It is time to put an end to these anti Americans getting away with hiding their identities. If they want to do what they are doing, then own it, cowards!!!
https://www.dailywire.com/news/49173...d-hank-berrien
It is time to put an end to these anti Americans getting away with hiding their identities. If they want to do what they are doing, then own it, cowards!!!
https://www.dailywire.com/news/49173...d-hank-berrien
I think they should gather them up and ship them to N. Korea. They do not deserve to be a citizen in this Country
The truth is about to come out. Youll see who is behind this group
Just how is it that all those POS are allowed to ware mask . That in its self should be illegal .Quote:
Originally Posted by dirtdobber45
If that is not a sign they might insight a riot , I don't know what is . Crooked MEDIA .
https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/pet...organization-0
Sign this petition to have Antifa formally declared a terrorist organization.
anyone wearing a mask and carrying a club,bat or object with intent to do someone harm should be shot on site.
Now we're getting somewhere!!!! :)
So, now we are outlawing Halloween then? Trying to make it illegal to wear a mask ... Or, perhaps no more full face helmets?
Just saying you have to be careful what you make illegal/write into statute cause a loose definition can allow a prosecutor to go a lot further than what a Legislature intended.
Halloween? That's a national tradition for children.
Halloween is not a "protest". If you look at the original link here's what the police chief says.
Notice the words "demonstrators" and "protests". This would not apply to Halloween.Quote:
“called for laws that would bar masks worn by demonstrators, allow police to fully videotape protests and give authorities greater control of protests by groups with a history of violence,”
By the way, does anyone else notice the irony of the Police chiefs last name. ;)
Quote:
Police Chief Danielle Outlaw
I never see Halloweeners carrying bats and clubs and threatening people. I am still for the arrest and ship to N. Korea idea.
OK, so no masks at a 'protest' then. That was the exact point I was making, we have to be deliberate in how one now defines what a 'masked protest' or 'mask worn at a demonstration is.' Cause if not, yes a 'masked group' of 'demonstrators' at Halloween could be prosecuted under a vague law.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stefan2k4
Also, if one gets into a fight at the track with a full face helmet on, this could too be a 'masked act of violence/demonstration' subject to prosecution under a poorly worded statute.
Finally outside of self-defense, I don't agree with any group that acts in violence. So similar to what the article noted toward the end, we should probably focus on the conduct not the apparel. See, I did read it! ;)
They should be beaten first though!!!! :)Quote:
Originally Posted by TS FAN
Did what? Let one???? :)Quote:
Originally Posted by anthonycacace
Vague laws are unconstitutional simply because they are vague. Goggle "vagueness doctrine". Vague laws get struck down all the time because of this. They usually get replaced by not so vague laws. That's why laws are written in complicated legal language that only lawyers can understand.Quote:
prosecuted under a vague law.
Not really, because a full face helmet is not really a mask. It's a protective device or PPE. It's purpose is not to conceal identity, but to provide protection from impacts during a crash. Sure, an over zealous prosecutor could attempt to charge someone in a case like that, but it would likely get overturned on appeal and that's assuming a gran jury would indict and a jury would convict. That would also be too broad of an interpretation of the law which would also be unconstitutional.Quote:
lso, if one gets into a fight at the track with a full face helmet on, this could too be a 'masked act of violence/demonstration' subject to prosecution under a poorly worded statute
Basically, an anti-mask law wouldn't be much different than laws against obstruction of justice, laws against destruction of evidence, and money laundering, in that they are designed to prevent people from concealing criminal activity and to hamper prosecution of such activity.If you think anti-mask laws are unconstitutional, then likewise all of those should be as well.
Sometimes they are struck down, but not always. AND, this doesn't happen until challenged in court to have it be determined invalid by a directly aggrieved party; so until that day, the law is in effect. In other words, a few otherwise 'innocent' people could be found guilty unless/until another litigates the unconstitutional basis angle.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stefan2k4
But, it depends on how a mask used in a demonstration is defined. I've never stated I thought it's disallowed, simply that the definition should be stringent.Quote:
Not really, because a full face helmet is not really a mask. It's a protective device or PPE. It's purpose is not to conceal identity, but to provide protection from impacts during a crash. Sure, an over zealous prosecutor could attempt to charge someone in a case like that, but it would likely get overturned on appeal and that's assuming a gran jury would indict and a jury would convict. That would also be too broad of an interpretation of the law which would also be unconstitutional.
Basically, an anti-mask law wouldn't be much different than laws against obstruction of justice, laws against destruction of evidence, and money laundering, in that they are designed to prevent people from concealing criminal activity and to hamper prosecution of such activity.If you think anti-mask laws are unconstitutional, then likewise all of those should be as well.
For example, if the the law stated that a mask used in an act of terror was, "Any covering on or about the face during the perpetuation of an act of violence or aggression," I can see an option for a lawyer to rope in a full-face helmet worn in a fight as subject to it.
Now add to the end, "in order to influence public or political opinion, action or inaction, or in furtherance of a crime," then yes, this addition would lessen the possibility of a track fist-fight being subject to the law and is worded in a similar manner to that of the US Code's 'Obstruction of Justice' statute (18 USC 1503).
If it was a fight about presidential politics or another matter of public interest and not due to an on track incident however ... who knows as there still is a slight gray area.
Antifa supporter?????