(CNN)Former New York Police Department officer Thomas Webster, who unsuccessfully tried to convince a Washington, DC, jury that he was merely acting in self-defense against a police officer who he assaulted on January 6, 2021, was sentenced to 10 years in prison Thursday.

This is the longest sentence of any January 6 defendant so far.

 

In videos played during his trial, the 56-year-old former Marine can be seen swinging a metal flagpole at DC officer Noah Rathbun before crossing police barriers at the US Capitol and tackling Rathbun, choking him with the officer's chinstrap.

https://www.cnn.com/2022/09/01/politics/nypd-officer-january-6-sentencing/index.html

Good.

Traitor. 

Just keeps on getting better and better as each of these loons faces the courts. 
 

Hopefully they will get to the orange loon eventually. 

Excellent news.

48 minutes ago, Bluespunk said:

Just keeps on getting better and better as each of these loons faces the courts. 
 

Hopefully they will get to the orange loon eventually. 

Law and order former President intend to pardon all Jan 6 insurrectionists. He may need a pardon himself. 
 

https://edition.cnn.com/2022/09/01/politics/january-6-pardons-trump-2024/index.html

With sentences like this being handed down I think there is an imperative that the authorities determine exactly how this happened and why.

1 minute ago, ozimoron said:

With sentences like this being handed down I think there is an imperative that the authorities determine exactly how this happened and why.

All they have to do is follow the orange brick road…

All these loons now spending years of their lives behind bars just because of a former just as loon President. 

 

The sentences being handed out will provide a deterrent for any more wanna be terrorists. 

He believed Trump. ???? 

Good to see sentences heading in the right direction.

 

 

Listen, what was done on Jan 6th was wrong. Webster assaulting an officer was wrong. Webster being a 20-year former police officer means he knew intimately that what he was doing was wrong!

 

The jury finding him guilty was the right thing to do. Being sentenced to spend some time in jail is appropriate. But ten years? That is a ridiculous sentence for the crimes he committed!

 

You see, the events of Jan 6th, bad as they were, are not part of his crimes. An "assault in democracy" is not a part of his crimes. The bad things done by other people at the same time.........are not part of his crimes!

 

Those things should have had no bearing on the sentence he received......... though clearly they did!

 

Given what he did......... what the police body cam shows he did.......... he should have gotten 2 or 3 years, max!

 

APNEWS gives a pretty good description.........

 

 

https://apnews.com/article/capitol-siege-prisons-new-york-donald-trump-presidential-elections-62ca153f4ecf3b7e2f3605c5b799582f

 

* Webster shoves a bike rack "at" the officer (but it doesn't say it hit him! Just "at" him.)

 

* The officer slaps Webster on the face (open hand.)

 

* Webster swings the flagpole down and hits the bike rack. The pole breaks. He didn't hit the officer......... he hit the bike rack!

 

* The officer takes the broken pole away from him.

 

* Webster then tackles the officer and tries to remove his mask, which results in choking him.

 

.

 

If you look at the "six" things he was charged with, they basically took a single course of events, broke it down into tiny bits and pieces, and came up with "six" things to charge him with.

 

(It's like if you were both treaspassing and loitering........ standing around where you didn't belong......... so they charged you with both, when one would have been sufficient!)

 

Yes, Webster started out doing something threatening.......... (shoving the bike rack).......... but then the officer hit him!

 

The physical confrontation was started by the officer, not Webster!

 

(The officer who said inder oath that he didnt "punch" Webster.......... because he apparently distinguishes between a slap and a punch! (A distintion without a difference!)

 

--------------

 

Shoulda been 2 to 3 years max!

 

Edited September 2, 20223 yr by KanchanaburiGuy

9 minutes ago, KanchanaburiGuy said:

Listen, what was done on Jan 6th was wrong. Webster assaulting an officer was wrong. Webster being a 20-year former police officer means he knew intimately that what he was doing was wrong!

 

The jury finding him guilty was the right thing to do. Being sentenced to spend some time in jail is appropriate. But ten years? That is a ridiculous sentence for the crimes he committed!

 

You see, the events of Jan 6th, bad as they were, are not part of his crimes. An "assault in democracy" is not a part of his crimes. The bad things done by other people at the same time.........are not part of his crimes!

 

Those things should have had no bearing on the sentence he received......... though clearly they did!

 

Given what he did......... what the police body cam shows he did.......... he should have gotten 2 or 3 years, max!

 

APNEWS gives a pretty good description.........

 

 

https://apnews.com/article/capitol-siege-prisons-new-york-donald-trump-presidential-elections-62ca153f4ecf3b7e2f3605c5b799582f

 

* Webster shoves a bike rack "at" the officer (but it doesn't say it hit him! Just "at" him.)

 

* The officer slaps Webster on the face (open hand.)

 

* Webster swings the flagpole down and hits the bike rack and it bre. Not the officer......... the bike rack!

 

* The officer takes th

 

 

Hit a cop in the street and he can legally shoot you dead.

 

10 years is not too long for the crimes he committed which also included attempting to overthrow the certification of the election.

 

 

He said that when he was choking the guard, that he really wasn't choking the guard, just showing the guard his hands (by choking him).

 

So def a sentencing add-on for such a stupid story. To the people wailing away here about too-strict sentencing, what is the appropriate penalty for being a ridiculously implausible liar and idiot? 

 

Will throwing the book at liar/idiots lead to more plea deals and less trials? I have a relative who insisted on a jury trial after being caught dead to rights. They offered her parole, she wanted a trial. So jail for a year instead.

 

If they have you on camera, just use the brains that god gave you and plead out.

20 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Hit a cop in the street and he can legally shoot you dead.

 

10 years is not too long for the crimes he committed which also included attempting to overthrow the certification of the election.

 

 

See, there you go. You're including things for which he was neither charged nor convicted, to make your conclusion.

 

The court, on the other hand, is ONLY supposed to consider what penalty is appropriate for the things for which he was convicted!

 

And, in my opinion, the crimes for which he was convicted........... only warrant 2 to 3 years jail time! (Especially since it was the officer who started the physical part of the confrontation, not Webster!)

 

 

If you're a true conservative -not a goofball, lying opportunist- the very cornerstone of your iffy and shaky belief system is being tough on crime.

 

Sometimes tough on crime? No, as I've relentlessly heard on Fox News, ALWAYS very tough on crime.

 

Why can't righties remember even the most basic parts of their made up in the shower script?

2 minutes ago, KanchanaburiGuy said:

See, there you go. You're including things for which he was neither charged nor convicted, to make your conclusion.

 

The court, on the other hand, is ONLY supposed to consider what penalty is appropriate for the things for which he was convicted!

 

And, in my opinion, the crimes for which he was convicted........... only warrant 2 to 3 years jail time! (Especially since it was the officer who started the physical part of the confrontation, not Webster!)

 

 

In May, Webster was found guilty of all six charges he faced, five of which were felonies. Additionally, assaulting a police officer normally carries a heavier sentence.

 

link: OP

Edited September 2, 20223 yr by ozimoron

23 minutes ago, LaosLover said:

what is the appropriate penalty for being a ridiculously implausible liar and idiot? 

You get elected President?

12 minutes ago, KanchanaburiGuy said:

See, there you go. You're including things for which he was neither charged nor convicted, to make your conclusion.

 

The court, on the other hand, is ONLY supposed to consider what penalty is appropriate for the things for which he was convicted!

 

And, in my opinion, the crimes for which he was convicted........... only warrant 2 to 3 years jail time! (Especially since it was the officer who started the physical part of the confrontation, not Webster!)

 

 

Opinions differ.

11 minutes ago, KanchanaburiGuy said:

You get elected President?

That’s so 2016 passé stuff.

1 hour ago, KanchanaburiGuy said:

Shoulda been 2 to 3 years max!

He got some extra time because he came equipped for violence - wearing body armour.

 

Also, IMO, he deserved to be treated more severely due to his police background. Better behaviour should be expected from people who are supposed to uphold the law..

1 hour ago, KanchanaburiGuy said:

(The officer who said inder oath that he didnt "punch" Webster.......... because he apparently distinguishes between a slap and a punch! (A distintion without a difference!)

Tell that to a bare knuckle fighter. Unlike a slap, in a punch the force is concentrated into a much smaller area and can have a lot more body weight behind it. A punch has much more destructive potential than a slap.

14 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

In May, Webster was found guilty of all six charges he faced, five of which were felonies.

 

link: OP

Four of which were essentially the same act, with four different names!

 

When he went to the Capitol, he was carrying a Marine Corp flag; a flag on a pole. He was carrying a flag, not a "weapon!"

 

After the officer slapped him, he swung the pole down and hit the bike rack/barrier. 

 

When he was charged, a couple of the charges revolved around him "bringing a weapon" to places he was not supposed to.

 

Except he DIDN'T bring a weapon......... he brought a flag!

 

A pen can be a "weapon."

A shoe can be a "weapon."

Keys can be a "weapon."

A shirt can be a "weapon."

A belt can be a "weapon."

A water bottle can be a "weapon."

A purse can be a "weapon."

A magazine or book can be a "weapon."

 

I'd bet everyone in that crowd had at least two or more of these things in their possession!

 

The flagpole was not a "weapon." It was not a "weapon" until it was used  as a weapon. Before that moment.......... meaning the whole time he carried it!......... it was NOT a "weapon." It was a flag!

 

There was ZERO justification for charging him with a couple of different felonies for "carrying a weapon"........... when he had shown no intention of using it as a weapon........... until AFTER he was slapped [assaulted] by the officer!

 

If he was guilty of "carrying a weapon" before it was used as a weapon............ than anyone who had a pen or keys in their pocket........... shoes on their feet or a shirt on their back........ would be equally guilty of those very same felonies! ("Carrying" as opposed to "using!")

 

Sometimes juries make stupid decisions. In this case, I think the jury got caught up in the moment........ in the event......... and seriously considered felony charges that they never should have even seen!

 

39 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Opinions differ.

Very true.

 

But when facts are used to shape one's opinions........ rather than using one's opinions to determine which facts you'll pay attention to.........

 

That's makes one opinion far superior to the other!

 

Cheers!

9 minutes ago, KanchanaburiGuy said:

Four of which were essentially the same act, with four different names!

 

When he went to the Capitol, he was carrying a Marine Corp flag; a flag on a pole. He was carrying a flag, not a "weapon!"

 

After the officer slapped him, he swung the pole down and hit the bike rack/barrier. 

 

When he was charged, a couple of the charges revolved around him "bringing a weapon" to places he was not supposed to.

 

Except he DIDN'T bring a weapon......... he brought a flag!

The flagpole was the weapon, not the flag.

 

9 minutes ago, KanchanaburiGuy said:

 

A pen can be a "weapon."

A shoe can be a "weapon."

Keys can be a "weapon."

A shirt can be a "weapon."

A belt can be a "weapon."

A water bottle can be a "weapon."

A purse can be a "weapon."

A magazine or book can be a "weapon."

Was the flagpole more dangerous than any  of these items? By far or just a little?

 

9 minutes ago, KanchanaburiGuy said:

 

I'd bet everyone in that crowd had at least two or more of these things in their possession.

 

9 minutes ago, KanchanaburiGuy said:

 

The flagpole was not a "weapon." It was not a "weapon" until it was used  as a weapon. Before that moment.......... meaning the whole time he carried it!......... it was NOT a "weapon." It was a flag!

He used it to strike the officer.

 

9 minutes ago, KanchanaburiGuy said:

 

There was ZERO justification for charging him with a couple of different felonies for "carrying a weapon"........... when he had shown no intention of using it as a weapon........... until AFTER he was slapped [assaulted] by the officer!

 

If he was guilty of "carrying a weapon" before it was used as a weapon

Can you tell us what the flagpole was made of? Was it a purpose built flagpole or was it selected in order to be used a weapon?

 

9 minutes ago, KanchanaburiGuy said:

............ than anyone who had a pen or keys in their pocket........... shoes on their feet or a shirt on their back........ would be equally guilty of those very same felonies! ("Carrying" as opposed to "using!")

 

Sometimes juries make stupid decisions. In this case, I think the jury got caught up in the moment........ in the event......... and seriously considered felony charges that they never should have even seen!

300 people were injured, 6 died as a direct result of this riot.

Edited September 2, 20223 yr by ozimoron

1 hour ago, KanchanaburiGuy said:

Listen, what was done on Jan 6th was wrong. Webster assaulting an officer was wrong. Webster being a 20-year former police officer means he knew intimately that what he was doing was wrong!

 

The jury finding him guilty was the right thing to do. Being sentenced to spend some time in jail is appropriate. But ten years? That is a ridiculous sentence for the crimes he committed!

 

You see, the events of Jan 6th, bad as they were, are not part of his crimes. An "assault in democracy" is not a part of his crimes. The bad things done by other people at the same time.........are not part of his crimes!

 

Those things should have had no bearing on the sentence he received......... though clearly they did!

 

Given what he did......... what the police body cam shows he did.......... he should have gotten 2 or 3 years, max!

 

APNEWS gives a pretty good description.........

 

 

https://apnews.com/article/capitol-siege-prisons-new-york-donald-trump-presidential-elections-62ca153f4ecf3b7e2f3605c5b799582f

 

* Webster shoves a bike rack "at" the officer (but it doesn't say it hit him! Just "at" him.)

 

* The officer slaps Webster on the face (open hand.)

 

* Webster swings the flagpole down and hits the bike rack. The pole breaks. He didn't hit the officer......... he hit the bike rack!

 

* The officer takes the broken pole away from him.

 

* Webster then tackles the officer and tries to remove his mask, which results in choking him.

 

.

 

If you look at the "six" things he was charged with, they basically took a single course of events, broke it down into tiny bits and pieces, and came up with "six" things to charge him with.

 

(It's like if you were both treaspassing and loitering........ standing around where you didn't belong......... so they charged you with both, when one would have been sufficient!)

 

Yes, Webster started out doing something threatening.......... (shoving the bike rack).......... but then the officer hit him!

 

The physical confrontation was started by the officer, not Webster!

 

(The officer who said inder oath that he didnt "punch" Webster.......... because he apparently distinguishes between a slap and a punch! (A distintion without a difference!)

 

--------------

 

Shoulda been 2 to 3 years max!

 

He was convicted of 6 offences. 

 

"Webster was convicted of assaulting, resisting or impeding an officer using a dangerous weapon; civil disorder; entering and remaining in restricted grounds with a dangerous weapon; engaging in physical violence in restricted grounds with a dangerous weapon; and engaging in an act of physical violence on Capitol grounds."

 

Prosecuters wanted 17.5 years.

 

He got an additional 30 months for wearing body armor. 

 

10 years, he got a break.

 

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/nypd-officer-thomas-webster-sentenced-10-years-storming/story?id=89181223

 

 

 

9 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Tell that to a bare knuckle fighter. Unlike a slap, in a punch the force is concentrated into a much smaller area and can have a lot more body weight behind it. A punch has much more destructive potential than a slap.

Except the question the officer was asked under oath was really a question of whether he hit  Webster FIRST. (Important because Webster was making a "self-defense" claim!)

 

The officer hid behind the word "punch"............. saying he didn't "punch" him.........when, in fact, whether it was a punch or a slap is irrelevant. It is irrelevant because both are forms of hitting!

 

The first "assault" was the officer hitting Webster............not Webster "assaulting" the officer!

 

Webster swinging the flagpole was, therefore, not an initiating act, but an escalating act!

 

(And remember, when he swung the flagpole, he hit the bike rack, not the officer. Bike racks are only about waist high! So......... it might be guessed that Webster never intended to actually HIT the officer with the pole, but rather to intimidate him, only; to startle him.

 

I mean, missing the person altogether and hitting something only waist high?......... That kind of suggests that something else was going on, to me.)

It's difficult to believe the amount of time and effort some people put into defending a violent criminal.  I tend to agree with the prosecution that wanted 17.5 years.  10 years is not too long and when it's reported it's the 'longest' sentence, that only goes to show how leniently most of the defendants are getting treated.

 

He showed up wearing body armor.  That's not something that is routinely done unless there is an expectation of violence.  He had a weapon and it doesn't matter if it a flag pole, a rock, a baseball bat or a gun, it was a weapon and it was used one.   

 

Apparently, we have a lot of apologists here who think it's ok to assault police in the performance of their duties.  

 

Quite telling and quite sad.

11 minutes ago, KanchanaburiGuy said:

Except the question the officer was asked under oath was really a question of whether he hit  Webster FIRST. (Important because Webster was making a "self-defense" claim!)

 

The officer hid behind the word "punch"............. saying he didn't "punch" him.........when, in fact, whether it was a punch or a slap is irrelevant. It is irrelevant because both are forms of hitting!

 

The first "assault" was the officer hitting Webster............not Webster "assaulting" the officer!

 

Webster swinging the flagpole was, therefore, not an initiating act, but an escalating act!

 

(And remember, when he swung the flagpole, he hit the bike rack, not the officer. Bike racks are only about waist high! So......... it might be guessed that Webster never intended to actually HIT the officer with the pole, but rather to intimidate him, only; to startle him.

 

I mean, missing the person altogether and hitting something only waist high?......... That kind of suggests that something else was going on, to me.)

Webster took the flagpole to the Capitol building with intent. As far as I know, it would be pretty difficult to bring a complaint of self defense as an excuse for hitting a police officer but I may be wrong.

 

"We unanimously agreed that there was no self-defense argument here at all."

 

I suspect part of the rationale for this sentence will be the lack of remorse shown as evidenced by the various defenses he provided.

 

https://www.npr.org/2022/05/02/1095940064/nypd-thomas-webster-assault-january-6-assault-officer

Edited September 2, 20223 yr by ozimoron

14 minutes ago, KanchanaburiGuy said:

Except the question the officer was asked under oath was really a question of whether he hit  Webster FIRST. (Important because Webster was making a "self-defense" claim!)

 

The officer hid behind the word "punch"............. saying he didn't "punch" him.........when, in fact, whether it was a punch or a slap is irrelevant. It is irrelevant because both are forms of hitting!

 

The first "assault" was the officer hitting Webster............not Webster "assaulting" the officer!

 

Webster swinging the flagpole was, therefore, not an initiating act, but an escalating act!

 

(And remember, when he swung the flagpole, he hit the bike rack, not the officer. Bike racks are only about waist high! So......... it might be guessed that Webster never intended to actually HIT the officer with the pole, but rather to intimidate him, only; to startle him.

 

I mean, missing the person altogether and hitting something only waist high?......... That kind of suggests that something else was going on, to me.)

Looks like he was aiming at the officers head to me followed by a vicious attack on the officer