Tennessee Man Arrested, Accused of Threatening a Shooting, After Posting Meme

we're living in the utter pinnacle of unfettered conservatism today.

The heavyhanded, cavalier fancies of this administration may seem fun and well deserved. Whether or not, they set a precedent as they go. I can't predict, but it seems probable that the next administration will turn left. If it does, it will have amassed excuses along with a well rehearsed methodology of spending them. The divisive shitstick of now will become the polar end of the divisive shitstick of tomorrow.

The notion that this shit can be gotten away with is ludicrous. Every breach of integrity that occurs with the present regime sets a citable example for the next to exploit. Anyone not eating ambian by the ton is aware of the unprecedented levels of tension and hostility between the right and left. It's simply predictable what will happen.

We'd be wise to arrange for a slightly smoother transition. Brazen disregard for law will not help. And any attempt to justify it with dubious ideology will come with a serious hangover.

Your term "assault", can legally, imply a prelude to battery. Maybe that's a stupid point.

And I do not wish to dismiss your concerns either.

However, if you endeavor to qualify the transport of potentially fatal materials as violence, such would be a highly abstract interpretation requiring an unprecedented overhaul of the present system.

If someone is caught planning a violent act, e.g. performing internet search queries for "how to do terrible x and accomplish terrible y, the rule of law doesn't permit immediately executing the individual. Traditionally, a trial ensues where possibilities of error and other critical considerations are made in order to ensure greater probabilities of a just outcome, hence Justice. An immediate threat and remote hypothetical threat are treated differently. If Bob knows you plan to kill him on Friday, but he finds you while you're doing laundry and kills you Thursday, while tactically legit, it doesn't work legally. Extrajudicial is what we might call this. But regular folks wouldn't earn the term.

But that's barely the surface. If transport qualifies as violence, then the users that contribute or essentially enable the entire cycle must be included. So now we are killing foreign boaters in the Caribbean and e.g. Hunter Biden on his jetski as he swirls around the Florida Keys high on fentanyl. We'll need to kill his hooker friend too, because she directly supports these transporters.

It gets much sillier from here, all the way until you kill Bill because he spent money at the same pizza parlor as the guy who sold the baggy that overdosed your friend.

And then comes the strange dynamics where you need to kill me because my self-righteous doctor won't prescribe me pain management for my cancer because xyz and I'm looking on the streets for some kind of relief.

But we needn't go that far. We can go back to the top and kill the growers. And their children which might aid and abet them. And certainly a few chemists here and there.

It gets way messier. If you fail to kill me, I might have a grudge. Because I was not trying to hurt anyone. I'm in pain and just want help.

While this all takes place, other artistically inclined persons superimpose their own values upon the law.

But really, a few guys steering a boat full of drugs is not violence. Certainly not an imminent threat especially after they've been identified. It's the potential for violence, but so is our trusty old proverbial hammer.

That's a pretty big assumption that also happens to be wrong. I specifically said "if at all possible" because I'm well aware that plenty of people can't put everything on hold for 30-60 days and have to potentially start over after that's done.

If someone can in any way afford it, though, I would always recommend that approach. As soon as one is embroiled in the legal system its terrible no matter what the end result is. Either way the outcome is bad, if you can expedite the process you are better off.

That small victory really made me reconsider.

Or more accurately, because the only people who do care are the people who benefit from corruption.

> Twenty-five years ago this month, all hell broke loose in my country, which is tucked away in the Great Lakes region of Africa. Hordes of members of the Hutu ethnic majority, armed with machetes, spears, nail-studded clubs, and other rudimentary weapons, moved house to house in villages, hunting for Tutsis, the second largest of Rwanda’s three ethnic groups. The radio station RTLM, allied with leaders of the government, had been inciting Hutus against the Tutsi minority, repeatedly describing the latter as inyenzi, or “cockroaches,” and as inzoka, or “snakes.” The station, unfortunately, had many listeners.

> The promoters of genocide used other metaphors to turn people against their neighbors. Hutus, by reputation, are shorter than Tutsis; radio broadcasters also urged Hutus to “cut down the tall trees.”

> In urban centers, government soldiers and well-armed members of the Interahamwe militia affiliated with the ruling party set up roadblocks filtering out Tutsis and killing them by the roadside. It was an easy task to pick them out. Ever since independence from Belgium in 1962, national identification cards specified ethnicity.

> Within 100 days, an estimated 1 million people, the overwhelming majority of whom were Tutsis, lay dead. The worst kind of hatred had been unleashed. What began with dehumanizing words ended in bloodshed.

[1] https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/04/rwanda-sho...

[1] https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/charlie-kirk-professor-...

[2] https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/charlie-kirk-black-women/

[3] https://meidasnews.com/news/charlie-kirk-wants-coca-cola-spo...