GarfieldtheCat
Diamond Member
- Jan 7, 2005
- 3,708
- 1
- 0
Fixed it for you.
Just becuase you do not like what the federal statute says does not magically change what it says. It is pretty clear, considering it is a federal statute (some of which are quire convoluted).
It is about Bank Robbery and the items done during committing one. No where in it does it mention the requirement for there to be violence. You claim there MUST be violence, but the law does not have that same requirement.
Tell you what, show me the part in the law which says there must be violence and I will concede that you are correct. If you cannot, then you must concede I am correct. Sound good?
Just quote the portion of the law which says violence is required. Should be simple, since you say it is in there.
EDIT: I also never claimed anything about a sidewalk...that is a different discussion. This one is about you claiming the federal law says something it does not say.
So you refuse to answer the question about this diversion? Typical. Woolfe and Jhnn pointed everything out to you, may I suggest you reread their posts until the light bulb comes on?
So again, what does bank robbery have to with pepperspraying of peaceful protesters? This is the OWS thread, not the robbery thread. (hint: it doesn't it's a diversion since no one can really justify the pepperspraying, but you can't admit that)
Are you pj? this account started right around the time he got banned. When you know you are so bad as to be banned on a forum like this, why do you come back for more abuse? Everyone knows you are a lying troll, since you got banned. Why create a new account? Is it masochism?