|
Judge seems to only understand suicide bombings to be terrorism? Wonderful start of a new page.
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2023 18:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 18:07 |
|
|
Tenkaris posted:Judge seems to only understand suicide bombings to be terrorism? It can only be called terrorism if something explodes to him, I guess.  For what it's worth not even Timothy McVeigh got a terrorism conviction.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2023 18:26
|
|
|
Not brown enough to be terrorists. Which means Tarrio might still be hosed.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2023 18:26
|
|
|
Wrong geographic origin, now it’s just sparkling intimidation
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2023 18:30
|
|
|
I guess Terrorism is similar to Bourbon. Real Bourbon can only come from Kentucky, so I guess Real Terrorism can only come from the Middle East.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2023 18:57
|
|
|
Randalor posted:Does the judge just have a history of being more lenient with sentencing or should I just start assuming the judge is sympathetic to overthrowing the democratically elected president? To paraphrase (and exaggerate for absurdity) what he sees this as, it's as if there were a law requiring a sentencing enhacement for assaults in school if a student shot, stabbed, disembowled, choked, or otherwise made contact with a teacher during the assault, and the defendant pushed away the teacher's outstreched arm when the teacher tried to separate the students. By the letter of the law, he has no choice but to apply the enhancement. But following sentencing guidelines that would require an extra 15 years for it - sensible had the student been trying to murder or severely injure the teacher - would be extraordinarily unjust and our legal system allows him to make that determination. I think there's little question from their rhetoric before, during, and after the riot as well as from their actions that all 5 convincted Proud Boy leaders would have happily assaulted and likely tried to murder members of congress if they had the opportunity. Leading a mob in to the capitol was their preferred method of doing so compared to a bomb. They destroyed federal property in order to enact this plan. By circumstances outside of their control and not at all due to their actions or inactions, the mob failed to do so. Judge Kelly sees that as meaningfully distinct from the crimes and intents he believes the terrorism enhancement to apply to (e:but because of the destruction of the fence, he has to add it). I disagree, but also think it's dumb as hell to suggest it's because he's a secret Trumper or whatever. If that were the case, he'd be able to (defensibly!) let everyone go with time served. Paracaidas fucked around with this message at 19:01 on Sep 1, 2023 |
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2023 18:57
|
|
|
Paracaidas posted:He doesn't, and you shouldn't. It's all within his discretion, and he has had many more meaningful opportunities to sway things in the defense's favor. They are, as noted up thread, not getting token sentences. As he noted yesterday, they're precisely the same sentences he'd have given without adding the terrorism enhancement. Ultimately it sounds like he's made up his own definition of terrorism rather than the one that I learned in Security Forces school back in 89 which is that terrorism is the use of non-conventional force against non military targets in order to advance a political objective. Nothing in about bombs or mass murder. Technically a fake bomb threat is still terrorism if it's used to make a political point. That said I have mixed feelings about the whole idea of a terrorism enhancement to begin with as the question of who's a terrorist and who's a freedom fighter is ultimately subjective. On the other hand I guaranty every one of these defendants and all of the MAGAts crying about it now would have happily applied the enhancement if the defendants were Leftists or minorities so they can get hosed.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2023 19:11
|
|
|
Personally I am grateful for the temperance of that Judge because I am absolutely certain similar sentencing considerations will be applied to leftist protesters in the future- another round of BLM building on the prior protests, a movement like Occupy, or an organized resistance to immigrant concentration camps. I've got no illusions that the state will go easy on leftists by any means, but the easier it is to label people who participate in a riot as terrorists, the harsher the state's response will inevitably be.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2023 19:28
|
|
|
Yeah, I suppose. It's just infuriating to see the judge essentially say "Sure, you're directly responsible for the angry mob being able to easily breach the capital, but they weren't able to kill anyone, so I don't see any reason why it should be a terrorism charge. You were just trying to steal the election and terrorise the elected officials."
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2023 20:02
|
|
|
To flip it in the other direction, ultimately the Jan 6th Riots didn't cause damage. Sure they scared a lot of people and could have had profound consequences but didn't actually kill any of their targets. Like what happened was bad enough to warrant sentences of 10+ years (which, despite what you may think, is a serious sentence.) It also gives room that if some future group does something worse, can justify a harsher sentence. It's like that line from Deadpool "the problem with round the clock torture is that you can't step it up from there." Like this at least means you can increase the sentence the next time someone does something worse, while giving a safeguard should a peaceful leftist protest gets labeled as a terrorist uprising.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2023 20:03
|
|
|
It also just feels random to have a terrorism modifier that applies but then the judge ignores. Who decides the modifier applies in the first place if not the judge?
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2023 20:04
|
|
|
Jon posted:Personally I am grateful for the temperance of that Judge because I am absolutely certain similar sentencing considerations will be applied to leftist protesters in the future- another round of BLM building on the prior protests, a movement like Occupy, or an organized resistance to immigrant concentration camps. I've got no illusions that the state will go easy on leftists by any means, but the easier it is to label people who participate in a riot as terrorists, the harsher the state's response will inevitably be. The Jan 6 crowd has been making slippery slope arguments throughout, to little avail. That has continued through PB sentencing, with their attorneys bringing out a parade of horribles for what future capitol protesters will face if one person in the crowd gets out of hand and the chilling effect that has. Kelly's response has essentially been that the change in future protesting will be from stricter security and rules caused by their clients' behavior, not because of the sentences handed down. I tend to agree, given that the status quo is things like the Ferguson-area "destruction of government property" charges for bleeding on an officer's shirt after he bludgeons the hell out of you. Skex posted:Ultimately it sounds like he's made up his own definition of terrorism rather than the one that I learned in Security Forces school back in 89 which is that terrorism is the use of non-conventional force against non military targets in order to advance a political objective. Nothing in about bombs or mass murder. For international context, 15 years is on the higher end but in the range of sentences I found in a super quick look at attempted coups in the past 15 years - holding aside "died in prison", the more recent "plane go boom!", and legally-sanctioned executions. smackfu posted:It also just feels random to have a terrorism modifier that applies but then the judge ignores. quote:A few months after the defendant is found guilty, they return to court to be sentenced. Kelly has said for each of the last three days (some of which I've quoted in to this thread) that congress has decided destruction of federal property qualifies as a crime that can bring in the terror enhancement and that (1)the fence Biggs and Nordean tore down meets the monetary threshold. It's clear, as he has also acknowledged each of the last three days, the government has had no issue proving that (2)the PBs intended to influence or affect the conduct of the government through intimidation or coercion. Those are the two prongs congress says needs to be met, and so the modifier applies. Back to Justice's summary, he's deciding that the nature of the crime (tearing down the fence) doesn't merit the punishment of the modifier. I've not run the math (because I am not an understander of federal sentencing guideline arithmetic), but my hope is that Kelly's sentences represent an upward departure from if the terrorism enhancement hadn't applied, as that's a result I can disagree with while still feeling relatively good about.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2023 20:20
|
|
|
Jon posted:Personally I am grateful for the temperance of that Judge because I am absolutely certain similar sentencing considerations will be applied to leftist protesters in the future- another round of BLM building on the prior protests, a movement like Occupy, or an organized resistance to immigrant concentration camps. I've got no illusions that the state will go easy on leftists by any means, but the easier it is to label people who participate in a riot as terrorists, the harsher the state's response will inevitably be. The root issue here though is that no future judge is going to depart downward like this for non-white defendants. The fundamental issue is that the American legal system may have a written definition of "terrorism" but as applied the term always is understood to have an unspoken "committed by a brown person" clause. See also Dylan Roof, etc.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2023 20:28
|
|
|
The Question IRL posted:To flip it in the other direction, ultimately the Jan 6th Riots didn't cause damage. They actually did break into the building by smashing windows/doors, pushing through police, stole poo poo from offices, and several people did die. Sure, they weren't able to get to Pence or any congresspeople before they escaped or holed up I guess?
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2023 20:40
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/JordanOnRecord/status/1697655526245433745?s=20
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2023 20:42
|
|
|
Show that to the judge stat. Resentencing is a thing.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2023 20:43
|
|
|
Rust Martialis posted:Show that to the judge stat. Resentencing is a thing. I'm sure Judge Kelly, having already departed downward for Rehl by 15 years, doesn't care. Rehl was on a podcast last night basically recanting his sentencing statement. Kelly is a Trump appointee who has shown a willingness to accept reality, but he's also given the largest downward variances thus far in the J6 cases, and for the worst offenders.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2023 20:44
|
|
|
Mercury_Storm posted:They actually did break into the building by smashing windows/doors, pushing through police, stole poo poo from offices, and several people did die. Sure, they weren't able to get to Pence or any congresspeople before they escaped or holed up I guess? True. That being said, you do need to have room to have an increased sentence for a scenario where they did kill someone.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2023 20:51
|
|
|
The Question IRL posted:True. That being said, you do need to have room to have an increased sentence for a scenario where they did kill someone. Isn't there a range for the recommendations? Wouldn't "an increased sentence" just be "we took off the lower number on the range"?
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2023 20:55
|
|
|
Randalor posted:Yeah, I suppose. It's just infuriating to see the judge essentially say "Sure, you're directly responsible for the angry mob being able to easily breach the capital, but they weren't able to kill anyone, so I don't see any reason why it should be a terrorism charge. You were just trying to steal the election and terrorise the elected officials." Our terrorism laws, forged in the wake of Oklahoma City and 9/11, are super loving broad and mostly oriented toward mass casualty events. Just look at the actual legal definition of "federal crime of terrorism": quote:the term “Federal crime of terrorism” means an offense that— (A) is calculated to influence or affect the conduct of government by intimidation or coercion, or to retaliate against government conduct; and (B) is a violation of— (i) section 32 (relating to destruction of aircraft or aircraft facilities), 37 (relating to violence at international airports), 81 (relating to arson within special maritime and territorial jurisdiction), 175 or 175b (relating to biological weapons), 175c (relating to variola virus), 229 (relating to chemical weapons), subsection (a), (b), (c), or (d) of section 351 (relating to congressional, cabinet, and Supreme Court assassination and kidnaping), 831 (relating to nuclear materials), 832 (relating to participation in nuclear and weapons of mass destruction threats to the United States) 842(m) or (n) (relating to plastic explosives), 844(f)(2) or (3) (relating to arson and bombing of Government property risking or causing death), 844(i) (relating to arson and bombing of property used in interstate commerce), 930(c) (relating to killing or attempted killing during an attack on a Federal facility with a dangerous weapon), 956(a)(1) (relating to conspiracy to murder, kidnap, or maim persons abroad), 1030(a)(1) (relating to protection of computers), 1030(a)(5)(A) resulting in damage as defined in 1030(c)(4)(A)(i)(II) through (VI) (relating to protection of computers), 1114 (relating to killing or attempted killing of officers and employees of the United States), 1116 (relating to murder or manslaughter of foreign officials, official guests, or internationally protected persons), 1203 (relating to hostage taking), 1361 (relating to government property or contracts), 1362 (relating to destruction of communication lines, stations, or systems), 1363 (relating to injury to buildings or property within special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States), 1366(a) (relating to destruction of an energy facility), 1751(a), (b), (c), or (d) (relating to Presidential and Presidential staff assassination and kidnaping), 1992 (relating to terrorist attacks and other acts of violence against railroad carriers and against mass transportation systems on land, on water, or through the air), 2155 (relating to destruction of national defense materials, premises, or utilities), 2156 (relating to national defense material, premises, or utilities), 2280 (relating to violence against maritime navigation), 2280a (relating to maritime safety), 2281 through 2281a (relating to violence against maritime fixed platforms), 2332 (relating to certain homicides and other violence against United States nationals occurring outside of the United States), 2332a (relating to use of weapons of mass destruction), 2332b (relating to acts of terrorism transcending national boundaries), 2332f (relating to bombing of public places and facilities), 2332g (relating to missile systems designed to destroy aircraft), 2332h (relating to radiological dispersal devices), 2332i (relating to acts of nuclear terrorism), 2339 (relating to harboring terrorists), 2339A (relating to providing material support to terrorists), 2339B (relating to providing material support to terrorist organizations), 2339C (relating to financing of terrorism), 2339D (relating to military-type training from a foreign terrorist organization), or 2340A (relating to torture) of this title; (ii) sections 92 (relating to prohibitions governing atomic weapons) or 236 (relating to sabotage of nuclear facilities or fuel) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 ( 42 U.S.C. 2122 or 2284); (iii) section 46502 (relating to aircraft piracy), the second sentence of section 46504 (relating to assault on a flight crew with a dangerous weapon), section 46505(b)(3) or (c) (relating to explosive or incendiary devices, or endangerment of human life by means of weapons, on aircraft), section 46506 if homicide or attempted homicide is involved (relating to application of certain criminal laws to acts on aircraft), or section 60123(b) (relating to destruction of interstate gas or hazardous liquid pipeline facility) of title 49; or (iv) section 1010A of the Controlled Substances Import and Export Act (relating to narco-terrorism). That is the clause being used to justify the terrorism enhancement. I think it's fairly understandable that a judge might balk at slapping rioters with the same sentence enhancement used for people who blow up buses, hijack civilian airliners, sabotage nuclear plants, or deploy bioweapons on US soil. Regardless of how malicious their intentions were, their actual actions weren't even in the same league as most of this poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2023 21:07
|
|
|
Randalor posted:Isn't there a range for the recommendations? Wouldn't "an increased sentence" just be "we took off the lower number on the range"? Yeah but the number is tied to the severity of the conduct, whereas the same range could still apply for two hypothetical defendants convicted of the same crimes. Let's say two J6ers are convicted, like Biggs and Nordean. But in a hypothetical scenario where one of their conducts leads more directly to a deadly assault on a police officer, but is not legally liable for that assault, the judge needs to be able to take that into account within the same range of years.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2023 21:10
|
|
|
Yeah any time a judge uses their position to talk about how "rough" actual justice is on the families of convicted insurrectionists, I'm going to raise an eyebrow. When this occurs in the context of white supremacists being given relatively lenient sentences given the guidelines, my eyebrow is going to travel up my forehead, over my scalp, and fall off the back of my head. As another poster said, if there had been even a whiff of leftism attached to any of this, it's not difficult to imagine the insurrectionists' family emotions not being given a gently caress about at all.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2023 22:36
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:That is the clause being used to justify the terrorism enhancement. I think it's fairly understandable that a judge might balk at slapping rioters with the same sentence enhancement used for people who blow up buses, hijack civilian airliners, sabotage nuclear plants, or deploy bioweapons on US soil. Regardless of how malicious their intentions were, their actual actions weren't even in the same league as most of this poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2023 22:46
|
|
|
The sentence for attempted murder is usually much less than for actual murder, though, isn't it? We're talking about sentencing here.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2023 23:17
|
|
|
This Is the Zodiac posted:Yes, as everyone knows, US laws are based on the defendant's actual actions and not their intentions, which is why attempted murder isn't a crime. "Murder" and "attempted murder" are completely separate crimes, each with their own sentencing rules and guidelines. Depending on the jurisdiction, there's also various sentencing enhancements available based on intent (for example, hate crime enhancement), the physical circumstances of the crime (for example, firearms enhancement), or the actual acts committed by the defendant (for example, enhancements for murder done as part of another crime).
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2023 23:44
|
|
|
In a complete vacuum, ten years is a very long time to sentence someone to prison for, and represents a very severe punishment that is only merited by a serious criminal act. It just doesn't seem like that because of the hosed system in the USA that puts people away for multiple decades over repeat offenses even if they are non-violent crimes like simple drug possession or low-level theft. I do agree with the line of thinking that the only reason these clowns didn't kill or kidnap anyone on Jan 6 was because the opportunity didn't present itself, not because they lacked the intent or means to do so. Some of them had big packs of zip-tie handcuffs for fucks sake.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2023 23:53
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:The root issue here though is that no future judge is going to depart downward like this for non-white defendants. The fundamental issue is that the American legal system may have a written definition of "terrorism" but as applied the term always is understood to have an unspoken "committed by a brown person" clause. See also Dylan Roof, etc.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2023 01:02
|
|
|
Jamsque posted:In a complete vacuum, ten years is a very long time to sentence someone to prison for, and represents a very severe punishment that is only merited by a serious criminal act. It just doesn't seem like that because of the hosed system in the USA that puts people away for multiple decades over repeat offenses even if they are non-violent crimes like simple drug possession or low-level theft. How many zip-tie guys were there? I know that one was Eric Munchel. He was the one photographed climbing on the Senate Chamber seats. He and his mother were both found guilty of conspiracy and are due to be sentenced next month.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2023 01:08
|
|
|
Charlz Guybon posted:Wasn't Roof sentenced to death by the Feds and to 9 life sentences by South Carolina? Yes, but he wasn't charged with terrorism, despite explicitly stating he was trying to incite a race war.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2023 01:31
|
|
|
Jamsque posted:In a complete vacuum, ten years is a very long time to sentence someone to prison for, and represents a very severe punishment that is only merited by a serious criminal act. From what I've read he is getting credit for something like 2yr served so at the most he is doing 8-7.5yr. I'm not sure of the details associated with parole for his crimes but if he behaves well in prison I wouldn't be surprised if he gets out in less than that somehow. Generally the sentencing for crimes in the US is overly harsh IMO but this guy and others have been getting too light despite their eager, and in his case immediate, return to espousing things they claimed in court they'd no longer believed. These guys are absolutely the ones you want the book thrown at and locked away for so long they either die in prison or come out crippled old men who can't do anything. And that isn't some revenge fantasy. They're loving fascists who came drat, drat, close to getting their way and show no sign of stopping to try again or real regret.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2023 01:54
|
|
|
PC LOAD LETTER posted:
This is the argument always, though. "You know THIS IS THE GROUP" that we gotta lock up forever". Either we do ridiculous sentences, or we don't. There's no exceptions because they eventually just become it. 10-20 years is pretty good for these. EDIT: let me frame it like this, if every rear end in a top hat who did this at J6 gets 10 years, it won't be materially different than if they all got 20. Vahakyla fucked around with this message at 02:01 on Sep 2, 2023 |
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2023 01:56
|
|
|
Vahakyla posted:Either we do ridiculous sentences, or we don't. There's no exceptions because they eventually just become it. Vahakyla posted:EDIT: let me frame it like this, if every rear end in a top hat who did this at J6 gets 10 years, it won't be materially different than if they all got 20. These are not normal criminals. They're practically being lauded as heroes in their own social groups. They're not going away for long enough and so they're not being significantly dissuaded by their convictions or the punishments handed down. edit: \/\/\/\/\/\/ for normal-ish people doing normal-ish crimes (ie. robbery, fist fights, etc) you are correct. You will note how I said that I think sentencing is too harsh normally in my earlier comment. None of that is true for these people. They have not learned their lessons or been put off as a group. They are heroes and martyrs right now to the chuds and quite a large portion of Republicans. They are getting EMBOLDENED by this! And they're getting lots of support from those groups now and will continue to do so probably after they're released. The Wingnut Welfare gravy train will likely never stop for them! They're not getting abandoned by society like normal criminals would and will have plenty of social and monetary safety nets to make sure they not only rebound but get to try another fascist revolt after they're released. Their crimes aren't normal, their treatment isn't normal, and the reaction by a large chunk of society to them isn't normal. So stop trying to compare them to the average criminal. The comparison does not hold up in too many ways to work out. \/\/\/\/\/\/\/ PC LOAD LETTER fucked around with this message at 03:25 on Sep 2, 2023 |
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2023 02:13
|
|
|
spending 8 years in prison is life destroying
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2023 02:57
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Yes, but he wasn't charged with terrorism, despite explicitly stating he was trying to incite a race war. Under the current legal definition of terrorism above, that wouldn't qualify unless he said he was trying to get the government to start the race war. "Federal crime of terrorism" requires an intention to affect government conduct or retaliate against government conduct.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2023 03:03
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:The root issue here though is that no future judge is going to depart downward like this for non-white defendants. The fundamental issue is that the American legal system may have a written definition of "terrorism" but as applied the term always is understood to have an unspoken "committed by a brown person" clause. See also Dylan Roof, etc. It is actually good that people are being conservative with the definition of terrorism. We shouldn't be wishing more white people got charged with it out of some misguided egalitarianism, we should be wishing for it to be used less, period. It's a bullshit emotionally charged racialised judgement. Charge people for the crimes they did, not their political motives. It's always going to be a weapon used against minorities and leftists, more than something that right wingers have to worry about, so the less it's used the better.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2023 03:31
|
|
|
Eiba posted:They might do it anyway, but at least they can't point to this as a past precedent. The way to fix that issue is to vote in people who will either re-write the law appropriately or put actually sane and reasonable judges into office instead of chudges. Until then actual no holds barred fascists who came WAY to close for comfort to achieving their goals absolutely need to get super ultra hosed.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2023 03:46
|
|
|
Stop Cop City protesters are getting terrorist charges laid on them for the crime of being near someone that got murdered by the cops while sitting down with their hands up. It's ludicrously naive to try to say we need to let fascists off lightly so that it doesn't set a precedent for others. Read the loving room a bit, that poo poo is already happening.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2023 05:07
|
|
|
Eiba posted:No, but at the same time, no future judge will be able to point to this and say "see, rioting is terrorism". They might do it anyway, but at least they can't point to this as a past precedent. It would have been easier for them to bring terrorism charges against protestors in the future if they did so in this case. It's explicitly in the thread 3 separate times in the past three days, without counting posts discussing those decisons. I'm not sure how that gets missed? Paracaidas fucked around with this message at 05:41 on Sep 2, 2023 |
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2023 05:38
|
|
|
Nervous posted:I guess Terrorism is similar to Bourbon. Real Bourbon can only come from Kentucky, so I guess Real Terrorism can only come from the Middle East. I still argue that Aum Shinrikyo were not terrorists because they weren't trying to influence or coerce the government or change public opinions, they were trying to END THE WORLD.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2023 05:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 18:07 |
|
|
AvesPKS posted:I still argue that Aum Shinrikyo were not terrorists because they weren't trying to influence or coerce the government or change public opinions, they were trying to END THE WORLD. Actually trying to end the world isn’t terrorism. Threatening to end the world in order to secure some other objective is terrorism. Which I makes it funny that the governments of nuclear powers get to call other people terrorists.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2023 11:47
|
|