Breaking 1-06-21: MAGA terrorist attack on Capitol

lol

 

Who is serving 20+ years for getting high or stealing food for their family?

 

Are you new to America? It happens all the time. Yes it’s typically because of stacked offenses but regardless it’s the possession crimes that ultimately can put away a lot of people for 20 years.


https://reason.com/2021/05/13/this-...-life-in-prison-over-1-5-ounces-of-mar1juana/

Plus I’m sure you’ll come back and say that many of these folks got out due to clemency or pardons.

 

No, not new to America. No one goes to prison for 20 years for simple possession or petty theft. The only thing that could come close is when someone is a career criminal and there are multiple anti-recidivism laws that come into play on the new case. For example, under the old three strikes law in California, there was a provision that if you had three prior strikes (serious or violent felonies) then a new felony conviction would be punishable by 25 years to life. Possession of heroin was a felony at one time as well. So, if someone had committed three prior robberies, then was later convicted of possession of heroin, they would have been subject to a three-strike sentence. That person wouldn't be doing 25 to life just for possession of heroin though, they would be doing that sentence because they were a career criminal whose latest crime was possession of heroin. In the article you linked (the link is broken btw because of the board's automatic changing of the spelling of mar1juana) the guy had a home burglary and possession of a firearm by a felon prior (which qualified him for Mississippi's habitual offender sentencing, a similar but even harsher version of the same thing). If he just had the weed, he would be looking at three years (still ridiculous). So no, no one goes to prison for 20 years for getting high or stealing food for their families, they go to prison for years for living as criminals and then picking up one last offense that brings the hammer down.

 

So what you’re saying is that someone convicted of multiple crimes plus with enhancements in sentencing can be sentenced to very long sentences.

So in the case of the Proud Boys sentences to long sentences it was also that they were committing multiple crimes and there were sentencing enhancements. So not want just being sentenced to 17 years for breaking a window but the multiple crimes around that action that they were sentenced to.

 

Yes I know how the law works. I was making a simple point. You could be like OMG this guy got X years for Y crime when the other guy got W years for Z crime. You always have to look at specifically what the crime is they were convicted of (burning a man alive isn’t the crime, 1st degree murder is vs attempted murder) and then look at the sentencing guidelines. Then look at other crimes they are convinced of or have on their record.

The problem with the argument many on the right are making is the sentencing guidelines for these insurrection crimes like seditious conspiracy etc. If someone at the very top of the organized crime is getting 17 years on a crime that recommends sentencing at 20 years maximum, it’s not like the judge went as extreme as they could. People like commodore are really only arguing that something like sedition should be rewritten as a lower crime or a misdemeanor.

If they want to make that argument then they will certainly be at odds with the framers who go out of their way in the constitution to tell us what they think of people who try to overthrow the government.

It’s especially rich that they want to make this argument that overthrowing the government is not that big of a deal, but at the same time the biggest existential threat in the world is antifa because they want to threaten government and make America Communist or something like that. Either organizing to overthrow or violently attack government is a deal or it’s not. That’s the only point here.

 

Or getting shot for allegedly stealing booze.

The system is stacked against black people. Just yesterday I was riding with a buddy who is half black. He's the CEO of a startup and does quite well for himself. He drives a Tesla and we were pulled over after a cop tailed us for over a mile for get this, cross the white line! He does that only to allow faster traffic to pass easier. But apparently in broad daylight it must mean his is drunk?

He refused to cooperate with the cop and called him out, telling him that there is no way that's an offense and he knows he hasn't been drinking. That if he was going to search his car to just do it and get it over with, without the b.s. The cop left.

 

Yes. I made no comment on the Proud Boys sentences, I just said no one is serving 20+ years for getting high or for stealing food for their family. I would say that if the most serious thing someone did was break a window, that 17 years would be very excessive. Just like if the most serious thing someone did was get high, then 20 years would be very excessive.

Just like the other argument, no one gets shot for allegedly stealing booze. A cop doesn't see you tuck a bottle of Jim Beam in your coat and walk out without paying then shoot you in the head. Most likely they would attempt to make an enforcement stop. Typically people are shot for violence against the police (who have the same right of self-defense as you or me). Stealing the booze (or passing a counterfeit $20 bill, or stealing some cigarillos to use a couple of everyone's favorite examples) may be the triggering offense that begins the interaction with the police, but it isn't what causes shots to be fired. Just recently there was body cam released of a police shooting. The triggering offense was theft, but the shots were only fired once the woman (sadly pregnant) drove into the officer with her car.

What white line? The lane marker? The limit line at a stop? Both of those are traffic infractions (failure to maintain a lane and failure to stop as required, both potential signs of impairment). Officers will frequently stop people for minor traffic infractions as a pretext to investigate to see if there is anything more serious going on. If there isn't, they will often let people go on their way. Your buddy got pulled over for a traffic infraction and was let go once the officer determined he wasn't intoxicated, how does that show the system is stacked against black people? There certainly have been historical examples of racial injustice, that just doesn't seem like one of them.

 

The officer was not in danger, he didn't have to fire. He shouldn't have been in front of the car. It's not establish she took anything. The officer did not have to shoot her dead. We all know if it was a white woman who did all this - did the exact same actions, she'd still be alive.

As for my friend. He only crossed the white lane marker when a car was trying to pass. That was obvious. The cop used it as a pretext to pulll him over. It was 12:30pm during the day. The cop started tailing after we passed him. There was no reason for the cop to pull out and start the tail - except that he was black. This was all about his race and nothing more.

 

You can't argue with a guy who sees the world in a MAGA way when it comes to crimes. Trump insurrection, no big deal. What about those black thigs. White cop killer had reason to choke a man to death....blah blah blah blah blah.

 

did he get 17 years for only breaking a window or was there more to it?

also, he lied to the judge when he said he was remorseful as evidenced by his statement after sentencing (trump won!). judge should double his sentence.

 

She literally drove her car right into him and hit him. That is using deadly force against an officer. You have to be joking.

 

She hit him and what were his injuries?

 

He shot her before she could run him over. Did you think people were allowed to hit cops with their cars?

 

So the car stops the moment he pulled the trigger? Or was it that she was never trying to hit him but just trying to get him to move?

He wasn't hurt. He was never going to be hurt. He didn't need to pull that trigger. Both of us know that.

 

i watched the video. she was clearly driving into him and therefore i feel like deadly force was justified in that case. what the hell was that woman thinking? two cops with guns drawn, one in front of her car and she made the choice to start moving towards him. even if she thought she was going to get away, they had her plates. she was going to get caught. why try to run at that point?

and the guy who only got 10 years for killing that poor guy. i liken it to drunk driving...they were not intending to kill someone, but they were doing something that increases the likelihood that they might do just that. he killed someone while committing a felony. that should increase the severity. im not sure what the appropriate sentence is there, but 10 years seems low.

BUT what i dont get is all these right wingers trying to excuse what happened on 1/6 by citing this stuff. one has nothing to do with the other. assaulting cops, trashing our nations capitol and trying to overthrow the government are different. right wingers keep saying all they did was peacefully protest, tear down a fence and/or break a window. it was more than that and everyone knows it.

the whataboutism here is incredibly weak. why do yall have such a hard time recognizing that its wrong to engage in insurrection?

 

But ONLY If it is to keep "their" ousted President in power. Otherwise, they will be shouting for the traitors to be hung.

 

The car stopped accelerating immediately (which you can see in the video). It continued rolling (because it was in gear) and crashed into a building. If you drive forward and there is someone standing in front of your car, you are intentionally hitting them. Hitting someone with your car, even if you say you are trying to get them to move, is assault with a deadly weapon. Unless you have some legal justification for assaulting someone (eg self-defense, necessity, defense of others), that is a use of deadly force that can be legally responded to with deadly force. I will never understand the people that try to excuse these attacks on the police because of what the underlying crime was, or pretend like the response was to the underlying crime, and not to the attack.

 

I agree 100% with this.

Ex-prosecutor Sounds The Alarm On Trump's 'Demonstrated Danger' To Witnesses, Jurors

Glenn Kirschner — a former U.S. Army prosecutor and current MSNBC legal analyst — warned of the threat Donald Trump poses to witnesses and jurors in his four ongoing indictments as he declared that the former president is a “danger.”

“I am concerned that the judges have not yet stepped up to address the danger, the ongoing danger, the demonstrated danger of Donald Trump to witnesses, to jurors, to prosecutors, to judges and to their families.”

“I hope at some point the judges realize that Donald Trump is a danger to the community and he should be detained pending trial because that will begin to neutralize the threat, in part because you’ll take his megaphone away. I think we’re going to be having that conversation in the months to come,”

Before discussing Trump, Kirschner described dealing with a criminal organization that he tied to 30 killings where there was an anonymous jury and other security measures in place due to the “danger” posed by the group.

“And guess what? They still got to some of the jurors and some of the jurors had to be dismissed midtrial,” said Kirschner, adding that he’s tried cases with the “most rigorous security measures” in Washington.

“I have an even graver concern for Donald Trump because his reach is so broad, his followers are so rabid at times and so detached from reality. I’m sorry, this is a cult,” he said.

https://news.yahoo.com/ex-prosecutor-sounds-alarm-trumps-075323514.html