The Trump Card...

[Pilgrim]

This article is from a year ago. Prosecutors currently recommending 3 years for arson. Sentencing next week.

It will be interesting to see how much time they actually spend behind bars.

 

[muttly]

It will be interesting to see how much time they actually spend behind bars.

From the article a year ago said a mandatory minimum of 5 years. But plea and prosecutors recommendation want 3 but judge has discretion.

Former Seattle resident pleads guilty to arson at Seattle Police East Precinct

Seattle – A former Seattle resident, who prior to his arrest resided in Tacoma, pleaded guilty today in U.S. District Court in Seattle to arson for setting fire to the outside of the Seattle Police East Precinct during the occupied protest known as ‘CHOP’, announced Acting U.S. Attorney Tessa M...

www.justice.gov

 

[muttly]

Muttly, regarding proportionality, a review of this document suggests that the charges and penalties are proportional to the crimes. Notice that several have been cooperating with prosecutors. One was sentenced to time served. One got no time but probation instead.

Here are a couple sentences from a comparable protest in a building: the Kavanaugh protests. Here are a couple of the resolutions from non violent protesters. Meanwhile flaky nonviolent protester Shamon dude is still in jail.

 

[muttly]

Just re-upping this, in case you missed it Mutt:

Do you lump everyone in the same boat and call them rioters including those that didn’t even see the violence and arrived at different times as many came from the speech earlier? Including those that were waved in to the building by police( it’s on tape) and walked in the building with signs and cell phones taking selfies, do you consider them rioters that should get stiffer penalties than normal because some knuckleheads got into some fights with police and security personnel?

VIDEO:Capitol Police Wave Protesters Inside, Moving Barricades, Stand By as Protesters Walk In

Via Greg Kelly on Newsmax --- MORE VIDEO REVEALS Capitol Police Waving Protesters Inside, Moving Barricades Aside, Standing By as Protesters Walk In --VIDEO

rumble.com

 

[RLENT]

Do you lump everyone in the same boat and call them rioters including those that didn’t even see the violence

BWAHAHAHAHAHA !!!

That's a good one ...

First off, SAYS WHO ? (that "they" didn't see the violence)

The very people who guilt or innocence in this matter is in question ?

Are you familiar with the terminology "a self-serving statement (or claim)" ?

Including those that were waved in to the building by police( it’s on tape) and walked in the building with signs and cell phones taking selfies, do you consider them rioters that should get stiffer penalties than normal because some knuckleheads got into some fights with police and security personnel?

"Stiffer penalties than normal" ... FOR WHAT ?

IOW, what's the offense ?

Personally, I think that most of the non-violent offenders are being treated rather leniently at this point - by both the judges and the US Attorneys who are prosecuting the cases and striking the plea bargains.

You should probably count your blessings.

I expect that will change however ... once we get to those involved with the conspiracy charges, those specifically charged with terrorism offenses, and those who violently assaulted law enforcement and media.

BTW - just point of note:

In the post that you're replying to above, I didn't call anyone rioters - I simply asked whether you were talking about some offense that occurred during peaceful circumstances ... or during a riot.

FWIW ... 18 U.S. Code § 2101 - Riots:

(a) Whoever travels in interstate or foreign commerce or uses any facility of interstate or foreign commerce, including, but not limited to, the mail, telegraph, telephone, radio, or television, with intent—
(1) to incite a riot; or
(2) to organize, promote, encourage, participate in, or carry on a riot; or
(3) to commit any act of violence in furtherance of a riot; or
(4) to aid or abet any person in inciting or participating in or carrying on a riot or committing any act of violence in furtherance of a riot;
and who either during the course of any such travel or use or thereafter performs or attempts to perform any other overt act for any purpose specified in subparagraph (A), (B), (C), or (D) of this paragraph— [1]
Shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

(b) In any prosecution under this section, proof that a defendant engaged or attempted to engage in one or more of the overt acts described in subparagraph (A), (B), (C), or (D) of paragraph (1) of subsection (a) [2] and (1) has traveled in interstate or foreign commerce, or (2) has use of or used any facility of interstate or foreign commerce, including but not limited to, mail, telegraph, telephone, radio, or television, to communicate with or broadcast to any person or group of persons prior to such overt acts, such travel or use shall be admissible proof to establish that such defendant traveled in or used such facility of interstate or foreign commerce.

From:

18 U.S. Code § 2101 - Riots | U.S. Code | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute

 

[RLENT]

Here are a couple sentences from a comparable protest in a building: the Kavanaugh protests. Here are a couple of the resolutions from non violent protesters. Meanwhile flaky nonviolent protester Shamon dude is still in jail.

Are you trying to compare a protest to the January 6th RIOT ?

 

[ATeam]

Here are a couple sentences from a comparable protest in a building: the Kavanaugh protests. Here are a couple of the resolutions from non violent protesters. Meanwhile flaky nonviolent protester Shamon dude is still in jail.

Not comparable. Not in the same city or state. Not in a government building. Not at a time and place where an election certification was underway.

 

[muttly]

Not comparable. Not in the same city or state. Not in a government building. Not at a time and place where an election certification was underway.

Yes comparable. Many were let in voluntarily and only walked thru the building with no intent to shut down an election certification. Just trespassing.

 

[muttly]

BWAHAHAHAHAHA !!!

That's a good one ...

First off, SAYS WHO ? (that "they" didn't see the violence)

The very people who guilt or innocence in this matter is in question ?

Are you familiar with the terminology "a self-serving statement (or claim)" ?





"Stiffer penalties than normal" ... FOR WHAT ?

IOW, what's the offense ?

Personally, I think that most of the non-violent offenders are being treated rather leniently at this point - by both the judges and the US Attorneys who are prosecuting the cases and striking the plea bargains.

You should probably count your blessings.

I expect that will change however ... once we get to those involved with the conspiracy charges, those specifically charged with terrorism offenses, and those who violently assaulted law enforcement and media.

BTW - just point of note:

In the post that you're replying to above, I didn't call anyone rioters - I simply asked whether you were talking about some offense that occurred during peaceful circumstances ... or during a riot.

FWIW ... 18 U.S. Code § 2101 - Riots:





From:

18 U.S. Code § 2101 - Riots | U.S. Code | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute

Answer why an officer was seen waving to the crowd to enter the premises please. Thanks

 

[muttly]

BWAHAHAHAHAHA !!!

That's a good one ...

First off, SAYS WHO ? (that "they" didn't see the violence)

The very people who guilt or innocence in this matter is in question ?

Are you familiar with the terminology "a self-serving statement (or claim)" ?





"Stiffer penalties than normal" ... FOR WHAT ?

IOW, what's the offense ?

Personally, I think that most of the non-violent offenders are being treated rather leniently at this point - by both the judges and the US Attorneys who are prosecuting the cases and striking the plea bargains.

You should probably count your blessings.

I expect that will change however ... once we get to those involved with the conspiracy charges, those specifically charged with terrorism offenses, and those who violently assaulted law enforcement and media.

BTW - just point of note:

In the post that you're replying to above, I didn't call anyone rioters - I simply asked whether you were talking about some offense that occurred during peaceful circumstances ... or during a riot.

FWIW ... 18 U.S. Code § 2101 - Riots:





From:

18 U.S. Code § 2101 - Riots | U.S. Code | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute

Using your logic a person goes to see a speech and then goes to the capitol to congregate there and protest peacefully. Some officer waves them in and they go inside. In another part of the facility a fight and riot breaks out from some of the people. The initial person I mentioned is now labeled a rioter? How is that even a coherent argument.

 

[RLENT]

Answer why an officer was seen waving to the crowd to enter the premises please. Thanks

If you expect me to respond to your queries in regards to various circumstances in this matter, then you're going to have to respond to mine ... rather just ignoring them.

Are those claiming to never have seen any violence also in potential legal peril for their actions that day ?

What is the basis for a claim that anyone involved with January 6th is suffering "stiffer penalties than normal" ?

Normal being defined as what is imposed typically, on average, for similar offenses in similar circumstances (not just some random example)

 

[muttly]

Answer why an officer was seen waving to the crowd to enter the premises please. Thanks

Crickets

 

[RLENT]

BWAHAHAHAHAHA !!!

That's a good one ...

First off, SAYS WHO ? (that "they" didn't see the violence)

The very people who guilt or innocence in this matter is in question ?

"Stiffer penalties than normal" ... FOR WHAT ?

IOW, what's the offense ?

Double crickets ...

 

[coalminer]

Answer why an officer was seen waving to the crowd to enter the premises please. Thanks

Because he was a Trump supporter who figured he would help the rioters? Thats my guess anyway.

 

[ATeam]

Because he was a Trump supporter who figured he would help the rioters? Thats my guess anyway.

It's impossible to know from the video why that officer waved to the crowd or what he meant by the wave. So your guess is as good as anyone's.

It's not impossible to know that the capitol was a restricted area. That fact is crystal clear. The protesters (tourists? rioters?) in the Capitol were not authorized to be there. By entering a restricted area, they committed a crime.

 

[muttly]

Double crickets ...

It's impossible to know from the video why that officer waved to the crowd or what he meant by the wave. So your guess is as good as anyone's.

It's not impossible to know that the capitol was a restricted area. That fact is crystal clear. The protesters (tourists? rioters?) in the Capitol were not authorized to be there. By entering a restricted area, they committed a crime.

Sure it is possible. Tens of thousands were there to see the speech and many walked over to the capitol at different times. A police officer waving people in doesn’t lend credence that it was restricted.

 

[danthewolf00]

Like I said I believe there was 2 very different groups on jan 6th one group truly peaceful and the other cloaked in trump stuff doing crazy violent things.

 

[muttly]

Are you trying to compare a protest to the January 6th RIOT ?

No. Comparing non violent sub set of protesters there with Kavanaugh protesters and disparity of charges and sentencing. January 6 Cases Being Treated More Harshly by DOJ
Read up:

 

[muttly]

Double crickets ...

See article from last post. It highlights all the discrepancies.
Now, about that officer waving in protesters in a reportedly restricted area. Who is that? Why hasn’t information about the officer and why he was waving people in to a restricted area been made public after all these months? If protesters come upon a police officer waving them into a restricted area, is it really restricted or trespassing? Thanks in advance for answering.

 

[ATeam]

If protesters come upon a police officer waving them into a restricted area, is it really restricted or trespassing?

That depends on the circumstances, which in this case are unknown.

You are talking about a single officer. What about the many others who were clearly doing everything they could to keep people out? And what about the fact that force or commands were used to eventually clear the building so business could resume? The police intent was not to aid the protests in the building. It was to keep. the protesters out. We know this because that’s what they finally did. They cleared the protesters out.