Rep. Jamaal Bowman pulls fire alarm ahead of vote to pass short-term funding bill

Trump never suggested he was going to suspend the Constitution.
on Truth Social he said: "Do you throw the Presidential Election Results of 2020 OUT and declare the RIGHTFUL WINNER, or do you have a NEW ELECTION? A Massive Fraud of this type and magnitude allows for the termination of all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution..."

so. he did what I said and suggested suspending the parts of the constitution he didn't like. To this I say no, and anyone who thinks they are more important than the Constitution deserves none of my support. Even if voting for them would really punish someone else largely ignoring the constitution.
 
Can You Go to Jail for Pulling a Fire Alarm?
In the state of Illinois, pulling a fire alarm when there’s no fire falls under disorderly conduct. Because disorderly conduct is a crime, you can go to jail for it. In fact, the law says “A person commits disorderly conduct when he or she knowingly… transmits or causes to be transmitted in any manner to the fire department of any city, town, village or fire protection district a false alarm of fire, knowing at the time of the transmission that there is no reasonable ground for believing that the fire exists…”

https://ildefense.com/can-you-go-to...fire,in a bomb threat, are much more severe.)

§ 22–1319. False alarms and false reports; hoax weapons.

Any person violating the provisions of this subsection shall, upon conviction, be guilty of a felony and may be punished by imprisonment of not more than 5 years or fined in an amount not more than the amount set forth in § 22-3571.01 or the costs of responding to and consequential damages resulting from the offense, or both.
https://code.dccouncil.gov/us/dc/council/code/sections/22-1319.html

You could get a whopping big fine in the thousands and up to 5 years in prison for it in Washington DC...

Are you pretending 'intent' does not matter?

He has already explained he did mean to trigger the alarm. Even if you want to call it a dumb mistake, you should have learned with Trump, proving intent is enormously difficult especially when the person gains nothing and it harms what he is trying to do, should he have stopped the proceeding, he was eager to vote YES on.

So you have the issue of no intent, no benefit, and no reason for him to willfully do it.

But lock him up right? Meanwhile with Trump 'PROVE INTENT' or leave him alone. Amiright?
 
I'd like to see a good picture of the door and fire alarm. If it's a conventional fire alarm, then I agree that's fucked up. If the door triggered it, the door that is usually open according to reports, then it becomes fuzzier.

The fact he supported the bill conflicts with the reports that he was against it.

This is it. He did not pull any alarm. It was in ANOTHER building and not the one the proceedings were in, so you have to assume he knew it would also trigger an alarm in adjacent buildings. Good luck with proving that intent.


Again this was a vote he wanted to happen and was racing to get there. It was not one he did not want to happen.

76055203-0-image-a-29_1696216275180.jpg


81a8w3.jpg
 
This is it. He did not pull any alarm. It was in ANOTHER building and not the one the proceedings were in, so you have to assume he knew it would also trigger an alarm in adjacent buildings. Good luck with proving that intent.


Again this was a vote he wanted to happen and was racing to get there. It was not one he did not want to happen.

76055203-0-image-a-29_1696216275180.jpg
Oh, darn, this isn’t what the Trumpublicans hoped it would be.
 
Are you pretending 'intent' does not matter?

He has already explained he did mean to trigger the alarm. Even if you want to call it a dumb mistake, you should have learned with Trump, proving intent is enormously difficult especially when the person gains nothing and it harms what he is trying to do, should he have stopped the proceeding, he was eager to vote YES on.

So you have the issue of no intent, no benefit, and no reason for him to willfully do it.

But lock him up right? Meanwhile with Trump 'PROVE INTENT' or leave him alone. Amiright?

Awww... The fucker pulled the fire alarm intentionally. Only a complete, oblivious, retard wouldn't know what a red box marked "FIRE" was for on the wall. Are you claiming Bowman has the mental capacity of a four-year-old? Because that is what it would take to not know you don't pull a fire alarm when there's no fire.

It wasn't a "dumb mistake." It was a deliberate act.
 
Awww... The fucker pulled the fire alarm intentionally. Only a complete, oblivious, retard wouldn't know what a red box marked "FIRE" was for on the wall. Are you claiming Bowman has the mental capacity of a four-year-old? Because that is what it would take to not know you don't pull a fire alarm when there's no fire.

It wasn't a "dumb mistake." It was a deliberate act.
Well he is a Democrat afterall :dunno:
 
The Democrats have empathy because they are all so stupid that they also think fire alarms will open the door for you. Even if the sign was confusing (it wasn't if you have an IQ above 80) it is clear exiting those doors would trigger a fire alarm. They are several other exits he could have used that would not trigger an alarm. Clearly he intended to trigger an alarm. The guy was a middle school principal and was in charge of fire drills. If he is so stupid as to think fire alarms open doors then there is no wonder why kids are coming out of school without an education.
 
Last edited:
Awww... The fucker pulled the fire alarm intentionally. Only a complete, oblivious, retard wouldn't know what a red box marked "FIRE" was for on the wall. Are you claiming Bowman has the mental capacity of a four-year-old? Because that is what it would take to not know you don't pull a fire alarm when there's no fire.

It wasn't a "dumb mistake." It was a deliberate act.

I am not asking you what your opinion on his actions are. Lets concede you believe what you say, which is fine. You are allowed your own opinion.

What i am asking is how you PROVE intent, when he says that is not what he intended.


For instance I absolutely believe that Trump intended to send Jan6ers to the Capital with intent to rile them up to shut down the proceeding that day.

But because i am not an idiot, i realize you can never prosecute Trump for that INTENT unless you have some direct evidence such as an admission from him.

So what i am asking you is 'are the type of idiot who thinks they should prosecute Trump on WHAT I BELIEVE'', and prosecute Jamal on 'WHAT YOU BELIEVE' when they both deny it and WE CANNOT prove intent?
 
Rep. Jamaal Bowman pulls fire alarm ahead of vote to pass short-term funding bill
WASHINGTON — The House Administration Committee is investigating why Rep. Jamaal Bowman, D-N.Y., pulled a fire alarm in a Capitol office building on Saturday, according to a post on social media by the committee.

Bowman’s office acknowledged he pulled the alarm, but suggested it was unintentional.

“Congressman Bowman did not realize he would trigger a building alarm as he was rushing to make an urgent vote,” the spokesperson said in a statement. “The Congressman regrets any confusion.”

"Rep. Jamal Bowman pulled a fire alarm in Cannon this morning," an account controlled by the Republicans on the House Administration Committee wrote on X, the website formerly known as Twitter, including spelling the congressman's first name incorrectly. "An investigation into why it was pulled is underway."

The post was signed by committee Chairman Bryan Steil, R-Wis.

The U.S. Capitol Police did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The fire alarm sounded in the Cannon office building, which is connected to the Capitol via an underground tunnel, as the Republicans were trying to begin a vote on a 45-day spending measure to keep the government open.......

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/jamaal-bowman-pulled-fire-alarm-rcna118230

===============================

What is this high school? It is against the law to falsely pull a fire alarm. I hope he gets prosecuted to the full extent of the law. It is also against the law to disrupt official proceeding. Where have we heard that before:thinking:

So this guy is the NY Fetterman? Brain damaged?
 
I am not asking you what your opinion on his actions are. Lets concede you believe what you say, which is fine. You are allowed your own opinion.

What i am asking is how you PROVE intent, when he says that is not what he intended.


For instance I absolutely believe that Trump intended to send Jan6ers to the Capital with intent to rile them up to shut down the proceeding that day.

But because i am not an idiot, i realize you can never prosecute Trump for that INTENT unless you have some direct evidence such as an admission from him.

So what i am asking you is 'are the type of idiot who thinks they should prosecute Trump on WHAT I BELIEVE'', and prosecute Jamal on 'WHAT YOU BELIEVE' when they both deny it and WE CANNOT prove intent?

What do you suspect he "intended"? It's quite all right to hypothesize is it not?
 
Fucking idiots mad he tried to open a certain door


Yet pretend a riot of hate for Democracy full of hundreds of right wingers doing violence and shitting in their own hands so they smear it all over our hallowed halls of democracy was not a crime



No real human is that stupid and dishonest


These are foreign disinformation programs designed to foment hate for our democracy


Russo bot holes

China bot holes

Arabian bot holes

Nations that hate democracy and want it dead
 
What do you suspect he "intended"? It's quite all right to hypothesize is it not?

To open a door


What was the intent of your trump riot buddies who smashed windows and played artist with their own shit


Or even someone else’s shit


What fucking violent hate filled idiot criminals


And you want to claim opening a god damned door is a crime?
 
What do you suspect he "intended"? It's quite all right to hypothesize is it not?

Yes. Opinions are fine. Thinking this is prosecutable is what is stupid.


I recognize that you derps can listen to Trump perfect Ukraine call or his perfect Georgia 'find votes'; call and we can argue over intent.

You guys can say since we cannot prove Trump's intent, he cannot be charged. And i agree. We can believe what we believe but to get to charges you NEED MORE, because if you and i disagree over intent then finding 12 jurors who would all agree will be a challenge.

A smart person recognized the above that we need MORE than what we 'think' to prove INTENT.

A stupid person, like Terry thinks, 'since i am convinced my opinion is correct... we are ready for trial', when i can cite examples of other people who hold different opinions thus not the thing any prosecutor would prosecute, as you need all 12 jurors to agree.
 
Put simply on the question of intent and how you would PROVE it in court, Terry's reply is 'I will testify what my opinion is and that is proof of his intent.

Only a stupid person thinks the law works that way.
 
Back
Top