SunflierRep. Ilhan Omar Assaulted by Protester at Town Hall Meeting
cannedtunaReally hope whatever the fuck he sprayed her with was nothing dangerous
That woman telling her to go get checked immediately was right. It’s unlikely, but people have been killed like this before.
UnderpantsWeevilen.wikipedia.org/…/Assassination_of_Kim_Jong-nam
At approximately 9:00 a.m., two women approached Kim with separate components of the VX nerve agent on their hands, combining it into the lethal weapon when touching his face. He died about 15 to 20 minutes later while being transported to the hospital.
This part is wild.
She told her mother that she found a better job as an actor in prank videos for the Chinese market.[87] After Hương and Aisyah were arrested, they claimed they thought they were participating in a prank.[88] According to both suspects, they were told to play harmless tricks on people in the vicinity for a prank TV show, one target being Kim Jong-nam.[89] They said they were promised US$100, but after losing contact with their handlers, they never received the money.
Yeah… but on the other hand I can see this becoming a common tactic to prevent people from speaking: spray them with water so they have to leave the event to get checked out, while the perpetrator faces relatively light charges because it wasn’t actually dangerous.
I’m not talking about this event in particular, I’m talking about the assumptions you have to make when responding to events like this. Because your response will influence what others do in the future.
Wouldn’t work. Bring a fake bomb strapped to your chest to a town hall and you don’t get a lighter sentence just because it wasn’t a real bomb. Pretend terrorism is treated the same as real terrorism.
Because that’s an explicit threat. Spraying water is—at least on the face of it—a step below throwing rotten fruit or creme pies or fake blood: you can always claim it was meant to be symbolic.
Edit for clarification: The point is, you can deliberately make it as non-threatening as possible, and it may be obvious to everyone that it’s not a threat—but if there’s a protocol to always check anyway, you’re shutting the speaker down by exploiting the protocol rather than the threat.
Ah, I see. I didn’t realize the water was squirted out of a plastic flower on the attacker’s lapel.
But joking aside, no court would ever interpret the act “on the face of it.” Rotten fruit, pie in the face, fake blood, you’re right, those have lots of historical precedent as symbolic acts of protest. “Mystery fluid flung at someone’s face” has historical precedent too, but not so symbolic.
I understand what you’re trying to say, but you’re not thinking like a judge. If you were a judge, would you really want an article in a law book to describe you as the one who thought it was a good idea to greenlight the throwing of mysterious fluids at politicians’ faces as an act of protest?