According to your logic, during a BLM protest where people start rioting and breaking into shops that means all the protesters in the area had an intention of committing the same crimes. Do you really want cops charging everyone in a public area with the same crime? Do you want them locking up journalists and people there peacefully cause some people in their vicinity had some lighters, cloth and alcohol bottles? The whole point of trial is to prove someones guilt and for that you need evidence of what crime they were planning to commit.
Did you even read the story that I was responding to, you know the specific crime that the Supreme Court was looking at. They weren’t looking to see if trespassing was illegal, nor did I ever say they shouldn’t be charged with trespassing nor of entering a government building without permission. I was talking about whether the protesters should all be treated like they were their to kill representatives certifying the votes even without evidence that was all their intentions. Sure, some may have been there for that purpose, but does that meant that everyone that entered into the capitol building was there for that exact same reason?
If so, my point was does that mean that everyone at a BLM protests… even those that were being peaceful, are in an area when someone sets a fire… should be charged with arson? Like, do we want judges saying… oh, they were in the area or in the building when this happened and cause a few were there for a different purpose, it means they were all there for the same purpose. Or do we want courts to evaluate the evidence against each defendant and try to treat people fairly as much as possible?
According to your logic, during a BLM protest where people start rioting and breaking into shops that means all the protesters in the area had an intention of committing the same crimes. Do you really want cops charging everyone in a public area with the same crime? Do you want them locking up journalists and people there peacefully cause some people in their vicinity had some lighters, cloth and alcohol bottles? The whole point of trial is to prove someones guilt and for that you need evidence of what crime they were planning to commit.
Quick question there, sparky:
How many people charged for their actions on Jan 6 never entered the Capitol?
Because the only way the logic you’re defending holds up, is if that was the case.
Sparky? Really bro?
Did you even read the story that I was responding to, you know the specific crime that the Supreme Court was looking at. They weren’t looking to see if trespassing was illegal, nor did I ever say they shouldn’t be charged with trespassing nor of entering a government building without permission. I was talking about whether the protesters should all be treated like they were their to kill representatives certifying the votes even without evidence that was all their intentions. Sure, some may have been there for that purpose, but does that meant that everyone that entered into the capitol building was there for that exact same reason?
If so, my point was does that mean that everyone at a BLM protests… even those that were being peaceful, are in an area when someone sets a fire… should be charged with arson? Like, do we want judges saying… oh, they were in the area or in the building when this happened and cause a few were there for a different purpose, it means they were all there for the same purpose. Or do we want courts to evaluate the evidence against each defendant and try to treat people fairly as much as possible?