1. It is your obligation, at this point, to get on a jury if called.

   4

2. If there is sufficient evidence that this individual knowingly and deliberately damaged public property, then a felony charge is appropriate. (Assuming that is an option under the criminal code in that state/municipality) I am perfectly OK with that.

   However, when the same judicial system turns a blind eye to criminals committing a felony because of political pressure, that is the abomination. Justice is supposed to be blind, not partisan.

   Look, I will acknowledge that no human being alive is without bias. I would expect a DA to perhaps pursue a lighter charge for a defendant when they sympathize with why that person committed the crime, and seek a harsher penalty when they do not have the same sympathy. I would probably do the same if I was in that position.

   But, that is not what is happening. There is no hidden bias, it is out in the open. If you entered the Capital on Jan 6th, you are spending months in jail, without formal charges filed, because you (GASP! The HORRORS!) supported President Trump. Whereas, the criminals arrested on Jan 20, 2017 during protests against Trump for the most part, had their charges dropped.

   So, yes, the justice system is currently an abomination. It is just another box that has been removed from the patriots.

   1

   1. It’s revealing that you think prison time and the loss of gun and voting rights afterwards is an appropriate punishment for doing a burnout on a public road.

      Definitely puts a lot of your other comments in perspective.

      4

      1. Sorry wizard. Missing something here.

         Where did I say anything of the sort?

         Is there a sufficient evidence to demonstrate that this individual knowingly and deliberately destroyed public property? If the arresting officer, and the DA see that, then yes, they should be CHARGED with the appropriate crime.

         In this particular situation odds of a conviction are pretty much zero.

         And, it is revealing that the rest of my comment apparently was overlooked. Thus, the point was lost.

   2. This is a felony because he is being charged with defacing a memorial. The idea that a temporary paint job to a cross walk is a memorial is dubious.

      3

      1. Glossed over that nuance.

         And, a “memorial?” I would have to see the legal definition they are using, otherwise the charges are arbitrary and capricious. Paint on a crosswalk does not rise to any common or reasonable definition of memorial.

3. Meanwhile, in Minneapolis…

   https://hotair.com/john-s-2/2021/06/18/minneapolis-police-investigating-bags-of-human-body-parts-found-on-the-street-n397649

   I’m not a big fan of “trigger warnings,” but as you all can probably tell just from the URL, this is not a family friendly news item. Reader discretion is warranted.

   1

4. Blue Lives Matter! Blue Lives Matter!

   Err, sorry, some NPC’s took over my keyboard for a moment.

   1

Comments are closed.