Table 1. Recommended Adult Immunization Schedule for ages 19 years or older, United States, 2021

Legacy media is trying to memory hole the attack on the Freedom Convoy because it doesn’t fit the narrative.

etbass
6 hours ago
Two people drive at the same unlawful speed under identical road conditions. One hits a child; one hits no one. The first is guilty of involuntary manslaughter; the second of a violation of the highway code.
No, one person hits a kills a child. The second one doesn't. The actions are not the same, because they assume that the driver has no control or ability to prevent the hitting of the child. Even at excessive speeds, a person could make evasive maneuvers. A person could wreck themselves to avoid hitting the kid. People have different driving skills, reaction times, eye sight and different vehicles that perform differently under the same speed on the same road. The judge's analogy doesn't actually hold up at all. There is some similarity, but it isn't the same thing.

This guy set a building on fire and killed a man. He took no actions to see that his actions didn't kill someone and he did it - therefore he is responsible. The results of the actions matter because it affects other people. This man is dead because of this guy's actions. You can't wish that away or pretend it didn't happen. To state the obvious, if no one was killed in the arson, it would be a lesser sentence because no one was killed. It is pretty simple. This judge is removing the responsibility of the criminal for the results of his actions. That is non-sensical and not justice.

The judge is also arguing that there is no difference between a murder and at attempted murder. But their is. In one case, the person is dead. In the other, they are not. There also would be no difference in getting into a fight fight and killing someone in a fist fight. The only factors are your strengths and their weaknesses and where you hit them, or "luck" as the judge would say. That is absurd.

Table 1. Recommended Child and Adolescent Immunization Schedule for ages 18 years or younger, United States, 2021

In the 1995 U.S. Supreme Court case Wilson v. Arkansas, the court recognized that something called the “Castle Doctrine” and the “knock and announce” rule are embedded in the Fourth Amendment. The idea is that our protections from unreasonable search and seizure mean that police must knock, announce themselves, and give residents time to answer before they enter forcibly.

But here’s the hitch. The Wilson ruling allowed that in cases with “exigent circumstances,” police can enter without knocking if it means a suspect might be able to escape or destroy evidence. That exception prompted many police departments to simply declare in all search warrant affidavits that a no-knock raid was justified, citing the danger of a suspect fleeing, destroying evidence, or assaulting the officers serving the warrant.

That in turn lead to another Supreme Court ruling in 1997, Richards v. Wisconsin, which found that blanket exceptions to the “knock and announce” rule were unconstitutional. The ruling, written by Justice John Paul Stevens, found that, “If a per se exception were allowed for each category of criminal investigation that included a considerable — albeit hypothetical — risk of danger to officers or destruction of evidence, the knock-and-announce element of the Fourth Amendment’s reasonableness requirement would be meaningless.”

Learn about UL 1008 short-circuit testing and passing criteria, and know how to apply the short-circuit withstand and closing rating in a power system

As I have repeatedly stated, violence is not legitimate political discourse – whether in the U.S. Capitol or in Democrat-run cities across the country – and neither is abusing Congress’ investigatory powers for political gain. Media outlets pretending that the RNC believes otherwise are doing so in bad faith, and their lies should be called out for the cheap political stunts they are.

These are not merely rhetorical questions. Well over a hundred political prisoners are being held by the Biden Justice Department for their role in the January 6 disturbance at the US Capitol, or, to describe it the way the RNC did on Friday, “persecution of ordinary citizens engaged in legitimate political discourse.” The conditions at the DC jail are squalid and brutal, their ability to consult with attorneys very limited, their accessibility to medical care nearly non-existent. The only reason that retirees are being held in confinement for what are essentially jaywalking tickets is that they committed an act of disrespect toward the liberal-progressive power structure that pointed out its illegitimacy. Keep in mind that Jake Angeli, the so-called “MAGA shaman,” will serve about half as much time in prison for sitting in Nancy Pelosi’s chair as Montez Lee will serve for burning a building and killing a father of three.

The difference is that the Biden Justice Department sees Montez Lee and his friends as allies and is fully in agreement with their goals. The January 6 people, on the other hand, represent the traditional order and are a threat to the norms Biden/Garland are trying to impose upon the rest of the nation.

We can’t exist with a legal system the left is trying to inflict upon us, one that was overthrown by the English barons at Runnymede when they forced King John to sign the Magna Carta. That would be a system where your political affiliation determines your punishment, not the law and not precedent.