The justices heard arguments in Joseph Fischer’s appeal of a lower court’s ruling rejecting his attempt to escape a federal charge of corruptly obstructing an official proceeding - the congressional certification of President Joe Biden’s victory over Trump that the rioters sought to prevent on Jan. 6, 2021.
I know enough about the law to know that no one has ever been arrested for intending to pull a fire alarm, but many people have been arrested for actually breaking and entering.
Just scoffing about my not knowing what you’re talking about doesn’t explain how they are relevant to these two examples.
People get arrested all the time for planning to commit crimes, even before they actually carry them out. I’m not sure why the fire alarm part is suddenly relevant here. Someone argued that because he had a legal right or what they though to be a legal right to be in a building meant that he can’t be charged with disrupting proceedings because he didn’t enter the building illegally. I was saying, no that isn’t correct… that if he went there with a specific intent it is likely he didn’t have a legal right to be there.
You brought it up!
Yeah, cause it is literally what the article is about. Did you read it or you just here to talk about the weather?
You one post ago:
You now:
Make up your mind.
Uh, yeah I was talking about “People get arrested all the time for planning to commit crimes, even before they actually carry them out” which I say right before that… the fire alarm part is not relevant to what crime they were planning on committing. Are you even going to discuss in good faith or just try to paint the picture you already have made up in your head?
Ah, I see, you were moving the goalposts. Gotcha.
Okay QAnon. Bye bye. Don’t talk to me anymore since you can’t be honest with yourself or anyone else.
If you’re talking about honesty, you’re calling someone who is saying that invading the capitol on January 6th is a crime a QAnon conspiracy theorist, which is a bizarrely dishonest accusation.