Absolutely DISGUSTING: CNN Distorts Victim's Mother's Statement To Attack Trump

[westwall]

The laws vary depending on jurisdiction, but the majority are starting to conform to this paradigm.

6.2 Policing Public Demonstrations and Crowd Control | Ethics in Law Enforcement

You're fucking deranged.

That's not a law, ya dipshit; it's a fucking student textbook (BC Open Textbooks - BCcampus). And it's not even from the U.S., it's from British Columbia, Canada.

You know, Canada, who doesn't have a Second Amendment like ours.

Seriously, what the fuck is wrong with you? How on G-d's green Earth do you post that to defend your earlier idiocy? Hell, not only is it not law, not only is it textbook material, not only is it from Canada and not the U.S., but it doesn't even state what you claimed.

Nowhere in there does it state that protesters armed with "clubs and other accouterments" are subject to arrest for merely carrying those weapons. The only weapons it discusses are the weapons police use to maintain crowd control during a protest.

Yes, and it is one of the guides that law enforcement is putting into place to guide police behavior throughout the western world. Did you happen to see the "ethics" part in the title?

It's a fucking Canadian textbook.

Try harder.

It is indeed. And it is among quite a few different books and papers that are being used to formulate the new laws that will govern how protests are regulated in the future. Do try and keep up. If you had bothered to loot at the link there is input from the US, from Great Britain, and other countries. Terrorism is a multinational industry after all, so the nations of the world are working together to figure out ways to combat it. Part of that is to figure out ways to control protests so they don't get out of hand. The textbook is merely a link index for you to look further. Color me unsurprised that you're too dim to figure that out.

It's because I read the link that I was able to determine there is nothing in that link about arresting protesters for carrying "clubs and other accoutrements," as you claimed.

You also said your claims were based on law, not Canadian school books.

Considering that, one can only question your mental stability for posting that link to support your earlier claims...

• 
  
  
  • "The second antifa shows up with a bike lock to physically harm someone they have broken the law..."

• 
  
  
  • "I can find nowhere where the laws governing peaceful protests allow the carrying of bats and clubs. In fact, in every case I can find the carrying of weapons of any sort is prohibited."

• 
  
  
  • "The laws specifically state clubs and other accoutrements"

The link you gave does not support your position. Turns out, when you were pretending to cite U.S. laws, you were really armed with nothing more than a Canadian text book.

Here are a few because clearly you're too stupid to figure it out for yourself.... These are just a few from varying parts of the country. Knock yourself out.


Prohibited Items

DC Code -

PENAL CODE CHAPTER 46. WEAPONS

"Unlawful Assembly" Laws | California Penal Code 407 & 408 PC

http://assets.lapdonline.org/assets/pdf/demonstration.pdf

 

[Crixus]

No, white supremacists are scum, they celebrate whenever a opponent is hurt or killed.

Talk is cheap. You need to act. When do you plan on kicking the fascists and racists out of your beloved Republican party? Yes, it's half the party, but if you're anti-fascist and anti-racist, you'll take the hit.

But the media, by twisting facts to elicit a response, are INCITING more violence. That is far, far worse. Color me unsurprised a progressive would ignore that fact.

We get it. Progressives are anti-fascist, thus all fascists hate progressives. There's a quick way to identify a fanatical fascist. If someone displays knee-jerk hatred of anti-fascist progressives, you know you're looking at fascist.

The article referenced by the OP lied. And you loved that lie. You always do. After all, your fascist utopia can't come about without the lies.

Point to the racists. I don't think you know what a racist is. Talk with your mouth, not your vagina.

 

[mamooth]

Point to the racists. I don't think you know what a racist is. Talk with your mouth, not your vagina.

Why do you consider being a woman to be an insult?

Do you get off on assaulting women as much as your Nazi BFFs do?

Oh, there was another protest today. Zero violence. That's because there were zero Nazis.

 

[Faun]

You're fucking deranged.

That's not a law, ya dipshit; it's a fucking student textbook (BC Open Textbooks - BCcampus). And it's not even from the U.S., it's from British Columbia, Canada.

You know, Canada, who doesn't have a Second Amendment like ours.

Seriously, what the fuck is wrong with you? How on G-d's green Earth do you post that to defend your earlier idiocy? Hell, not only is it not law, not only is it textbook material, not only is it from Canada and not the U.S., but it doesn't even state what you claimed.

Nowhere in there does it state that protesters armed with "clubs and other accouterments" are subject to arrest for merely carrying those weapons. The only weapons it discusses are the weapons police use to maintain crowd control during a protest.

Yes, and it is one of the guides that law enforcement is putting into place to guide police behavior throughout the western world. Did you happen to see the "ethics" part in the title?

It's a fucking Canadian textbook.

Try harder.

It is indeed. And it is among quite a few different books and papers that are being used to formulate the new laws that will govern how protests are regulated in the future. Do try and keep up. If you had bothered to loot at the link there is input from the US, from Great Britain, and other countries. Terrorism is a multinational industry after all, so the nations of the world are working together to figure out ways to combat it. Part of that is to figure out ways to control protests so they don't get out of hand. The textbook is merely a link index for you to look further. Color me unsurprised that you're too dim to figure that out.

It's because I read the link that I was able to determine there is nothing in that link about arresting protesters for carrying "clubs and other accoutrements," as you claimed.

You also said your claims were based on law, not Canadian school books.

Considering that, one can only question your mental stability for posting that link to support your earlier claims...

• 
  
  
  • "The second antifa shows up with a bike lock to physically harm someone they have broken the law..."

• 
  
  
  • "I can find nowhere where the laws governing peaceful protests allow the carrying of bats and clubs. In fact, in every case I can find the carrying of weapons of any sort is prohibited."

• 
  
  
  • "The laws specifically state clubs and other accoutrements"

The link you gave does not support your position. Turns out, when you were pretending to cite U.S. laws, you were really armed with nothing more than a Canadian text book.

Here are a few because clearly you're too stupid to figure it out for yourself.... These are just a few from varying parts of the country. Knock yourself out.

You're fucking demented.

Prohibited Items

That's only on U.S. Capitol grounds where not even guns are allowed. That doesn't support your claims.

DC Code -

That's outlawing hoods and masks in D.C.. That also doesn't support your claims.

PENAL CODE CHAPTER 46. WEAPONS

This covers all illegal carry laws in Texas. Such as carrying a weapon at an election precinct during an election or on school grounds during a school sponsored event. But nothing prohibiting carrying a weapon during a protest. This also doesn't support your claims.

"Unlawful Assembly" Laws | California Penal Code 407 & 408 PC

This is a lawyer's website about how to defend against being charged with unlawful assembly in California. Says nothing about counter-protests. This also doesn't support your claims.

http://assets.lapdonline.org/assets/pdf/demonstration.pdf

These are guidelines for assembling legally in California and do not address carrying weapons at all. This also doesn't support your claims.

Essentially at this point, all you're doing is throwing mud against the wall, hoping something will stick. Evidence that your position was ignorant to begin with.

By the way, that was obvious when you tried to say laws will be crafted in the future to address this issue after making the asinine claim that such laws already existed.

 

[westwall]

Yes, and it is one of the guides that law enforcement is putting into place to guide police behavior throughout the western world. Did you happen to see the "ethics" part in the title?

It's a fucking Canadian textbook.

Try harder.

It is indeed. And it is among quite a few different books and papers that are being used to formulate the new laws that will govern how protests are regulated in the future. Do try and keep up. If you had bothered to loot at the link there is input from the US, from Great Britain, and other countries. Terrorism is a multinational industry after all, so the nations of the world are working together to figure out ways to combat it. Part of that is to figure out ways to control protests so they don't get out of hand. The textbook is merely a link index for you to look further. Color me unsurprised that you're too dim to figure that out.

It's because I read the link that I was able to determine there is nothing in that link about arresting protesters for carrying "clubs and other accoutrements," as you claimed.

You also said your claims were based on law, not Canadian school books.

Considering that, one can only question your mental stability for posting that link to support your earlier claims...

• 
  
  
  • "The second antifa shows up with a bike lock to physically harm someone they have broken the law..."

• 
  
  
  • "I can find nowhere where the laws governing peaceful protests allow the carrying of bats and clubs. In fact, in every case I can find the carrying of weapons of any sort is prohibited."

• 
  
  
  • "The laws specifically state clubs and other accoutrements"

The link you gave does not support your position. Turns out, when you were pretending to cite U.S. laws, you were really armed with nothing more than a Canadian text book.

Here are a few because clearly you're too stupid to figure it out for yourself.... These are just a few from varying parts of the country. Knock yourself out.

You're fucking demented.

Prohibited Items

That's only on U.S. Capitol grounds where not even guns are allowed. That doesn't support your claims.

DC Code -

That's outlawing hoods and masks in D.C.. That also doesn't support your claims.

PENAL CODE CHAPTER 46. WEAPONS

This covers all illegal carry laws in Texas. Such as carrying a weapon at an election precinct during an election or on school grounds during a school sponsored event. But nothing prohibiting carrying a weapon during a protest. This also doesn't support your claims.

"Unlawful Assembly" Laws | California Penal Code 407 & 408 PC

This is a lawyer's website about how to defend against being charged with unlawful assembly in California. Says nothing about counter-protests. This also doesn't support your claims.

http://assets.lapdonline.org/assets/pdf/demonstration.pdf

These are guidelines for assembling legally in California and do not address carrying weapons at all. This also doesn't support your claims.

Essentially at this point, all you're doing is throwing mud against the wall, hoping something will stick. Evidence that your position was ignorant to begin with.

By the way, that was obvious when you tried to say laws will be crafted in the future to address this issue after making the asinine claim that such laws already existed.

What part of "laws from around the country" are you unable to comprehend? I guess you really ARE that stupid.

 

[Faun]

It's a fucking Canadian textbook.

Try harder.

It is indeed. And it is among quite a few different books and papers that are being used to formulate the new laws that will govern how protests are regulated in the future. Do try and keep up. If you had bothered to loot at the link there is input from the US, from Great Britain, and other countries. Terrorism is a multinational industry after all, so the nations of the world are working together to figure out ways to combat it. Part of that is to figure out ways to control protests so they don't get out of hand. The textbook is merely a link index for you to look further. Color me unsurprised that you're too dim to figure that out.

It's because I read the link that I was able to determine there is nothing in that link about arresting protesters for carrying "clubs and other accoutrements," as you claimed.

You also said your claims were based on law, not Canadian school books.

Considering that, one can only question your mental stability for posting that link to support your earlier claims...

• 
  
  
  • "The second antifa shows up with a bike lock to physically harm someone they have broken the law..."

• 
  
  
  • "I can find nowhere where the laws governing peaceful protests allow the carrying of bats and clubs. In fact, in every case I can find the carrying of weapons of any sort is prohibited."

• 
  
  
  • "The laws specifically state clubs and other accoutrements"

The link you gave does not support your position. Turns out, when you were pretending to cite U.S. laws, you were really armed with nothing more than a Canadian text book.

Here are a few because clearly you're too stupid to figure it out for yourself.... These are just a few from varying parts of the country. Knock yourself out.

You're fucking demented.

Prohibited Items

That's only on U.S. Capitol grounds where not even guns are allowed. That doesn't support your claims.

DC Code -

That's outlawing hoods and masks in D.C.. That also doesn't support your claims.

PENAL CODE CHAPTER 46. WEAPONS

This covers all illegal carry laws in Texas. Such as carrying a weapon at an election precinct during an election or on school grounds during a school sponsored event. But nothing prohibiting carrying a weapon during a protest. This also doesn't support your claims.

"Unlawful Assembly" Laws | California Penal Code 407 & 408 PC

This is a lawyer's website about how to defend against being charged with unlawful assembly in California. Says nothing about counter-protests. This also doesn't support your claims.

http://assets.lapdonline.org/assets/pdf/demonstration.pdf

These are guidelines for assembling legally in California and do not address carrying weapons at all. This also doesn't support your claims.

Essentially at this point, all you're doing is throwing mud against the wall, hoping something will stick. Evidence that your position was ignorant to begin with.

By the way, that was obvious when you tried to say laws will be crafted in the future to address this issue after making the asinine claim that such laws already existed.

What part of "laws from around the country" are you unable to comprehend? I guess you really ARE that stupid.

Moron... as pointed out in my last post... nothing you linked supported your claims.

You claimed Antifa members would be arrested for showing up at an alt-right rally with a bicycle lock.

You have yet to cite a single law proving you're not the idiot you appear to be by making such unsubstantiated comments.

Hell, in lieu of citing actual U.S. law, you even referenced a school book from Canada and D.C. law banning hoods and masks.