Posted on May 22, 2021
DOJ Uses Civil Rights-Era Law To Charge Protesters And Insurrectionists
489
16
5
6
6
0
On Aug. 26, Kevin Phomma was arrested during a racial justice demonstration outside the Immigration and Customs Enforcement building in Portland, Ore.
Prosecutors say Phomma sprayed police officers with bear repellant, so the U.S. Department of Justice charged him with civil disorder, a felony.
Fast forward to Jan. 6, where Reed Christensen, a Republican Party leader from Oregon's Washington County walked up the steps of the U.S. Capitol in Washington, D.C.
According to the FBI, Christensen struck police with his fist. Later, federal prosecutors filed charges, including civil disorder.
In the last year, the Justice Department has turned extensively to civil disorder, a once rarely used law, to crack down on crimes they say were committed during protests and other unrest.
Prosecutors say Phomma sprayed police officers with bear repellant, so the U.S. Department of Justice charged him with civil disorder, a felony.
Fast forward to Jan. 6, where Reed Christensen, a Republican Party leader from Oregon's Washington County walked up the steps of the U.S. Capitol in Washington, D.C.
According to the FBI, Christensen struck police with his fist. Later, federal prosecutors filed charges, including civil disorder.
In the last year, the Justice Department has turned extensively to civil disorder, a once rarely used law, to crack down on crimes they say were committed during protests and other unrest.
DOJ Uses Civil Rights-Era Law To Charge Protesters And Insurrectionists
Posted from npr.org
DOJ
Justice
Protest
Portland
Washington
Posted 3 y ago
Responses: 2
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)
(0)
SFC Casey O'Mally
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.
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)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
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)
(0)
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)
(0)
PO1 William "Chip" Nagel
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)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google