Odd Legal Question

[robkelk]

Most of the BLM folks, and 'Antifa' seemed to generally get on fine with their communities.

There's also a difference between someone getting battered by the cops when otherwise lawfully protesting in the street. There's a line between protest and riot --- and it seemed from the coverage we got here that most 'riots' began at the instigation of the police themselves.

I mean, these are the cops who are parading in military convoy pepper-balling people on their own property.

It seems more like the BLM folks have a legitimate grievance - and for want of a better term, far more skin in the game. They've enough drive behind them to stand up to the police - more mettle and more substance to their protest.

Ultimately, BLM remained for the most part, a protest. The whole character of the average participant was generally different. There seemed to be a lot more sense that there'd be consequences of failure - and this had to happen to keep their lives from getting worse. There was weight to their actions.

Whatever happened in the Capitol wasn't a protest - it was some sort of what the fuck.

Maybe I'm just too socially conservative for my own good here, but BLM/ANTIFA from where I'm sitting (and most news you get is likely edited to hide THEM being the instigators) are just political terrorists with better publicity. The MAGA morons involved on January 6 were just as bad only they don't benefit half as much from the media carrying water for them.

If anything, I despise both. Violence from either is not needed or justified to achieve political ends. I have too much faith in democracy apparently, but I believe far more can be accomplished, entirely within the law, than will ever be done outside of it. Anyone who approves of either side using terror, arson, assault, or murder registers my disgust, as no place that calls itself civilized can afford to tolerate such things. If people cannot peaceably petition for redress of grievances, regardless of their political side, I have no tolerance for it.

Well, let's see what Wikipedia has to say about these groups.

BLM: Not actually a group; rather, a loose collection of people who are upset about the number of non-white people being killed by police. Their goal is the reform of the criminal justice system to treat everyone equally. Often impersonated by people who want to discredit them.

ANTIFA: Not actually a group; rather, a loose collection of left-wing people who are against facism. They use "both nonviolent and violent direct action" instead of policy reform. "Individuals involved in the movement tend to hold anti-authoritarian, anti-capitalist, and anti-state views". (Which to me sounds suspiciously like Wikipedia's definition of Libertarianism.)

MAGA: The GOP's 2016 and 2020 campaign slogan.

If those are incorrect, then please update the Wikipedia articles. Don't forget to provide sources - they insist on citations.

Wikipedia wipes its own backside with the concept of objectivity and cowers behind what they consider reliable sources for any political topic to pretend otherwise. There is good reason no school worthy of the name will allow you to cite Wikipedia articles as sources for an assignment. The stuff that they haven't politicized is decent enough, but they will bend over backwards to declare sources that make their cause celebres look good as reliable sources and then use that to frame their position on those topics under the false light of objectivity. Their political objectivity on any contemporary topic is worth less than my last bowel movement.

And Brent, thanks for explaining this whole thing in a way where an organized conspiracy makes sense.

I refer you to this ATT page..

If you don't like that source, then supply another source that can be read outside of the USA.