The Other Side
-
When looking at the judges who have been involved in these cases, there are:
Democratic appointed judges
Republican appointed judges
"liberal" judges
"conservative" judges
etcBut they all mainly seem to be coming to the same conclusion. If it were one person, one case, then maybe there is a issue with the arrests and finding them guilty and the sentences. But, after hundreds(?) of these cases, it is hard to keep saying that there is some sort of bias or conspiracy against these people because they were "taking a walk around the Capital"
-
In the first place, I don't think any of the defendants should have been tried in the D.C. area. I think these cases should have been scattered out a bit, with some consideration given to where defendants resided and to the availability of judges.
Secondly, in the opening post, if you read a bit on Caldwell's website, you find he readily admits to entering the Capitol. Not in the first wave, not in a violent manner, but enter he did.
So what should he be convicted of? Obstruction of an official proceeding? OK. Trespassing? Yep. Tampering with documents or proceedings? All right.
Now, what should his sentence be? If he's a nonviolent trespasser that interrupted a session of Congress, what should he be sentenced to?
One year in prison? Two? Three? Five?
And what kind of prison? Country club, Supermax or something in-between?
If punishment should fit the crime, what should be done to him? Or any other defendant with like crimes?
-
Breaking into the US Capital is not like breaking into an abandoned house in a remote city. There is really a similar crime to it.
-
Breaking into the US Capital is not like breaking into an abandoned house in a remote city. There is really a similar crime to it.
@taiwan_girl said in The Other Side:
Breaking into the US Capital is not like breaking into an abandoned house in a remote city. There is really a similar crime to it.
Semantics, ma'am.
How many broke in? How many walked in after the doors were open? Would the latter be considered "breaking in"?
Lastly - and this is a reach, but it's true - what if you broke into a house you jointly owned?
“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
-
In other news, really biased guy complains about bias.
-
@taiwan_girl said in The Other Side:
Breaking into the US Capital is not like breaking into an abandoned house in a remote city. There is really a similar crime to it.
Semantics, ma'am.
How many broke in? How many walked in after the doors were open? Would the latter be considered "breaking in"?
Lastly - and this is a reach, but it's true - what if you broke into a house you jointly owned?
@Jolly said in The Other Side:
@taiwan_girl said in The Other Side:
Breaking into the US Capital is not like breaking into an abandoned house in a remote city. There is really a similar crime to it.
Semantics, ma'am.
How many broke in? How many walked in after the doors were open? Would the latter be considered "breaking in"?
Lastly - and this is a reach, but it's true - what if you broke into a house you jointly owned?
Just because the door is open doesn't mean you can enter.
-
When looking at the judges who have been involved in these cases, there are:
Democratic appointed judges
Republican appointed judges
"liberal" judges
"conservative" judges
etcBut they all mainly seem to be coming to the same conclusion. If it were one person, one case, then maybe there is a issue with the arrests and finding them guilty and the sentences. But, after hundreds(?) of these cases, it is hard to keep saying that there is some sort of bias or conspiracy against these people because they were "taking a walk around the Capital"
@taiwan_girl said in The Other Side:
When looking at the judges who have been involved in these cases, there are:
Democratic appointed judges
Republican appointed judges
"liberal" judges
"conservative" judges
etcBut they all mainly seem to be coming to the same conclusion. If it were one person, one case, then maybe there is a issue with the arrests and finding them guilty and the sentences. But, after hundreds(?) of these cases, it is hard to keep saying that there is some sort of bias or conspiracy against these people because they were "taking a walk around the Capital"
Judges don't bring charges.
In practice, the quantity and quality of justice meted out, depends not on a judge's or jury's decision about whether something is legal, but on whether that thing is brought to them for their consideration. We're seeing this in other contexts, where liberal cities have DAs who refuse to prosecute some crimes. These January 6 crimes are on the opposite end of that spectrum, where there is zeal to prosecute.
Education is extremely important.
-
@Jolly said in The Other Side:
@taiwan_girl said in The Other Side:
Breaking into the US Capital is not like breaking into an abandoned house in a remote city. There is really a similar crime to it.
Semantics, ma'am.
How many broke in? How many walked in after the doors were open? Would the latter be considered "breaking in"?
Lastly - and this is a reach, but it's true - what if you broke into a house you jointly owned?
Just because the door is open doesn't mean you can enter.
@taiwan_girl said in The Other Side:
@Jolly said in The Other Side:
@taiwan_girl said in The Other Side:
Breaking into the US Capital is not like breaking into an abandoned house in a remote city. There is really a similar crime to it.
Semantics, ma'am.
How many broke in? How many walked in after the doors were open? Would the latter be considered "breaking in"?
Lastly - and this is a reach, but it's true - what if you broke into a house you jointly owned?
Just because the door is open doesn't mean you can enter.
Is there a difference between breaking a door down and walking through an open door?
“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
-
No. If that happened it is just flat wrong. bear in mind, the people behind it would be the same ones screaming about waterboarding terrorists.
-
Has anyone ever supplied a name of someone who was “held for months without charges”?
Because the charging docs are publicly available.
Color me skeptical.
Only non-witches get due process.
- Cotton Mather, Salem Massachusetts, 1692
-
Has anyone ever supplied a name of someone who was “held for months without charges”?
Because the charging docs are publicly available.
Color me skeptical.
-
Has anyone ever supplied a name of someone who was “held for months without charges”?
Because the charging docs are publicly available.
Color me skeptical.
-
A bunch of people who have been arrested and held in custody for committing a crime are claiming they've not been treated well or fairly.
That must be a first.
-
Has anyone ever supplied a name of someone who was “held for months without charges”?
Because the charging docs are publicly available.
Color me skeptical.
@jon-nyc said in The Other Side:
Has anyone ever supplied a name of someone who was “held for months without charges”?
I think the complaints are that the defendants were charged or held with unusual charges or for unusually long times or without bail.
The missing charges are the murder charges for the 6 police killed.
-
@taiwan_girl said in The Other Side:
When looking at the judges who have been involved in these cases, there are:
Democratic appointed judges
Republican appointed judges
"liberal" judges
"conservative" judges
etcBut they all mainly seem to be coming to the same conclusion. If it were one person, one case, then maybe there is a issue with the arrests and finding them guilty and the sentences. But, after hundreds(?) of these cases, it is hard to keep saying that there is some sort of bias or conspiracy against these people because they were "taking a walk around the Capital"
Judges don't bring charges.
In practice, the quantity and quality of justice meted out, depends not on a judge's or jury's decision about whether something is legal, but on whether that thing is brought to them for their consideration. We're seeing this in other contexts, where liberal cities have DAs who refuse to prosecute some crimes. These January 6 crimes are on the opposite end of that spectrum, where there is zeal to prosecute.
@Horace said in The Other Side:
@taiwan_girl said in The Other Side:
When looking at the judges who have been involved in these cases, there are:
Democratic appointed judges
Republican appointed judges
"liberal" judges
"conservative" judges
etcBut they all mainly seem to be coming to the same conclusion. If it were one person, one case, then maybe there is a issue with the arrests and finding them guilty and the sentences. But, after hundreds(?) of these cases, it is hard to keep saying that there is some sort of bias or conspiracy against these people because they were "taking a walk around the Capital"
Judges don't bring charges.
In practice, the quantity and quality of justice meted out, depends not on a judge's or jury's decision about whether something is legal, but on whether that thing is brought to them for their consideration. We're seeing this in other contexts, where liberal cities have DAs who refuse to prosecute some crimes. These January 6 crimes are on the opposite end of that spectrum, where there is zeal to prosecute.
I agree. But judges and juries were the ones who decided if they were guilty or not. Charging someone with a crime does not guarantee that they are guilty.
-
@taiwan_girl said in The Other Side:
@Jolly said in The Other Side:
@taiwan_girl said in The Other Side:
Breaking into the US Capital is not like breaking into an abandoned house in a remote city. There is really a similar crime to it.
Semantics, ma'am.
How many broke in? How many walked in after the doors were open? Would the latter be considered "breaking in"?
Lastly - and this is a reach, but it's true - what if you broke into a house you jointly owned?
Just because the door is open doesn't mean you can enter.
Is there a difference between breaking a door down and walking through an open door?
@Jolly said in The Other Side:
@taiwan_girl said in The Other Side:
@Jolly said in The Other Side:
@taiwan_girl said in The Other Side:
Breaking into the US Capital is not like breaking into an abandoned house in a remote city. There is really a similar crime to it.
Semantics, ma'am.
How many broke in? How many walked in after the doors were open? Would the latter be considered "breaking in"?
Lastly - and this is a reach, but it's true - what if you broke into a house you jointly owned?
Just because the door is open doesn't mean you can enter.
Is there a difference between breaking a door down and walking through an open door?
Normally, i would say yes, but context matters.
There is a difference if someone just happens to walk by an abandoned house on a deserted road, and pops his head into the open doorway and what happened at the US Capital.
No-one who was charged with a crime "just happened" to be sightseeing in Washington DC that day and saw that there was a door open in the US Capital and just said to themselves - "Hey, nobody is around, seems pretty quiet. Guess I will just poke my head in."
-
Ok...So you think somebody should serve three years in prison for a non-violent act?
-
@Jolly said in The Other Side:
Ok...So you think somebody should serve three years in prison for a non-violent act?
Were these sentences mandatory or decided by the judges?
Again, in no way could these people think what they were doing was okay and allowed. They weren't innocent sightseers.
I dont really know if they should have gotten three years or not, but a wide variety of judges of both political sides seem to think so. This is not just one isolated judge making one isolated decision.
(BTW, I am sure a lot of drug posessers would love to have only received a three year sentence for their non violent crime.)
