Charlottesville: Where Do We Go From Here?

[Torrocca]

No. Mark them as terrorists and prosecute them all to the fullest extent of the law.

The individual terrorists, or the group that they belong to?

The group, of course.

[Proctopeo]

The individual terrorists, or the group that they belong to?

The group, of course.

That's gonna be fun.

[Torrocca]

The group, of course.

That's gonna be fun.

As fun as labeling ISIS as terrorists and waging war on them.

[Proctopeo]

That's gonna be fun.

As fun as labeling ISIS as terrorists and waging war on them.

I have to wonder; what about people without a blatant organized group to pin as "terrorists"?
Do we pin a larger, less organized group as "terrorists"?

[Torrocca]

As fun as labeling ISIS as terrorists and waging war on them.

I have to wonder; what about people without a blatant organized group to pin as "terrorists"?
Do we pin a larger, less organized group as "terrorists"?

That's about when you start pinning the individuals, of course. If they conspire to commit terrorism (as was actually the case for Charlottesville) (or do commit terrorism) smack 'em with terrorist charges and fuck them up with the fullest extent of the law possible.

[Germanic Templars]

I have to wonder; what about people without a blatant organized group to pin as "terrorists"?
Do we pin a larger, less organized group as "terrorists"?

That's about when you start pinning the individuals, of course. If they conspire to commit terrorism (as was actually the case for Charlottesville) (or do commit terrorism) smack 'em with terrorist charges and fuck them up with the fullest extent of the law possible.

Like Antifa?

[Torrocca]

That's about when you start pinning the individuals, of course. If they conspire to commit terrorism (as was actually the case for Charlottesville) (or do commit terrorism) smack 'em with terrorist charges and fuck them up with the fullest extent of the law possible.

Like Antifa?

If you're in New Jersey, I guess. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[Germanic Templars]

Like Antifa?

If you're in New Jersey, I guess. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

I think you mean if you have read a dictionary to read up on what terrorism is, which obviously seen here, there is a lacking in the lexicon.

[Rio Cana]

Seems this has been a problem that has been dragging on for a long time. It was reflected in popular culture in a televised sitcom on US network TV on September 17, 1990 - (Video is just 2 min. 56 secs. long) - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m1gK4HxXAo8

[Salandriagado]

I don't think so. Anti-government anarchists are in their own little world of crazy

They're literally left-wing.

Have fun telling literally all of the ancaps on this board that they're suddenly left-wing.

[Salandriagado]

Could you point out where in their nifty little handbooks they say, "genocide the unpure," pretty please?

Article 121, Soviet Criminal Code. Criminalizes homosexuality.

Mao Zedong, "castration of sexual deviants" including homosexuals.

Castro, "[W]e would never come to believe that a homosexual could embody the conditions and requirements of conduct that would enable us to consider him a true Revolutionary, a true Communist militant. A deviation of that nature clashes with the concept we have of what a militant Communist must be."

I can also dig up similar stuff for Jews, Capitalists, and I dunno, probably litterers if I look hard.

All of those could also apply to Britain in the contemporary time period.

[Vassenor]

Article 121, Soviet Criminal Code. Criminalizes homosexuality.

Mao Zedong, "castration of sexual deviants" including homosexuals.

Castro, "[W]e would never come to believe that a homosexual could embody the conditions and requirements of conduct that would enable us to consider him a true Revolutionary, a true Communist militant. A deviation of that nature clashes with the concept we have of what a militant Communist must be."

I can also dig up similar stuff for Jews, Capitalists, and I dunno, probably litterers if I look hard.

All of those could also apply to Britain in the contemporary time period.

Yeah, it is kind of sad that people are literally forgetting what happened to Turing.

[Elwher]

For one thing, in the US "[a] person is privileged to use such force as reasonably appears necessary to defend him or herself against an apparent threat of unlawful and immediate violence from another."

So no, defence of another is not self-defence.

Hate to burst ya bubble, but....
Sourcehttps://www.justia.com/criminal/defenses/self-defense/
For both self-defense and defense of others, the threat faced must have been imminent such that it put the criminal defendant, or the one he or she was defending, in fear of immediate harm. This can be accomplished through words that imply a threat of force or an actual show of force. However, mere offensive language is not enough to support a claim for self-defense.

Additionally, the defense of self-defense or defense of others is available only while the threat is ongoing. After the threat has ended, the use of force is no longer appropriate. This would be considered an act of retaliation, as opposed to self-defense.

Also, as early as 1972 in Washington State v. Wanrow, the use of force is sometimes justified as self defense after the immediate threat is ended if the victim has reason to believe that the threat will resume.

[Bakery Hill]

Video shows Charlottesville police standing by as alt-right protester opens fire on counter-protest group

Still want to claim that the alt-right group was there to be 100% peaceful?

Ok, gonna ignore the improvised flame thrower attack against the old man? It looks like, racist expletive aside, the man could rightly claim he was defending the life of the person assaulted with Flame
Or is lighting a propellant into a modified flame thrower a part of a wholesome, peaceful protest?
I may disagree wholeheartedly with the expletive, but I do not disagree with defending someone from an attack if needed. Good Samaritan and all that, if someone was trying to torch me with a modified flame thrower, I hope anyone would try to stop them on my behalf.
Pic of the flamer...heheheh...pun intended.

I don't see any old man on the left hand sight. Old mate was protecting the old man that has been conveniently cut out of shot on the right. Correct position tbh.

[Bakery Hill]

They're literally left-wing.

Have fun telling literally all of the ancaps on this board that they're suddenly left-wing.

They're not real anarchists. Thankfully many of them are starting to realise this.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

They're literally left-wing.

Have fun telling literally all of the ancaps on this board that they're suddenly left-wing.

What board?

[Salandriagado]

Have fun telling literally all of the ancaps on this board that they're suddenly left-wing.

What board?

The message board on which we are having this conversation.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

What board?

The message board on which we are having this conversation.

We have ancaps?

[Len Hyet]

The message board on which we are having this conversation.

We have ancaps?

Have you not seen the black and gold flags?

[Torrocca]

Article 121, Soviet Criminal Code. Criminalizes homosexuality.

Mao Zedong, "castration of sexual deviants" including homosexuals.

Castro, "[W]e would never come to believe that a homosexual could embody the conditions and requirements of conduct that would enable us to consider him a true Revolutionary, a true Communist militant. A deviation of that nature clashes with the concept we have of what a militant Communist must be."

I can also dig up similar stuff for Jews, Capitalists, and I dunno, probably litterers if I look hard.

All of those could also apply to Britain in the contemporary time period.

Also what were basically genocides in the Indian sub-continent during British rule with all those famines and whatnot.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

We have ancaps?

Have you not seen the black and gold flags?

Not recently.

[FelrikTheDeleted]

Also what were basically genocides in the Indian sub-continent during British rule with all those famines and whatnot.

Let's not do this meme today, please. The famines in India were far from genocide; it wasn't a deliberate attempt at killing off ethnic groups.

[Torrocca]

Also what were basically genocides in the Indian sub-continent during British rule with all those famines and whatnot.

Let's not do this meme today, please. The famines in India were far from genocide; it wasn't a deliberate attempt at killing off ethnic groups.

Seems fair to do when famines are called genocide when they happen under any country with Socialism :^)

[Kash Island]

Let's not do this meme today, please. The famines in India were far from genocide; it wasn't a deliberate attempt at killing off ethnic groups.

Seems fair to do when famines are called genocide when they happen under any country with Socialism :^)

well when you starve your own people and not allow foreign aid in....

[FelrikTheDeleted]

Seems fair to do when famines are called genocide when they happen under any country with Socialism :^)

I don't know who said it, mate; they obviously didn't use the word, 'genocide', correctly. There's also the fact that the famines in India were a result of both government policy and natural causes. I'm not entirely sure about Socialism and it's part to play in any famine.