Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: MtnClimber
there was no force involved in what happened

Arresting people (for example, Papadopoulos) and placing them in jail as part of an elaborate plot to prevent Donald Trump from being democratically elected president involves the use of force.

41 posted on 07/28/2025 9:10:08 AM PDT by Meet the New Boss
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: Meet the New Boss

Yes. And the SWAT raid on Mar A Lago had the authorization to use lethal force. The authorization to use lethal force is on Merrick Garland and possibly even Joe Biden.


43 posted on 07/28/2025 9:17:10 AM PDT by MtnClimber (For photos of scenery, wildlife and climbing, click on my screen name for my FR home page.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies ]

To: Meet the New Boss

Force is not necessarily violence or even physical, from a legal perspective. Threats or other forms of coercion are also “force”. Force can be exerted by action or words.

For example, being compelled to do something out of legal obligation, like a witness being forced to answer questions in court, or someone under the authority of the president being ordered to do something, can be considered a form of non-physical force. This would be the case if someone impersonated a police officer or if someone who holds legitimate authority gives an unlawful order.

The same is true of threats and other kinds of coercion. Federal laws like 42 U.S. Code § 3617 specifically prohibit coercion, intimidation, threats, or interference with individuals exercising or enjoying their rights.

Blackmail is another non-violent type of force. Forcing a victim to pay a ransom through threats or other coercive actions falls under this umbrella.

Threats as “force”: Federal statutes, such as those addressing assault on federal officers (18 U.S.C. § 111) and extortion (18 U.S.C. § 1951), have been interpreted by courts to include threats of force as a form of force itself.

The Supreme Court case Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire established the “fighting words” doctrine, holding that some words “by their very utterance, inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace” and are not protected by the First Amendment.


54 posted on 07/28/2025 2:28:47 PM PDT by unlearner (I'm tired of being not tired of winning.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson