Law Pelosi desk "invader" asks judge for freedom to sell cars

[idrankyourbeer]

You’re refusing to answer what serious bodily harm a stun gun causes. It’s funny that you keep citing unrelated statutes

i already did repond to that, and i shouldnt have to because its simply just common sense and everybody knows. this has got to be the most pathetic attempt at a gotcha ever, but hey you made it clear you couldnt make it any farther then 5 words into my last post you quoted before herping your derp, so let me just quote that part for you and you can try to read it again

theres all kinds of ways you could get injured or even die from a taser. if youre somehow retarded enough to believe that a taser cannot readilly cause serious injury or death to a person, which is the very legal definition of a dangerous weapon as the law states, then why dont you stand over here on top of this big flight of concrete stairs and allow me to tase you just to demonstrate just exactly how it can. or perhaps you can go for a nice little run and then let me hold a taser to you for a couple minutes, and lets see what your heart does afterwards.

despite being banned, or highly restricted in many countries across the world, tasers are not dangerous weapons, so surely you'll be the first to volunteer right? theres lots of ways for me to kill or hurt you with one, but surely its not a dangerous weapon because the blind bomber from a karate forum told me so! get a load of these people.

the blind bomber cant imagine what kind of serious bodilly harm a stun gun can cause people! lets all bring out our tasers everybody, because surely he will volunteer to be our guinea pig in all kinds of scenarios.

whats the worst that could happen? what do you have to lose? step right up blind bomber. stand over here for a few minutes. you'll be just fine after i get through with you. nothing bad could ever happen to you, but if youre worried about it, make sure to go for a nice little run first. it will get your heart rate going and will help clear out your mind a little for when i tase you off a flight of steps, or tase you a little longer than i should have, because i'm not a highly trained police officer or secret forces special ninja or anything

a taser is no more dangerous than a jar of peanut butter and a swiss army knife. lets all jaywalk on over to the capitol building and peacefully make mike pence some sandwiches. its peanut butter jelly time bitches!

 

[Proud American]

A dangerous weapon has to cause serious bodily harm. That’s a jury question. What serious bodily harm does it cause? You still haven’t answered. All you’ve done is post unrelated statutes and you think you somehow win an argument.

And you’re obfuscating the issue I took umbrage with of whether or not his act of trespassing is violent because he had a stun gun in his pocket. It’s not. It’s no different than if someone had mace on his keychain and engaged in trespassing. It’s not violent. His stun gun was not a justification of keeping him in jail without a bond.

Everyone stung guns and defesneive gear was Bc they all thought there would be a battle royale with Antifa.

Antifa promised it for weeks, then backed right the fuck down when they saw the size of the crowd

 

[funcrusher2007]

Everyone stung guns and defesneive gear was Bc they all thought there would be a battle royale with Antifa.

Antifa promised it for weeks, then backed right the fuck down when they saw the size of the crowd

At this point, I don’t know who’s more pathetic…the people who failed at an insurrection or the people that support/make excuses for them.

what a sad mountain to die on.

 

[HARRISON_3]

This is literally all you have done in this thread in regards to Jan. 6. You said it was just a few broken windows and trespassing. You completely ignore the fact that people were shitting and smearing shit among other things. All while shedding so many tears about this poor fucking idiot.

People seem to forget that the rioters literally shit everywhere and smeared it on the walls.

Grown adults smearing shit on the walls of the capital.

Can you imagine having to clean that up?

 

[Ruke Doufus]

What's the difference between trespassing on someone's lawn, someone's house, someone's business, and forcefully entering into the #3 person in line to become POTUS' office? I eagerly await your spin answer

Speaking of spin. Love that you had to warp trespassing to "forcefully entering" to make it seem worse when it's really just the same trespassing you referred to in those other situations.

 

[idrankyourbeer]

People seem to forget that the rioters literally shit everywhere and smeared it on the walls.

Grown adults smearing shit on the walls of the capital.

Can you imagine having to clean that up?

it would have been more acceptable last year, during the Great Toilet Paper Shortage of 2020

 

[Proud American]

At this point, I don’t know who’s more pathetic…the people who failed at an insurrection or the people that support/make excuses for them.

what a sad mountain to die on.

Who tried an insurrection?

that’s fake news. Like complete fake news. Only MSM peddles that nonsense for political gain

you want the videos again?

 

[TheBlondBomber]

do i need to color that part in for you with a crayon just to show you that this law against carrying weapons into federal buildings doesnt only apply to firearms, you fucking muppet?

good god. im so tired of these short bus chuds. and they actually pretend to have been prosecutors at one point, when its ever so obvious they dont even know how to interprit the law, or anything about it!

they get about 3 words into the first segment, and then give up on it and then go on the attack pretending that they have any fucking clue what they are talking about. if they would have made it more than 5 words into my first sentence and had any clue how to interpret the law, they wouldnt be talking a bunch of shit and thinking i was citing some kind of firearm statute! of all the responses he could have made to me, he had to have made the most absolutely retarded one possible.

firearm statutes lmfao yeah thats totally what i was pulling out there. good one skippy!




yeah, this fucking guy was ever a prosecutor alright. he can sure interpret laws. he must have borrowed a copy of the US code of laws from his local library and held it up in front of a courthouse just for a photo-op. thats likely the only background in law that he's ever taken, but he seems to know everything about everything while sherdogging it up on a karate forum, trying so desperately to hook me into an ever-so-obvious 'gotcha' low grade trolling attempt.

it turns out ive wasted a good hour or two with some muppet that doesnt know shit about what he's even trying to argue about, a literal pretender. good fucking god

holy shit. You post absolutely irrelevant statutes and you think you’re a legal scholar. I’ll post my bar cards when you post yours. Spamming statutes does not mean you won an argument lol

 

[TheBlondBomber]

let me try again for this stupid little chud. and bold and underline the part that he clearly cant read and understand, and somehow thinks section 18 of U.S. Code § 930 only refers to firearms


18 U.S. Code § 930 - Possession of firearms and dangerous weapons in Federal facilities

(a)
Except as provided in subsection (d), whoever knowingly possesses or causes to be present a firearm or other dangerous weapon in a Federal facility (other than a Federal court facility), or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 1 year, or both.

(b)
Whoever, with intent that a firearm or other dangerous weapon be used in the commission of a crime, knowingly possesses or causes to be present such firearm or dangerous weapon in a Federal facility, or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.

oh my goodness. If you think this statute is applicable, why wasn’t Barnett inducted under this? He was in a federal facility with a stun gun, which you are maintaining is a dangerous weapon. Maybe think before you post. Jeeeez. You are too dumb to know how dumb you are.

 

[TheBlondBomber]

CAN YOU FUCKING READ

lol omg. You cite a firearm statute, which if applicable, Barnett would be charged with under your definition of “dangerous weapon”. He was not charged under that statute. What does that tell you about your definition?

I fail to see how that statute is even relevant in the first place because whether something is a dangerous weapon is a jury question. What point are you even trying to make? That there are statutes prohibiting “dangerous weapons”? Sure. No disagreement. But in order to be a dangerous weapon, it must “serious bodily harm”. A knife can cause swipe bodily harm, same with a baton, a blackjack. They can break bones, bruise, cut, ect. A stun gun send an electric shock through you for a second and then leave you unharmed. Just stop with your idiotic posts. You act as if this statute says that stun guns are dangerous weapons. The statute has nothing to do with stun guns and is irrelevant.

 

[idrankyourbeer]

holy shit. You post absolutely irrelevant statutes and you think you’re a legal scholar. I’ll post my bar cards when you post yours. Spamming statutes does not mean you won an argument lol

i'm not the one on a karate forum pretending to ever have a background in law.

when all of a sudden this "firearm statute" i posted, which wasnt even a firearm statute, now becomes an irrelevant statute. why is it irrelevant now all of a sudden? those arent even firearm statutes. i never brought up any firearm statutes into this discussion, mr. prosecutor

section 18, statute 1752 and statute 930 are very relevant, thank you very much. considering this thread, and the charges he is facing, including

A federal grand jury indicted Barnett with seven charges:

• Obstruction of an Official Proceeding & Aiding and Abetting (new charge)
• Entering and Remaining in a Restricted Building or Grounds with a Deadly or Dangerous Weapon
• Disorderly and Disruptive Conduct in a Restricted Building or Grounds with a Deadly or Dangerous Weapon
• Entering and Remaining in Certain Rooms in a Capitol Building (new charge)
• Disorderly Conduct in a Capitol Building (new charge)
• Parading, Demonstrating, or Picketing in a Capitol Building (new charge)
• Theft of Government Property

not sure why it wouldnt be relevant. you can look up 18 u.s. code § 930 and 18 u.s. code § 1752 for yourself sometime. i highlighted and underlined the good stuff above

i'm not the legal guru here. can you elaborate on why those two statutes under the indictments richard barnett is being charged for is irrelevant to the discussion at hand? or is it only irrelevant because sherdogs armchair prosecutor says it is?

 

[Strychnine]

Are you not American? Do you not know how cases arrive at the Supreme Court? Do you know that the role of the Supreme Court is to determine the constitutionality of statutes, precedent and governmental action? Do you not know that it’s a prosecutor who files charges and a judge is a neutral arbiter? Do you not realize how inappropriate it would be for Kav to even suggest charging these protestors? Are you retarded?

You mean to tell me that as those women (and I'm quoting you here) "defiled" his hearing he has no recourse via the law? Either...

Spoiler

 

[TheBlondBomber]

i'm not the one on a karate forum pretending to ever have a background in law.

when all of a sudden this "firearm statute" i posted, which wasnt even a firearm statute, now becomes an irrelevant statute.

section 18, statute 1752 and statute 930 are very relevant, thank you very much. considering this thread, and the charges he is facing, including

A federal grand jury indicted Barnett with seven charges:

• Obstruction of an Official Proceeding & Aiding and Abetting (new charge)
• Entering and Remaining in a Restricted Building or Grounds with a Deadly or Dangerous Weapon
• Disorderly and Disruptive Conduct in a Restricted Building or Grounds with a Deadly or Dangerous Weapon
• Entering and Remaining in Certain Rooms in a Capitol Building (new charge)
• Disorderly Conduct in a Capitol Building (new charge)
• Parading, Demonstrating, or Picketing in a Capitol Building (new charge)
• Theft of Government Property

not sure why it wouldnt be relevant. you can look up 18 u.s. code § 930 and 18 u.s. code § 1752 for yourself sometime. i highlighted and underlined the good stuff above, to make it easier for you to understand which charges they reflect.

i'm not the legal guru here. can you elaborate on why those two statutes under the indictments richard barnett is being charged for is irrelevant to the discussion at hand? or is it only irrelevant because the armchair prosecutor says it is?

It’s obvious the prosecutors are overcharging. All they need is probably cause to sign off on a complaint. The prosecutors know that the “dangerous weapon” charges won’t stick at trial because “dangerous weapons” have traditionally meant weapons that cause serious bodily harm. Stun guns do not. They can’t cut or bludgeon like a knife or club. You get hit with it and then you’re fine.

 

[eighterumg5]

Why are you citing a firearm statute in reference to a stun gun? The two are not the same. You’re refusing to answer what serious bodily harm a stun gun causes. It’s funny that you keep citing unrelated statutes

Google it you dense fuck

 

[TheBlondBomber]

Google it you dense fuck

No u

 

[idrankyourbeer]

lol omg. You cite a firearm statute, which if applicable, Barnett would be charged with under your definition of “dangerous weapon”. He was not charged under that statute. What does that tell you about your definition?

I fail to see how that statute is even relevant in the first place because whether something is a dangerous weapon is a jury question. What point are you even trying to make? That there are statutes prohibiting “dangerous weapons”? Sure. No disagreement. But in order to be a dangerous weapon, it must “serious bodily harm”. A knife can cause swipe bodily harm, same with a baton, a blackjack. They can break bones, bruise, cut, ect. A stun gun send an electric shock through you for a second and then leave you unharmed. Just stop with your idiotic posts. You act as if this statute says that stun guns are dangerous weapons. The statute has nothing to do with stun guns and is irrelevant.

once again, not once did i ever cite a firearm statute.

youre the expert in law, you clearly understood what you were looking at you should know this

but go ahead and prove me wrong. provide me the direct quote to which i ever cited a firearm statute. i'm not the one pretending to have a background in law, but i will easilly be able to correct you and tell you exactly what you are looking at because somehow after all those years in law school and working in courtrooms, you somehow managed to forget everything that you ever knew

 

[TheBlondBomber]

You mean to tell me that as those women (and I'm quoting you here) "defiled" his hearing he has no recourse via the law? Either...

Spoiler

????? Your post makes no sense, and you misquoted me. Show me where I said “defiled”

 

[wonderbread]

If Trump had not had a rich daddy, he'd be selling cars too. Used ones.

 

[TheBlondBomber]

once again, not once did i ever cite a firearm statute.

youre the expert in law, you clearly understood what you were looking at you should know this

but go ahead and prove me wrong. provide me the direct quote to which i ever cited a firearm statute

The statute is titled “possession of firearms and dangerous weapons in a federal facility”. That is a statute specifically related to firearms and similar weapons. A stun gun is not similar to a firearm and shouldn’t be construed as the same.

 

[eighterumg5]

No u

I'm starting to think you might have been there