Armed pro-Trump protesters gather outside Michigan elections chief's home

Status
Not open for further replies.
M

Motherwit

Well-known member
Michigan secretary of state Jocelyn Benson said dozens of armed protesters gathered in a threatening manner outside her home on Saturday evening chanting “bogus” claims about electoral fraud.

Michigan officials last month certified the state’s election results showing President-elect Joe Biden had won Michigan, one of a handful of key battleground states, in the course of his 3 November election victory.

President Donald Trump has repeatedly claimed, contrary to evidence, that the outcome was marred by widespread fraud in multiple states. State and federal officials have repeatedly stated that there is no evidence of fraud on any significant scale, and Biden is to be sworn in on 20 January.

The protesters who rallied outside Benson’s home held up placards saying “Stop the Steal” and chanted the same message, according to various clips uploaded on social media.

In a Twitter statement on Sunday, Benson said the protesters were trying to spread false information about the security and accuracy of the US election system. “The demands made outside my home were unambiguous, loud and threatening.”

 
The should have been run fined and dispersed (or arrest) for disturbing the peace. One simply cannot use bullhorns to yell at people in their home. From a moral standpoint, what they did was reprehensible. Not one of these protesters would want a group of people to come to their home and treat their family this way.
 
pnewton said:
The should have been run fined and dispersed (or arrest) for disturbing the peace.
Click to expand...
Why? did they do anything wrong?

How about throwing rocks at Capital Police when they decide to disperse a protest because President Trump will soon be there?

Should those guys be arrested too?

Even with a permit, there are clauses that for any special reason, the gathering may need to be terminated. That is part of the agreement.

So should those guys that were in DC when Trump wanted to go to a Catholic Church be arrested too?

.
Motherwit said:
Yes and they’ve lost any high ground regarding ‘leftist’ protestors antics.
Click to expand...
No they haven’t.
 
Last edited:
There is no “idiocy” except for ipse dixit.

They have done nothing wrong or illegal.

It is not even a tu quo que. Trump’s clearance was legit.
This is different. There was nothing illegal here.
 
Last edited:
@Cathoholic:
Statement from Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson concerning threats against her and her family

"As my four-year-old son and I were finishing up decorating the house for Christmas on Saturday night, and he was about to sit down to watch How the Grinch Stole Christmas, dozens of armed individuals stood outside my home shouting obscenities and chanting into bullhorns in the dark of night.
Click to expand...
Classy.
 
I agree with you @FrankFletcher. That is out of line!

I would go further than rhetorically calling them “classy”. (It is just as “classy” and illegal when the left does this. Even against their own. And I have called that out too and I hope you have as well.)

Legally break it up if it becomes disorderly. That is disorderly assuming she is telling the truth.
 
Last edited:
Victoria33 said:
No, the armed pro-Trump protesters have every right to carry arms. That’s Michigan law.
Click to expand...
Yes, it is. The only laws broken would not have been criminal, but noise violations, with tickets at most. That is why what they did was just immoral, not criminal. That said, I think it high time that the right to bear arms be restricted from protests and group demonstrations, just like it is restricted around alcohol, and for the same reason. This is not a left or right issue for me. Group dynamics in these situations just are not conducive to rational thought and measured actions. It is only a matter of time until the right to bear arms and the right to protest exercised simultaneously ends up in a blood bath, instead of just a few deaths, making this a pro-life issue.
 
That sounds very much like threatening behaviour to me…
Do you ever question your rights in terms of the context? It is a serious honest question. And I dare ask it because this isn’t average behaviour, probably very rare there.
It is like one has a right to own a couple of dangerous race dogs, but would you find acceptable to have the Club of Dangerous Race dogs barking at your door and not find it a sort of intimidation? There are grey areas imo.
 
Last edited:
Open carry like that is not something I can understand.

How could it be anything but intimidating.
 
This demonstration was wrong, just like it was wrong when BLM marched through a private neighborhood to protest at the mayor’s house.
 
graciew said:
That sounds very much like threatening behaviour to me…
Do you ever question your rights in terms of the context? It is a serious honest question. And I dare ask it because this isn’t average behaviour, probably very rare there.
Click to expand...
I don’t question the right in terms of context. I question the use of it in certain contexts.

Two things can be true at once. While they have the constitutionally protected right to open carry in this way, There seems to me to be no reason to do so. I understood it in Virginia because there was a specific government threat to infringe on the right. Carrying made that statement visible and clear.
That isn’t the case here.
graciew said:
Club of Dangerous Race dogs
Click to expand...
Is not a constitutionally protected individual right.
 
MikeInVA said:
This demonstration was wrong, just like it was wrong when BLM marched through a private neighborhood to protest at the mayor’s house.
Click to expand...
On this I agree. An official’s home is not the place to demonstrate. Do it in the right setting.
 
Last edited:
I also can’t help but feel the reason these protestor/militia-types bring their guns with them everywhere is to intimidate people.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top