Comment by nkohari
1 day ago
> by force, intimidation, or threat
You seem to be glossing over the key piece of that statute. Peaceful protest is protected by the first amendment (free speech, right to assembly).
1 day ago
> by force, intimidation, or threat
You seem to be glossing over the key piece of that statute. Peaceful protest is protected by the first amendment (free speech, right to assembly).
Intimidation, or threat at the very least seems applicable here if you have any idea of what's going on in Minnesota and what these Signal chats are being used for.
This statute defines the conditions where free speech transitions to criminal activity.
You can interpret it however you like.
You heard about the one who got his finger bit off, yes?
I've seen pictures of someone with a damaged finger. Given the wild differences between video evidence and what the top levels of the administration claim happen, I think a healthy degree of scepticism is warrented.
Could easily have been hurt by their own flashbang devices or caught it in a car door.
I haven't seen the supposed Signal logs, but I'm confident that there wasn't a conspiracy to bite someone's finger.
The point is to establish that the protest has not been entirely peaceful, which raises the possibility of conspiracy covering non-protected actions. The subthread is about what they plan to charge people with, not about exactly what actually happened and whether it meets legal standards. That's what investigations and trials are for.
If you threaten to kill somebody then follow them around for days at a time, is that intimidation?
Blocking law enforcement's vehicles and their person (I saw several protestors put hands on officers), when they are conducting arrests, certainly seems to fit the bill.