Do you know your A..B..C..s ?

[Hawkeye10]

How can I possibly be quibbling over the definition of violence since it is clearly defined in the law. The same law that you say is not to be interpreted. It is you that is violating your own argument by now claiming that what you admit was destruction of property isn't violence even though the law you claim should be taken as written shows your argument to be false.
Is the law to be followed without interpretation or not? The law clearly says that the use of physical force against property is violence.
You admitted that the breaking of window was an attack on property.
That means that the video clearly shows violence. You are the one that is quibbling and trying to avoid a simple reading of the law which you claim must be done.

Your "review" would seem to indicate that you are trying to interpret the law to not be what it clearly states.

I see you have also decided to move the goalposts by now claiming that only violence against another person counts as violence. It seems you can't follow your own rules. Spin all you want.
The fact is you were presented a video of someone breaking a window that you admit is in the video.
The law clearly states that an attack on property is an act of violence.
You have been shown the video you asked for. You admitted that the video included violence based on the reading of the law you say can't be interpreted but must be followed without any interpretation.
Now you are attempting to claim that the law can't be followed or the video you admitted included violence no longer includes violence.

Well lets start with how we are constantly told by power that words are violence when this has never been reflected in our law.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Well lets start with how we are constantly told by power that words are violence when this has never been reflected in our law.

Lovely deflection from a stupid person. Do you have an actual argument that makes sense or are you just going to jump in to prove your stupidity?
The law states that the use of physical force against a person or property is violence.
IBDaMann admitted that the video he was shown includes an attack on property.
IBDaMann now is trying to argue that an attack on property is not violence in direct contradiction to his argument that laws can not be interpreted but must be accepted as written.
At this point IBDaMann has shown he has no integrity or honesty with his arguments. He has agreed that the things exist that he now denies to exist.

 

[IBDaMann]

How can I possibly be quibbling over the definition of violence since it is clearly defined in the law.

Because you are being disingenuous. My point is that the law, and the legal system, is being abused to punish conservatives per an evil leftist agenda, and your response is that the abuse and prosecutorial overreach is perfectly legitimate because it's the legal definition of "violence" that is being stretched.

You are quibbling just to promulgate the dishonest agenda. Only peaceful conservative protestors were investigated, arrested and imprisoned, under the auspices of "violence" committed by DNC operatives, infiltrators and instigators. None of those who actually committed violence were even investigated. None of those imprisoned were violent. The only Oct 6 crime punished by our now fully tyrannical 2-tier InJustice system was being an American patriot protesting the stolen election.

It is you that is violating your own argument by now claiming that what you admit was destruction of property isn't violence

I stand by my argument. The left are promulgating the narrative of "violence" meaning physical attacks, not of breaking furniture, loitering, entering a public building, etc. We then learn that none of the protestors were violent, that all they did was loiter, enter a public building, jump around a lot, shout a lot, etc. The left remain undeterred in their dishonesty and continue hammering away at their claims of "violence" against the police.

The left are the ones insisting that "violence" means violently aggressive assault/attacks ... but then want it to include breaking glass.

Show me a video of an arrested/imprisoned individual violently attacking law enforcement, and not simply trying to defend himself from overly zealous, attacking, law enforcement.

I see you have also decided to move the goalposts by now claiming that only violence against another person counts as violence.

That's the left's narrative, i.e. that the protesters attacked people. You went out of your way to present that very narrative. When you fell flat on your face you began quibbling over the definition of "violent" in order to water down the definition of discussion.

I never shifted goalposts; you did. You went to great mental gymnastics to portray a man pointing a stick as "doing a wind-up before striking police." You have been nothing but totally dishonest. As a final act of defiance, you began quibbling over the meaning of "violence", reducing it down to mere movement.

You aren't the first to claim heinous violence on the part of Jan 6 protesters and then be unable to support your claim, and you will not be the last. The dishonesty from the left is without limit.

 

[IBDaMann]

IBDaMann now is trying to argue that an attack on property is not violence in direct contradiction to his argument that laws can not be interpreted but must be accepted as written.

Is it too much to ask that you not misrepresent my position?

Are we in a trial deciding some case, or are we having a discussion? I am not required to accept any law as written. I am one of We the People and I can lobby for any law to be changed.

I am also free to point out how you and your ilk shift goalposts, from "violence" meaning viscious attacks on people, to meaning entering a public building. At this point, you have shown you have no integrity or honesty with your arguments. You have argued positions that you now deny once you fail embarrassingly to support your arguments.

 

[ExpressLane]

But you still live in my precious, Midnight Blue Massachusetts, right?
I'll give Maura your regards the next time I happen to see her.

Someone has to live in that shithole to keep the lights on.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Because you are being disingenuous. My point is that the law, and the legal system, is being abused to punish conservatives per an evil leftist agenda, and your response is that the abuse and prosecutorial overreach is perfectly legitimate because it's the legal definition of "violence" that is being stretched.

You are quibbling just to promulgate the dishonest agenda. Only peaceful conservative protestors were investigated, arrested and imprisoned, under the auspices of "violence" committed by DNC operatives, infiltrators and instigators. None of those who actually committed violence were even investigated. None of those imprisoned were violent. The only Oct 6 crime punished by our now fully tyrannical 2-tier InJustice system was being an American patriot protesting the stolen election.





I stand by my argument. The left are promulgating the narrative of "violence" meaning physical attacks, not of breaking furniture, loitering, entering a public building, etc. We then learn that none of the protestors were violent, that all they did was loiter, enter a public building, jump around a lot, shout a lot, etc. The left remain undeterred in their dishonesty and continue hammering away at their claims of "violence" against the police.

The left are the ones insisting that "violence" means violently aggressive assault/attacks ... but then want it to include breaking glass.

Show me a video of an arrested/imprisoned individual violently attacking law enforcement, and not simply trying to defend himself from overly zealous, attacking, law enforcement.


That's the left's narrative, i.e. that the protesters attacked people. You went out of your way to present that very narrative. When you fell flat on your face you began quibbling over the definition of "violent" in order to water down the definition of discussion.

I never shifted goalposts; you did. You went to great mental gymnastics to portray a man pointing a stick as "doing a wind-up before striking police." You have been nothing but totally dishonest. As a final act of defiance, you began quibbling over the meaning of "violence", reducing it down to mere movement.

You aren't the first to claim heinous violence on the part of Jan 6 protesters and then be unable to support your claim, and you will not be the last. The dishonesty from the left is without limit.

It seems you have decided to just deny reality.
The facts are: -
You claimed no one perpetrating violence on any video was arrested and arraigned.

Nonsequitur. The only violence at the otherwise peaceful Jan 6th protest was at the hands of DNC infiltrators who perpetrated violence on cue. This is easily verified by noting that none of the people perpetrating violence on any video were ever arrested and arraigned, and there is absolutely no video of any violence from those who were arrested and imprisoned.

You admitted that the video shows Dominic Pezzola breaking a window but claimed that "destruction of furniture" isn't violence

You are guilty of placing "destruction of furniture" under the category of "violence" ... but then again, reaching is all you have.

I present you with the US Law that says destruction of property is a crime of violence. - Title 18 PART I CHAPTER 1 § 16
The act of breaking the window by Dominc Pezzola is clearly a crime of violence and has been a crime of violence since at least 1984.

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/STATUTE-98/pdf/STATUTE-98-Pg1837.pdf#page=300

The only one trying to stretch the law is you by claiming destruction of property is not violent when the law clearly says it is.


Now you are pivoting yet again to try to blame the left when the facts are clear that the left had nothing to do with it.
The left isn't promulgating a narrative of violence. The video evidence and the law show it to be violence. You have admitted that the video exists. You seem to want to just deny that the law exists and blame the left for something they didn't do.

I love the way you have now moved your goalposts from "none of the people perpetrating violence on any video were ever arrested and arraigned," to "Show me a video of an arrested/imprisoned individual violently attacking law enforcement, and not simply trying to defend himself from overly zealous, attacking, law enforcement."
That's a rather large leap. You went from "any violence" to only violence against a police officer who didn't first attack someone. And then you also went from arrested and arraigned to arrested/imprisoned.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Is it too much to ask that you not misrepresent my position?

Are we in a trial deciding some case, or are we having a discussion? I am not required to accept any law as written. I am one of We the People and I can lobby for any law to be changed.

Can you not misrepresent your position? Here are your posts and positions and how you have changed them as your argument fails.
The facts are: -
You claimed no one perpetrating violence on any video was arrested and arraigned.

Nonsequitur. The only violence at the otherwise peaceful Jan 6th protest was at the hands of DNC infiltrators who perpetrated violence on cue. This is easily verified by noting that none of the people perpetrating violence on any video were ever arrested and arraigned, and there is absolutely no video of any violence from those who were arrested and imprisoned.

You admitted that the video shows Dominic Pezzola breaking a window but claimed that "destruction of furniture" isn't violence

You are guilty of placing "destruction of furniture" under the category of "violence" ... but then again, reaching is all you have.

I present you with the US Law that says destruction of property is a crime of violence. - Title 18 PART I CHAPTER 1 § 16
The act of breaking the window by Dominc Pezzola is clearly a crime of violence and has been a crime of violence since at least 1984.

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/STATUTE-98/pdf/STATUTE-98-Pg1837.pdf#page=300

The only one trying to stretch the law is you by claiming destruction of property is not violent when the law clearly says it is.

You have now moved your goalposts from "none of the people perpetrating violence on any video were ever arrested and arraigned," to "Show me a video of an arrested/imprisoned individual violently attacking law enforcement, and not simply trying to defend himself from overly zealous, attacking, law enforcement."

I am also free to point out how you and your ilk shift goalposts, from "violence" meaning viscious attacks on people, to meaning entering a public building. At this point, you have shown you have no integrity or honesty with your arguments. You have argued positions that you now deny once you fail embarrassingly to support your arguments.

If you are going to accuse me of something can you at least link to the post where you claim I did it? To my knowledge I have never once claimed that violence only means attacks on people. I never once said that the burning down of a police station was not a violent act. It seems you have decided your only argument is to misrepresent my position.
Feel free to point out where I have misrepresented your argument with links to one of my posts support your claim since I linked to your argument.
Feel free to point out where I have changed my meaning of the word violence with links to one of my posts to support your claim since I have linked to your moving the goal posts for what you think is violence.

 

[IBDaMann]

It seems you have decided to just deny reality.

I accept your resignation.

The facts are: -

You claimed no one perpetrating violence on any video was arrested and arraigned.

... under the definition of "violence" being used at the time. If you are going to change the definition to mean "entering a public building" then you get to explain why someone would be handed a three-year prison sentence.

Either show the clear video of the physical attacks that warrant multi-year sentences, or denounce the horrific persecution of conservatives for rightfully protesting a stolen election. One or the other.

 

[IBDaMann]

The facts are: -
You claimed no one perpetrating violence on any video was arrested and arraigned.

So now you are chanting in order to divert attention away from your failed pivots.

I'll consider your king tipped. Let me know when you want to play again.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

I accept your resignation.

You are now consistently violating Into the Night's mantras.

... under the definition of "violence" being used at the time. If you are going to change the definition to mean "entering a public building" then you get to explain why someone would be handed a three-year prison sentence.

Either show the clear video of the physical attacks that warrant multi-year sentences, or denounce the horrific persecution of conservatives for rightfully protesting a stolen election. One or the other.

What definition was being used? Under the legal definition, breaking a window is violence.
The fact that you want to pretend that the legal definition is not the definition used to define criminal acts doesn't make your argument valid or legal.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

So now you are chanting in order to divert attention away from your failed pivots.

I'll consider your king tipped. Let me know when you want to play again.

You are now consistently violating Into the Night's mantras by once again declaring yourself the victor.
According to Into the Night that means you have lost.

Pointing to your specific posts where you contradict yourself is hardly chanting.
1. You said no video could be shown of anyone committing violence that has been arrested and arraigned.
2. You were shown a video of someone committing violence and you argued that a window is furniture
3. You claimed that the law must be read as is and not interpreted.
4. You admitted that a window is property.
5. The law clearly states that physical acts that destroy property are considered violence.
6. The only conclusion is that you have been shown a video that shows violence and the person perpetrating that violence was arrested and arraigned.
7. You try to pretend you weren't shown evidence by moving the goal posts.
8. You declare yourself the victor while not making any valid argument that property destruction is not violence.

I will be happy to link to your specific posts if you deny that they exist. Unlike you and Into the Night, I support my claims and don't just post RQAA when there is no evidence of the question ever being answered.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

I accept your resignation.


... under the definition of "violence" being used at the time. If you are going to change the definition to mean "entering a public building" then you get to explain why someone would be handed a three-year prison sentence.

Either show the clear video of the physical attacks that warrant multi-year sentences, or denounce the horrific persecution of conservatives for rightfully protesting a stolen election. One or the other.

Tell us the person that was given a 3 year prison sentence for entering the building.

I won't hold my breath waiting for you to support your nonsense claim but at least I asked.
Hint - you will not be able to find a single person sentenced to 3 years or more for just entering the building.

 

[Into the Night]

Remember, you have not pointed to anywhere in the Constitution that takes the power away from the courts that extends to all cases.

No court has authority to interpret or change the Constitution.

You have not told us how anyone can determine meaning without understanding the meaning of the words.

Learn English. The Constitution is plainly written.

Understanding the meaning of the words is interpretation.

No court has authority to interpret the Constitution.

You are pretending that we should rely on the meaning of words and then you ignore the meaning of words.

Blatant lie. Semantics fallacy.

 

[Into the Night]

ROFLMAO. Ok.. Troll away, troll. I have posted the video twice and you just denied that the swing of the table leg shown in the still picture occurred.

You have not posted a video.

 

[Into the Night]

OK... So the meaning of the second amendment then means people can keep their arms and it has nothing to do with guns. Every English speaker knows your arms are what is between your shoulder and your hands.

Learn English. Arms mean a weapon.

Any other interpretation must be a wrong interpretation since the most common definition of arms is bone and flesh.

Semantics fallacy.

Clearly the courts have gotten it wrong since you don't need an interpreter to tell you what your arms are.

Semantics fallacy.

 

[Into the Night]

Constitution ratified in 1788.
10th Amendment ratified in 1791.
Even under your argument the courts had that power in 1788.

There was no constitution to interpret or change in 1788, Poorboy.

 

[Into the Night]

How can I possibly be quibbling over the definition of violence since it is clearly defined in the law.

You are not quoting any such law, for there is no such law.

The same law that you say is not to be interpreted.

The Constitution does not have the word 'violence' in it. The Constitution IS interpreted by the States, the only ones with authority to interpret it.

It is you that is violating your own argument by now claiming that what you admit was destruction of property isn't violence even though the law you claim should be taken as written shows your argument to be false.
Is the law to be followed without interpretation or not? The law clearly says that the use of physical force against property is violence.
You admitted that the breaking of window was an attack on property.

Compositional error fallacy. Redefinition fallacy (breaking window<->violence).

That means that the video clearly shows violence. You are the one that is quibbling and trying to avoid a simple reading of the law which you claim must be done.

What video? You never showed any!

Your "review" would seem to indicate that you are trying to interpret the law to not be what it clearly states.

No such law, Poorboy.

I see you have also decided to move the goalposts by now claiming that only violence against another person counts as violence. It seems you can't follow your own rules. Spin all you want.

Inversion fallacy. You are describing yourself again. You cannot blame YOUR fallacies on anybody else.

The fact is you were presented a video of someone breaking a window that you admit is in the video.

Videos of Democrat violence only show Democrats committing violence.

The law clearly states that an attack on property is an act of violence.

What law?

You have been shown the video you asked for. You admitted that the video included violence based on the reading of the law you say can't be interpreted but must be followed without any interpretation.

He never said any such thing. Word stuffing.

Now you are attempting to claim that the law can't be followed or the video you admitted included violence no longer includes violence.

Videos of violence by Democrats is just showing violence by Democrats.

There is no other review that needs to be done. You are now trying to deny facts that you admit exist.

Learn what 'fact' means. It does NOT mean 'Universal Truth'.

 

[Into the Night]

Lovely deflection from a stupid person. Do you have an actual argument that makes sense or are you just going to jump in to prove your stupidity?
The law states that the use of physical force against a person or property is violence.

No such law.

IBDaMann admitted that the video he was shown includes an attack on property.

No video.

IBDaMann now is trying to argue that an attack on property is not violence in direct contradiction to his argument that laws can not be interpreted but must be accepted as written.

He never said laws must not be interpreted. Word stuffing.

At this point IBDaMann has shown he has no integrity or honesty with his arguments. He has agreed that the things exist that he now denies to exist.

Fallacy fallacy. No paradox exists here.

 

[Into the Night]

It seems you have decided to just deny reality.

Buzzword fallacy.

The facts are: -
You claimed no one perpetrating violence on any video was arrested and arraigned.

This is correct.

You admitted that the video shows Dominic Pezzola breaking a window but claimed that "destruction of furniture" isn't violence

I present you with the US Law that says destruction of property is a crime of violence. - Title 18 PART I CHAPTER 1 § 16
The act of breaking the window by Dominc Pezzola is clearly a crime of violence and has been a crime of violence since at least 1984.

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/STATUTE-98/pdf/STATUTE-98-Pg1837.pdf#page=300

The only one trying to stretch the law is you by claiming destruction of property is not violent when the law clearly says it is.

No such law.

Now you are pivoting yet again to try to blame the left when the facts are clear that the left had nothing to do with it.

Not a fact. An argument. Learn what 'fact' means.

The left isn't promulgating a narrative of violence.

Blatant lie.

DEMOCRATS call for civil war.
DEMOCRATS burned and vandalized cities across the nation, including Washington DC on Jan 6th.
DEMOCRATS created and continue to support the KKK.
DEMOCRATS support Antifa and BLM.
DEMOCRATS support open crime in American cities.

The video evidence and the law show it to be violence. You have admitted that the video exists. You seem to want to just deny that the law exists and blame the left for something they didn't do.

The rioting was by DEMOCRATS.

I love the way you have now moved your goalposts from "none of the people perpetrating violence on any video were ever arrested and arraigned," to "Show me a video of an arrested/imprisoned individual violently attacking law enforcement, and not simply trying to defend himself from overly zealous, attacking, law enforcement."

Fallacy fallacy. No goalpost fallacy occurred here.

That's a rather large leap. You went from "any violence" to only violence against a police officer who didn't first attack someone. And then you also went from arrested and arraigned to arrested/imprisoned.

Word stuffing.

 

[Into the Night]

You are now consistently violating Into the Night's mantras.

LIF. Grow up.

What definition was being used? Under the legal definition, breaking a window is violence.

No such 'legal definition'.

The fact that you want to pretend that the legal definition is not the definition used to define criminal acts doesn't make your argument valid or legal.

No such 'legal definition'.