'There have to be CONSEQUENCES:' Judge BOOSTS Jan 6 Rioter's SENTENCE

and still refusing to address the issues raised......oh well

 

"Mazzocco, a 37-year-old former loan officer from San Antonio, pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor count of parading, demonstrating, or picketing in the Capitol for his participation on January 6th. Prosecutors included in a sentencing memorandum numerous selfies Mazzocco took during the riot. “As if documenting a vacation,” prosecutors wrote, “he paused several times to photograph the growing crowd and the increasing chaos.” Prosecutors said that Mazzocco spent “about 12 minutes” inside the building but did not engage in violence or destruction of property."

I wouldn't have figured you as one to promote sending people to prison for nonviolent crimes (or guilt by association). Guess I was wrong.

...but to be fair, there is a lot of people walking back on those positions these days.

 

Judges becoming overtly political is tyranny. This is not going well for America, we are going Banana Republic thanks to the left.

This still does not excuse the morons of Jan 6., but the over reaction is insane. They were no real threat. Some of these folks are under Cruel and Unusual Punishment.

 

She sent him to prison for something for which he was never charged nor given an opportunity to defend himself. The sentence should be tossed and the prosecutors recommendation accepted on appeal. Then the judge should be removed from the bench and disbarred.

 

Are these people going to prison? Is there going to be a Congressional commission to see if the Biden and his associates were involved? Has Biden called for one, if not doesn't that mean he supports it? Did all of Biden's rants about the environment incite this violence.

Shall we label them as terrorist if not why not reading the post here.

And why wasn't this woman trying to break in through the door shot and killed?

 

He had to have been charged, how else could he have pled guilty?

 

Because any guards there didn't feel like it. They were certainly within their rights to.

Armed guards are generally able to USE their arms in the course of their duties. If they ever aren't the whole profession can't function.

 

“The election was stolen from me”

Donald Trump X 10,000

 

It's kind of like the "war on drugs". While they are chasing the drug users and small time dealers, the big fish often run in high circles and get a pass.

Same deal here. Everything Trump gets near becomes chaos and destruction and he, the ring leader puppet master, sure is a slippery sucker. He always gets his minions to do his dirty work so he can continue lie, cheat and steal with reckless abandon. Of course, it doesn't matter how many people he leaves in his wake as long as he gets to keep stuffing coffers with other people's hard earned money. He's never made a success out of anything other than grifting. At this stage of the game, anybody that still defends him is just a much traitor to our country as he is and we should have no use for traitors except expulsion.

 

I had been being (I thought, obviously) facetious, when I'd written:
DEFinning said: ↑
Yes, any innocent, unsuspecting, patriotic American, merely exercising their right of peaceful protest, can be caught up in this broad legal net, provided he or she is acting in a way that is dangerous to human life-- and, really, who doesn't regularly endanger the lives of those around them?--

As I have already shown, you lying sack of hypocritical crap, it has been you who has repeatedly misrepresented my remarks, despite their being patently clear (e.g., when I wrote that I more often heard the 1/6 riot referred to as an, "insurrection," rather than, "domestic terrorism," and you claimed that I had said that I had never heard the Capitol riot referred to as terrorism). I was, in the comment of mine you are now falsely charging as "putting words," in your mouth, referring to this incomprehensible comment of yours:

Giftedone said: ↑
Somehow this nation went from "land of free - home of brave" - to "Lad of those on knees begging to give up essential liberty - over risk of harm that is 400 times less than the risk of harm from "Walking"
<End Quote>

YOUR WORDS, asswpe. I went by their prima facie meaning. That's why I began my reply to them, saying:

If you had some different meaning for those words than they mean, on their face, then you are being a dick, to blame others for your poor communication skills. Care to explain what those words are supposed to mean?

Either grow up, man up, and stop accosting with insults, those who cannot interpret whatever convoluted ideas you have buried in your poorly-explained opinions, or it is you who can go, "bugger off."

 

"Non-violent crimes," is a VERY broad category. I am not one who, by nature, favors more prison time than is necessary. This is typically been abused, for example, for people convicted of drug possession, and there are countries, like Germany, that have shown better ways to deal with this type of offender, other than to ruin their lives and turn them into hardened criminals, with limited other options. But when the managers of banks & investment firms gambled with people's money & crashed our economy-- non-violently-- I certainly was not averse to those people paying a price, in the loss of their freedom (which was not, it turned out, required of them, by Obama's Justice Department). Ditto, those who scam old people out of their life savings, or fleece investors (Enron), or for pharmaceutical executives that push drugs that they know are dangerous, misrepresenting their addictive potential, for the sake of lining their own pockets. So, by lumping all non-violent offenses together, you are really mischaracterizing me. Some people deserve prison offenses, for particular "non-violent," offenses.

If we could, then, focus on this given case, without unrealistically extrapolating to try to make overall judgements about one's temperamental or ideological bent(?), I will point out that 45 days in jail, is nothing akin to a real prison sentence. For that matter, Federal prison sentences for white collar criminals-- non-violent, criminal rip-off artists, who are held in "prisons," without bars on their rooms (there used to be a Federal Correctional Institution, near me, where people like the Reverend Moon, wealthy tax-evaders, and the like, were sent), are not the same as a real prison, where one is incarcerated along with violent criminals with very lengthy sentences, from whom one is in frequent threat of physical violence and sexual assault. I do not expect that Mazzocco will be exposed to any of that.

In this case, as I had said, I understand the judge wishing to use the sentence for one of the main purposes of criminal justice: to send a message to others that this type of behavior is not "harmless," and O.K.

 

You are projecting your flaws onto others.

The above is a simple statement of fact - showing how folks in this nation have give up essential liberty over a risk of harm that is very small.

You responded with the gibberish above - which makes no sense - What have I proposed in what law ? What are you talking about ... who can make any sense out of this gibberish ? ... then you follow it up with all kinds of name calling.

You are like the King of Strawmen. Now go get a valid argument .. and pester me no more.

 

And you are apparently the Fool of Irony, or the Court Jester of Hypocrisy:
So, your ambiguously mentioned, "...begging to give up essential liberty - over risk of harm that is 400 times less than the risk if harm from 'Walking'," according to your own explanation, cited above, has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING DIRECTLY TO DO WITH THE EVENTS OF JANUARY 6th, which are this thread's SUBJECT.

And you follow up that revelation, by calling ME, the "king of STRAWMEN."

But not before first alleging, "you are projecting your flaws onto others"-- priceless.

Once more, just for you, since I imagine most don't need help with this: you cite, as MY flaw, that supposedly, I put forth strawman arguments; in the same post as you describe your quote (which I'd treated as if it had something to do with the subject at hand-- the punishment of this participant in the 1/6 riot), as having nothing directly to do with this particular case. In other words, you have just defined it as your own, strawman argument.

And, further, along with that quintessential example of hypocrisy, you assert that I project my flaws, onto others...Come to think of it, with the poor way you have of expressing yourself, I guess that, rather than accusing me of something which you just manifestly did, yourself, maybe what you meant was that the flaw of making Strawman arguments had been projected onto you-- as an explanation as to why you now make them-- from me, somehow, like a curse... Or maybe none of what you wrote had anything at all to do with this thread.

To wit, I will close with another of your false, projected allegations:
"What are you talking about ... who can make any sense out of this gibberish ? ... then you follow it up with all kinds of name calling."

So let's see if this additional charge you bring, salvages some of your credibility, or trashes it, completely.

I admit that I finally had enough of your garbage, so began to return fire. But here are your own preceding comments about me:

I am just going to repeat my citing of your insults, so that if & when you try to dispute this fact that it has been you who has been the antagonist of "name-calling," your quotes won't disappear, when you quote this post, but be preserved.

Giftedone said: ↑
You should tone d(own) the snide pompous arrogance ..

Giftedone said: ↑
What is this moronic path you are on.

Giftedone said: ↑
2) If you don't -- then what have you been yammering about all this time
3) if you don't have an opinion . then what have you been yammering about all this time

Giftedone said: ↑
What a pile of rambling gibberish

Giftedone said: ↑
ranting about pompous arrogance .. while displaying full course.

 

Trespassing is bad now. Good to know.

 

Judging from myself, I think that your seemingly intended humor missed the mark. Yes, trespassing, even if we think of it as a minor offense, has gotten some people shot; and the shooter vindicated by police. Of course, where one is trespassing, and when, are not irrelevant details. This applies not just to our nation's Capitol, when it is closed to visitors, due to official proceedings; if you find yourself discovered, in the middle of the night, in a bank's vault, a trespassing charge will be the least of your worries.

 

There appears to be a double standard on the issue. They would be better off trespassing at walmart and stealing $949.00 in goods. People are entering the country illegally by the thousands and are rewarded.

What they did was wrong. Harsher sentences compared to what other trespassers face is not justice. It is political revenge.

 

Of course the protest has something to do with essential liberty and the Patriot Act .. and you are the King of Strawmen .. as exemplified by previous posts .. probably because you don't know what a strawman argument is ..

The question is .. why are you so desperate to call anyone associated with the capitol protest "Terrorists" .

 

This situation is different from those others that you cite; is, in fact, rather unique. But as I said, but you ignored, the most important elements of trespassing, are location, location, and location. There are some government sites on which the government warns of the consequence of, and permits its employees to use, deadly force against trespassers. So you are not honestly representing the CONTEXT of this event.

The charge, BTW, was not just "trespassing," so you are even inaccurate/deceptive in describing the offense. A word in one of the charges is, "parading," which implies a group activity, not just a single person. Even if this person did not destroy property or assault guards, many of his company did. Hence, even if he was not charged with their offenses-- & I believe that precedent would have allowed that-- the character & aims of the group, of which he was part, can still color the interpretation of his offense. Mazzocco should have been aware of some of what was going on, around him. But the main thing is, even without any of that, his sentence fell far below the maximum, for HIS offense!

Lastly, while I have made this point elsewhere, in the thread, I will reiterate, that part of the purpose of "punishment," in our Justice system, is to DISCOURAGE similar behavior from others. Therefore, how much need there is for this disincentive, for others, will naturally vary, depending on circumstances. Had Mazzocco participated in a small, peaceful, parade, on Capitol grounds, without entering the building, the judge could have reasoned that the threat of others copying that behavior was not so great so as to warrant much need to disincentivize it, for prospective, future offenders. In the circumstances that truly existed during Mazzocco's crime, however, there clearly IS a much greater imperative to discourage others from following suit.

 

I realize you support judges engaging in activism and I strongly disagree with you. That is an abuse of power. These were unarmed people doing something stupid and the "justice" being applied to them is disproportionate. It comes down to the political beliefs of those committing illegal actions. These people get the book thrown at them while others get free healthcare!

Ironic that barriers suddenly became effective Jan 7th!

 

What makes you erroneously perceive me as "desperate?"

Let me rephrase that: what impels you to so regularly imbue your posts with so many unjustifiable, prejudicial terms, like "moronic," "desperate," "pompous," "arrogant," "snide," "yammering," and "gibberish," for example? It seems to be an attempt to distract from the facts, and deceive readers, in their impressions of the character of the arguments being presented. In fact, the particular terms you have been using, have a distinct personal quality to them, rather than applying in any way, even fallaciously, to my actual argument, which is supposed to be the focus of your argument. And yet you make the comical assertion:

I would say you were very clever, if there were any indication that you were making your comments ironically, realizing how much more obviously they applied to you.

I think you need to learn how a mirror works, & whose image you are actually seeing, in it.

 

And I realize you have prejudged my thinking, & motivations, prior to reading my responses. Let us, though, go through your statements, to see if there is actually any argument there.

You start off with alleging that I "support judges engaging in activism." That is something that we could have a very long & involved conversation about. But, sticking to the subject of your reply to my post, in this thread: 1) there is nothing that you quoted, or could quote, that would support your coming to any factual conclusion, as to my opinions, regarding judicial activism; 2) whatever personal opinion I might hold, is completely irrelevant to the argument at hand, which I have based, for my part, on fact and reason. If you cannot answer another's opinion, limiting yourself to these things, perhaps it is best that you seek a conversant who uses your own, disapproved, tactics.

Then you classify what you refer to as "judicial activism," as an abuse of power. For expediency's sake, I will focus on this case. And the judge's sentence falls well within the sentencing guidelines, for the offenses. This, in no way whatsoever, qualifies as judicial activism, or abuse of power. To the contrary, deciding on the appropriate sentence for an offender, is specifically enumerated, as part of a judge's proper powers; so your charge is moot, and you have just constructed a makeshift straw man argument.

Next, YOU assess the judge's verdict as, "disproportionate," in its severity. Based on what? As has been thoroughly covered, throughout this thread, the sentencing guidelines the judge was using, would have allowed any sentence from merely probation, to 9 months incarceration. Mazzocco was given 45 days. How does that possibly equate to a disproportionately harsh sentence, or having "the book thrown at them?" Especially, as you supply no data, for comparison. So, all you are saying, is that your personal opinion as to what an appropriate sentence would have been, differs from this judge's. As I am sure that there is a variance amongst judges, in sentencing, this is a meaningless charge, as well. If it were possible, it would be made even more meaningless by the great likelihood that you are not even a criminal judge.

And we have already reached the end of your, "proofs."

Massive fail.

 

Do you have something to say in relation to the topic .. or do you just want to yammer on on.. about distracting from the facts ... in a "desperate attempt to decieve readers"

Now quite hiding .. and state your position .. are those involved in the Capital Riot "Terrorists" or not ?

 

Funny, that's what I was just asking you. The only difference, is I offered many examples, and quotations of your doing just that, and you offered zip. Just a wholely unsupported charge, from someone making the lazy reply of, essentially, "I know you are, but what am I?"

 

Once again a post offering zero to the topic ..more avoidance just like your previous "offering" Do you support the Blue clownshow terrorism trope or not..

 

You made your position clear, so there is nothing to prejudge. You justify the boost in consequences and I disagree. One needs not be a judge to have eyes and notice how "justice" is applied based on political beliefs. The fact that you support judicial activism in this case does not mean you support it in all cases.

I live in Los Angeles and was stuck downtown because protesters/rioters shut down the freeway. Would you say that walking onto the freeway could result in injury/death?
They were protesting (Rioting) because of election results.
What was done to discourage this behavior?