Democrat Jamaal Bowman criminally CHARGED for pulling the fire alarm on Capitol Hill

it's called a plea deal, often happens on first offenses of petty nonviolent crimes

 

Again, plea deals usually include all relevant charges for the judge's approval. Plea deals don't work by not charging people for crimes they committed. That's just undercharging someone.

If he was charged with pulling a false alarm, lying to authorities, and disrupting Congress he likely wouldn't have gotten everything dismissed. And if he had gone to trial he would have likely gotten at least two out of three guilty convictions. Hence, why they undercharged him. It allowed him to get off with an apology letter and an extremely small fine.

 

Right, It's another glaring example of our 2-tiered justice system that our resident Democrats will stubbornly deny. We should start calling them corruption deniers.

 

he was charged

 

He wasn't fully charged. I don't understand why this is complicated. If he was fully charged with his illegal conduct there is a very small chance of everything being dismissed. But, because he was undercharged he was able to get less than a slap on the wrist.

 

They're really tripping over themselves to defend something that is pretty basic. And as far as corruption in DC goes is small potatoes. I don't get why people can't just admit the current evidence in the public eye shows he was undercharged resulting in a lighter punishment. That's obvious.

 

That is a pointless avenue of speculation: what might have been charged-- unless it was a no-brainer, that this would be charged: which it was not. Equating this, with the mob which overran the Capitol, assaulting police, carrying weapons, causing much property damage, and threatening to murder certain legislators, like Pelosi, and V. P. Mike Pence, all while undisputably trespassing, is a bridge, much too far. Remember, that the most important consideration, to a prosecutor, is what he can prove, to twelve people, beyond a reasonable doubt. IOW, any prosecutor would need prove Bowman's intention had been to interfere with the proceeding, and that there could be no reasonable doubt, that this had not simply been a mistake.

Do I think it was a mistake: no. Do I think that is provable to everyone, beyond reasonable doubt: no. Bowman certainly deserves censure but, once again, it is ridiculous to equate this, with January sixth. I do not by any means feel that it is clearly in the public interest, to pursue this with a full fledged trial, to attempt to prove a felony-- that, could rightfully be called overcharging, if not even a "witch hunt." Conversely, there is no doubt whatsoever, that it is in the public interest to prosecute those involved with trying to unlawfully overturn an election result. Bowman, I feel I can more certainly guarantee, will not pull this stunt again. Were all the J6 rioters, or Donald Trump and his "stolen election" co-conspirators all just given slaps on the wrist, I would not feel at all sure, they would not do the same thing, once again. In the end, that is the most important goal, and highest aspiration, of criminal justice, isn't it-- to deter recidivism?

 

Even if there was some vast conspiracy to "overthrow the election/government", many of those who got caught up in the lol "insurrection" were guilty of nothing more than trespassing. I think most if not all of them were charged and convicted of obstructing an official proceeding. And there were cases where nonviolent defendants were denied bail and a speedy trial. Because some of them in the heat of the moment said some things, a liberal judge decided they were a threat to the public and denied them bail.

 

Plea deal and first offender

 

You should probably research the criminal justice process because I don't particularly care to explain it to you beyond what I've already said. I'm sure it will come in handy in life and in future threads.

 

I don't think it's that difficult. Was Congress in session? Yes, did his actions obstruct said session? Yes. If we apply the law as ruthlessly as we did to 1/6ers the argument could be made.

 

His excuse is an insult to even a morons intelligence. He damn well knew exactly what he was doing

 

This type of bullshit has long been debunked, but I suppose it's now part of the myth, and there will be sad posts about it for as long as we will see JFK assassination conspiracy theories-- with the J6 ones, only having far less basis. Those who were denied bail, was because they were either deemed a flight risk or, more often, I think, that they were a threat to the community-- just like courts do with all of their other defendants. You may call a father's threatening his entire family, that he would kill them all, if they tell anyone what he is up to, merely his saying something "in the heat of the moment;" but these are the sorts of things that normal people do not do, despite experiencing "hot" moments. Consequently, most normal people, including judges, who hear of people doing such things, regard them as unhinged, out of control, and a danger to others.

These no-bail J6ers, represent only a very small percentage, of all those arrested for the events at the Capitol. If you want to bring up this old bullshit story, I will thank you to support your assertions with verified facts (credible linked & quoted evidence, will suffice). Otherwise, I will not, in the future, waste my time explaining even this much to you, again. If I bother to answer such tripe, at all, it will only be to call your allegations B.S., and to suggest that you might find a more receptive audience, in the forum, specifically for conspiracy theories. People there, believe we never landed on the moon.

 

An Arizona man who sported face paint, no shirt, and a furry, horned hat when he joined the mob that stormed the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6 pleaded guilty Friday to a felony charge and asked to be released from jail while he awaits sentencing. He won’t be.

Jacob Chansley is the face of the riot and even though he hurt no one and damaged nothing, he has to be slammed to make a point.

The man who called himself “QAnon Shaman” has been jailed for nearly eight months since his arrest.

Buffalo Horns guy pleads and is still in jail for 'obstructing' Congress - www.independentsentinel.com

I don't think he was the only one. But this guy never did anything violent nor was he a flight risk. Go ahead and be unreceptive. No skin off my back. You really are not that important.

 

seems you need to do the research as it happens a lot for first offenders

 

so the alarm was just him opening these doors?

 

He took the signs down, then turned to his left and pulled the alarm that was on the wall. After pulling the alarm, he walked back in the direction he'd come from. Never even attempted to exit through the door. He did this all deliberately. Didn't appear to be in a hurry.

 

is there a video?

those look like old grade school doors where the alarm was in the door handle

 

BREAKING NEWS: Security Footage Of Jamaal Bowman Released - YouTube

 

lol, thanks, never seen that before, yeah, I see why he pled guilty, caught red handed

 

Have you seen the video of him pulling the alarm? It is quite obvious that he pulled the alarm on purpose and the intent is quite evident to even a simpleton. Even a half competent lawyer could get a conviction for the intent to disrupt official proceedings.

 

This one individual, FYI, does not prove your case-- even if you "don't think he was the only one."* Finding some of those others, is what is known as making one's case. If this issue is not of even enough consequence to you, to do a little research, it is laughable that you try to paint me, as the one who doesn't care, and who is "unreceptive." FYI #2, receptiveness can only be gaged, when there is something to be received. I am always receptive to actual evidence: you have not provided anything but a pathetic scrap, which is patently insufficient, to justify your suggestion, about the J6 protestors being politically persecuted. Get off your lazy ass, if you expect to be taken seriously, with your imaginary accusations.



*There was obviously a mental health constituent to this case, which set it apart from the rest (though some of those others may also be mentally disturbed, it is not in so openly apparent a way). For the record, when this person's attorneys had filed a motion for his release, due to psychological concerns, I had been fully supportive of the principle, that he by given his full rights, and adequate treatment, despite that some others pointed to the fact that there are many in our prisons w/ psychiatric conditions, who get no such special treatment, as buffalo horn guy's lawyers, were asking for him.

 

The case, you lay out here, is not even sufficient to convince me, beyond a reasonable doubt. If you cannot provide a "half competent" argument to win over one person-- then what is your basis for believing that all prosecutors could, to convince twelve?

You might have started, by actually providing the video, or a link to it. I doubt that one could say from it, they could read into Bowman's thoughts. Just because someone does something knowingly, does not prove that he actually knows what he is doing. I have, for example, thrown things in the garbage, that I did not intend to throw away; but I just hadn't been thinking of what I was doing. This happens to people, fairly commonly.

Bowman has put forth some defense that he'd thought what he was doing, would merely open the door for him. While I think this is a weak excuse, it is a fact that people often do very stupid things, so that reasonable doubt should be something that any "half competent" defense attorney, should be able to plant in the minds of at least one, of any 12 jurors.

This seems a very insincere case, from people who did not believe the J6 rioters deserved prison time (or, for some, that they even deserved to be arrested and charged), yet are trying to suggest that the reasonable course, here, would dictate imprisonment for Rep. Bowman. Do you honestly believe that is both a good use of our tax dollars, and a necessary punishment: whether to impress upon the Representative the understanding that he should not do this again (which a censure from his legislative body would certainly be equally effective at accomplishing, and at far less expense, than Bowman's incarceration-- not to mention the cost for a special election, to replace him); or to send a strong enough message to other, would-be, fire alarm pullers?

Here, show me the full analytical capabilities of the "conservative" mind, to come up with the practical answer: is space in our already overcrowded prisons really warranted, in this case? Impress me, with your ability to find the sensible solution.

Incidentally, I will point out that this element of the law, in certain cases-- the need to prove intent-- is something that has benefitted Donald Trump, as well.

 

Why would you imagine that the law would be as "ruthlessly" applied to the actions of a member of Congress, who is at his workplace, as to someone breaking into Congress, who doesn't even belong there? That is, already, not an apples to apples comparison. Congress has the means, to discipline its own members; it cannot censure civilians.

 

Censure is just a statement of disapproval. Crimes go through the criminal justice system. That is where justice is had.