(Not sure this will work on wankers, though.)
Right on Phil!
Here’s the opinion giving the reasons:
Long found this section of the memo insincere. “I challenge Ms. Mitchell directly on this issue, because her office often charges cases with a very expanded timeline,” he said. Victims are often unable to pinpoint the exact date of an attack, and Mitchell’s office, he said, will often bring charges for an act that can’t be narrowed down to a more specific time period than a window of several years. “I was trained explicitly by her to not consider this time thing as an inconsistency,” he said.
“Her only analysis should have been: The process you’ve given me, the information we have, is insufficient,” he said.
You seem to believe that people who block freeways become respected and popular in America
More than that, there are plenty of people here who will happily run you right the fuck over.
I hate it, but I believe many people will never get motivated until they have no other choice… like when there’s no overpriced food left on the grocery store shelves.
To quote from long ago:
We’re in protest type #2 territory here. It isn’t about popularity; it’s about making it impossible for business to continue until the situation is resolved.
You don’t need a hearts and minds campaign; most of the people are already opposed to Trump, and Trump supporters are not realistically open to conversion.
What is required is a general strike, a mass refusal of consent.
And he threw a beer mug at the guy who was the Republican candidate for Governor, 6’ 11” future pro basketball player who he somehow mistook for the lead singer from UB40- the concert he just left. But not out of control drunk or buzzed on other drugs.
Another stable genius. No anger issues here.
Edit - the lead singer of UB40 is 5’8 1/2”.
Does the case have First Amendment implications?
Certainly. But the First Amendment doesn’t protect violence. It also doesn’t protect true threats (that is, threats that a reasonable person would take as an expression of genuine intent to do harm, which the speaker intended that way) nor actual incitement (speech intended, and likely, to cause imminent lawless action). Moreover, the First Amendment doesn’t prohibit using someone’s speech as evidence to prove motive, pattern, or intent — like using the defendants’ prior speech in an attempt to prove that they intended to go to the rally to assault people.
ETA: Friendly reminder of the Freeze Peach thread…
I hope something concrete comes of this…
blocking surface streets, not the freeway
more than a hundred protesters, obviously not just a few cranks
of course you do
you need a hearts and minds campaign TO CONVINCE PEOPLE TO PARTICIPATE IN YOUR STRIKE
Check out these vids from DCCC. (2 more in Twitter link)