Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2024 17:12:45 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: NBC Historian Takes Media's "Bloodbath" Insanity To A Whole New Level Content-Language: en-US Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv References: <17bed5b715bf3f58$7434$1098985$c8d58268@news.newsdemon.com> <17bf2142c28c7c76$917$1588242$4cd50660@news.newsdemon.com> From: moviePig In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Lines: 59 Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!usenet.blueworldhosting.com!diablo1.usenet.blueworldhosting.com!feeder.usenetexpress.com!tr2.iad1.usenetexpress.com!news.newsdemon.com!not-for-mail Nntp-Posting-Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2024 21:12:47 +0000 X-Received-Bytes: 3402 Organization: NewsDemon - www.newsdemon.com X-Complaints-To: abuse@newsdemon.com Message-Id: <17bf328db608e354$2$3384359$c2d58868@news.newsdemon.com> Bytes: 3779 On 3/22/2024 4:36 PM, BTR1701 wrote: > On Mar 22, 2024 at 8:55:51 AM PDT, "moviePig" wrote: > >> On 3/21/2024 1:14 PM, BTR1701 wrote: >>> In article <17bed5b715bf3f58$7434$1098985$c8d58268@news.newsdemon.com>, >>> moviePig wrote: >>> >>>> On 3/21/2024 11:04 AM, FPP wrote: >>>>> On 3/20/24 10:42 PM, moviePig wrote: >>>>>> On 3/20/2024 7:54 PM, BTR1701 wrote: >>>>>>> On Mar 20, 2024 at 3:15:33 PM PDT, ""Adam H. Kerman"" >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> BTR1701 wrote: >>>>>>>>> Mar 19, 2024 at 8:26:17 PM PDT, super70s >>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 2024-03-20 02:46:53 +0000, BTR1701 said: >>>>>>>>>>> What if the cops held the door open for them. Is that still >>>>>>>>>>> unauthorized? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Lie: The rioters were invited into the Capitol by police >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> There is clear video of the police holding the door open for people >>>>>>>>> who were later found guilty of unauthorized entry. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> How does that logically hold up? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> With that evidence, why wasn't the charge of unauthorized entry >>>>>>>> withdrawn or dismissed? Seems to me that both the prosecution and judge >>>>>>>> were obligated to do so. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> One would think. Obviously this only applies to a very small number >>>>>>> of people who were there that day but for those to whom it did apply, >>>>>>> it seems that as a matter of law one cannot be guilty of unauthorized >>>>>>> entry if the people in charge of authorizing you let you in. >>>>>> >>>>>> Indeed. Not if one remains in the area he was let into. >>>>> >>>>> Jesus, pig... you don't believe that shit do you?  Judges and juries >>>>> sure didn't. >>>>> >>>>> https://www.cnn.com/2022/01/04/politics/fact-check-capitol-insurrection-janu >>>>> ary-6-lies/index.html >>>> >>>> I believe pretty much that whole article, including the admission that a >>>> couple of police might've allowed a couple of rioters in. But what I >>>> was addressing is the fact that allowing them into the building doesn't >>>> equate to allowing them into Pelosi's office to shit on her desk. >>> >>> Which would be relevant if the people who were let in were actually the >>> desk-sitters. >> >> So, the guilt-threshold requires matching a rioter's DNA to his feces? > > It requires matching the crime to the actual person who did it. So, the getaway-car driver *isn't* guilty of killing the bank teller?