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.

 

Democrat Lawmaker Proposes Changing The Definition Of 'Riot'

page: 1
29

log in

join
share:
+12 more 
posted on Sep, 28 2020 @ 06:35 PM
link   
Now that a "lawmaker" has been arrested for rioting, they need to change the definition as though the DA will actually prosecute her. I guess we need and excuse to legally redefine rioting as something good or justified.

Hey, you know what... she would not have been arrested if she had listened to instructions and left before the curfew. I guess that is just not something she could have done and now she has been arrested.

Oh the horror!


Democrat lawmaker proposes changing the definition of 'riot' after her colleague gets arrested for rioting

thepostmillennial.com...



In response to Kentucky state Rep. Attica Scott's arrest for felony rioting in Louisville, her colleague in the legislature, Democratic Rep. Lisa Willner, has proposed changing the legal definition of what a riot is.

It was under this legal understanding that Scott was arrested and charged on first-degree rioting, as well as unlawful assembly and failure to disperse for her attendance at a riot on Thursday night. This was the day after a grand jury declined to indict LMPD officers in the shooting death of Breonna Taylor.

According to police, Scott was part of a group that set fire to a library, damaged other structures, and refused to disperse when police told them to. Scott replied that the charge that she set fire to a library was "ludicrous," and that the arrest was made when she and her daughter were heading to a nearby church to find sanctuary.




www.washingtonpost.com... ry.html



Police said Scott was in a group that disobeyed orders to disperse, and that members of the group damaged buildings and set fire to a library.

The law defines first-degree rioting as knowingly participating in a riot that causes injury to a person who is not rioting, or causes substantial property damage.



+1 more 
posted on Sep, 28 2020 @ 06:40 PM
link   
a reply to: infolurker

As long as we can change the definition to "####ing moronic cow-faced communist hag", then I'm good.




posted on Sep, 28 2020 @ 06:40 PM
link   
Have you claimed your personal responsibility today?

But seriously, some people.

"What do you mean I'm being charged with man slaughter by association? I was just riding in the passenger seat and said that b* is a nazi. HE drove through her, not me."



posted on Sep, 28 2020 @ 06:41 PM
link   
So we get one stupid dumb bell multiplying into two stupid dumb bells 😃

Only Democrats can do that like seahorses 😃


+2 more 
posted on Sep, 28 2020 @ 06:43 PM
link   
a reply to: infolurker

I think we should change the definition of "Democrat" to "Traitor".

The two words have the same meaning in 2020 America anyways...

That would smooth things out in the US rather quickly.




posted on Sep, 28 2020 @ 06:47 PM
link   
a reply to: infolurker

Funny in the middle of a riot she wanted to go to church? She really said this to the police? i swear our politicians are getting dumber and dumber. Well officer

Mam were placing you under arrest for rioting and vandalism.

But officer i was just seeking sanctuary at a church.

So mam you believed you were in danger why did you not just leave.

Well officer I realized I needed to seek sanctuary immediately and could not wait until the next day.

Well mam why were you heading away from the church when you were arrested?

Well officer I got lost when the crowd of rioters started looting.

Wow you cant make this stuff up everyone has gone crazy im beginning to think all the sane people have left the country.



posted on Sep, 28 2020 @ 07:05 PM
link   
Why not? They learned from the best. Under oath, Bill Clinton went on and on about what is is. I mean the definition of is.



posted on Sep, 28 2020 @ 07:20 PM
link   
Changing the rules when it doesn't suit them?

Never would a democrat do that!
edit on 9 28 2020 by projectvxn because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 28 2020 @ 07:26 PM
link   
a reply to: Lumenari




I think we should change the definition of "Democrat" to "Traitor".

Already a done deal in my world. 🍻



posted on Sep, 28 2020 @ 07:27 PM
link   
My favorite was "heading to nearby church to find sanctuary" like this is medieval times and she's Esmeralda escaping with Quasimodo.



FFS!



posted on Sep, 28 2020 @ 10:46 PM
link   
She is setting a good example for the young, don't follow the rules and force the government to change them. Make it so things are not a crime to reduce criminal activity....it could work, if nothing is a crime, there would be no criminals.



posted on Oct, 3 2020 @ 03:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: infolurker

As long as we can change the definition to "####ing moronic cow-faced communist hag", then I'm good.



Here here!



posted on Oct, 3 2020 @ 07:42 PM
link   
So This person got arrested ok well its a start as for the one who wants to change a law is it or is it NOT in the government power to MAKE or change Laws ?

If you don't LIKE the laws This person wants changed there is this little thing we do Here in the states called VOTING .
See voting is when You don't like one person who is running a city You VOTE them OUT then you VOTE a person WHO you do like .

Its to bad the Right has forgotten how voting works I do believe there will be a change of who is running things there soon along with Portland and a few state Governors and Hopefully a melomaniac President change .

No need to kill 60 Million people as Traitors Nore kill them as commies . In the US mass Killing for political gain is not allowed ONLY voting .
PS Also in The UNITED STATES Your have the right to believe what ever ideology you want Until your belief interferes with another's beliefs .
So even If a person believes socialism is a good idea does NOT give YOU THE RIGHT to have them killed as traitors .

In America You have the Right to believe what ever you want Even what you believe BUT You don't have the right to force any one else to believe it .
edit on 3-10-2020 by midnightstar because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 3 2020 @ 07:52 PM
link   
They've already changed the definition of so many words and terms...
racism
bias
white supremacy
systemic racism
equality


What's one more?
Yeah, I realize that this pertains to a legal definition, but...
They just have to realize that at some point words will stop having any real power behind them




top topics



 
29

log in

join