I'm breaking my self-imposed silence to say I'm eating a slice of lemon pound cake in mutual celebration with everybody who enjoys the First Amendment.
I have a poor memory; I admit it. But I thought I said I wanted Trump to enforce immigration laws more vigorously, or something to that effect. If I said I wanted illegal aliens to DIE then I was clearly in thr wrong.
Of course, it could be my poor memory, or it could be your twisted interpretation of my words. Either way, you've assigned motive to me. You'll become increasingly in the minority. I have had a number of children that exceeds the replacement value or their two parents. So far, they seem to be convinced (contra "believe") that my position has the superior virtue. While your ilk dies away and by marginalizing your opponents, attrition will eat away at the number of people who hold your position.
I, and my political brethren, will win in the end. And that's what eats you up and causes you not to lose to me in a direct debate. It's okay. I understand.
It's inevitable. I've won the debate already. I'll go back to being a lurker now.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Insults will clearly get you into the ruling majority!
Well, to be completely honest, the lack of voter identification coupled with unfettered illegal immigration will get you into the ruling majority.
As I tell potential jurors, we all have experiences that inform our introspection that ultimately leads to opinions on weighty and trivial matters. Those opinions are the result of lived experience that changes over time, inviting reexamination of the opinions. Opinions are the prodcucts of a lifetime of experience and thought; thus, they are entitled to respect. I respect that you have experiences that make you feel the way you do. I just don't believe your feelings should win the day, no matter how much you demand I conform. I tell potential jurors that the key word in every set of jury instructions is "convince." You won't see the word "believe" anywhere in them. I've read your diatribes and Jeremiads over the years. I believe you are a kind person; I am not convinced of it, though.
You believe that my opinions about illegal immigration is rooted in racism. You believe that based on traits that you assign to a group of people with whom you disagree. Everybody who disagrees with you on this topic is racist. That's fine. You can believe that. However, it doesn't make you capable of grappling with the real and more fundamental issue: what makes a country and who should benefit from that distinction?
I can't teach you everything I've lived and learn. You wouldn't care to listen anyway. And even if you listened, you're predisposed to view it through the distored lens of self-righteousness. So, I doubt you'd take away from that examination anything worthwhile. Not at this point, I mean. You view me as an enemy. Many military strategists over the millenia echo the same concept: know your enemy. You believe I'm a racist and probably other -ists and -phobics. You've got to understand, though, your conduct makes you exactly the kind of person no reasonable person wants to be. Now, stomp your feet, say the word "fuck" or one of its variants, and assume the mantle of smugness when you refuse to deal with the reason why people like me feel the way I do. I don't "believe" you can insult people out of their racism, so if that's the only card you can play, you lose. Instead, play a card of logic and convince me. No one ever takes me up on that. I really want to engage in good faith on the subject.
Now, let's see what kind of person you really are. Ready, set, GO!
Oh, gosh. You're right! Thank you for catching my mistake. I thought the museum piece was about the BLACK slaves in the United States. I misread it that way. If it's about ALL the slaves, then I'm certainly wrong.
Let's be clear. I'm not talking about the indentured servants, the sharecroppers, or those in peonage. I just mean the slaves--i.e, the people who were literally owned, whether they were white, black, yellow, or red.
Anyway, you also caught me on another thing. I forgot to read the rest of the article. I was so incensed by the removal of the criticism of George Washington from the museum that I forgot to read the remainder of the article. Nor did I read the actual text of the court opinion. I have no clue what I'm talking about.
Just remember, though. I'm uninformed, but I'm currently one of the 55ish% of the people who support the current administration. Convince me to join you rather than insult me. But, why should you take my advice or try to change my mind? You're morally correct. That's good enough to support your outrage.
Why do you turn a contract dispute into a polemic on race? You would be better served by reporting on what the case actually meant rather than on what you want the case to mean.
Trump does SO MANY objectionable things. This is one of them. But, you view it as objectionable for a reason completely unrelated to the truth. I suppose race > contracts to most shallow-thinking people. However, to me, ignoring the clear terms of a contract to impose your own will through the force of government is an unmistable sign of oppression and tyranny. Frankly, it makes me furious.
Yet, because you covered it as a matter of race, you missed the point entirely. And many people who agree with you on the real meaning of the case will ignore you because of the meaning you ascribe to it.
I hope we find a way to ignore completely the existence of George Washington, or whatever your aim is. Then, maybe, we can start worrying about a problem that exists today rather than carping about a problem that existed 150+ years ago.
It's laughably easy to alter the results of an election after the passage of the ironically-named Help America Vote Act of 2002.
The National Voter Registration Act of 1993 did provide an assist, though.
I think Trump probably did in 2020 what Hillary did in 2016. He thought he already cheated enough that he didn't have to worry.
The best cheater ALWAYS wins. Always.
I know y'all may not believe this coming from me, but I'm a big fan of the Constitution. This includes Due Process.
If these tactics are designed to hide detainees from lawyers, then the tactics are legally and morally wrong. However, I think there are practical matters that should be considered. On my state, some county jails have a capacity of less than two dozen. In fact, I know one county that has a capacity of ten or fewer inmates. So, if ICE arrested more than a handful and put the detainees in a county facility with a small capacity, it's conceivable that those detainees MUST be moved quickly in order to honor the facility capacity.
More importantly, as someone who practices criminal defense, I can confirm that this practice happens all the time and has been happening throughout the decades of my legal career. It happens to US citizens, and it happens to aliens. It happens to everybody. The government doesn't like defendants to have representation. It's nothing new, and it's nothing specific to the people who shouldn't be here in the first place. It can (and does) happen to anybody.
I wish that US citizens would show outrage for Constitutional violations against US citizens instead of reserving it for perceived violations against aliens.
I never hear solutions. I only hear bitching. Wouldn't it be better if Minnesota kept these people in jail on an ICE hold so they can be retrieved peacefully? There probably won't be any 5 year olds in the jail with them. There probably won't be any US citizens wrongfully detained if the illegals are collected at the jails. But, once they are let off the hook and thrown back into the pond, occasionally securing illegals will have unintended second order effects.
Y'all like to bitch about all of the problems Y'ALL caused by supporting the policy of not honoring ICE holds. Just that one simple change would have made sure the monsters didn't kill Alex Pretti or that other one. But, this solution would deprive you of the self-righteousness of engaging in your "protests."
I don't see an suggestions other than "don't enforce the law." What other laws should not he enforced? I think it's clear that one of you would lynch someone if given the opportunity. Make a valid suggestion. Put it to a vote.
I promise the side of compassion and empathy will not win if this revolves into a real civil war.
Minnesota should do the honorable thing and secede from the Union. And then we can send all of the illegals there and let them deal with it. But, instead, Minnesota wants the benefits of statehood without any of the responsibilities. Laughable. And repugnant.
Y'all don't want solitions; you want chaos. And you want someone else to pay for that chaos. Put you money and your liberty where your mouth. Stand up for what you believe. Just say you want to take my money and give it to someone else. Be honest for once.
This comment reminds me of that 1980s anti-drug commercial where the parent asks the kid where the kid learned to use drugs. "You, I learned it from YOU!"
Personally, I don't think he's committed a death-eligible criminal offense. If he hasn't, then what you are suggesting is that someone with whom you have a policy disagreement should be executed. If it's proven in a court of competent jurisdiction that he HAS committed a death-eligible offense, then I'll change my tune.
Violence begets violence. Only the ones who peacefully protest in a non-violent way can claim the moral high ground. Even if my side is wrong in a violent way, then you shouldn't respond by suggesting more violence. I think y'all should really consider going to the ballot box and electing people who will change the laws that are currently in place that you don't want enforced. Then, nobody can enforce them legally.
Actually, retroactivity occurs all the time in the law. Let me give an example: today it's completely legal for me to own a revolver. Tomorrow it may be illegal. Thus, if I have a revolver today, I must get rid of it before the law becomes effective tomorrow. Otherwise, I risk criminal consequences.
ICE actions are not retroactively applied. They are applied to a state of law as it exists at the moment it is enforced. There is nothing that prohibits our government from changing laws. In fact, there's an entire section of the US Constitution that sets out the process whereby it may be changed.
No, we're not great again. And we won't be for the foreseeable future. Trump is doing everything he can, but the swamp keeps sucking him down.
The horror! You found out! I actually meant what I said in the last paragraph I in the post above.
Okay. Again. Thank you for raging at me and refusing to engage. Do you have disagreement with any of the things I wrote above? Maybe I wrote them disingenuously, but can you tell me if you disagree with it anyway?
I also think rules should be written down and followed when it comes to the removal of non-citizens. If the rules have been followed and a decision made according to those rules that a particular non-citizen should be expelled, then I believe that decision should be enforced. It should be enforced in as humane a manner as possible. Ideally, if that non-citizen is in custody somewhere when that decision is made, the non-citizen should not be released from that custody, regardless of who is the custodial agency.
So, for those who believe ICE is evil, etc., do we have any disagreement thus far? Please, no personal attacks, because we can all I agree that I'm a terrible person. How about my ideas, though? Where should this distinction be modified to make me less of an evil ogre?
I'm very sad that discourse in our world has gotten so terrible that no one can recognize a genuine request to engage in conversation.
So I'll start first. I believe that a citizen of a country should first and foremost be entitled to the right to participate in self-governance. In other words, citizens should vote; non-citizens should not. Secondly, I believe that whatever social contract is implied between me and the citizens of the same country in which I am a citizen, should not require me to make non-citizens third-party beneficiaries. In other words, I shouldn't have to pay taxes so that a non-citizen can get social services. Remember, please, that these are just examples, so don't attack the specifics--attack the principle I'm trying to explication. There are, of course, some de minimus benefits that would accrue to a non-citizen in a robust society--such as roads, sweets, water services, etc. I can't, and wouldn't want to, stop a non-citizen from drinking water out if a public water fountain.
I think that a citizen can never be excluded from his/her country, under any circumstances. That includes naturalized citizens. If we thought highly-enough of them to make them citizens, then they are citizens. No distinction between citizens, sua generis and citizens, de jure.
Here's where I think the controversy will begin. I think that a non-citizen can be excluded from entry into a country on whatever terms that country chooses. A non-citizen can be expelled from a country on whatever terms that country chooses. If the non-citizen refuses to leave, then I believe he/she can be forced to leave.
Thank you for this reply!
So, if everybody should be treated the same, why IS there a legal distinction between citizen and non-citizen? Can't we just make every living person on Earth a citizen of the USA?
I guess what I'm getting at is what distinction does the different titles conference to the individuals? If there is absolutely no difference at all under the law, then why do we have the distinction at all? What is its utility?
I can appreciate your attempts to deflect from a substantive conversation by insulting me. For purposes of this conversations, I will agree that all of the negative things you say about me are true. So there's no need to repeat them or to hurl new ones; they're all correct. Now that we have that handled, let's talk about what Don Lemon purports to have been covering:a protest against immigration policy.
I agree that all people are entitled to basic human rights. What basic human rights are unlawful immigrants not receiving in the United States? If your concern is not about unlawful immigrants, you can say that to help guide our conversation.
Please understand, I am presenting myself tabula rasa, awaiting your logical persuasion so that you can convert me to your side. Surely, converting me and, to use a notable phrase, and changing my mind, is far preferable to shooting me in the neck because we disagree, right? Let's avoid violence and just talk it out instead. Thank you.
Do you think there should be a legal distinction between citizens and non-citizens? I'm asking this question because I'm genuinely interested in your answer.
I have yet to be convinced by any actual argument from people on your side because I don't think I've heard an argument based on logic. So, can we start with that question? I literally don't understand the issue that people have with the policy positions people like me hold on the immigration issue.
No matter how much you insult me, I'd still like to understand your position on the fundamental underlying issue.
I've asked this before, and I've never gotten a direct answer. What legal distinction should exist between and citizen and a noncitizen? Or, should there be no distinction at all?
No offense, MrWilson, but I did not imagine this taking place in my church. Because there's no way this episode would have ended the way it did if it occurred in my church.
I think we finally got to the crux of you picayune complaints about the relevant law: you have antipathy toward those of us who have a faith. I'll pray for you anyway.
Thank you for hurling invective. This is the kind of debate that wins hearts and minds.
I may be wrong, but 18 USC 248 (e) (4) appears to define the actus reus in such a way that does not require force. Rendering passage from a place of worship unreasonably difficult or hazardous is considered a physical obstruction. Maybe my reading comprehension skills are as bad as my layering skills?
In most states force does not require violence. It can be as little as the turning of a doorknob on a door. I think there's all kinds of force involved in the church invasion in which Lemon participated. Also, just to be clear, although I'm clearly a dummy when it comes to these things, I don't see a requirement under this statute that force be applied to a human body. It just has to utilized.
I appreciate that you don't want to engage on the issue at an intellectual level. Just please don't come into my church with that same kind of mess that Lemon did.
I feel like 18 USC 248 (a) (2) is a crime that describes what occurred in the church. If Don Lemon did not personally engage in that activity, he can be held vicariously liable for the actions of those who did violate this section. Under this liability theory, he must have had foreknowledge of the others' actions and done something to aid, encourage, or assist those who violated the law.
Under this statute, anyone who "by force or threat of force or by physical obstruction, intentionally injures, intimidates, or interferes with . . . any person lawfully exercising [freedom of religion]," is guilty of a crime. I suppose a Minnesota jury will ultimately acquit Don Lemon, but I would hope you can see how this is a question of fact for a jury.
I believe that the video posted by Don Lemon is sufficient on its own for a prosecution to survive directed verdict.
I think the key distinction that many are willfully ignoring is that this private property WAS open to the public so that anyone who was there could engage in religious service consistent with the owners of the property. Once the owners felt disrupted by the visitors, the visitors' conditional license to be present was revoked. It was private property. The owners are not required to let anyone engage in any particular actions. If their services were disrupted under the conditions outlined in the statute, then a crime definitely occurred.
I'm breaking my self-imposed silence to say I'm eating a slice of lemon pound cake in mutual celebration with everybody who enjoys the First Amendment.
I have a poor memory; I admit it. But I thought I said I wanted Trump to enforce immigration laws more vigorously, or something to that effect. If I said I wanted illegal aliens to DIE then I was clearly in thr wrong. Of course, it could be my poor memory, or it could be your twisted interpretation of my words. Either way, you've assigned motive to me. You'll become increasingly in the minority. I have had a number of children that exceeds the replacement value or their two parents. So far, they seem to be convinced (contra "believe") that my position has the superior virtue. While your ilk dies away and by marginalizing your opponents, attrition will eat away at the number of people who hold your position. I, and my political brethren, will win in the end. And that's what eats you up and causes you not to lose to me in a direct debate. It's okay. I understand. It's inevitable. I've won the debate already. I'll go back to being a lurker now. Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Insults will clearly get you into the ruling majority! Well, to be completely honest, the lack of voter identification coupled with unfettered illegal immigration will get you into the ruling majority. As I tell potential jurors, we all have experiences that inform our introspection that ultimately leads to opinions on weighty and trivial matters. Those opinions are the result of lived experience that changes over time, inviting reexamination of the opinions. Opinions are the prodcucts of a lifetime of experience and thought; thus, they are entitled to respect. I respect that you have experiences that make you feel the way you do. I just don't believe your feelings should win the day, no matter how much you demand I conform. I tell potential jurors that the key word in every set of jury instructions is "convince." You won't see the word "believe" anywhere in them. I've read your diatribes and Jeremiads over the years. I believe you are a kind person; I am not convinced of it, though. You believe that my opinions about illegal immigration is rooted in racism. You believe that based on traits that you assign to a group of people with whom you disagree. Everybody who disagrees with you on this topic is racist. That's fine. You can believe that. However, it doesn't make you capable of grappling with the real and more fundamental issue: what makes a country and who should benefit from that distinction? I can't teach you everything I've lived and learn. You wouldn't care to listen anyway. And even if you listened, you're predisposed to view it through the distored lens of self-righteousness. So, I doubt you'd take away from that examination anything worthwhile. Not at this point, I mean. You view me as an enemy. Many military strategists over the millenia echo the same concept: know your enemy. You believe I'm a racist and probably other -ists and -phobics. You've got to understand, though, your conduct makes you exactly the kind of person no reasonable person wants to be. Now, stomp your feet, say the word "fuck" or one of its variants, and assume the mantle of smugness when you refuse to deal with the reason why people like me feel the way I do. I don't "believe" you can insult people out of their racism, so if that's the only card you can play, you lose. Instead, play a card of logic and convince me. No one ever takes me up on that. I really want to engage in good faith on the subject. Now, let's see what kind of person you really are. Ready, set, GO!
Oh, gosh. You're right! Thank you for catching my mistake. I thought the museum piece was about the BLACK slaves in the United States. I misread it that way. If it's about ALL the slaves, then I'm certainly wrong. Let's be clear. I'm not talking about the indentured servants, the sharecroppers, or those in peonage. I just mean the slaves--i.e, the people who were literally owned, whether they were white, black, yellow, or red. Anyway, you also caught me on another thing. I forgot to read the rest of the article. I was so incensed by the removal of the criticism of George Washington from the museum that I forgot to read the remainder of the article. Nor did I read the actual text of the court opinion. I have no clue what I'm talking about. Just remember, though. I'm uninformed, but I'm currently one of the 55ish% of the people who support the current administration. Convince me to join you rather than insult me. But, why should you take my advice or try to change my mind? You're morally correct. That's good enough to support your outrage.
Why do you turn a contract dispute into a polemic on race? You would be better served by reporting on what the case actually meant rather than on what you want the case to mean. Trump does SO MANY objectionable things. This is one of them. But, you view it as objectionable for a reason completely unrelated to the truth. I suppose race > contracts to most shallow-thinking people. However, to me, ignoring the clear terms of a contract to impose your own will through the force of government is an unmistable sign of oppression and tyranny. Frankly, it makes me furious. Yet, because you covered it as a matter of race, you missed the point entirely. And many people who agree with you on the real meaning of the case will ignore you because of the meaning you ascribe to it. I hope we find a way to ignore completely the existence of George Washington, or whatever your aim is. Then, maybe, we can start worrying about a problem that exists today rather than carping about a problem that existed 150+ years ago.
It's laughably easy to alter the results of an election after the passage of the ironically-named Help America Vote Act of 2002. The National Voter Registration Act of 1993 did provide an assist, though. I think Trump probably did in 2020 what Hillary did in 2016. He thought he already cheated enough that he didn't have to worry. The best cheater ALWAYS wins. Always.
I know y'all may not believe this coming from me, but I'm a big fan of the Constitution. This includes Due Process. If these tactics are designed to hide detainees from lawyers, then the tactics are legally and morally wrong. However, I think there are practical matters that should be considered. On my state, some county jails have a capacity of less than two dozen. In fact, I know one county that has a capacity of ten or fewer inmates. So, if ICE arrested more than a handful and put the detainees in a county facility with a small capacity, it's conceivable that those detainees MUST be moved quickly in order to honor the facility capacity. More importantly, as someone who practices criminal defense, I can confirm that this practice happens all the time and has been happening throughout the decades of my legal career. It happens to US citizens, and it happens to aliens. It happens to everybody. The government doesn't like defendants to have representation. It's nothing new, and it's nothing specific to the people who shouldn't be here in the first place. It can (and does) happen to anybody. I wish that US citizens would show outrage for Constitutional violations against US citizens instead of reserving it for perceived violations against aliens.
Yay!!! Thank you.
I never hear solutions. I only hear bitching. Wouldn't it be better if Minnesota kept these people in jail on an ICE hold so they can be retrieved peacefully? There probably won't be any 5 year olds in the jail with them. There probably won't be any US citizens wrongfully detained if the illegals are collected at the jails. But, once they are let off the hook and thrown back into the pond, occasionally securing illegals will have unintended second order effects. Y'all like to bitch about all of the problems Y'ALL caused by supporting the policy of not honoring ICE holds. Just that one simple change would have made sure the monsters didn't kill Alex Pretti or that other one. But, this solution would deprive you of the self-righteousness of engaging in your "protests." I don't see an suggestions other than "don't enforce the law." What other laws should not he enforced? I think it's clear that one of you would lynch someone if given the opportunity. Make a valid suggestion. Put it to a vote. I promise the side of compassion and empathy will not win if this revolves into a real civil war. Minnesota should do the honorable thing and secede from the Union. And then we can send all of the illegals there and let them deal with it. But, instead, Minnesota wants the benefits of statehood without any of the responsibilities. Laughable. And repugnant. Y'all don't want solitions; you want chaos. And you want someone else to pay for that chaos. Put you money and your liberty where your mouth. Stand up for what you believe. Just say you want to take my money and give it to someone else. Be honest for once.
This comment reminds me of that 1980s anti-drug commercial where the parent asks the kid where the kid learned to use drugs. "You, I learned it from YOU!" Personally, I don't think he's committed a death-eligible criminal offense. If he hasn't, then what you are suggesting is that someone with whom you have a policy disagreement should be executed. If it's proven in a court of competent jurisdiction that he HAS committed a death-eligible offense, then I'll change my tune. Violence begets violence. Only the ones who peacefully protest in a non-violent way can claim the moral high ground. Even if my side is wrong in a violent way, then you shouldn't respond by suggesting more violence. I think y'all should really consider going to the ballot box and electing people who will change the laws that are currently in place that you don't want enforced. Then, nobody can enforce them legally.
Actually, retroactivity occurs all the time in the law. Let me give an example: today it's completely legal for me to own a revolver. Tomorrow it may be illegal. Thus, if I have a revolver today, I must get rid of it before the law becomes effective tomorrow. Otherwise, I risk criminal consequences. ICE actions are not retroactively applied. They are applied to a state of law as it exists at the moment it is enforced. There is nothing that prohibits our government from changing laws. In fact, there's an entire section of the US Constitution that sets out the process whereby it may be changed. No, we're not great again. And we won't be for the foreseeable future. Trump is doing everything he can, but the swamp keeps sucking him down.
The horror! You found out! I actually meant what I said in the last paragraph I in the post above. Okay. Again. Thank you for raging at me and refusing to engage. Do you have disagreement with any of the things I wrote above? Maybe I wrote them disingenuously, but can you tell me if you disagree with it anyway? I also think rules should be written down and followed when it comes to the removal of non-citizens. If the rules have been followed and a decision made according to those rules that a particular non-citizen should be expelled, then I believe that decision should be enforced. It should be enforced in as humane a manner as possible. Ideally, if that non-citizen is in custody somewhere when that decision is made, the non-citizen should not be released from that custody, regardless of who is the custodial agency. So, for those who believe ICE is evil, etc., do we have any disagreement thus far? Please, no personal attacks, because we can all I agree that I'm a terrible person. How about my ideas, though? Where should this distinction be modified to make me less of an evil ogre?
I'm very sad that discourse in our world has gotten so terrible that no one can recognize a genuine request to engage in conversation. So I'll start first. I believe that a citizen of a country should first and foremost be entitled to the right to participate in self-governance. In other words, citizens should vote; non-citizens should not. Secondly, I believe that whatever social contract is implied between me and the citizens of the same country in which I am a citizen, should not require me to make non-citizens third-party beneficiaries. In other words, I shouldn't have to pay taxes so that a non-citizen can get social services. Remember, please, that these are just examples, so don't attack the specifics--attack the principle I'm trying to explication. There are, of course, some de minimus benefits that would accrue to a non-citizen in a robust society--such as roads, sweets, water services, etc. I can't, and wouldn't want to, stop a non-citizen from drinking water out if a public water fountain. I think that a citizen can never be excluded from his/her country, under any circumstances. That includes naturalized citizens. If we thought highly-enough of them to make them citizens, then they are citizens. No distinction between citizens, sua generis and citizens, de jure. Here's where I think the controversy will begin. I think that a non-citizen can be excluded from entry into a country on whatever terms that country chooses. A non-citizen can be expelled from a country on whatever terms that country chooses. If the non-citizen refuses to leave, then I believe he/she can be forced to leave.
Thank you for this reply! So, if everybody should be treated the same, why IS there a legal distinction between citizen and non-citizen? Can't we just make every living person on Earth a citizen of the USA? I guess what I'm getting at is what distinction does the different titles conference to the individuals? If there is absolutely no difference at all under the law, then why do we have the distinction at all? What is its utility?
I can appreciate your attempts to deflect from a substantive conversation by insulting me. For purposes of this conversations, I will agree that all of the negative things you say about me are true. So there's no need to repeat them or to hurl new ones; they're all correct. Now that we have that handled, let's talk about what Don Lemon purports to have been covering:a protest against immigration policy. I agree that all people are entitled to basic human rights. What basic human rights are unlawful immigrants not receiving in the United States? If your concern is not about unlawful immigrants, you can say that to help guide our conversation. Please understand, I am presenting myself tabula rasa, awaiting your logical persuasion so that you can convert me to your side. Surely, converting me and, to use a notable phrase, and changing my mind, is far preferable to shooting me in the neck because we disagree, right? Let's avoid violence and just talk it out instead. Thank you.
Do you think there should be a legal distinction between citizens and non-citizens? I'm asking this question because I'm genuinely interested in your answer. I have yet to be convinced by any actual argument from people on your side because I don't think I've heard an argument based on logic. So, can we start with that question? I literally don't understand the issue that people have with the policy positions people like me hold on the immigration issue. No matter how much you insult me, I'd still like to understand your position on the fundamental underlying issue.
I've asked this before, and I've never gotten a direct answer. What legal distinction should exist between and citizen and a noncitizen? Or, should there be no distinction at all?
No offense, MrWilson, but I did not imagine this taking place in my church. Because there's no way this episode would have ended the way it did if it occurred in my church. I think we finally got to the crux of you picayune complaints about the relevant law: you have antipathy toward those of us who have a faith. I'll pray for you anyway.
Thank you for hurling invective. This is the kind of debate that wins hearts and minds. I may be wrong, but 18 USC 248 (e) (4) appears to define the actus reus in such a way that does not require force. Rendering passage from a place of worship unreasonably difficult or hazardous is considered a physical obstruction. Maybe my reading comprehension skills are as bad as my layering skills? In most states force does not require violence. It can be as little as the turning of a doorknob on a door. I think there's all kinds of force involved in the church invasion in which Lemon participated. Also, just to be clear, although I'm clearly a dummy when it comes to these things, I don't see a requirement under this statute that force be applied to a human body. It just has to utilized. I appreciate that you don't want to engage on the issue at an intellectual level. Just please don't come into my church with that same kind of mess that Lemon did.
I feel like 18 USC 248 (a) (2) is a crime that describes what occurred in the church. If Don Lemon did not personally engage in that activity, he can be held vicariously liable for the actions of those who did violate this section. Under this liability theory, he must have had foreknowledge of the others' actions and done something to aid, encourage, or assist those who violated the law. Under this statute, anyone who "by force or threat of force or by physical obstruction, intentionally injures, intimidates, or interferes with . . . any person lawfully exercising [freedom of religion]," is guilty of a crime. I suppose a Minnesota jury will ultimately acquit Don Lemon, but I would hope you can see how this is a question of fact for a jury. I believe that the video posted by Don Lemon is sufficient on its own for a prosecution to survive directed verdict. I think the key distinction that many are willfully ignoring is that this private property WAS open to the public so that anyone who was there could engage in religious service consistent with the owners of the property. Once the owners felt disrupted by the visitors, the visitors' conditional license to be present was revoked. It was private property. The owners are not required to let anyone engage in any particular actions. If their services were disrupted under the conditions outlined in the statute, then a crime definitely occurred.