Fischer is accused of charging at police guarding a Capitol entrance during the attack. Fischer, at the time a member of the North Cornwall Township police in Pennsylvania, got inside and pressed up against an officer's riot shield as police attempted to clear rioters, according to prosecutors.
~~Some~~ Most of those that work forces
How does one get tried for treason?
Historically, firing squad.
That's the consequence, not the trial.
Oh right. They dunk the accused in a lake (called ducking) and if they drown they are innocent, if they manage to swim to the surface they're guilty and face execution.
Found Samuel Alito's account.
In a pinch you can also see if they weigh the same as a duck.
That’s too much work, just build a bridge out of them.
It used to be the trial and consequence, paired together.
They did ask some good points. I would like to see justice served here but he is facing multiple charges and the one they are questioning involves trying to prevent official proceedings under specific conditions... Which could potentially apply to pulling a fire alarm, protesting, etc. I'm not sure all the specifics, but it does seem unusual to try to use this charge when it has not been applied in other instances.
Which could potentially apply to pulling a fire alarm, protesting, etc.
Unless you specify, as you should, that this happened IN THE CAPITOL BUILDING.
Where do you think Democrat Rep. Jamaal Bowman pulled the fire alarm, or that the Ocasio-Cortez protesters that stormed Pelosi's office?
I think that Bowman was in the building legally and I don't know anything about the other event, so I can't comment.
Was it legal for Bowman to be there though if he had the intention of committing a crime? Do people with access to their workplace, have the right to go there with the intention of committing a crime?
Yes, just like it's legal for you to be in a bank if you have the intention of robbing it because it isn't a crime until you actually do it. Breaking into and occupying the Capitol is in itself a crime.
So what about unlawful purpose and abuse of right doctrines?
If I'm supposed to know what those are, I don't, but do they make occupying the capitol not a crime? Do they make intending to pull a fire alarm a crime before you pull it? Because otherwise, I don't know how they would be relevant to either scenario.
So you admit to not knowing law but then make some statement saying that going to a bank with the intention of robbing it is fine until you actually rob it?
Yes they can mean that you don't have a legal right to be somewhere if you went there with the intention of committing a crime.
I know enough about the law to know that no one has ever been arrested for intending to pull a fire alarm, but many people have been arrested for actually breaking and entering.
Just scoffing about my not knowing what you're talking about doesn't explain how they are relevant to these two examples.
People get arrested all the time for planning to commit crimes, even before they actually carry them out. I'm not sure why the fire alarm part is suddenly relevant here. Someone argued that because he had a legal right or what they though to be a legal right to be in a building meant that he can't be charged with disrupting proceedings because he didn't enter the building illegally. I was saying, no that isn't correct... that if he went there with a specific intent it is likely he didn't have a legal right to be there.
I’m not sure why the fire alarm part is suddenly relevant here.
You brought it up!
Yeah, cause it is literally what the article is about. Did you read it or you just here to talk about the weather?
You one post ago:
I’m not sure why the fire alarm part is suddenly relevant here.
You now:
Yeah, cause it is literally what the article is about.
Make up your mind.
Uh, yeah I was talking about "People get arrested all the time for planning to commit crimes, even before they actually carry them out" which I say right before that... the fire alarm part is not relevant to what crime they were planning on committing. Are you even going to discuss in good faith or just try to paint the picture you already have made up in your head?
Ah, I see, you were moving the goalposts. Gotcha.
Okay QAnon. Bye bye. Don't talk to me anymore since you can't be honest with yourself or anyone else.
If you're talking about honesty, you're calling someone who is saying that invading the capitol on January 6th is a crime a QAnon conspiracy theorist, which is a bizarrely dishonest accusation.
Damn I wish I was as level headed as you are.
How's your newish Thinkpad treating you btw? Got everything set up the way you like? Is the processor fast enough for everything you need?
Yeah, thanks. It's working really well. I couldn't be happier with it now that it's all set up. Installing Mint was a major pain, but once I got over that part, it was great.
And I try to be level-headed as much as I can. Doesn't always work, but I try. :)
Woof, what a frustrating chain of comments that was to read. Nicely done for staying even keeled the whole time.
Thank you.
Bold ruling for people with official proceedings.
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.