It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Prosecutors Withheld Evidence That Could Exonerate J20 Protesters, Judge Rules

page: 2
9
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 24 2018 @ 01:42 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcalibur254




One can only hope that any prosecutor who bent and broke the law in an attempt to further the government's agenda loses their license to practice law.

interesting
I fear we will be exposed to more of this than any of us would like to see




posted on May, 24 2018 @ 01:44 PM
link   
a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

No, if you go to a planned peaceful protest then you are supporting peaceful protests and not liable.

If you go and support a violent disruptive protest where the goal is meant to be violent and disruptive then you are.

If you go to the liquor store to buy booze and your friend shoots someone you aren't responsible.

If your friend says I'm robbing the store and you join them and they shoot someone you are.



posted on May, 24 2018 @ 01:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: auroraaus

If you join a protest whose purpose is to be disruptive then you are imo guilty, just like if you partake in a robbery and someone gets shot you are guilty Even if you aren't the one shooting.


If a protest doesn’t disrupt or inconvenience anyone in any way, is it really a protest?



posted on May, 24 2018 @ 01:48 PM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Then I guess it's a good thing you're not a judge. Because every single judge that has heard these cases don't agree with you.

Also, the J20 protests were not planned as destructive or violent. And in fact it was a very small subset that actually took part in such activities.



posted on May, 24 2018 @ 01:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Xcalibur254




One can only hope that any prosecutor who bent and broke the law in an attempt to further the government's agenda loses their license to practice law.

interesting
I fear we will be exposed to more of this than any of us would like to see


Mueller is on this case too?!?!?!?!?!?!
edit on 24-5-2018 by BrennanHuff because: typo



posted on May, 24 2018 @ 01:50 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcalibur254

I think they are part of the problem, but them being there isn't a crime in and of itself.



posted on May, 24 2018 @ 01:51 PM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

How are they part of the problem? Newsworthy events should not be covered by the press?



posted on May, 24 2018 @ 01:52 PM
link   
a reply to: eNumbra

Of course. It should be peaceful disruption targeted at the source of the protest, not anything and everything.



posted on May, 24 2018 @ 01:54 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcalibur254

Is empowering violent people and getting their message out encouraging more violence in the future worth it? Can't we come up with a way to factually report something happened without doing that?

Give coverage to the peaceful protesters while acknowledging some weren't peaceful.



posted on May, 24 2018 @ 01:55 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcalibur254

My only response is any prosecutor who broke the law should be fired and prosecuted.



posted on May, 24 2018 @ 02:02 PM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

The press has also given plenty of coverage to things like the Women's March and the recent gun control protest. Funny how people that opposed the media covering the J20 protest also opposed them covering these protests.

What's also funny is that it's impossible for the accused parties to have committed the destruction they're charged with. They were already in the kettle when it was occurring blocks away.

Let me ask, do you think a 70 year sentence is reasonable for attending a protest?



posted on May, 24 2018 @ 02:05 PM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

So everyone that showed up for the UTR rally should be charged with terrorism. I mean they were planning to commit violence and one of their members did run down 20+ people with a car (which was specifically mentioned in their Discord as a potential tactic) killing one.



posted on May, 24 2018 @ 02:22 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcalibur254

If they stated their goal was to commit violence and they were part of a planned violent event then yes.

I don't care who you are, support violence and face consequences.



posted on May, 24 2018 @ 02:24 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcalibur254

I oppose them covering the school walkouts against the 2nd while ignoring the ones pro 2nd. I have no problems with covering both. They are pushing an agenda though and refused to cover in any real fashion anything against the agenda.

I want news, not propaganda.



posted on May, 24 2018 @ 02:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: OccamsRazor04


Let me ask, do you think a 70 year sentence is reasonable for attending a protest?

Separate issue, but it would depend on the facts. Likely not in this instance.



posted on May, 24 2018 @ 04:38 PM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

So what happens if the protest was planned as peaceful but a few people turned up and were violent at said protest ?



posted on May, 24 2018 @ 06:55 PM
link   
a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

Then only those we have evidence were involved in violence or supported the violence are responsible.



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 1   >>

log in

join