motives then criticise me for accurately stating that’s what you did? Hmmm…

It’s also notable that most of the things you list, where they have any utility in a fight, are defensive – i.e. protecting yourself when you go against the jackbooted thugs. Which, as I noted previously, goes directly against your claim that they are looking to attack someone. No, it means they know that things happen and they don’t wish to be unprotected if it does.

If someone wears a helmet and leathers when riding a motorcycle, it means they are defending themselves against injury in case something happens, whereas you apparently think it means they wish to crash into the next vehicle they see…

MyNameHere (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:4 Re:

Yes, and wearing flame retardant clothing and an insulation suit means you are protected against fire. it doesn’t mean you can burn buildings down and stand in them to prove it.

The defense notion is silly. If you think there is going to be a riot and you are likely to get injured, why go?

Normal every day walking down the street shouldn’t need protective gear. Going to a riot with intent to film it and get famous on YouFaceGram… well yeah.

Give it another shot, and try to miss the point again. It’s funny when you do that!

Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:5 Re:

If you think there is going to be a riot and you are likely to get injured, why go?

No one can guarantee that a protest will turn into a riot. Being prepared for the possibility, however, seems like a smart move.

Normal every day walking down the street shouldn’t need protective gear.

A protest is not “normal everyday walking down the street”. Even you should know and admit that.

Going to a riot with intent to film it and get famous on YouFaceGram… well yeah.

That guy went to a protest so he could film it. What proof do you have that he either started a riot or knew, with absolute certainty, when and where a riot was going to happen?

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:6 Re:

A protest is not “normal everyday walking down the street”. Even you should know and admit that.

It’s like the fucker thinks that having anything protected is, by his own terms, not normal.

Normal driving shouldn’t require a driver to lock his car. Normal wallets shouldn’t allow people to carry amounts of money they withdrew from their own bank account. Normal fashion shouldn’t catch the eye of suspected sexual harassers.

MyNameHere is taking his favorite "if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear" maxim to his usual extreme applications. Because obviously only the police knows what’s best and are permitted to fuck up as many times as it takes to keep the plebeians and serfs in line.

Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:7 Re:

So when it’s someone you don’t agree with politically, you won’t hold it against them for wearing the same kinds of protective equipment or carrying shields?

If they have protective equipment only as a precaution against potential violence? I would find that acceptable.

If they have protective equipment but try to provoke bystanders into violence as an excuse for using that equipment as a weapon? That is not cool.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:7 Re:

What protective clothing was the journalist wearing?
– A coat of some sort? Was it cold outside?

What protective clothing were the medics wearing?
– Were they on duty? Was the ambulance their “get away car” ?

This silliness about being responsible for the actions of others simply because you were in proximity … is bullshit. In addition, such cases seem to be discriminatory.

The Wanderer (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:5 Re:

If you think there is going to be a riot and you are likely to get injured, why go?

One possible reason: because you think the protest (which you think might develop into violence, which might be targeted against you), and/or the issue being protested, is important enough to be worth taking the risk of getting injured.

The decision process may be tipped in favor of going if you know that you can at least reduce the risk of injury, even if violence against your side does break out – say, by wearing protective clothing.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Re:

Holy cow… you are right.
I knew there was something suspicious going on.
I keep seeing these “people” with big hats pulled down over their ears, fake glasses and big fake beards, making it impossible to identify them.
At the same time they have stuffed fake bellies so you can’t even get a good impression of their build in those large red suits… red as blood.
Yet people are so blind to the threat and they keep sending their own children over to these obviously violent and delinquent terrorists.

Just in case: /S

JEDIDIAH says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

People getting acquitted based on the First Amendment just grinds your gears, doesn’t it?

If it’s for anything except speaking or protesting, sure. The First Amendment isn’t supposed to shield people from the consequences of violent crime. It’s very trendy to threaten political opponents with violence these days. Liberals are making the loudest noises in this area.

Makes it embarassing to be a liberal.

The Wanderer (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Re:

Not unless they’re running for office, at least – preferably on the Nazi platform.

And while I believe we have had National Socialist Party members running for office on the Nazi platform in the United States of America, I don’t recall having seen it happen during my lifetime – and certainly not in an election where the Nazi candidate had any meaningful chance of winning.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published.

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »