While I agree with you, a little empathy here is warranted. Those weren't fealty statements as much as they are just CYA statements for the businesses suing because they fear reprisal from the mob, politicians, and media. They're in a shit situation.
It's disappointing. They could put in a clause for "political" neutrality but they don't have to. Putting in a disclaimer that they in effect do not waive fealty to the cause that started the whole thing may really harm their own case. There is co-liability between BLM and the city. If the suit addresses the city then it's already excluding BLM. The statement is redundant. If the suit were inclusive of BLM then it would be listed as the defendant.
If I were judge or something on that case I'd be pissed off having to read some garbage that has no relation what so ever to the suit.
It should be pointed out that there's no 1st amendment contention here but if they wanted to be clear they do not object to activities protected under that then this isn't the way to go.
The charges of systematic racism or that black people specifically endure significantly greater unjustified violence is false. It's not a matter of opinion but rather matter of fact. It's libel against the police force.
What happened with SPAZ goes way beyond 1st amendment and it's based on what really does fully qualify as their own beloved hate speech under even the strictest standards.
In that case it being based on obvious lies that are easily dispelled further brings into question the city's conduct in allowing it to continue.
It should be obvious for anyone to see that this is a movement backed by criminality. There's no widespread or significant police oppression of people on account of race.
There is overwhelmingly large scale police oppression of criminals. The only group that would be at war with the police and anti-police like this are criminals. Even if that weren't the case criminals are going to pile in. That is obvious and inevitable.
If you have a hate movement against the police then who hates the police the most?
Not a lawyer, but it seems to me that they're trying to confine the issue specifically to the willful mishandling by the city. The legitimacy of BLM isn't going to be ruled on in any way, so it will only make their case clearer if they first say they're in support of it.
They are going to own the city...They have artfully said that the Mayor did nothing...nothing..to protect the people who live there. Destroyed their livlihood. Encouraged lawlessness by supporting CHOP...they report their constitutional rights were denied...the city gifted property that is against their city charter....in other words...the mayor and council done f... up and they will pay
I hope trying to stick it to Orangeman was worth it. People lost their lives because of her retarded stunt, there is blood on her hands. No regrets, right?
Sure it is, to them. A hundred million killed by genocide is a small price to pay for the purpose of experimenting with their anointed utopian visions.
This is so sad to read. The horrible conditions that the residents and businesses were operating under is just dreadful. On the other hand, a lot of the businesses made explicit mention that they are in favor of BLM and even criticized police brutality against blacks. I feel for their hardship and I hope they succeed in their lawsuit but I don't know how they can simultaneously support BLM and be angry about what CHOP has done in solidarity with BLM. Maybe, next time, don't vote for a mayor and a city council who are all about Marxist politics.
Bruh, I want to see that Discovery so bad, but I'm half afraid she's going to realize how ruinous it would be for her to comply, so she'll just settle out before the issue can be forced.
Then again, she went on Fredo's show and called the insurrection of her city a little festival, maybe a summer of love, so... maybe she's stupid enough to not realize how bad it would be? One can only hope.
...They didn't make that claim...read the suit! Don't be lazy....! These are the new arguments that will be used in NYC, LA, OR....read the claims...they are legally brilliant!
Not to mention the fact that Seattle had the balls to just pass a $300 million dollar tax on big business in the city. Why any company would continue to do business in Seattle is beyond me at this point.
Read the first paragraph, was disgusted, didn't read further. The very first statement of fact is pledging fealty to BLM....by the plaintiffs. WTF?
While I agree with you, a little empathy here is warranted. Those weren't fealty statements as much as they are just CYA statements for the businesses suing because they fear reprisal from the mob, politicians, and media. They're in a shit situation.
yes. Every business that supports BLM, you dont know who actually does or who is doing it to try and save their windows.
Elections have consequences. They voted for this and they’re ripping the rewards.
"reaping" . Unless that was just an autocorrect thing, then ignore me, I'm not trying to nitpick
Change your name to autocorrect
We need a list of companies that have supported them though. I want to boycott
Hope you have a homestead. Impossible to boycott every one of them otherwise.
With a list I could try
As a matter of principle it is good to be straightforward and honest. However in the art of war there is also value in deception and feigning.
Fuck these people. Antifa and BLM are animals. Screw this
It's disappointing. They could put in a clause for "political" neutrality but they don't have to. Putting in a disclaimer that they in effect do not waive fealty to the cause that started the whole thing may really harm their own case. There is co-liability between BLM and the city. If the suit addresses the city then it's already excluding BLM. The statement is redundant. If the suit were inclusive of BLM then it would be listed as the defendant.
If I were judge or something on that case I'd be pissed off having to read some garbage that has no relation what so ever to the suit.
It should be pointed out that there's no 1st amendment contention here but if they wanted to be clear they do not object to activities protected under that then this isn't the way to go.
The charges of systematic racism or that black people specifically endure significantly greater unjustified violence is false. It's not a matter of opinion but rather matter of fact. It's libel against the police force.
What happened with SPAZ goes way beyond 1st amendment and it's based on what really does fully qualify as their own beloved hate speech under even the strictest standards.
In that case it being based on obvious lies that are easily dispelled further brings into question the city's conduct in allowing it to continue.
It should be obvious for anyone to see that this is a movement backed by criminality. There's no widespread or significant police oppression of people on account of race.
There is overwhelmingly large scale police oppression of criminals. The only group that would be at war with the police and anti-police like this are criminals. Even if that weren't the case criminals are going to pile in. That is obvious and inevitable.
If you have a hate movement against the police then who hates the police the most?
C R I M I N A L S.
Not a lawyer, but it seems to me that they're trying to confine the issue specifically to the willful mishandling by the city. The legitimacy of BLM isn't going to be ruled on in any way, so it will only make their case clearer if they first say they're in support of it.
They are going to own the city...They have artfully said that the Mayor did nothing...nothing..to protect the people who live there. Destroyed their livlihood. Encouraged lawlessness by supporting CHOP...they report their constitutional rights were denied...the city gifted property that is against their city charter....in other words...the mayor and council done f... up and they will pay
Hey at least she got to make some sick burns toward President Trump on twitter. Hope the likes were worth it bitch.
I hope trying to stick it to Orangeman was worth it. People lost their lives because of her retarded stunt, there is blood on her hands. No regrets, right?
Sure it is, to them. A hundred million killed by genocide is a small price to pay for the purpose of experimenting with their anointed utopian visions.
Reminds me of the language they had Osama using in South Park: Durka Durka Durka.
Viva's review of the lawsuit:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vRNqSvcLms0
While that link is timestamped towards the end, the whole video is a good watch
oops I didn't mean to timestamp it. I have edited the link.
This is so sad to read. The horrible conditions that the residents and businesses were operating under is just dreadful. On the other hand, a lot of the businesses made explicit mention that they are in favor of BLM and even criticized police brutality against blacks. I feel for their hardship and I hope they succeed in their lawsuit but I don't know how they can simultaneously support BLM and be angry about what CHOP has done in solidarity with BLM. Maybe, next time, don't vote for a mayor and a city council who are all about Marxist politics.
Maybe the businesses claimed to support BLM to appease the protestors and not be destroyed
Bruh, I want to see that Discovery so bad, but I'm half afraid she's going to realize how ruinous it would be for her to comply, so she'll just settle out before the issue can be forced.
Then again, she went on Fredo's show and called the insurrection of her city a little festival, maybe a summer of love, so... maybe she's stupid enough to not realize how bad it would be? One can only hope.
...the people pushing the suit don't have to settle.... :)
The pendulum swings both ways....
Guess that 12-0 vote to defund the police that will be going up for a vote by the residents of Seattle...just tanked.
Summer of rape and murder.
They aren't going to win on their claim that cops have a duty to protect people. The Supreme Court already said that's not the case.
...They didn't make that claim...read the suit! Don't be lazy....! These are the new arguments that will be used in NYC, LA, OR....read the claims...they are legally brilliant!
Kids were murdered there and no one has been charged for this.
She knew there were weapons in there and allowed it
Not to mention the fact that Seattle had the balls to just pass a $300 million dollar tax on big business in the city. Why any company would continue to do business in Seattle is beyond me at this point.
I'm about sick of HR depts immediately bending corps over for any attention whore that comes their way, just to keep from losing MUH CUSTOMER.
At some point protections at the federal level need to be discussed so companies can just say "fuck off, we sell things we arent a political org"
Shit this is gonna be a class action suit
A thread to watch