Avatar feed
Responses: 2
SGT Unit Supply Specialist
3
3
0
PO1 William "Chip" Nagel "The fact that the statute is being used widely proves the point of our litigation, which is that this overbroad and vague statute can apply to so many circumstances, including innocent conduct, that it will chill the exercise of constitutional rights," Hay said."
(3)
Comment
(0)
SFC Casey O'Mally
SFC Casey O'Mally
3 y
Except that the statute is neither overbroad nor vague.

1. Were you engaged in protest or rioting? No? No worries. Yes? Continue.

2. Did you interfere with the police or firefighters doing their job? Yes? Skip to 4. No? Continue.

3.Did you interfere with federally protected functions? No? No worries. Yes? You broke the law.

4. Did you screw up business in the area? No? No worries. Yes? You broke the law.

Pretty simple, if you ask me. And pretty targeted.
(2)
Reply
(0)
SGT Unit Supply Specialist
SGT (Join to see)
3 y
SFC Casey O'Mally Thanks for your input... I agree with your assessment. I was just pointing out the potential to use it on innocent individuals displaying peaceful protest.
(1)
Reply
(0)
Avatar small
Capt Gregory Prickett
2
2
0
The fact that it is used against both rioters on the left and right-wing insurrectionists prove that it is unconstitutional? Or does it prove that the BS about rioters not being prosecuted is just revisionist garbage?
(2)
Comment
(0)
PO1 William "Chip" Nagel
PO1 William "Chip" Nagel
3 y
Capt Gregory Prickett I Knew You'd Pick Up on It. The Right Winger's "We're being Picked On!" "It's Not Happening to the Portland Protesters!" Surprise! They Suck at Playing the Victim Card.
(1)
Reply
(0)
Avatar small

Join nearly 2 million former and current members of the US military, just like you.

close