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

when you don't have the law or facts on your side, just pound the table real loud and shout incoherent words and phrases..................maga will fall for it, hook, line and sinker

 

Manson got life, and he wasn't even there!

 

Tarrio is a fascist. But he's not white.

In prison, it's all about race. But the facists there are white.

What's he going to do? I'm worried. Tough guy on social media <<<< tough guy in prison.

 

They are only criminals if they aren't part of my tribe

 

https://blog.simplejustice.us/2023/09/06/will-22-years-of-deterrence-work/

Will 22 Years Of Deterrence Work?
by SHG
September 6, 2023

Having long been vociferous in my condemnation of excessive sentences for crimes ranging from drugs to murder, I come at this issue with far cleaner hands than most. Suddenly, and unsurprisingly, people who were chanting “if you can’t do the time, don’t do the crime,” have suddenly gotten religion when it comes to the J6 defendants.

Ethan Nordean, 32, of Auburn, Washington, was sentenced to 18 years in prison.

Joseph Biggs, 39, of Charlotte, North Carolina, was sentenced to 17 years in prison.

Zachary Rehl, 38, of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, was sentenced to 15 years in prison.

Dominic Pezzola, 45, of Rochester, New York, was sentenced to 10 years in prison.

Now, Enrigue Tarrio, 39, of Miami, Florida, was sentenced to 22 years in prison.

These are extremely severe sentences. Yet, many on the left are applauding their length, concerns about overincarceration disappearing in the mist of their outrage and hatred. I share their outrage about what happened on January 6. I have made clear that I believe it to be an insurrection. I believe Trump to be culpable for the insurrection. But hating the crime and the appropriate length of sentence for those who engaged in it are two very different issues.

Federal sentencing must comport with 18 U.S.C. § 3553.

(a) Factors To Be Considered in Imposing a Sentence.—The court shall impose a sentence sufficient, but not greater than necessary, to comply with the purposes set forth in paragraph (2) of this subsection. The court, in determining the particular sentence to be imposed, shall consider—

(1) the nature and circumstances of the offense and the history and characteristics of the defendant;
(2) the need for the sentence imposed—

(A) to reflect the seriousness of the offense, to promote respect for the law, and to provide just punishment for the offense;
(B) to afford adequate deterrence to criminal conduct;
(C) to protect the public from further crimes of the defendant; and
(D) to provide the defendant with needed educational or vocational training, medical care, or other correctional treatment in the most effective manner;​

Note the wording in the prefatory paragraph, “not greater than necessary.” This is called the Parsimony Clause, and constrains judges to limit the sentences to only that which is justifiable under the four factors in subsection 2. Of course, subsection 2 is sufficiently vague, and the entire notion of sentencing is sufficiently voodoo, as to provide little substantive guidance beyond sentences given to other people in other cases.

What makes this case, these sentences, unusual is that there are no comparisons upon which to base these sentences. What’s a sentence for seditious conspiracy to be? What will it take to make these individuals recognize the wrongfulness of their conduct? If Pezzola is any example, after whimpering his heartfelt regret to the judge, he yelled “Trump won!” as he left the courtroom. Not exactly an act of contrition.

But these are very serious sentences, the sort that years ago would only be imposed on murderers. with the past five decades of sentences being increased, then increased again, then some more and some more, Americans have come to internalize Draconian sentences are “right” and “just.” There is no “correct” sentence for any particular crime or any particular defendant, one that satisfies the criteria of § 3353(a)(2), but no more.

Judge Tim Kelly had the difficult task of deciding what sentence to impose on Tarrio. The government asked for 33 years. It reasoning for that particular length of time was generic.

“This defendant, and his co-conspirators targeted our entire system of government,” assistant U.S. Attorney Conor Mulroe said during Tuesday’s hearing. “This offense involved calculation and deliberation. We need to make sure that the consequences are abundantly clear to anyone who might be unhappy with the results in 2024, 2028, 2032 or any future election for as long as this case is remembered.”​

The defense had the better sentencing argument, that Tarrio was just a “misguided patriot” who was called to action by the president of the United States and believed he was doing his duty for his country.

“My client is no terrorist. My client is a misguided patriot, that’s what my client is,” Tarrio’s attorney Sabino Jauregui said. “He was trying to protect this country, as misguided as he was.”​

This is a variation on the “just following orders” defense, and just as disingenuous as it’s been in the past. Tarrio, for his part, admitted he picked the wrong team.

“I will have to live with that shame and disappointment for the rest of my life,” Tarrio said. “We invoked 1776 and the Constitution of the United States and that was so wrong to do. That was a perversion. The events of Jan. 6 is something that should never be celebrated.”​

Will these words deter anyone? Are they sincere, or just the sort of stuff a defendant facing sentencing reads off a prepared statement to appeal to the judge for whatever mercy he’s inclined to give? Who knows?

What distinguishes the J6 sentences for those Trump sycophants too gullible to realize they’ve been played is that they are the whipping boys for the next crop of fools when Trump calls upon his “army” to put their lives on the line for his vanity. The foremost factor in the sentencing of these “proud boys” is to deter the next group of proud boys, or oathkeepers, or one percenters, or whatever pretentious name they go by, not to attempt another insurrection. They are paying close attention to the J6 cases, and to the sentences being imposed

Will they be deterred? Or will they dream of their chance to become martyrs to Trump, awaiting the day when they, too, can hear the judge impose sentence?
​

​

 

F, marry, kill...the commodore version! i reallly want to know how he would pick...we know you have thought about it dude!

enrique tarrio

stewart rhodes (yargh matey!)


joe biggs

 

I think it's more about how seriously a person takes the threat to our democratic constitutional Republic. Those that hold our elections dear and are opposed to coup attempts applaud the length of the sentences, those that don't are upset by them.

Of course that take has exactly the same amount of veracity as the claim that concern about over incarceration disappear in the midst of the left's hatred as the editorial claimed.

Honestly many of the defendents expressed little remorse. Seditious conspiracy is a serious offense.

 

Coming from the woman who requested a pardon. She is the one who should be impeached, for aiding and abetting the coup, and willfully refusing to support bills for the people of the United States, the military, or President Biden.

 

He is just upset his feeble, addled self couldn't attend on Jan 6th

 

Maybe he did. Who knows.

 

Dude needs to seriously trim his nose hairs. That's disgusting.

 

time to start skin bleaching

 

.

 

Dammmmmmmmmmmm, what the hell did Sosa do!!

 

https://reason.com/2023/09/06/with-...ader-enrique-tarrio-pays-hefty-trial-penalty/

September 6 2023 10:11 AM
With 22-Year Sentence, Ex-Proud Boys Leader Enrique Tarrio Pays Hefty 'Trial Penalty'
by Christian Britschgi

Yet another Proud Boy is paying a hefty "trial penalty" for January 6. On Tuesday, a federal judge in Washington, D.C., sentenced former Proud Boys leader Enrique Tarrio to 22 years in prison for his part in organizing the 2021 protest-turned-riot that obstructed Congress' ratification of Joe Biden's victory in the 2020 presidential election.

Tarrio was not at the riot on January 6. He was in Baltimore, after having been arrested two days prior in a separate criminal case. He did however post messages encouraging the riot on social media and claimed credit for helping carry it out after the fact.

That was enough to convince a jury three months ago to find him guilty of "seditious conspiracy" for his involvement.

Prosecutors had sought a 33-year sentence for Tarrio. U.S. District Judge Timothy J. Kelly declined to go that far. But he did slap Tarrio with a sentencing enhancement for committing an act of terrorism.

His 22-year sentence is the longest any January 6 defendant has received to date. Fellow Proud Boy Ethan Nordean and Oath Keepers leader Stewart Rhodes have each previously been sentenced to 18 years in prison on seditious conspiracy charges as well.

Most other defendants, including many who directly participated in the riot, have received much more modest sentences of a few months to a few years.

"[Prosecutors] got a really long sentence by asking for something really absurd," said C.J. Ciaramella on yesterday's Reason Roundtable. "In cases where January 6 defendants did plead guilty, expressed remorse, the judges were much more likely to go easy on them."

Those like Tarrio who chose to take it to trial instead of pleading guilty are receiving sentences one might get for murder.

This is an example of what's called the "trial penalty" whereby prosecutors, who would otherwise accept a much lighter sentence as part of a plea bargain, seek much harsher sentences for defendants who insist on a jury trial.

This practice has been harshly criticized by liberal and libertarian groups for effectively punishing people just for exercising their constitutional right to a trial by jury.

The American Bar Association found that average sentences for federal felony convictions are seven years longer for defendants who went to trial. Prosecutors' preference for plea bargains also sees them layer on as many charges or stretch the applicability of vague statutes to coerce defendants into forfeiting their right to a trial.

The end result is that those convicted at trial go to prison for longer than even prosecutors think is necessary.

"Today's sentencing demonstrates that those who attempted to undermine the workings of American democracy will be held criminally accountable," said FBI Director Christopher Wray yesterday. And U.S. Attorney Matthew M. Graves said that those who used "force against their own government to prevent the peaceful transfer of power have now been held accountable."

In other words, both Wray and Graves are satisfied that Tarrio had been held adequately accountable despite the fact that he ended up with a sentence that was a decade less than what the DOJ had advocated for. Their goal was securing a maximum sentence for Tarrio and others, not a sentence just long enough to hold them accountable for his crimes.

Tarrio and others receiving sentences of over a decade for their role in January 6 are hardly sympathetic figures. Yet the amount of time they'll spend in prison is nevertheless a product of a trial penalty that is widely considered to be unjust. If one opposes these enhanced penalties in the routine administration of criminal justice, we should oppose them in the case of the January 6 defendants as well.
​

​

 

jackboot thugs rounding up all enemies of the regime