placeholder

So now you're claiming it was a farce because of the exercise of prosecutorial discretion?

I don't think so. The Pilgrims were actually religious fanatics. "They made peace with some of the Indians they encountered, but they slaughtered others. They were devout, but they weren't exactly proponents of religious freedom: People who didn't accept their strict beliefs were expelled from their community." https://www.npr.org/2015/11/26/457246585/reconsidering-the-pilgrims-piety-and-americas-founding-principles#:~:text=They were devout%2C but they,were expelled from their community.

But the footage you claimed showed that these people committed criminal acts did nothing of the sort. And you claimed that the fact that police arrested them was somehow incriminating.

And, of course, the two aren't mutually exclusive.

They haven't identified a single person? Yet they're prosecuting 13 people for felonies? Whom they haven't identified?

In fact, the Pilgrims did not believe in religious tolerance. Which is why Roger Williams left to establish a colony in what is now Rhode Island. "The political and religious leader Roger Williams (c. 1603?-1683) is best known for founding the state of Rhode Island and advocating separation of church and state in Colonial America. He is also the founder of the first Baptist church in America. His views on religious freedom and tolerance, coupled with his disapproval of the practice of confiscating land from Native Americans, earned him the wrath of his church and banishment from the Massachusetts Bay Colony." https://www.history.com/topics/colonial-america/roger-williams

What were you claiming was the farce if not the prosecution?

Prosecutors routinely don't prosecute cases that don't rise to the level of a felony. What makes this prosecution of 13 people a "farce" as you claimed it to be.

What evidence did you shoe me that tied specific persons to a crime? Remember, you're the one who made this comment "What a farce, there's a massive amount of video footage." despite the fact that some people are being prosecuted. As for "Why have the majority been released despite having been charged?" that issue has already been addressed by the prosecutors. There wasn't adequate evidence. Did you read the original post? You seem to believe that being arrested and charged is a crime in itself. Maybe in some parts of the world it is. Not in the USA.

It's clear he doesn't understand that the law that bars such people from holding guns has been supported by the Supreme Court. Not overturned.

A masked person smashing glass. What kind of evidence is that? It's evidence that a crime has been committed but not who has committed it. Who are the prosecutors going to prosecute? Any masked person?

This is ridiculous. Your argument that a video of people being arrested is evidence that they committed a crime? It is not a crime to be arrested. Maybe in a police state that argument would be dispositive. But I don't think prosecutors showing police arresting people is going to persuade a judge to allow that into evidence. And once again, you offer a video that shows no evidence of a crime being committed. Clearly you are acting in bad faith. The issue is that the prosecutors dropped charges against most of the protestors because evidence was lacking. You've offered nothing that contradicts their explanation.

But what you seem unable to do is to respond with a relevant link.

You might as well have showed me a family birthday party given that the clip you provided offers nothing in the way of proof. If this is typical, then you've got nothing.

Really? Have you actually watched the video posted here? I doubt there was even a minute of footage of Columbia students What felonies were being committed by identifiable students? And if there are, are any of them still being prosecuted? Got a link to any of those dozens on youtube that show students who are not currently being prosecuted committing felonies?

The J6'ers attempted to interfere with a constitutionally prescribed transfer of power. That was a crime against the Constitution of the United States. And a lot of them actually posted footage to the internet. And the Capitol is heavily monitored with cameras.

Given her undistinguished judicial record, it's clear you don't either.

Got a link to share it with the rest of us?

Why "Even Judge Judy"? Has she been a prominent advocate for robust protection of civil liberties? "Judge Judy is an American arbitration-based reality court show presided over by former Manhattan Family Court Judge Judith Sheindlin." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judge_Judy Wow! Family court. Such a distinguished career.

One problem is that there is no independent judiciary in Russia. So, even if the Russian govt suborning Kaspersky was technically in violation of the law, who would honestly referee it. When the FBI tried to force Apple to give it the keys to unlock encryped info, Apple took its case to court. Eventually, the FBI backed down. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple–FBI_encryption_dispute

A surprising winner in the Supreme Court gun ruling: Hunter Biden As the president’s son prepares to appeal his recent conviction, he will likely renew his challenge to the constitutionality of the federal law that bars drug users from having guns. The high court’s 8-1 ruling on Friday leaves a clear path for that challenge — and even contains some language that could bolster it. “I think at the end of the day, Hunter Biden may benefit from this,” said Eric Ruben, a professor at the SMU Dedman School of Law and a fellow at the Brennan Center for Justice. https://www.politico.com/news/2024/06/21/hutner-biden-supreme-court-rahimi-ruling-00164480

Now why didn't the US govt long ago think of making possible terrorists and malefactors take that pledge? Your plan is pure genius!!!! Let's just hope that someone somewhere doesn't stumble upon the concept of lying. Until then, great idea!!!

What the headline says is one thing. What the official said is another. As for that note about a Hamas terrorist...what does that have to do with police escorting convoys and keeping public order. The United States certainly doesn't think Israels killing of police escorts was justified. And it called them out on their misleading claim that no drivers were being provided to transport food and other material. More inflammatory nonsense from you. If it was your question about Hamas hijacking trucks, Israel has yet to offer proof that it's a major problem. Right now, the reports are about widespread looting and lack of forces to maintain order. Nothing about Hamas doing the looting. But the lack of police to maintain order is being reported on.

Until today, you maintained that there's no proof to show that the lack of police was due to Israel. Now you've changed your tune by using empty rhetorical questions instead of evidence As the US has pointed out, Israel refuses to provide evidence that Hamas has been engaged in largescale hijacking of trucks. As for the paymasters nonsense...you mean the money is tainted? How do you propose that the police in Gaza get paid? Is Israel going to step up and do it?

What's that got to do with intentionally killing the police?