The claim are largely based on the idea that what transpired on A12 was a vast deviation from what was protected by law.
-
-
Show this thread
-
The McCord claim notes that groups entered the park, but far from rallying around speeches, instead left repeatedly to engage in violence.
Show this thread -
This, it should be noted, is fucking exactly what we said would happen. And specifically what I told City Council would happen.
Show this thread -
If these situations are enough to overturn protections after the fact, why was the threat of them not sufficient to stop the event before?
Show this thread -
They literally did exactly what they said they'd do. If the 'doing' is enough to run afoul of protections, why not the clear threat?
Show this thread -
This is the fundamental flaw, imo. We need new precedent for promises of violence.
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.