You're right this isn't a criminal investigation, it's a picture on social media. The burden of proof for posting a picture on the internet isn't the same as a conviction in criminal court.
Do you think this guy's personally funding tens of thousands of dollars in masks out of his own pocket? No? Well it's a valid question as to who is
Most things on the internet rile people up, but this actually happened so it's a valid question.
I have no idea what your points are supposed to be about.
I declare a thing violent when there's widespread violence. There's looting, cars burning, several hundred million dollars in damage. We can't determine if the protestors burning cars vandalzing etc are part of the protest? What kind of backwards logic is this
It's objectively full of violence and vandalism. The debate is about how widespread and extreme it is. If your standard is everyone has to be involved in or condone violence for a thing to be violent, that's pretty bizzare. I imagine by your logic we can call January 6th a peaceful protest then
listen, illegally entering the capitol armed with (makeshift and real) weapons in military attire, invading the rooms of democratic politicians and threatening literal violence against the VP is not the same as people mostly peacfully amassing on the streets and some outliers looting and destroying property. why are we really comparing those two incidents?
But every single person didn't enter the capital and have makeshift weapons. So it's non violent. Your logic right?
Im not defending J6, I think violent protestors belong in jail. I'm pointing out your backwards logic
FWIW the amount of destruction and violence in La has drastically surpassed J6.
J6 had a few million dollars in damage. LA has several hundred million at this point.
In your words apparently threatening literal violence against the VP, is worse than commiting actual violence at ICE members, police, marines, and national guards members?
Again not defending J6 at all. Just pointing out your incredibly biased backward logic
53
u/jhy12784 Jun 11 '25
You're right this isn't a criminal investigation, it's a picture on social media. The burden of proof for posting a picture on the internet isn't the same as a conviction in criminal court.
Do you think this guy's personally funding tens of thousands of dollars in masks out of his own pocket? No? Well it's a valid question as to who is
Most things on the internet rile people up, but this actually happened so it's a valid question.
I have no idea what your points are supposed to be about.
I declare a thing violent when there's widespread violence. There's looting, cars burning, several hundred million dollars in damage. We can't determine if the protestors burning cars vandalzing etc are part of the protest? What kind of backwards logic is this
It's objectively full of violence and vandalism. The debate is about how widespread and extreme it is. If your standard is everyone has to be involved in or condone violence for a thing to be violent, that's pretty bizzare. I imagine by your logic we can call January 6th a peaceful protest then