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.
-
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.)
-
@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.)
@taiwan_girl said in The Other Side:
@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.)
A lot of the dopers don't serve more than a day in jail. Maybe only hours. And the only way I know of that you are going to wind up in Federal court is for trafficking and distribution of drugs across a U.S. border or a state line.
Therefore, that argument is a fallacy.
Next...Federal sentencing has guidelines. Usually outlining the maximum penalty that can be given a convicted person. Here's one we were talking about earlier:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1505
Five years, max. If Domestic Terrorism, eight years max. After that, what prison will you serve your sentence in? Lot of difference in where Martha Stewart served and a Supermax.
Justice is getting ready to arrest approximately another 1000 people. Wonder how many will be held in solitary, in a Supermax facility? Caldwell was. Almost two months.
If you are not familiar with a Supermax, do a little reading. I think you'll find it both interesting and create a desire not to be thrown into one.
At the start of this thread, we talked about how Lt. Commander (yes, he's a disabled vet) Caldwell thinks Jan 6 protesters (or rioters, if you prefer, although it's really hard to pin the term rioter on a guy and his wife who stroll through an open door) are being overcharged and over-sentenced. Compared to the Antifa riots in Washington, and the riots in Portland and BLM riots all over the country, does Caldwell have a point?
Secondly, how many of the rioters in Washington, Portland, etc., ever saw the inside of a Supermax? Try 0.
Lastly, speaking of Mr. Caldwell's treatment, I don't have a doubt about what was done to him. I don't think any of you have a clue how nasty things can get in a penitentiary if the guards choose to make it nasty.
Had a friend who was a corrections officer on The Farm. An HIV positive inmate threw a handful of feces in his face. He wiped it off as best he could, then headed to the showers to clean up, put on a fresh uniform and then report to medical for mandatory screening and to start AZT for exposure.
A couple of months later, he checked that inmate out for a work detail. They got on the elevator and he then keyed the elevator off between floors. He took a Maglite and he beat that shackled inmate in the ribs and kidneys until the guy was screaming on the floor. Then , he turned the elevator back on and put the guy back in his cell.
Everybody knew what happened. The warden knew. They wanted the inmates to know. The official story was that the elevator wasn't working and the shackled inmate fell down the stairs.
And like Jon says, prove something happened. You won't. In Mr. Caldwell's case, if something happened, you won't either.
-
Personally, I think there is a real danger that these guys that are worse than selfie loving doofuses but not as bad as full scale insurrectionists could be radicalized by overly harsh treatment, conditions, and sentences.
You are legitimizing their concerns and mistrust of the government and in a few years, I think you will see actual domestic terrorists…
