They’re not terrorists if they’re doing so peacefully and non-disruptively and have acquired any appropriate permits.
How does one disrupt traffic “non-disruptively”?
On a less snarky note, if you insist that MLK Jr. was a terrorist, the term has no meaning. If MLK Jr. was a terrorist, then terrorism is appropriate sometimes.
Absolutely, yes.
Last weekend in my town there was a biker parade that collects and delivers toys for charity. This requires the closure of one of the main surface roads. The closure was announced in advance and carried out with the full cooperation of the police department. It was non-disruptive.
If it was non-disruptive, then it didn’t disrupt traffic. I can’t insult you non-insultingly.
Shouldn’t terrorism have at least a passing resemblance to something that would cause terror?
Alternatively, I imagine all these guys investing all that time on those monkey bars in the desert, planning to kill themselves in major explosions would like to know that none of that is necessary.
All they really need to do is go stand in the street.
Assuming that people are guilty by default seems to be the order of the day.
College fraternities at UVA, “Barry” at Oberlin College, facts don’t matter, as long as the “story” is advanced, right?
And then there’s the police officers in Ferguson and NYC. Although the respective grand juries did not find probable cause that the officers committed a crime, people still want the officers tried and convicted.
But people want to assume the best of Garner. Excuse me if I find that just slightly inconsistent.
What’s inconsistent is your equation of these incidents.
-
Campus rape —no one is asking that someone be convicted of a crime based solely on something someone wrote.
-
Ferguson and New York cops —there’s actually a dead body and a cop who admits to killing that person. No one demands that they be convicted. They demand a trial, which is how we find out if someone is guilty of a crime. A trial is not a punishment.
-
No one needs to assume the best of Garner. All you need to know is that whatever he did, it didn’t justify a summary execution on the street.
All of the campus fraternities were sanctioned, based on one person’s false accusations. Are you OK with that?
Aren’t you a lawyer? In NY, a grand jury indictment is required before a (felony) criminal trial can take place. No indictment, no trial. But people want a trial anyway, in contravention of long existing law and practice.
He wasn’t executed, that’s simply rhetorical excess. And people are trying their very best to assume the best of Garner. In fact, some are claiming, earlier in this thread, that Garner was a “hard-working father”. How is one “hard-working” when he spends so much time in police custody or in jail?
They have been suspended pending investigation and the university as a whole had already been under investigation for Title IX violations. I don’t consider this either a punishment or an injustice. It’s time for campus organizations and social events to fall under some very rigorous scrutiny, regardless of the ins and outs of the Rolling Stone article.
Yes I am a lawyer. I am familiar with how prosecutors work with grand juries. These prosecutors intentionally took a dive in these cases.
You are aware that for many decades “existing law and practice” were routinely manipulated in order to let certain people off the hook, right?
It doesn’t matter what you think of him personally. In fact, the worse you think of him, the more he deserves due process.
I don’t see why this should matter one way or the other. However, you do realize that your conclusion does not logically follow, right?
And here I thought that all people deserved due process, equally under the law.
The point is that people you like you’re inclined to give the due process anyway. The point of a right like due process is that the right exists most importantly for the people that you don’t want to give it to.
Just like free speech rights. The more you despise a speaker or his message, the harder you must work to protect him.
Yes, everybody deserves due process. In order to ensure that happens, you need to pay attention to the protection of those people you find the most fault with.
Does everybody include young white men at UVA?
Not at the moment, no, but white folks will get their rights back after an appropriate time for regret and self-loathing.
Has anyone put them in prison without a trial? Or shot them in the streets for petty bickering?
They’re going to get plenty of process, more than in any of these cop shootings.
This part is still disturbing. Are you saying that the prosecutors should ignore the findings of the grand juries, and bring charges anyway, as the mob demands? Our prosecutors shouldn’t act as modern day Pontius Pilates. It was wrong 2000 years ago, and it’s wrong now.
Maybe another lawyer will chime in. Wouldn’t it be unethical for a prosecutor to file charges, if he doesn’t have sufficient evidence to convict?
I think the protesters are arguing that one or more of the prosecutors failed in their duties. Many protesters are arguing that the relationships between prosecutors and cops is too cozy, and disincentivizes prosecutors to actually go after police officers, resulting in protesters “going easy” on cops in many cases.
AND furthermore, in the Ferguson case, that Prosecutor McCulloch was an outright corrupt cop-coddling crooked loose cannon, with a long history of being like that too.
ETA: Link: Why Ferguson is so mad at prosecutor Bob McCulloch
McCulloch’s behavior is disgusting. Anyone who can read that article and believe otherwise is part of the problem.
The ethical issue here is that McColloch took the biggest dive since Felix Baumgartner.