Are you serious?
When Dr. King used civil disobedience, he faced perfunctory arrest and jail time. He is viewed as a prophet of righteous causes and broke the law because of the dictates of his conscience.
But, oh boy, is it different with conservatives who try to use civil disobedience! They believe that their conscience compels them to stand up for the rights of the unborn, and this supersedes the FACE Act or any other law. They did not use violence and had no weapons with them. They knew that they would be forcibly removed just as the lunch counter protestors were removed years before. Put it in perspective: Does not the life of the unborn supersede the right to sit at a lunch counter?
However, the followup was radically different for the pro-lifers. For example, Paul Vaughn, was taken at gunpoint from his house in Centerville, TN, by the FBI. Two of his children, who were outside, had guns pointed at them and were told not to go back into the house. Vaughn, as well as others, are facing as much as 11 years in prison. Imagine the outcry if Dr. King had become an American Mandela, and was held in jail for years?
America has a two-tiered justice system--one for the left; one for the right. Garland is a disgrace, as is his politicized FBI.
Today it's the far left that has no tolerance of other opinions... beginning on our campuses.
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
...if you're so inclined.
Link: Biden Family Investigations....
(no message)
Those folks who were caught conducting criminal acts of vandalism, looting, and arson were charged and prosecuted.
Please do not conflate Americans lawfully exercising their First Amendment rights with persons engaged in criminal acts.
(no message)
(no message)
with anything. Remember, they were celebrated in Washington and by many on here. Chris can scream "whatabout" all he wants but it's truly the only way to show what a hypocrite he truly is.
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
Just so we all don't offend you when a whataboutism occurs.
(no message)
(no message)
Mind your Buster Browns and let the man speak for himself.
You seemingly fail to recognize that half the country is enraged by the double standards that are so obviously applied. And then you'll be surprised by the election results next month and wonder where the wave came from.
I would rather not discuss what my side has done, so I will remind you of the bad things your side has done.
It is deflection, but you guys love to trot it out over and over and over.
(no message)
He is the ultimate hypocrite and just a lowlife POS
(no message)
step in and stop a co-ordinated obstruction held at the PP facility also. As well meaning as those folks believe they are, they are not only breaking the law...they are seeking to impose a small minority view on an overwhelming majority of Americans...i.e. it has been abundantly clear for decades that the vast majority in this country want the option of abortion to remain legal and available.
btw, these people have been arrested...no one has been sentenced to 11yrs in prison...nor will any of them likely be.
Link: https://www.news-press.com/story/news/crime/2022/01/27/fort-myers-anti-abortion-protestors-arrested-planned-parenthood/9242982002/
Some of the indicted co-defendants were only charged with misdemeanors.
For those charged with felonies, 11 years is the statutory maximum, -- which is far more than what the federal sentencing guidelines reflect.
Too many here read a short "shock" piece from your shabby news sources ... figure out a tribe member has been charged with criminal wrongdoing ... and then leap to the conclusion that the Garland led DOJ is "politicized" -- one of the GOP midterm talking points.
Trump did a number on many of you. And you all fall for it.
Learn to scrutinize what you read on your hayseed news sources.
(no message)
Just dealing with Sec 1 of the Prohibited Acts, since that deals with health centers, not churches:
a. by force or threat of force;
b. physical obstruction (rendering impassable ingress to or egress from a facility that provides reproductive health services);
c. intentionally injures;
d. interferes with or attempts to injure;
e. intimidate or interfere with any person because that person is or has been (place a person in reasonable apprehension of bodily harm to him- or herself or to another.)
f. obtaining or providing reproductive health services (reproductive health services provided in a hospital, clinic, physician’s office, or other facility, and includes medical, surgical, counselling or referral services relating to the human reproductive system, including services relating to pregnancy or the termination of a pregnancy.).
I used the Cornell Law LII for the Statue. The Wikipedia wording is a bit different from what's actually written in the law.
Seemingly the video presents a far different version of events than what was cited in the indictment. There was no force, no injuries and no attempt to interfere or injure. Seemingly the only thing that applies would be obstruction. But since law enforcement was able to move freely among the protestors who had their backs against the wall for the most part, obstruction would be hard to argue. There was a case of a priest who physically used bike locks (and proceed to glue the key holes shut) on a clinic. I can't find the damn thing now. That would qualify more "physical obstruction" than what these folks are charged with? Likewise intimidate is pretty vague. Singing hymns hardly qualifies there. The indictment states one person said "Here comes the mom to kill her baby" or something to that effect. But again, does that raise to the level of intimidation? As a defense, since only 2 of the 6 elements apply would it be easily argued? Did the action the 11 undertake violate the FACE Statute in its entirety?
I'd prefer this not turn into a pissing match among posters, so if you'd like to B-mail instead, I understand. I typed this up in great haste this morning, so forgive typos or other gaps. I AM GENUINELY INETERSTED in what a defense would look like here....
Danke!
BTW, it is highly doubtful that each co-defendant would have the same defenses. Much like the January 6th prosecutions, one's individual actions and "intent" are paramount in assessing criminality.
Have not seen any of the video or read witness accounts or seen social media posts. The DOJ has. These prosecutions are carefully vetted before indictments are filed. The DOJ does not indict these cases without compelling evidence.
The defense strategy is to emphasize what the client did NOT do -- no threats, didn't touch anyone, didn't obstruct any patient's path, didn't go to patient's house or workplace, etc --- and then argue (legally) to judge, and (factually) to jury that there was zero criminal intent ... that is the law requires much more egregious conduct to meet the threshold for criminality.
Link: https://www.justice.gov/crt/protecting-patients-and-health-care-providers
(no message)
Garland has done nothing to investigate Jane's Revenge and their firebombings of pregnancy centers, and you know he won't, you fucking hypocrite!
(no message)
(no message)
prevent you from doing something.
Really have to worry about the rule of law. Let violent criminals loose with no bail, but jail those expressing a contrary opinion.
Not good.