Domestic terrorism planned against Democrats, planners arrested

[Horu]

@Phantom Roxas if I had my way and this turned out to be true, I'd fully support lynching the bastards and setting them ablaze. If it turns out to be propaganda, I still say they deserve to be locked away for a while. Yes, I have a bias against the media and specific media sources (CNN with generally anything that isn't live or caught on video). But my point is there is a possibility that these guys could be scapegoats and "it's all part of the plan" because who openly talks about blowing up buildings full of people in public. Think about it for a minute. The only people that'd do something like that are either scapegoats, idiots or both. Another point is that you're not just gonna openly say this whilst standing just a few feet from a cop unless you want to draw attention away from what's really going on. See what I'm getting at here? There is something bigger going on behind the scenes but of course, two idiots can easily draw the nation's attention to them by making a bomb threat. Sorry, had a bit of time to apply some logic to this situation and give it a fair bit of strategic thought...

[Phantom Roxas]

https://johnglidden.com/2021/07/20/wife-blocks-release-of-vallejo-man-accused-of-plotting-to-bomb-democrat-hq/

https://www.kcra.com/article/jarrod-copeland-sacramento-democratic-headquarters-detention-hearing/37081688

I realize that I'm asking a lot from you by linking articles, especially when the second has a pop-up that you could easily ignore and still read the substance of the article. The evidence includes messages from both men's phones. Copeland's wife's defense was that it was just talk between two "macho" guys. Now that you're moving the goalposts to whether two people openly talk about something like this, there is literally evidence that they were talking about it. However, no one was saying that they were talking about it in public. This was all done through text, which you would have known if you actually bothered to read the article at the beginning of the thread instead of imagining something else, then reacting to the fictional coverage you created for an alternate version of these events.

So no, this isn't applying a bit of logic to it. You want these men to be innocent, and then you're trying to retroactively add excuses so you can blame pretty much anyone except Rogers and Copeland.

https://abc7news.com/ian-rogers-napa-man-arrested-british-auto-repair-benjamin/10070341/

You'll probably dismiss this report offhand as you do with everything else, but I still prefer to at least back up my arguments.

Rogers had already been arrested back in January. Copeland is a more recent addition because the FBI was investigating him due to his connection to Rogers. In Rogers's case, I'd say six months is a bit too long to just "wait and watch" for it to suddenly turn out to be propaganda.

I'm fine with just saying that they're idiots. Maybe you should actually start looking at what's going on instead of constantly jumping from fantasy to fantasy. As much as you keep acting like there's some other shoe that needs to drop that "reveals" whether this story is true or false, that already happened six months ago. You can't pretend to keep your mind open for this to go either way after it's already gone one way.

[Horu]

2 hours ago, Phantom Roxas said:

https://johnglidden.com/2021/07/20/wife-blocks-release-of-vallejo-man-accused-of-plotting-to-bomb-democrat-hq/

https://www.kcra.com/article/jarrod-copeland-sacramento-democratic-headquarters-detention-hearing/37081688

I realize that I'm asking a lot from you by linking articles, especially when the second has a pop-up that you could easily ignore and still read the substance of the article. The evidence includes messages from both men's phones. Copeland's wife's defense was that it was just talk between two "macho" guys. Now that you're moving the goalposts to whether two people openly talk about something like this, there is literally evidence that they were talking about it. However, no one was saying that they were talking about it in public. This was all done through text, which you would have known if you actually bothered to read the article at the beginning of the thread instead of imagining something else, then reacting to the fictional coverage you created for an alternate version of these events.

So no, this isn't applying a bit of logic to it. You want these men to be innocent, and then you're trying to retroactively add excuses so you can blame pretty much anyone except Rogers and Copeland.

https://abc7news.com/ian-rogers-napa-man-arrested-british-auto-repair-benjamin/10070341/

You'll probably dismiss this report offhand as you do with everything else, but I still prefer to at least back up my arguments.

Rogers had already been arrested back in January. Copeland is a more recent addition because the FBI was investigating him due to his connection to Rogers. In Rogers's case, I'd say six months is a bit too long to just "wait and watch" for it to suddenly turn out to be propaganda.

I'm fine with just saying that they're idiots. Maybe you should actually start looking at what's going on instead of constantly jumping from fantasy to fantasy. As much as you keep acting like there's some other shoe that needs to drop that "reveals" whether this story is true or false, that already happened six months ago. You can't pretend to keep your mind open for this to go either way after it's already gone one way.

Actually, I never stated wether or not I wanted them to be innocent. And clearly, this must have been talked about openly at some point considering they were arrested for it. If something like this stayed in texts, they obviously wouldn't be in custody right now. Not claiming their innocence in the slightest nor do I want them to be. I'm saying that they are a distraction so something bigger can happen.

I read/listened to the articles (I love google assistant) and while most of it seems to be true, I did catch the bit of anti-republican propaganda thrown in there (no big deal) but that's fairly easy to ignore since it moreso confirms that there was bigger target in mind. So my guess wasn't too far off. Also, the amount of weapons/ammo suggests something bigger. Also with that many guns and rounds, two people could easily kill off a building full of unarmed victims. Also, the recruiting also suggests something bigger.

[Phantom Roxas]

It seems more likely that Rogers was being investigated for something else, and while raiding his home and gathering evidence, they found Copeland. He was discovered for his text messages, so if anything, you should be wondering why they were investigating Rogers in the first place.

Dismissing this as just a distraction for something bigger frankly means that you're doing more to spread propaganda than the "anti-Republican" narrative any media has supposedly made so far. And really, what was the "anti-Republican propaganda" there? The only time "Republican" came up was when his defense attorney was saying to describe him. It was a way of saying he's just an ordinary guy with a hobby, arguing against the claims of him being a domestic terrorist. Him being a Republican was brought up to defend him, and that comment wasn't being misconstrued or used to attack Rogers. Absolutely none of that qualifies as "anti-Republican propaganda". Or are you just going to keep repeating "propaganda" enough times until it finally means something? Because it seems like any article just using the word "Republican" in any tone, even a positive or neutral one, is all it takes for you to label the piece "propaganda".

At most, the "something bigger" you're talking about does more to implicate the groups that they were working with. You keep trying to indulge in a theory that they were merely working for a larger threat, while also fearmongering about the media using them for "anti-Republican propaganda". You want to be mad at the media for making an example out of them to generalize a larger group, while you're using them as an example to suggest a larger group is behind this. You're doing exactly what you're pretending to be mad at the media for allegedly doing. Sorry, but you can't have this both ways.

[Horu]

1 hour ago, Phantom Roxas said:

It seems more likely that Rogers was being investigated for something else, and while raiding his home and gathering evidence, they found Copeland. He was discovered for his text messages, so if anything, you should be wondering why they were investigating Rogers in the first place.

This is a fairly valid point

1 hour ago, Phantom Roxas said:

Dismissing this as just a distraction for something bigger frankly means that you're doing more to spread propaganda than the "anti-Republican" narrative any media has supposedly made so far. And really, what was the "anti-Republican propaganda" there? The only time "Republican" came up was when his defense attorney was saying to describe him. It was a way of saying he's just an ordinary guy with a hobby, arguing against the claims of him being a domestic terrorist. Him being a Republican was brought up to defend him, and that comment wasn't being misconstrued or used to attack Rogers. Absolutely none of that qualifies as "anti-Republican propaganda". Or are you just going to keep repeating "propaganda" enough times until it finally means something? Because it seems like any article just using the word "Republican" in any tone, even a positive or neutral one, is all it takes for you to label the piece "propaganda".

I said I caught the bit and chose to ignore it. Republican media does the same thing. They spread anti-democrat propaganda. But always slip it in whenever it fits the narrative.

1 hour ago, Phantom Roxas said:

At most, the "something bigger" you're talking about does more to implicate the groups that they were working with. You keep trying to indulge in a theory that they were merely working for a larger threat, while also fearmongering about the media using them for "anti-Republican propaganda". You want to be mad at the media for making an example out of them to generalize a larger group, while you're using them as an example to suggest a larger group is behind this. You're doing exactly what you're pretending to be mad at the media for allegedly doing. Sorry, but you can't have this both ways.

This is true. But bear in mind that they had 18 guns and more than enough ammo to sweep a fairly large crowd. Also, if he planned on just blowing up the building, why did he need all the ammo? Wouldn't it have made more sense to invest that money into making more explosives? Just saying this guy is all over the place. But his behavior indicates something bigger in the works.

[Phantom Roxas]

If you caught the bit and claim to ignore it, you wouldn't be bringing it up and pretending it's part of the "ant-Republican propaganda". You still refuse to elaborate what "narrative" they're supposed to be fitting this into. Sorry, but you can't just claim that some there's a propaganda and refuse to explain what the "bit" even is, or how it's propaganda.

Would the "something bigger" include that he was contact the Proud Boys?

I'm just saying, a lot of your posts are repeating the same claims over and over again, then refusing to elaborate on what you're actually referring to.

[Horu]

1 hour ago, Phantom Roxas said:

If you caught the bit and claim to ignore it, you wouldn't be bringing it up and pretending it's part of the "ant-Republican propaganda". You still refuse to elaborate what "narrative" they're supposed to be fitting this into. Sorry, but you can't just claim that some there's a propaganda and refuse to explain what the "bit" even is, or how it's propaganda.

Would the "something bigger" include that he was contact the Proud Boys?

I'm just saying, a lot of your posts are repeating the same claims over and over again, then refusing to elaborate on what you're actually referring to.

The "something bigger" was the mayor's mansion. As I stated above, the amount of guns/ammo they collected is more than enough to sweep a building full of unarmed civilians. There was no need to recruit the Proud Boys or the Three Percenters unless the Democratics headquarters was intended to be trial run. I mean, hell, you could clean house with a decent pistol if you enough ammo. But I digress. The bit of propaganda is their need to blame it on the election. I mean, obviously Trump is still doing his part to help the country and he's able to do more since he doesn't have congress telling him "no". I mean, most people are too busy to give a hoot about an election that happened last year and the shenanigans surrounding it. I guess there might be the select few that are butthurt over it but for the most part, everyone, including Trump, has moved on.

[Phantom Roxas]

I mean, I could believe that they would still have wanted to recruit right-wing militias like the Proud Boys and Three Percenters just for this, and if they were ever going to plan on something bigger, it would have been after that.

...Really? The extent of your "evidence" that this is propaganda is saying that they were reacting to the election? I see you missed the part where Rogers was first arrested back in January. In case I need to be extremely specific about the date, it was five days before Biden was inaugurated. Even if we ignored how long ago the election was and the pro-Trump propaganda you were spreading back then, it is perfectly reasonable to say that Rogers was motivated by the election. Just because six and a half months have passed since his arrest doesn't suddenly make his original motives irrelevant or "propaganda".

But please, go on about how discussing their reactions is "propaganda" while you create a story about a larger plan at works, and what the bigger target was. You don't seem to be aware that every time you've complained about "propaganda" in this thread, you immediately follow it up with your speculation, exaggeration, and creating a false story about what else was going on. Considering your own standards that you've established, your comments have done more to create "propaganda" than the media has. Granted, I also believe that the more you keep complaining about "propaganda", and the more I challenge you on using it, "propaganda" keeps losing meaning.

https://www.justice.gov/usao-ndca/press-release/file/1360811/download?utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery

"Further, text messages recovered from ROGERS’s phone indicate his belief that Donald Trump won the 2020 presidential election, and his intent to attack Democrats and places associated with Democrats in an effort to ensure Trump remained in office."

When the federal complaint against them following the investigation literally has evidence that the plan was being formed in direct response to the election, it isn't "propaganda" to report on how the text messages indicated their motive. It seems more likely that you were intending to dismiss the story as propaganda no matter what, and you were looking for any excuse to label it as such. The feds could produce a text message from either men's phone literally saying "I want to blow up a Dem building because I'm upset with how the election turned out", and if any news site quoted him verbatim, you'd accuse the news sites of "anti-Republican propaganda".

Trump is doing absolutely nothing to help the country at the moment, nor is he more capable now. Just this last month, people were still having to debunk nonsense theories from people still pretending that Trump will magically be reinstated. Trump himself has definitely moved on, since Arizona's Secretary of State literally needed to tell Trump to move barely a week ago, and he was still complaining about the election at his rally. If you're going to talk about how long ago the election was that people have moved on, then I would think Trump gushing about the third recount of Maricopa County just over eight days ago at his "Rally to Save Our Elections" is a great example that completely goes against this narrative you're trying to push.

Trump really hasn't been doing any of the good things you keep trying to make up on his behalf. You need to accept that this version of Trump you've invented for yourself does not exist.

[Horu]

On 8/1/2021 at 11:40 AM, Phantom Roxas said:

I mean, I could believe that they would still have wanted to recruit right-wing militias like the Proud Boys and Three Percenters just for this, and if they were ever going to plan on something bigger, it would have been after that.

Agreed.

On 8/1/2021 at 11:40 AM, Phantom Roxas said:

...Really? The extent of your "evidence" that this is propaganda is saying that they were reacting to the election? I see you missed the part where Rogers was first arrested back in January. In case I need to be extremely specific about the date, it was five days before Biden was inaugurated. Even if we ignored how long ago the election was and the pro-Trump propaganda you were spreading back then, it is perfectly reasonable to say that Rogers was motivated by the election. Just because six and a half months have passed since his arrest doesn't suddenly make his original motives irrelevant or "propaganda".

As stated, I chose to ignore that because placing blame on Biden or Trump for something that has nothing to do with them with beyond stupid. I wasn't exactly happy with the election either but I just came to realize that the only thing that's ever changed in this country in the past 250 yrs is the monkey in the chair. So hey, people liked the new monkey and wanted to give him a shot. If you want the old monkey back, wait it out and vote for the old monkey. Don't go blowing up buildings. That's just stupid.

On 8/1/2021 at 11:40 AM, Phantom Roxas said:

But please, go on about how discussing their reactions is "propaganda" while you create a story about a larger plan at works, and what the bigger target was. You don't seem to be aware that every time you've complained about "propaganda" in this thread, you immediately follow it up with your speculation, exaggeration, and creating a false story about what else was going on. Considering your own standards that you've established, your comments have done more to create "propaganda" than the media has. Granted, I also believe that the more you keep complaining about "propaganda", and the more I challenge you on using it, "propaganda" keeps losing meaning.

I'm saying their motives are complete garbage and don't exactly equal out to what they were going to do. Seriously, Biden winning the election is the same as somebody getting the last slice of pizza at a buffet. You're not gonna go pick a fight. You're gonna wait for a new pizza. Common sense.

On 8/1/2021 at 11:40 AM, Phantom Roxas said:

https://www.justice.gov/usao-ndca/press-release/file/1360811/download?utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery

"Further, text messages recovered from ROGERS’s phone indicate his belief that Donald Trump won the 2020 presidential election, and his intent to attack Democrats and places associated with Democrats in an effort to ensure Trump remained in office."

Congress already had plans to replace Pelosi with Trump. So again, their motives don't match the crime.

On 8/1/2021 at 11:40 AM, Phantom Roxas said:

When the federal complaint against them following the investigation literally has evidence that the plan was being formed in direct response to the election, it isn't "propaganda" to report on how the text messages indicated their motive. It seems more likely that you were intending to dismiss the story as propaganda no matter what, and you were looking for any excuse to label it as such. The feds could produce a text message from either men's phone literally saying "I want to blow up a Dem building because I'm upset with how the election turned out", and if any news site quoted him verbatim, you'd accuse the news sites of "anti-Republican propaganda".

Actually, I wouldn't. But then again, it could be. I'm not there to view the evidence myself so these guys could've been paid off to lure out those groups and when the plan failed, they needed a scapegoat so they threw the fellows under the bus.

On 8/1/2021 at 11:40 AM, Phantom Roxas said:

Trump is doing absolutely nothing to help the country at the moment, nor is he more capable now. Just this last month, people were still having to debunk nonsense theories from people still pretending that Trump will magically be reinstated. Trump himself has definitely moved on, since Arizona's Secretary of State literally needed to tell Trump to move barely a week ago, and he was still complaining about the election at his rally. If you're going to talk about how long ago the election was that people have moved on, then I would think Trump gushing about the third recount of Maricopa County just over eight days ago at his "Rally to Save Our Elections" is a great example that completely goes against this narrative you're trying to push.

Yeah, Arizona was a sham. I mean, these are the same people that bitch and moan about Sheriff Arpaio then re-elect him for another term so they can petition to remove him. So they're gonna bitch and moan regardless.

On 8/1/2021 at 11:40 AM, Phantom Roxas said:

Trump really hasn't been doing any of the good things you keep trying to make up on his behalf. You need to accept that this version of Trump you've invented for yourself does not exist.

Trump is visiting the border and the wall is still being built. So I'm happy about that. It's definitely nicer than what I'd suggest. Then again, you wouldn't understand why I support the wall or why I support the decision to build it.

[Phantom Roxas]

Saying that they were angry because of the election is not the same thing as blaming Biden or Trump. Their motives are certainly dumb, but guess what? They would still have the motive, so what you should be taking away from this is that they're idiots who reacted like irrational idiots because their guy lost, not that the media is writing propaganda. Remember that Trump supporters attacked the capitol because Trump lost. You had tried to blame antifa for attacking the capitol, and you were genuinely sad and disappointed when you couldn't use them as a scapegoat. It broke your heart when you had to admit that Trump supporters were indeed responsible for attacking the capitol. ou were finally able to concede that an entire swarm of Trump supporters attacked the capitol just because they were bitter that Trump lost. It's not too much effort to recognize that these men are just two more domestic terrorists who were also angry at the election.

Don't you mean that Congress had plans to replace Trump with Pelosi? Either you got it backwards, or if you actually meant what you did write, that's absolutely not true. The false version you wrote does not disprove that they were motivated by the election. Try again.

"Actually, I wouldn't. But then again, it could be." If you couldn't even be consistent for barely two sentences, then why should I believe you? Your theory is utter nonsense, but it's what I've come to expect from you: You completely disregard the facts, indulge in random speculation, and believe that your conspiracy theory is somehow more legitimate than the actual facts of this case.

Your argument about Arpaio seems to be conflating two entirely different groups of people. Forgive me, but is it genuinely unreasonable to ask you to stop being dishonest?

Trump going up to the border isn't exactly contributing anything. Biden has also been gradually suspending border wall construction, but it's not like you've cared about facts or being honest in the past couple dozen threads, so I shouldn't expect you'd start caring now.

I believe we have covered what treatment you wish on immigrants before, but we've already done enough to get off track. Simp for Trump somewhere else.

[Horu]

2 hours ago, Phantom Roxas said:

Saying that they were angry because of the election is not the same thing as blaming Biden or Trump. Their motives are certainly dumb, but guess what? They would still have the motive, so what you should be taking away from this is that they're idiots who reacted like irrational idiots because their guy lost, not that the media is writing propaganda. Remember that Trump supporters attacked the capitol because Trump lost. You had tried to blame antifa for attacking the capitol, and you were genuinely sad and disappointed when you couldn't use them as a scapegoat. It broke your heart when you had to admit that Trump supporters were indeed responsible for attacking the capitol. ou were finally able to concede that an entire swarm of Trump supporters attacked the capitol just because they were bitter that Trump lost. It's not too much effort to recognize that these men are just two more domestic terrorists who were also angry at the election.

The videos I found clearly showed members of Antifa trying to break into the Capitol. I'm not gonna deny that Trump supporters went in with them. Was it right to do what they did? No. But at least they went to the Capitol and made their point. They didn't burn down their towns, kill business owners, murder a bunch of black cops and burn their towns to the ground. They went straight to Washington's front door.

2 hours ago, Phantom Roxas said:

Don't you mean that Congress had plans to replace Trump with Pelosi? Either you got it backwards, or if you actually meant what you did write, that's absolutely not true. The false version you wrote does not disprove that they were motivated by the election. Try again.

I'm just pointing out that their motive is stupid at best. The fact is what they did actually damages Trump more than it helps him.

2 hours ago, Phantom Roxas said:

"Actually, I wouldn't. But then again, it could be." If you couldn't even be consistent for barely two sentences, then why should I believe you? Your theory is utter nonsense, but it's what I've come to expect from you: You completely disregard the facts, indulge in random speculation, and believe that your conspiracy theory is somehow more legitimate than the actual facts of this case.

Just imagine this conversation happening in California.

Person A: I wanna blow up a democrat building

Person B: Which one?

Person A: The HQ

Person B: Ok

Person A: You in?

Person B: Sure....

Now let's bear in mind that California is a Dem state....

2 hours ago, Phantom Roxas said:

Your argument about Arpaio seems to be conflating two entirely different groups of people. Forgive me, but is it genuinely unreasonable to ask you to stop being dishonest?

My argument on this is actually legitimate. I met some people trying to petition to remove Arpaio as sheriff and when I asked who they voted into office, they said they voted for Arpaio so I told them to that their petition is just as stupid as them.

2 hours ago, Phantom Roxas said:

Trump going up to the border isn't exactly contributing anything. Biden has also been gradually suspending border wall construction, but it's not like you've cared about facts or being honest in the past couple dozen threads, so I shouldn't expect you'd start caring now.

I do care about the facts. But I also understand that everything the media puts out is a half truth at best since they only care about facts that fit the narrative they're pitching.

2 hours ago, Phantom Roxas said:

I believe we have covered what treatment you wish on immigrants before, but we've already done enough to get off track. Simp for Trump somewhere else.

I'm pretty sure "let's send them back" was me being nice.

[cr47t]

On 8/4/2021 at 12:38 AM, Horu said:

The videos I found clearly showed members of Antifa trying to break into the Capitol ...

then why didn't you put them here? also wtf does this have to do with these two (the ones whose arrest prompted the news event that started this thread) planning an act of political genocide/terrorism?

 

On 8/4/2021 at 12:38 AM, Horu said:

Just imagine this conversation happening in California.

Person A: I wanna blow up a democrat building

Person B: Which one?

Person A: The HQ

Person B: Ok

Person A: You in?

Person B: Sure....

Now let's bear in mind that California is a Dem state....

wait a minute, what's the implication in that last line?

On 8/4/2021 at 12:38 AM, Horu said:

I do care about the facts. But I also understand that everything the media puts out is a half truth at best since they only care about facts that fit the narrative they're pitching.

back em' up then so other people's ability to identify factuality isn't a literal shot in the dark every time

 

On 8/4/2021 at 12:38 AM, Horu said:

I'm pretty sure "let's send them back" was me being nice.

if you really want to talk about that start a new thread. you keep taking everything in this subforum and making it about BLM antifa and whatever third group pushes your ability to argue straight into a BSoD. enough of my threads have been derailed by this, i'm sick and tired of you doing this

[Tinkerer]

Man, this thread just keeps popping back up, huh? I was curious when it got bumped up last Tuesday, but I decided to actually go about reading the article this time around.

While the Guardian has a left leaning, and there is always some bias in reporting, the facts here seems pretty cut-and-dry.

I feel like I have a pretty good understanding of Roxas and Cr47t's thoughts on the matter, but I suppose I wanna ask ya @Horu: if you were on the jury for the trial of these men today and the facts were presented as we know them, would you find the facts to be enough to render these men guilty beyond a reasonable doubt? (Sorry, I know very little about law and what would be the appropriate charge for this case) If not, why not? Are there facts that you can present today that would lower the bar under reasonable doubt?

Obviously, there could be extenuating circumstances, and there could be evidence found that exonerates them, but AFAIK the legal system will not pause for that evidence to be found. We can only judge based on what we know, not what we could find out. In my opinion, it pretty clear as it stands now: their actions were absolutely condemnable.

[Horu]

5 hours ago, Tinkerer said:

Man, this thread just keeps popping back up, huh? I was curious when it got bumped up last Tuesday, but I decided to actually go about reading the article this time around.

While the Guardian has a left leaning, and there is always some bias in reporting, the facts here seems pretty cut-and-dry.

I feel like I have a pretty good understanding of Roxas and Cr47t's thoughts on the matter, but I suppose I wanna ask ya @Horu: if you were on the jury for the trial of these men today and the facts were presented as we know them, would you find the facts to be enough to render these men guilty beyond a reasonable doubt? (Sorry, I know very little about law and what would be the appropriate charge for this case) If not, why not? Are there facts that you can present today that would lower the bar under reasonable doubt?

This is where the problem actually lies, Tink. They were arrested under a conspiracy charge and that is pretty cut and dry. But even that at best is only about year in prison. The problem with the case is they haven't done anything wrong yet. So while they were planning to do something and had the necessary equipment to do so, it comes down to them actually doing it.

5 hours ago, Tinkerer said:

Obviously, there could be extenuating circumstances, and there could be evidence found that exonerates them, but AFAIK the legal system will not pause for that evidence to be found. We can only judge based on what we know, not what we could find out. In my opinion, it pretty clear as it stands now: their actions were absolutely condemnable.

I find their actions to be condemnable also. But the problem is that they haven't broken any laws or actually begun to carry out their plan. Problem is they were still in the conspiracy/prep phase. While it is good that they were stopped. The problem is that there is no solid conviction regardless of their own confessions. I guess that's the part that really bothers me. It sucks to have a big pile of evidence worthy of putting anyone away for the next 20 years and seeing them essentially get a slap on the wrist. The problem there is California's penal code in which the court doesn't actually intervene until the attempt is made. So yeah, threats and conspiracy aren't solid convictions in California.

[Horu]

7 hours ago, cr47t said:

then why didn't you put them here? also wtf does this have to do with these two (the ones whose arrest prompted the news event that started this thread) planning an act of political genocide/terrorism?

 

wait a minute, what's the implication in that last line?

back em' up then so other people's ability to identify factuality isn't a literal shot in the dark every time

 

if you really want to talk about that start a new thread. you keep taking everything in this subforum and making it about BLM antifa and whatever third group pushes your ability to argue straight into a BSoD. enough of my threads have been derailed by this, i'm sick and tired of you doing this

I have posted those videos in the related threads. But I really wanted to focus on this case and see how it develops to see if they can obtain a more solid conviction that a conspiracy charge. The best they can do might be illegal possession of a firearm/explosive if the conspirator was under surveillence. That could potentially add up to 5 years to their sentence (this depends on California's penal code though).

[Phantom Roxas]

On 8/3/2021 at 9:38 PM, Horu said:

The videos I found clearly showed members of Antifa trying to break into the Capitol. I'm not gonna deny that Trump supporters went in with them. Was it right to do what they did? No. But at least they went to the Capitol and made their point. They didn't burn down their towns, kill business owners, murder a bunch of black cops and burn their towns to the ground. They went straight to Washington's front door.

I'm just pointing out that their motive is stupid at best. The fact is what they did actually damages Trump more than it helps him.

Just imagine this conversation happening in California.

Person A: I wanna blow up a democrat building

Person B: Which one?

Person A: The HQ

Person B: Ok

Person A: You in?

Person B: Sure....

Now let's bear in mind that California is a Dem state....

My argument on this is actually legitimate. I met some people trying to petition to remove Arpaio as sheriff and when I asked who they voted into office, they said they voted for Arpaio so I told them to that their petition is just as stupid as them.

I do care about the facts. But I also understand that everything the media puts out is a half truth at best since they only care about facts that fit the narrative they're pitching.

I'm pretty sure "let's send them back" was me being nice.

Boy, we debunked this seven months ago. You know as well as I do that those videos did not show members of Antifa. By the time those threads were locked, you had been given enough evidence that it was only Trump supporters, and not Antifa, who stormed the Capitol, and everything you claimed to support you narrative had been thoroughly debunked. Repeating that lie even now is willful obstinance on your part, and it's enough to prove that you are a hypocrite. For as much as you blame "the media" for only reporting facts to fit your narrative, you continue to openly lie about Antifa.

Looking back, and I had forgotten how disingenuous your concession was. You couldn't even admit that Trump supporters attacked the Capitol. You're still obsessed with framing the Antifa boogeymen as the people who actually attacked the building, and the most you could possibly admit the Trump supporters did was that they simply "allowed" it to happen. You never hesitate to lie for the sake of your own narrative, so whenever you accuse "the media" of doing the same thing that you're doing, it's projection of the highest order.

Of course it damages Trump. For as much as you claim that he condemns people like this, he encouraged this behavior in the first place.

You do realize that people could have voted for Arpaio into office, regretted their decision, and then decided to petition for his removal? I also said you were conflating groups because I was talking about the Maricopa County recount, and that was already pretty far off-topic already, but it still had some connection to the question of whether people have truly moved on from the election, which is still relevant to these men's motives. While that's certainly several steps removed, but it's still more than just randomly complaining about people who voted for Arpaio just because I mentioned Maricopa.

I think I've made it clear that I do not believe you care about facts at all. Even if a story is still only a half truth, that would still be showing far more honesty than you've ever shown to care about.

[Horu]

5 hours ago, Phantom Roxas said:

Boy, we debunked this seven months ago. You know as well as I do that those videos did not show members of Antifa. By the time those threads were locked, you had been given enough evidence that it was only Trump supporters, and not Antifa, who stormed the Capitol, and everything you claimed to support you narrative had been thoroughly debunked. Repeating that lie even now is willful obstinance on your part, and it's enough to prove that you are a hypocrite. For as much as you blame "the media" for only reporting facts to fit your narrative, you continue to openly lie about Antifa.

Looking back, and I had forgotten how disingenuous your concession was. You couldn't even admit that Trump supporters attacked the Capitol. You're still obsessed with framing the Antifa boogeymen as the people who actually attacked the building, and the most you could possibly admit the Trump supporters did was that they simply "allowed" it to happen. You never hesitate to lie for the sake of your own narrative, so whenever you accuse "the media" of doing the same thing that you're doing, it's projection of the highest order.

Of course it damages Trump. For as much as you claim that he condemns people like this, he encouraged this behavior in the first place.

You do realize that people could have voted for Arpaio into office, regretted their decision, and then decided to petition for his removal? I also said you were conflating groups because I was talking about the Maricopa County recount, and that was already pretty far off-topic already, but it still had some connection to the question of whether people have truly moved on from the election, which is still relevant to these men's motives. While that's certainly several steps removed, but it's still more than just randomly complaining about people who voted for Arpaio just because I mentioned Maricopa.

I think I've made it clear that I do not believe you care about facts at all. Even if a story is still only a half truth, that would still be showing far more honesty than you've ever shown to care about.

Quite defensive of a groups that riot and burn down cities and murders cops, aren't we?

So if you're willing to condemn these guys and the Trump supporters that stormed the capitol, shouldn't you also be willing to admit that BLM/Antifa are also terrorists and condemn them for their actions as well.

 

As I stated, kudos to the Trump supporters that showed up simply to show support. On the other hand, the so-called "Trump supporters" that attacked the capitol should've been arrested. Just like the members of BLM/Antifa that attack/murder cops, riot and burn down cities.

 

And if you're gonna condemn terrorists, don't backpedal and defend terrorists. BLM and Antifa are no different than the KKK, 3 Percenters or Proud Boys. They are hate groups and they are essentially terrorists. So before you call me a hypocrite, take a nice long look in the mirror.

Now that that's out of the way, we can get back on topic and focus on this case.

I personally believe they SHOULD be convicted for what they WERE going to do. But again, they were arrested on grounds of conspiracy and even with a confession/evidence to back it, it doesn't hold much weight and overall gives them an extra year to plan with a much better mindset. Now if they can find a more solid conviction, I'd fully support it. But let's be real. This is the same legal system that put Charles Manson behind bars simply because he requested life in prison and not because they had any other legitimate reasons. So in all fairness, you can how flawed it is. And yes, I used Charles Manson as an example because while he was convicted for murder, he never actually killed anyone and also requested a life sentence. So he essentially the perfect example of how flawed a legal system is. He was found innocent and received life in prison via his own request. So the case at hand, while I would like a solid conviction, it doesn't appear that we'll get anything more solid than conspiracy. And this is moreso to do with California's penal code since the court is essentially useless until an attempt is made. But since they were arrested beforehand, they'll likely just get a slap on the wrist and be put on surveillence. You can see why this bugs me. Now if an officer arrested them with this stuff in their vehicle in front of the Dem HQ, this case would hold significantly more weight than a conspiracy charge.

Edit: I found this and this is the absolute max these guys can get for the charge. So essentially 9 years is the max sentence. But I believe that 9 years could be doubled since you could split the conspiracy into two parts.

1) being a mass murder

2) being the bombing of the Dem HQ

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?sectionNum=182&lawCode=PEN#:~:text=When they conspire to commit,%2C seven%2C or nine years.

 

So maybe the court will stack it as it should be. I can only hope they do.

[The Nyx Avatar]

I'm not seeing much point in this thread staying open any further. 

If one of you wants to bring up this subject again in Debates, you can make a new thread with a fresh start.

Oh and cr47t, have more than just a link in your thread, should you ever post another in Debates. Your two cents on the subject, or at least a summary. Not paragraph, but a sentence or two.