• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Suspect back out on the street after arrest for attempted arson at Eureka GOP office

desertdroog

Member
Aug 12, 2008
3,797
4,322
1,055
Keep vigilant, 2020 is going to be pretty crazy.


 
  • Triggered
Reactions: matt404au

desertdroog

Member
Aug 12, 2008
3,797
4,322
1,055
Can't stop won't stop. Why are people vandalising GOP headquarters in various States? I thought the right was violent and full of hate according to Democrats:

Police in Albuquerque, New Mexico have arrested a man they believe vandalized a Republican Party headquarters in the city.

The suspect, Cameron Chase McCall, was reportedly caught on camera spray-painting the words “Still Traitors” on the outside of the GOP headquarters, according to the criminal complaint.

The complaint revealed that McCall is associated with the Democratic Party, and has previously worked as an intern for Democratic Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham while she served in the U.S. Congress, a spokesperson for the governor said, denouncing McCall’s actions.
read the rest:


 

infinitys_7th

Gold Member
Oct 1, 2006
6,343
7,820
1,590
Events like this combined with liberal cities not wanting to detain violent criminals really gets the noggin joggin.

They want to allow violence to escalate to reinforce their narratives about gun control, about hate speech, etc. If they release a gang member who just beat up a bunch of rivals, I'm going to guess it is likely that his violent interactions with those rivals will escalate and liberals will score some "mass shooting" stats to whine about. If they release a far-leftist who is lighting GOP headquarters on fire and vandalizing buildings, they can incite retaliation by far-right and then whine about it.
 

infinitys_7th

Gold Member
Oct 1, 2006
6,343
7,820
1,590
I agree, but that's not what I asked.
It doesn't matter; normally a judge would make a determination based on what he did that he represents an immediate risk of violence to the community. Someone who tried to burn down an inhabited structure is a violent criminal with evidently murderous intent.
 
May 22, 2018
6,128
6,221
650
It doesn't matter; normally a judge would make a determination based on what he did that he represents an immediate risk of violence to the community. Someone who tried to burn down an inhabited structure is a violent criminal with evidently murderous intent.
So that's a no then. Okay. You could have just led with that. No terrorism charge means bail was always a likely outcome so it shouldn't be that surprising. Upsetting though? Absolutely.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: undrtakr900