Boutique
-
Pretty sure that's wrong but I'm too lazy to google it
Ms. Rahman and Mr. Mattis pleaded guilty last year to one count of possessing and making an explosive device, which carries a maximum sentence of 10 years in prison.
Under the new agreement, Ms. Rahman and Mr. Mattis withdrew the earlier plea and instead pleaded guilty to conspiring to assemble the Molotov cocktail and damage the New York Police Department patrol car.
The conspiracy charge carries a maximum sentence of five years, though prosecutors agreed to recommend a sentence of 18 to 24 months imprisonment. The agreement also requires them to pay more than $30,000 restitution to the city of New York.
The Justice Department and U.S. probation officials each indicated that federal-sentencing guidelines could have led to an excessive sentence, particularly if the lawyers’ conduct was considered an act of terrorism, according to a letter last month from prosecutors to the judge.
From what I can find, they're scheduled to be sentenced later this month. Let's see if the judge agrees with the prosecution's recommendations.
"Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... " - Mik, 6/14/08
The saying, "Lite is just one damn thing after another," is a gross understatement. The damn things overlap.
-
New York disbarred the two left-wing lawyers who pleaded guilty to firebombing a police cruiser during the George Floyd riots in May 2020.
New York's Appellate Division on Tuesday ruled that Colinford Mattis and Urooj Rahman's guilty pleas qualified them for the state's automatic disbarment provision, Reuters reported. The court order dates their disbarment back to June, when the pair pleaded guilty to throwing a Molotov cocktail at an NYPD car. Both lawyers told U.S. District Judge Brian Cogan at the time that they understood their guilty plea would cost them their licenses.
Rahman's attorneys in September asked for a commutation of her sentence, saying she was inebriated the night of the attack and working through "unprocessed trauma" stemming from "abusive partnership relationships" and "early trauma" from being taunted as a Muslim after 9/11. Rahman and Mattis in June negotiated their potential 10-year sentences down to a maximum of 5 years.
The pair claim the Trump Justice Department brought federal charges to make an example out of them, and Rahman's attorneys say their client's "commitment to social justice" ought to earn her a reduced sentence.
But prosecutors maintain that Rahman and Mattis "abdicated their responsibilities as attorneys" and cite text messages showing the duo's attack was premeditated.
"Bring it to their neck," Mattis texted Rahman before sharing the location of NYPD headquarters. "Molotovs rollin'," Rahman responded. "I hope they burn everything down. Need to burn all police stations down and probably the courts too."
Rahman is set to be sentenced on Friday. Mattis's hearing is scheduled for Dec. 16.
-
New York disbarred the two left-wing lawyers who pleaded guilty to firebombing a police cruiser during the George Floyd riots in May 2020.
New York's Appellate Division on Tuesday ruled that Colinford Mattis and Urooj Rahman's guilty pleas qualified them for the state's automatic disbarment provision, Reuters reported. The court order dates their disbarment back to June, when the pair pleaded guilty to throwing a Molotov cocktail at an NYPD car. Both lawyers told U.S. District Judge Brian Cogan at the time that they understood their guilty plea would cost them their licenses.
Rahman's attorneys in September asked for a commutation of her sentence, saying she was inebriated the night of the attack and working through "unprocessed trauma" stemming from "abusive partnership relationships" and "early trauma" from being taunted as a Muslim after 9/11. Rahman and Mattis in June negotiated their potential 10-year sentences down to a maximum of 5 years.
The pair claim the Trump Justice Department brought federal charges to make an example out of them, and Rahman's attorneys say their client's "commitment to social justice" ought to earn her a reduced sentence.
But prosecutors maintain that Rahman and Mattis "abdicated their responsibilities as attorneys" and cite text messages showing the duo's attack was premeditated.
"Bring it to their neck," Mattis texted Rahman before sharing the location of NYPD headquarters. "Molotovs rollin'," Rahman responded. "I hope they burn everything down. Need to burn all police stations down and probably the courts too."
Rahman is set to be sentenced on Friday. Mattis's hearing is scheduled for Dec. 16.
-
I was disagreeing with the specific part I put in bold type. I don’t believe there was anyone in the car.
That would make a huge difference- destroying property vs attempted murder of a police officer.
-
I'd say writing on victim's walls with their own blood may have had a small part...
-
What property did Charles Manson destroy to get life in prison?
Manson was convicted of orchestrating a murder.
Bledsoe was convicted "of one felony — obstruction of an official proceeding — and four misdemeanors related to the Capitol breach, the Department of Justice said in a statement."
He wasn't convicted of any property damage.
-
I’m making the obvious point that not everyone who goes to jail goes for property destruction.
I think everyone who breeched the capital should get a minimum of 18 months. I’m totally fine with this guy getting 4 years.
Those who destroyed things should serve a minimum of 10 years.
A Magat who assaulted two police officers is going to be sentenced next month. That should be fun.
-
First, you're making a crappy point.
Second, punishment should fit the crime.
Third, justice should be equally enforced or there really is no justice.
-
First, you're making a crappy point.
Second, punishment should fit the crime.
Third, justice should be equally enforced or there really is no justice.
First, you're making a crappy point.
Second, punishment should fit the crime.
Third, justice should be equally enforced or there really is no justice.
1). George asked me a nonsensical question so I replied in a similar vein.
2). He’s lucky he didn’t get shot on sight.
3). I’d be totally fine if the lot of them did four years.
-
First, you're making a crappy point.
Second, punishment should fit the crime.
Third, justice should be equally enforced or there really is no justice.
1). George asked me a nonsensical question so I replied in a similar vein.
2). He’s lucky he didn’t get shot on sight.
3). I’d be totally fine if the lot of them did four years.
1). George asked me a nonsensical question so I replied in a similar vein.
You made the comment that firebombing a police car is not as serious as attempted murder.
That's right.
I made the point that Bledsoe didn't destroy any property and got a harsher sentence. Read his conviction again, and explain how that equates with throwing a Molotov cocktail into a police car.
"Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... " - Mik, 6/14/08
The saying, "Lite is just one damn thing after another," is a gross understatement. The damn things overlap.
-
How about those folks setting fire to Federal buildings?
-
1). George asked me a nonsensical question so I replied in a similar vein.
You made the comment that firebombing a police car is not as serious as attempted murder.
That's right.
I made the point that Bledsoe didn't destroy any property and got a harsher sentence. Read his conviction again, and explain how that equates with throwing a Molotov cocktail into a police car.
It’s a game I don’t play. (Usually it’s the left doing it, where they cherry pick a lighter sentence received by a white person).
Simply put, a previous injustice can’t be used to justify a current one.
The guy got four years, and I’m totally fine with it.
-
Bledsoe, 38, was convicted of obstruction of an official proceeding, entering and remaining in a restricted building, disorderly conduct in a restricted building and in a Capitol building, and demonstrating in a Capitol building.
For those that are counting, that's one felony and four misdemeanors. Most of the evidence used against him came from his social media accounts. Prominent in his sentencing was a text to his wife, telling her that Federal officials would be executed. Not that he was executing them, but that he believed that would happen.
It's an egregious statement, but a private one. It certainly wasn't enough to even convict him on threatening a Federal official.
So maybe in our brave new world, we need thought police, to make sure our texts and our thoughts are pure, since they matter more than our actions.
I'm not fine with putting one guy in prison for four years while others receive much lighter sentences (or no sentence at all) for more serious crimes. That's not justice, that's petty vengeance. The problem with vengeance is that the worm usually turns.
“Cry havoc and let slip the DOGE of war!”
Those who cheered as J-6 American prisoners were locked in solitary for 18 months without trial, now suddenly fight tooth and nail for foreign terrorists’ "due process". — Buck Sexton
-
Bledsoe, 38, was convicted of obstruction of an official proceeding, entering and remaining in a restricted building, disorderly conduct in a restricted building and in a Capitol building, and demonstrating in a Capitol building.
For those that are counting, that's one felony and four misdemeanors. Most of the evidence used against him came from his social media accounts. Prominent in his sentencing was a text to his wife, telling her that Federal officials would be executed. Not that he was executing them, but that he believed that would happen.
It's an egregious statement, but a private one. It certainly wasn't enough to even convict him on threatening a Federal official.
So maybe in our brave new world, we need thought police, to make sure our texts and our thoughts are pure, since they matter more than our actions.
I'm not fine with putting one guy in prison for four years while others receive much lighter sentences (or no sentence at all) for more serious crimes. That's not justice, that's petty vengeance. The problem with vengeance is that the worm usually turns.
-
Discrepancies are inevitable in a distributed justice system and, in the grand scheme of things, far preferable to inflexible rule-based sentencing where judges have no ability to take particulars into account.
For every real sentencing, one could look around and find another person who did the same crime and got away with less or even scott free. Literally for any sentencing.
Again I don’t play the game where people use that previous fact as a way to claim political victimhood.
The mother fucker made his bed. He was proud of what he did. Now he can entertain his cell mate in it.
“Don’t make me repeat myself”
- history
-
Bledsoe, 38, was convicted of obstruction of an official proceeding, entering and remaining in a restricted building, disorderly conduct in a restricted building and in a Capitol building, and demonstrating in a Capitol building.
For those that are counting, that's one felony and four misdemeanors. Most of the evidence used against him came from his social media accounts. Prominent in his sentencing was a text to his wife, telling her that Federal officials would be executed. Not that he was executing them, but that he believed that would happen.
It's an egregious statement, but a private one. It certainly wasn't enough to even convict him on threatening a Federal official.
So maybe in our brave new world, we need thought police, to make sure our texts and our thoughts are pure, since they matter more than our actions.
I'm not fine with putting one guy in prison for four years while others receive much lighter sentences (or no sentence at all) for more serious crimes. That's not justice, that's petty vengeance. The problem with vengeance is that the worm usually turns.
So maybe in our brave new world, we need thought police, to make sure our texts and our thoughts are pure, since they matter more than our actions.
Nothing new about it. Judges have always considered motive and remorse (or it's lack) when sentencing.
-
So maybe in our brave new world, we need thought police, to make sure our texts and our thoughts are pure, since they matter more than our actions.
Nothing new about it. Judges have always considered motive and remorse (or it's lack) when sentencing.
And when it gets political, as in hate crime legislation, many clear thinking people begin to sniff something amiss.
