all your hyperbole aside.
she factually did not get arrested for photography.
Do I need to keep doing this?
Its REALLY boring.

He is a known liar, I wouldn't bother wasting my time with him.

When you do not know the meaning of the word you are using, it's best not to use it. Hyperbole requires exaggerations, statements not meant to be taken seriously. My post is dead on accurate.

Further, if you're going to argue how or why a person was arrested, it's best to read the details. She was arrested in late February. She was arrested because the FBI was alerted of photos on her social media. The evidence used against her in court were the photos on her social media. What were the photos of? The capitol building, and the crowd inside.

So, quite literally, she was arrested for entering a building, taking pictures, and posting them online. Her claims were that the entrance of the building was already clear, aka it was an open building, she did not damage anything or hurt anyone, and that she was there for 10 minutes. There was no evidence presented that her account was false, and the prosecution did not contest it.

So, a woman was literally arrested for walking into an open building, taking pictures, and leaving. The evidence used against her was the pictures she took. And, voila. Anybody with a brain can point directly at you and say, "You asked for proof of somebody arrested for taking pictures. There it is."

Meanwhile, of over a thousand arrests in Portland over violent rioting, not a single person has gone to trial, and the few people still facing any charges at all are having their cases dismissed on an every other day basis, because the DA doesn't want to "enflame tensions". Enflame? Like what the rioters did when they were burning and looting businesses? When they attempted to set a federal courthouse on fire with people inside?

Now, I get that you don't care about justice in any way, only your political agenda. But if you want to waste all this time making incredibly stupid semantic arguments that're still WRONG, maybe you should take a vacation from the internet for a while.

Its clearly not an incorrect usage. FACTUALLY you even stated the charges. She did not get arrested for photography or picture taking.
you are wrong again and your post is NOT accurate or the charges would be filed as "illegal picture taking" or some BS
LOOOL

This post was edited by theCrossbones on Aug 14 2021 09:55am

You must be the new kind of special we aren't supposed to name. Police, in this case, federal police, make arrests. Prosecutors make charges.

Nobody claimed anyone was "charged" for anything specific, nor did you ask. And charges come AFTER the arrest.

To remind you of YOUR demand:



She was arrested because she had pictures of the Capitol Building from 1/6/21 on her social media.

She DID get arrested for "photography or picture taking". You are still wrong, and you're adding rampant stupidity to your level of wrong.

Are you done yet, or what?

sounds like she took pictures

sounds like if she didnt take pics she would of been ok

sounds like a leftie fraud hustle

proud days for the FBI

This post was edited by TiStuff on Aug 14 2021 10:04am

I don't think you understand what the word "for" means lol. Has the alcohol really made you this stupid?

Its really odd the amount of rage he portrays and being a thinker?
Can't escape the fact that nobody was arrested for picture taking.
He may like "feel" like it.. But that's just in his head.. he cannot separate the two.
SAD!

She was arrested for having pictures of the capitol building on her social media. That's literally the "for". The pictures she took and shared got her arrested.



Sad part? This guy clearly outthinks you:



Sorry theCrossbones. Not your best day.

Unless the pictures she had were of naked children, she wasn't arrested FOR that.

If I posted the exact same pictures, do you think I'd be arrested too?