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

LOL, no she didn't. A 'sentencing enhancement' would have to be outside the boundaries of the federal guidelines for the original charge. She did not depart from the prescribed guideline range for this single misdemeanor charge, she chose not to accept the prosecutor's more lenient recommendation. There was no disagreement at trial about either the applicable charge filed, or the sentencing parameters listed in the guidelines for this charge.

 

Exactly.

He can do Short Time (like that) standing on his head.
Eady peasy.

 

Exactly.

The person (who you responded to) clearly exhibited a massive misunderstanding of the term "enhancement".

 

She had a lot to say about this group, their intentions etc, but she actually sentenced him for HIS conduct. I would have been fine if she had accepted the DA recommendation, but I am also fine with the 45 days. I would have felt uncomfortable with much more. Federal prison cells have better uses than to house people who trespassed the Capital for 12 minutes in a protest, vandalized nothing, stole nothing and hurt nobody and then took a selfie as a memento. He is a professional who has to carry his stupidity on this day with him forever.

 

Exactly.

45 Days in the County Hilton.
3 Hots and a Cot.

 

The severity of the crimes — and the impact of said crimes are vastly different. Unfortunately we do not always catch criminals, some times we catch but do not successfully convict those criminals.

 

It's not the sentence that is the concerning part. This judge deliberately stated in her line of reasoning something that neither the prosecution argued, nor was actually evidenced in a court of law. She does not have that role, at all. Period. The moment she(and other judges) take that role, this junta will have reached its logical conclusion.

In committing to a junta-style form of justice, those who propagated this political show did what they accuse the rioters of doing: No, they didn't overthrow the government, but they might as well have invalidated American "democracy" in its entirety. I can see it now. Biden: "We don't have political prisoners". Putin: "What are those guys?" Biden: "Well, uh, other than those guys."

Everything from the virus, to "Jan 6". Democrats/democratic voters do not believe in democracy. Democrats believe in democracy like I believe in a unicorn.

 

Drama queen much here? These expressions of her opinion are not particularly concerning at all, especially since they are NOT reflected in the length of the sentence. That is pretty clear because she did not sentence him to 12 months, or 11 months, or 10 months, or 9 months, or 8 months or 7 months, or 6 months, or 5 months or 4 months or 3 months or two months all of which were choices she could have made within those same original sentencing guidelines. She adamantly refused to give him the maximum, or half the maximum or a third of the maximum or a fourth of the maximum within her discretion. Nobody cares about her flights of outrage sitting in her opinion when the result gets him out in 45 days instead of a possible 364 days.

The 'junta' has been canceled for lack of interest.

 

Her flights of outrage are unbecoming of a judge, you KNOW they're unbecoming because you don't defend them and you know they have no proper place in an American court of law. Hence, you deflect to the fact that well, at least she 'stayed' within the sentencing guidelines while sprouting her message, using the defendant to do so.

So again, what do we call those? Political prisoners. Even taking a tiny step there, for those who want to defend democracy should be a step too far, no?

 

Still clutching at those pearls. I haven't taken any position on them because I frankly have have not read them in the context of the entire sentencing hearing etc. Judges are almost never disciplined for these kinds of statements justifying their sentences as reflections of the values of the community so I doubt I will find them 'unbecoming' of anything. He's a man properly tried, convicted and sentenced consistent with a federal statute, not for his political views which he was free to express without entering that capital building as part of a riot/ insurrection and thereby breaching the peace. If she just takes judicial notice of the circumstances surrounding his illegal conduct then that is entirely proper. 'Political prisoner' geez. .

 

By saying "Five Capitol police officers are dead and hundreds injured in the wake of this <whatever the hell they want to call it>" You are directly attributing their deaths as being the result of the riot. Something that you have NO proof for what so ever. 4 of them died by suicide. None of them left a note saying why. So you cannot truthfully say that they killed themselves because of the riot. The other died due to natural causes.

Your statements stands about as good as a one legged donkey.

 

It is quite possible that this guy could get it reduced on appeal. The judge is using his beliefs, not the facts. Per the FBI there was no attempt to overthrow the government. LINK: HMKP-117-GO00-20210902-SD004.pdf (house.gov)

 

You do believe in coincidence, don't you. How many of those capital police fold died of suicide in the proceeding few months or a few months before than? This number should not drastically differ.

 

Nope.

 

You tell me. :shrug: Police suicide is actually a very big problem in the US. So much so that they have programs that specifically address it. Here's the 2020 report to Congress on it LINK: Law Enforcement Officer Suicide: 2020 Report to Congress (usdoj.gov) There is no way to prove why someone committed suicide if they don't leave a note. That is a fact. To attribute it without a note to anything other than simply not wanting to live is to make a false attribution.

 

Nope? Nope what? Nope as in the guy couldn't appeal the sentence? Or nope as in the FBI did not find any evidence that anyone tried to overthrow the government? What does your "nope" refer to?

 

He believes that the judge could cite something not in the document or in the prosecuting charges for a sentence, and for it to actually stick! If it does stick, public defense has gotten a whole lot harder for cases in general, because judges no longer need facts in evidence. They just need their suppositions.

 

A judge's job isn't to spouse the "values of the community", their job(which yes they suck at, but it's appalling even in this case) was to be a fair, neutral arbiter of justice. She tossed the neutral arbiter part straight out, and by her own words, admitted to using the defendant as an example to influence public behavior. What we term as political prisoners.

Those arrested and tried during the King demonstrations for example(including Dr. King himself) were for the same purpose. So this isn't our first flirting with political prisoners, but it is our first in quite a long time.

 

There have been plenty of judges that based an enhanced punishment based on facts in evidence. But yeah, never heard of of using facts not in evidence to do so and it not getting reduced on appeal. Indeed many have had their sentencing reduced back down because a judge put too much personal opinion into a case. Ex: Appeals court strikes down 10-year prison sentence for first-time Broward drug offender - South Florida Sun Sentinel - South Florida Sun-Sentinel

 

Actually you are wrong. Of course they express the values of the community when they rule on sentence. they can take into account the impact of the crime, the example the conduct sets, and the impact of the sentence in how they decide its parameters and they can express every bit of that in what they say when they justify their sentence. If part of their rationale is to discourage or deter similar acts, then they can discuss that from the bench, If they feel outrage at the conduct of the accused, any lack of remorse, or if they think that copycat conduct may result from light treatment, they get to make that an element in deciding the sentence and express that in court.

 

Except that apparently the judge used facts not in evidence. Like the fact that there is no evidence, per the FBI, that anyone tried to overthrow the government. So claiming that as the reasoning is using what is called "facts not in evidence".

 

It
I

LOL. of course they can use facts not 'placed in evidence' depending on what they are using them for. They don't even have to be facts. They can be based on opinion. They can say, speculate on the impact of a crime, the trauma, the long term impacts on someone who did not ever testify in court. And they don't have to consult with the 'FBI' before they do.

 

No, actually they can't. I even gave you a link to an example of a judge getting their sentencing of a guy reduced because they used facts not in evidence. Yet you still claim this? Judges are not Gods. They're not Dictators. They're not Kings. What they do is very regulated and MUST be shown to be neutral.

 

Oh my God. They opine about the terror, the anguish the pain of victims when the victims have not only not testified in court, or provided a deposition or statement under oath, they could not possibly tell anyone that they felt anything at all! and yet there is Mr Judge all outraged that the stabbing victims felt all sorts of things and speculating all over the place, and then the guy gives the maximum sentence based on nothing but guesswork! They never get disbarred!

It depends on what went on during the actual trial including the narrative or spin that the attorneys offer up without that being in the evidentiary record. I don't know the context.

 

If you don't know the context, then you shouldn't be talking about it. :shrug: