Trump v Biden 2020,The insurrection (pt 6) Read OP

Deleted User wrote: »

I was referring to the legal definition of being armed.

So we are coming to a consensus that none of the Jan 6 attackers will be charged, let alone convicted, of attempting a coup.

I'm coming to the conclusion that you don't know what you're talking about and have no intention of learning anything when the facts are presented.

And wow, my ignore list is getting long recently.

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I was referring to the legal definition of being armed.

So we are coming to a consensus that none of the Jan 6 attackers will be charged, let alone convicted, of attempting a coup.

Really? Is this the nub of your argument? They can’t be charged for attempting a coup because the word “coup” isn’t included in the laws that define the crimes they did? Crimes that are accurately described by the dictionary definition of the word “coup”.

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I was referring to the legal definition of being armed.

No you weren’t at all. We can see what you wrote. Does it ruin your bicycle to backpedal this hard?

[Deleted User] wrote: »

No it wasn't [a failed coup attempt]. Firstly, they were not armed as the legal definition of such. Not one shot was fired and no one was stabbed. And no, flag poles don't count as weapons. It was an illegal and violent attempt to COERCE the government into follow their will.
Why people here are so precious and hung up about calling it a coup I do not understand.

As for being armed with a deadly weapon, yes, flagpoles can be used as deadly weapons. Practically anything can meet the definition of assault with a deadly weapon if used in an assault. Hockey sticks, 2x4 lumber, poles, pitchforks, etc all easily satisfy the definition. 18 US code § 930

I suggest you spend more time listening and reading and critically thinking.

Gregor Samsa wrote: »

Really? Is this the nub of your argument? They can’t be charged for attempting a coup because the word “coup” isn’t included in the laws that define the crimes they did? Crimes that are accurately described by the dictionary definition of the word “coup”.

Thinking about all the things my congressman has called a coup in the last few years :pac: impeachment was a coup, because! But objecting to electors can’t be a coup, because it’s in the constitution!

Christ he’s a massive idiot.

Overheal wrote: »

Biden’s inaugural is going to be lit ��

https://twitter.com/rebeccashabad/status/1350043944378376195?s=21

What? No Toby Kieth?

Deleted User wrote: »

I was referring to the legal definition of being armed.

In that case you agree it was an attemoted coup.

https://definitions.uslegal.com/a/armed
"Armed" US legal definition: "Armed means furnished with weapons of offense or defense; furnished with the means of security or protection. In short it means carrying a weapon. For example the bank robber was armed with a shot gun. It can also mean involving the use of weapons. For example terrorists abandoned the armed struggle.

In Buchannon v. State, 554 So. 2d 494, 495 (Ala. 1989) the court held that “In the context of substantive criminal statutes, most courts have concluded that "armed" means having a weapon that is within a person's immediate control and available for his use."

https://definitions.uslegal.com/w/weapon/
"Weapon" US legal definition: "A weapon is defined under various federal, state, and local laws, which vary by jurisdiction. A weapon is generally something used to injure, defeat, or destroy and may cover many types of instruments, such as a blackjack, slingshot, billy, metal knuckles, dagger, knife, pistol, revolver, or any other firearm, razor with an unguarded blade, and any metal pipe or bar used or intended to be used in a club, among others.

The following is an example of a municipal definition of a dangerous weapon:

"Section 13.68.010 Dangerous weapon--Defined.

As used in this chapter, "dangerous weapon" means and includes, but is not limited to:

1. Any knife having a blade three inches or more in length, or any snap-blade or spring-blade knife regardless of the length of the blade;

2. Any ice pick or similar sharp stabbing tool;
Any straight edge razor or any razor blade fitted to a handle;

3. Any cutting, stabbing or bludgeoning weapon or device capable of inflicting grievous bodily harm;

4. Any dirk or dagger or bludgeon;

5. Any "taser public defender" or other similar electronic immobilizer which causes, by means of an electrical current, a person to experience muscle spasms and extreme pain, followed by unconsciousness."

briany wrote: »

My initial point was about the idea of Republicans voting to overturn the election result. The following point about the slight movement on impeachment is to further broach the idea that not every Republican in the US Congress has a heart of stone.

The two objections to election results that did make it to a vote were both defeated with a thwomping bi-partisan majority, especially in the Senate. If certain Democrat congressmen and women had been taken out of the picture due to rioting, I'm still not seeing evidence that every Republican would have been whipped to vote in favour of overturning the results.

Pragmatism has to go both ways for someone like McConnell and McCarthy. There's trying to ensure the stability of his party, but there's also trying to ensure the stability of a country for there to even be a party in the first place, and I cannot think that would have been achieved where they cynically took advantage of a most horrible scenario where rioters handed them a numbers advantage in Congress such that they could overturn an election of which they had no proof was fraudulent.

Whatever would have happened to the votes if they'd gotten to politicians, if they'd gotten to the votes themselves and either destroyed or simply broken the chain of custody it would be very likely that they could have forced the states to recertify which could have led to at best dragging out the process but would likely have caused chaos and attempts to overturn it several states again.

It was only some quick thinking staff that saved them.

BattleCorp wrote: »

Where did you see someone in this thread say that the Storming of the Capitol was a peaceful protest?

Earlier in this or the other thread someone said it was an initially peaceful protest, It was a preplanned mission

https://twitter.com/alanfeuer/status/1350140120264040449?s=20

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Again with the personal attacks. What is going on in this place?

If you've a problem, report it but your tears will curry no favour

I know Trump is an absolute ar5ewipe but, unpopular as this opinion will be, I don't understand why there is so much absolute rage and bile aimed in his direction. I don't understand why people can't dislike him without going into a rage and frothing at the mouth at the mere mention of his name.

I'll be accused of trolling but I'm serious here. The American economy is going well (until COVID), but it's still doing pretty ok. Fair enough, Trump can be blamed for not adequately managing COVID but it was always going to be a problem in the States. Fact is the American public won't do what they are told because...........freedom etc. There was always going to be resistance to masks etc. Even obedient countries like Germany are having problems with COVID.

Less soldiers than ever are being killed in wars. Trump hasn't started any new wars as far as I'm aware.

Trump doesn't get fair play from the media either. He is painted in a bad light even when he does nothing wrong. For example, someone who owns a MAGA hat does anything wrong whatsoever, the media have headlines such as "Trump Supporter Rapes Bear" etc. Every single angle is used to try and smear Trump even when he has nothing to do with it.

Like I've said earlier in the thread, I'm far from a supporter of Trump. I'm just bemused by the level of hate towards him. It almost doesn't seem rational to me.

Overheal wrote: »

It’s been 5 years and 7 months since Trump went down the escalator.

If you still haven’t figured it out you never will.

What does down the escalator mean? Entered politics?

BattleCorp wrote: »

I know Trump is an absolute ar5ewipe but, unpopular as this opinion will be, I don't understand why there is so much absolute rage and bile aimed in his direction. I don't understand why people can't dislike him without going into a rage and frothing at the mouth at the mere mention of his name.

I'll be accused of trolling but I'm serious here. The American economy is going well (until COVID), but it's still doing pretty ok. Fair enough, Trump can be blamed for not adequately managing COVID but it was always going to be a problem in the States. Fact is the American public won't do what they are told because...........freedom etc. There was always going to be resistance to masks etc. Even obedient countries like Germany are having problems with COVID.

Less soldiers than ever are being killed in wars. Trump hasn't started any new wars as far as I'm aware.

Trump doesn't get fair play from the media either. He is painted in a bad light even when he does nothing wrong. For example, someone who owns a MAGA hat does anything wrong whatsoever, the media have headlines such as "Trump Supporter Rapes Bear" etc. Every single angle is used to try and smear Trump even when he has nothing to do with it.

Like I've said earlier in the thread, I'm far from a supporter of Trump. I'm just bemused by the level of hate towards him. It almost doesn't seem rational to me.

If you aren't doing what you claim in bold have you tried to do any research on him at all before posting that you are confused?

He has given the US population, and the world in general, a never ending list of terrible policies, lies, and corruption over the past 4 years and driven a divided nation even further apart with his statements. There couldn't be more evidence out there.