Jacob Chansley reading Trump's tweet telling crowd to GO HOME during Jan 6

[Shadowy Man]

Was the unarmed women shot by the police in the process of committing a violent crime deserving of the death penalty?

Law enforcement officers are routinely given the leeway to respond with lethal force when they feel threatened, even by people without firearms. She may not have been 'deserving' of it, but we tend to trust the judgment of the officers who have to make a call in the heat of the moment. As has been shown in all the other threads wherein police are defended for their actions.

 

[TomC]

Chansley got 4 years for a non-violent police escorted tour:

I do see a huge miscarriage of justice going on here.

Small fry like Chansley are getting jail time while big wigs like Trump are skating by, because expensive lawyers and plausible deniability.

Chansley earned a bit of jail time. Trump earned a firing squad.
Tom

 

[laughing dog]

Zero innocent people were netted up. If one was in the Capitol Building, they committed a crime.

How do you know that? By examining the video footage your side says it does not have?

Was the unarmed women shot by the police in the process of committing a violent crime deserving of the death penalty?

I could be just as wrong about this as I know you are. But it looked to me that this was not a planned event and that there were people of all flavors of violence in the crowd. Some would have never entered but for the fact that other's had already broken down the gates.

But I don't really know any more than you do...because I have not seen all of the video yet.

The Capitol was not open to the public. Any unauthorized person inside the Capitol was committing a crime.

While the unarmed woman who was shot did not deserve the death penalty, she was part of mob that was breaking through locked doors and barriers and shouting about doing harm to various members of Congress. Did she deserve to be shot dead? No. Then again, there are plenty of dead civilians who did not deserve to be shot by the police.

 

[ZiprHead]

Was the unarmed women shot by the police in the process of committing a violent crime deserving of the death penalty?

The unarmed woman was trained in military security. She knew full well where deadly force was authorized. Someone tries to get into a secure military area, lethal force can be used. She knew that. That area of the capital is an even more secure area than many secure military facilities. That's why all those guards in there were carrying sidearms. She should have known better. She let her Trump delusions get the better of her and she paid with her life.

 

[Jarhyn]

Zero innocent people were netted up. If one was in the Capitol Building, they committed a crime.

How do you know that? By examining the video footage your side says it does not have?

Was the unarmed women shot by the police in the process of committing a violent crime deserving of the death penalty?

I could be just as wrong about this as I know you are. But it looked to me that this was not a planned event and that there were people of all flavors of violence in the crowd. Some would have never entered but for the fact that other's had already broken down the gates.

But I don't really know any more than you do...because I have not seen all of the video yet.

The Capitol was not open to the public. Any unauthorized person inside the Capitol was committing a crime.

While the unarmed woman who was shot did not deserve the death penalty, she was part of mob that was breaking through locked doors and barriers and shouting about doing harm to various members of Congress. Did she deserve to be shot dead? No. Then again, there are plenty of dead civilians who did not deserve to be shot by the police.

No soldier in any way deserves to have been shot dead, gassed, bombed, or otherwise murdered. I don't think anyone deserves to die. Oftentimes people deserve freedom from the influence of others, a freedom they will never cede or grant as long as the one holding the chain lives. Still they do not deserve to die or even be chained but to never hold a chain again.

She did need to get over herself, though, and I suppose the bullet helped her with that.

 

[TomC]

I don't think anyone deserves to die.

I disagree.
Some people make choices that result in death. Choices that are clearly likely to result in death.
She made one. She died. She picked death as thoroughly as a a heroin addict overdosing.

Maybe not intended, because she was ignorant enough to believe Trump. Like a junkie might believe that they weren't going to die from their fix. They don't intend to OD. But they deserve to die.

Because they made a choice, one that was illegal, and they knew it, and wound up dead. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
Tom

 

[Jarhyn]

I don't think anyone deserves to die.

I disagree.
Some people make choices that result in death. Choices that are clearly likely to result in death.
She made one. She died. She picked death as thoroughly as a a heroin addict overdosing.

Maybe not intended, because she was ignorant enough to believe Trump. Like a junkie might believe that they weren't going to die from their fix. They don't intend to OD. But they deserve to die.

Because they made a choice, one that was illegal, and they knew it, and wound up dead. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
Tom

You're conflating inevitability with desert.

 

[TomC]

You're conflating inevitability with desert.

I'm not sure what you mean.
I meant to connect choice with outcome.

Perhaps I was unclear? What is your point?
Tom

 

[bilby]

You're conflating inevitability with desert.

I'm not sure what you mean.
I meant to connect choice with outcome.

Perhaps I was unclear? What is your point?
Tom

What someone chooses isn't necessarily what they deserve.

Consequences aren't scaled to risks, nor are they adjusted for reasonableness of understanding of those risks.

This is the sort of fundamental moral and ethical consideration that is beaten out of people by conservative dogmas. It's a cognitive bias.

You deserve to be shunned by society for choosing to publicly express such ignorant and foolish beliefs; But you won't be, because consequences aren't scaled to risks, nor are they adjusted for reasonableness of understanding of those risks.

 

[Jarhyn]

You're conflating inevitability with desert.

I'm not sure what you mean.
I meant to connect choice with outcome.

Perhaps I was unclear? What is your point?
Tom

What someone chooses isn't necessarily what they deserve.

Consequences aren't scaled to risks, nor are they adjusted for reasonableness of understanding of those risks.

This is the sort of fundamental moral and ethical consideration that is beaten out of people by conservative dogmas. It's a cognitive bias.

You deserve to be shunned by society for choosing to publicly express such ignorant and foolish beliefs; But you won't be, because consequences aren't scaled to risks, nor are they adjusted for reasonableness of understanding of those risks.

You made the same mistake there. They don't deserve this shunning. Again it is a confusion of desert and inevitability.

Desert says that even if the inevitable were abrogated, we have a responsibility to resurrect it and enforce it.

More, even though the betrayal is sudden and inevitable, it is still a betrayal, and not a deserved turn.

 

[Juvenal]

How do you know that? By examining the video footage your side says it does not have?

It's time and past time to stop repeating this farcical claim that we need more footage. No additional video is needed to identify who first breached the Capitol by breaking through the windows near the Senate shortly after 2 p.m. No additional footage is necessary to determine their interest in "hanging" the vice president and physically attacking members of Congress.

All of this is evident in the video I've provided for you.

Was the unarmed women shot by the police in the process of committing a violent crime deserving of the death penalty?

In the same video, we see Babbitt in the process of violently breaching the last remaining barricade between rioters and the members of Congress they were there to confront. Neither was she unarmed. She had a mob of 60 people behind her swinging the fists and cudgels they'd just used to breach the barricades.

Your claims here have been known to be contrafactual for over two years.

I could be just as wrong about this as I know you are.

Your first claim, that you could be wrong, contradicts your second, that you know someone is also. By your first admission you show yourself incapable of judging the truth of your second.

But it looked to me that this was not a planned event and that there were people of all flavors of violence in the crowd. Some would have never entered but for the fact that other's had already broken down the gates.

Others is never written with an apostrophe. Nor can everyone be the first to breach the windows and open the doors to the mob. But it is certain that those who were not first, who were taking advantage of the breach, knew they were doing so, knew that they were participating in a riot, knew that the goal was to accost the Congress to prevent a peaceful transfer of power for the first time in our nation's history.

The extent of the planning varied greatly between the participants, and is reflected in the charges brought against relatively minor actors like Chansley and the leadership of the Proud Boys and the Oath Keepers, whose encrypted texts showed extensively planning, as presented in court leading to their convictions for sedition.

This is, again, information that has been publicly available for some time.

But I don't really know any more than you do...because I have not seen all of the video yet.

On the contrary, the evidence to date is that you know considerably less than others because you haven't availed yourself of publicly available information even when presented here in this thread in response to your direct request.

At this point, it appears to me that you are not interacting in good faith, and so it's time for me to unsubscribe. No further response is needed.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Where the double talk? There were a LOT of innocent people caught up in the Jan 6 incident. It is very very conceivable to me (even at this point in the thread) that Jacob might have been innocent and falsely doing jail time. That's all I focused on in the OP.

I never said anything about implying an alternative motive on Jan 6. That is on you.

Anybody who was in the building without permission is inherently not innocent.

And we have video of the shaman stealing. He's certainly not innocent.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

How do you know that? By examining the video footage your side says it does not have?

We don't have the whole set of stuff. The prosecutors have had stuff of the people being there, or admissions of being there.

Was the unarmed women shot by the police in the process of committing a violent crime deserving of the death penalty?

Charging a barrier that has to be held gets you shot.

I could be just as wrong about this as I know you are. But it looked to me that this was not a planned event and that there were people of all flavors of violence in the crowd. Some would have never entered but for the fact that other's had already broken down the gates.

It was most certainly planned but most of the people involved weren't aware of the plan, same as for any coup.

But I don't really know any more than you do...because I have not seen all of the video yet.

We've seen enough to know it wasn't peaceful.

 

[RVonse]

It does appear justice did finally prevail and I honestly did not expect this. Who would have ever thought justice for a privileged white American could ever happen in the US today?

Jacob Chansley, labeled “Q-Anon Shaman” by the presstitutes, was released from prison after Tucker Carlson showed videos that revealed no insurrection but Chansley being shown around inside the capital by police officers.

Showpiece of Democrats’ Insurrection Show Trials Suddenly Released from Prison |

www.paulcraigroberts.org

‘QAnon Shaman’ Jacob Chansley Released Early From Prison After Newly Disclosed Jan. 6 Footage

www.theepochtimes.com

Dumbshit Americans who are sufficiently stupid to believe that they have a justice system point to Chansley having made a guilty plea as evidence of his guilt. Almost all felony charges are settled with a guilty plea, because no defendant or his attorney expects a fair trial. There are so few trials that there are judges and prosecutors who have never conducted a trial. Many are unfamiliar with court process. Chansley copped a plea on a minor charge of “obstructing an official proceeding” in order to avoid several more serious false charges. To soften him up, he was held in solitary confinement for eleven months. The US Constitution prevents people being held in solitary confinement for such a minor charge. But the corrupt Democrats have weaponized law.

Today laws are invented by prosecutors who indict people for offenses never before charged, as has happened to President Trump. The Democrats have made the decision to compete for power with false indictments, not in elections, which they use their big city regimes to steal. Democrats are no longer even familiar with American law. Nancy Pelosi, the previous Speaker of the House of Representatives, just declared that Trump has “to prove his innocence
It is extraordinary that a Speaker of the House is so legally illiterate as to be ignorant that Americans are innocent until proven guilty in a trial. Americans do not have to prove their innocence. Americans have to be proven guilty in a court trial with the verdict given by a jury of the defendants’ peers. In a diverse, multicultural society, a jury of peers is impossible.

It should also be noted that the government is letting him go but not admitting they did anything wrong. I guess that's still better than doing nothing at all which is what I expected would happen.

 

[ZiprHead]

Carlson had nothing to do with that asshole momma's boy's release. It was a standard early release.

 

[RVonse]

A standard early release for a prisoner that was held in solitary confinement for 11 months? It is interesting how our legal system works.

 

[Ford]

I'm just laughing because someone actually takes Epoch Times seriously.

 

[ZiprHead]

Argument from incredulity is not a good look.

From NPR:

Jacob Chansley, who received one of the longest sentences handed down to a U.S. Capitol rioter, has been released early from federal prison and sent to a reentry center.

Chansley, 35, was convicted of obstruction of an official proceeding in Nov. 2021 and sentenced to 41 months in prison. But prison records show that Chansley has been moved to a residential reentry management facility in Phoenix, where he is originally from, and is expected to be released on May 25.

Chansley received an early release, in part, because of his good behavior while in prison, says Albert Watkins, who represented Chansley through his plea and sentencing.

"Mr. Chansley can now move forward with his life. For that I applaud the BOP," Watkins told NPR in a statement.

 

[laughing dog]

A standard early release for a prisoner that was held in solitary confinement for 11 months? It is interesting how our legal system works.

Not as interesting as someone taking the world of Chansley's attorney as gospel.

 

[Patooka]

A standard early release for a prisoner that was held in solitary confinement for 11 months? It is interesting how our legal system works.

What, in a procedurally manner? I could see how that would confuse you. Incidentally, being sent to a halfway house isn't early release. Once again there is a clear connection between the ignorance of your arguments and the media you willingly and unconditionally consume.