Former NYPD officer sentenced to 10 years in prison for assaulting a police officer on January 6

[placeholder]

10 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.)

Even if your version of events was correct, which it isn't, you really think that his claim that he was acting in self defense at any point was believable? 

" As Rathbun backed away, Webster tackled him and then pulled at the officer's gas mask. Rathbun testified that he began to choke on his chin strap as Webster pulled at the mask. Video shows that Rathbun hit Webster's face while trying to push him away."

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

[ozimoron]

2 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Even if your version of events was correct, which it isn't, you really think that his claim that he was acting in self defense at any point was believable? 

" As Rathbun backed away, Webster tackled him and then pulled at the officer's gas mask. Rathbun testified that he began to choke on his chin strap as Webster pulled at the mask. Video shows that Rathbun hit Webster's face while trying to push him away."

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

The jury didn't buy it, they took 3 hours to convict and were unanimous the whole time.

[placeholder]

1 hour 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!

Really? Do you have access to federal guidelines for sentencing? Can you please share a link to them with me because I can't find them.

[placeholder]

3 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

The jury didn't buy it, they took 3 hours to convict and were unanimous the whole time.

Of course they didn't buy it. He actually led the charge. 

[KanchanaburiGuy]

21 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

The flagpole was the weapon, not the flag.

 

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

 

 

He used it to strike the officer.

 

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?

 

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

You're asking a bunch of questions that you, yourself, can't answer.......... and somehow apparently thinking that I'm then going to be under some obligation to answer them.

 

But all I'm seeing are rhetorical questions; questions with answers that could go both ways.

 

If you'd like to answer your own rhetorical questions with something substantive........ something that confirms the things you seem intent on insinuating.......... (so far, without evidence).......... I'd be happy to see it.

 

For example.........Do you have any evidence that the flagpole was intended  to be used as a weapon and that the Marine Corp Flag.......... a flag he'd almost certainly have to throw away if he intended to use the pole as a weapon!.......... (ask a Marine about casually throwing away a Marine Corp Flag! Lol)......... was just camouflage, a way mask the fact that he was, in actuality, carrying a "weapon?"

 

I say: Until you have evidence that says otherwise, the flag has to be taken at face value. Just like, until proven otherwise, a pen is just a pen, and a book is just a book!

 

No jury should have considered a flagpole......... a flagpole holding a flag!......... a "weapon"........  based solely on hindsight.

 

If they had no proof he intended it as a weapon beforehand.......... as opposed to it becoming one in the heat of the moment......... they had no business convicting him of felonies for "carrying a weapon" in places he wasn't supposed to! 

[ozimoron]

Just now, KanchanaburiGuy said:

You're asking a bunch of questions that you, yourself, can't answer.......... and somehow apparently thinking that I'm then going to be under some obligation to answer them.

 

But all I'm seeing are rhetorical questions; questions with answers that could go both ways.

 

If you'd like to answer your own rhetorical questions with something substantive........ something that confirms the things you seem intent on insinuating.......... (so far, without evidence).......... I'd be happy to see it.

 

For example.........Do you have any evidence that the flagpole was intended  to be used as a weapon and that the Marine Corp Flag.......... a flag he'd almost certainly have to throw away if he intended to use the pole as a weapon!.......... (ask a Marine about casually throwing away a Marine Corp Flag! Lol)......... was just camouflage, a way mask the fact that he was, in actuality, carrying a "weapon?"

 

I say: Until you have evidence that says otherwise, the flag has to be taken at face value. Just like, until proven otherwise, a pen is just a pen, and a book is just a book!

 

No jury should have considered a flagpole......... a flagpole holding a flag!......... a "weapon"........  based solely on hindsight.

 

If they had no proof he intended it as a weapon beforehand.......... as opposed to it becoming one in the heat of the moment......... they had no business convicting him of felonies for "carrying a weapon" in places he wasn't supposed to! 

I'm asking questions for which the answer is self evident and obvious. The only rational conclusion was that he brought the flag in order to use it as a weapon. He was found guilty of bringing a weapon, that requires intent.

[ozimoron]

Monroe also shifted the blame to former President Donald Trump and the Republican party for turning Webster, and "otherwise decent, law abiding individuals ... against fellow Americans."

 

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

[KanchanaburiGuy]

3 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Really? Do you have access to federal guidelines for sentencing? Can you please share a link to them with me because I can't find them.

Silly stuff!

 

You have a point ONLY if you think people should be sentenced based on things they weren't charged with and weren't found guilty of!

 

Because that's the only thing I said in the post you quoted, when you asked whether I knew about "federal sentencing guidelines"------- that people must be sentenced based ONLY on the things they HAVE BEEN charged and convicted of!

 

LOL

 

 

[ozimoron]

1 minute ago, KanchanaburiGuy said:

Silly stuff!

 

You have a point ONLY if you think people should be sentenced based on things they weren't charged with and weren't found guilty of!

 

Because that's the only thing I said in the post you quoted, when you asked whether I knew about "federal sentencing guidelines"------- that people must be sentenced based ONLY on the things they HAVE BEEN charged and convicted of!

 

LOL

 

 

Are you suggesting that Webster was sentenced for a crime for which he wasn't charged or convicted of?

[placeholder]

3 minutes ago, KanchanaburiGuy said:

Silly stuff!

 

You have a point ONLY if you think people should be sentenced based on things they weren't charged with and weren't found guilty of!

 

Because that's the only thing I said in the post you quoted, when you asked whether I knew about "federal sentencing guidelines"------- that people must be sentenced based ONLY on the things they HAVE BEEN charged and convicted of!

 

LOL

 

 

I got news for you. The proud boy who was recently convicted got the sentence he not just because of the crime he was convicted but because Federal sentencing guidelines impose a stricter penalty on those who've been previously convicted of crimes. And on the other side, if a convicted person expresses remorse, that is also taken account into sentencing. And if you plead guilty, instead of fighting charge, that is also taken into accouont. So, no, a convicted party doesn't just get sentenced on the basis of the crime.  There are actual Federal Sentencing Guidelines. They exist even though it's clear you didn't know that.

[KanchanaburiGuy]

26 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

I'm asking questions for which the answer is self evident and obvious. The only rational conclusion was that he brought the flag in order to use it as a weapon. He was found guilty of bringing a weapon, that requires intent.

Things that are called "obvious" or "rational conclusions"........... often depend on how open or limited a person's thinking is.

 

To me, for example, it might be perfectly "rational".......... perfectly "obvious"..........for a man who served in the Marine Corp.......... to want to carry a Marine Corp flag to the rally, to separate himself from the rabble.......... and be seen and recognised as a "TRUE PATRIOT!"

 

See, to people who lack the imagination to consider the various other realistic possibilities........... answers become terribly easy.

 

They think square pegs can only go into square holes......... and lack the imagination to realize that if the hole is big enough......... or the peg small enough......... it doesn't really matter WHAT shape the hole is!

 

In my experience, "self-evident" and "obvious" and "only rational conclusion"......... are usually just cop-out words. They are just words people use to pretend  they have answers that they don't really have!

 

It's "obvious," so the person doesn't have to explain it! (Which, of course, they probably can't do, anyway!) Et cetera!

 

Pffft!

[ozimoron]

18 minutes ago, KanchanaburiGuy said:

Things that are called "obvious" or "rational conclusions"........... often depend on how open or limited a person's thinking is.

 

To me, for example, it might be perfectly "rational".......... perfectly "obvious"..........for a man who served in the Marine Corp.......... to want to carry a Marine Corp flag to the rally, to separate himself from the rabble.......... and be seen and recognised as a "TRUE PATRIOT!"

 

See, to people who lack the imagination to consider the various other realistic possibilities........... answers become terribly easy.

 

They think square pegs can only go into square holes......... and lack the imagination to realize that if the hole is big enough......... or the peg small enough......... it doesn't really matter WHAT shape the hole is!

 

In my experience, "self-evident" and "obvious" and "only rational conclusion"......... are usually just cop-out words. They are just words people use to pretend  they have answers that they don't really have!

 

It's "obvious," so the person doesn't have to explain it! (Which, of course, they probably can't do, anyway!) Et cetera!

 

Pffft!

I agreed with the jury who didn't buy his defense either. No need to re-litigate it now, Webster will have a couple of years to think about it.

 

Webster's attorney, James Monroe, wrote in a court filing that Webster's actions -- which he previously argued were in self-defense and justified -- were now "unmistakably violent and reprehensible," calling them, "unspeakable" acts.

 

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

Edited September 2, 2022 by ozimoron

[placeholder]

4 minutes ago, KanchanaburiGuy said:

Things that are called "obvious" or "rational conclusions"........... often depend on how open or limited a person's thinking is.

 

To me, for example, it might be perfectly "rational".......... perfectly "obvious"..........for a man who served in the Marine Corp.......... to want to carry a Marine Corp flag to the rally, to separate himself from the rabble.......... and be seen and recognised as a "TRUE PATRIOT!"

 

See, to people who lack the imagination to consider the various other realistic possibilities........... answers become terribly easy.

 

They think square pegs can only go into square holes......... and lack the imagination to realize that if the hole is big enough......... or the peg small enough......... it doesn't really matter WHAT shape the hole is!

 

In my experience, "self-evident" and "obvious" and "only rational conclusion"......... are usually just cop-out words. They are just words people use to pretend  they have answers that they don't really have!

 

It's "obvious," so the person doesn't have to explain it! (Which, of course, they probably can't do, anyway!) Et cetera!

 

Pffft!

And it might also be possible to conclude that someone wearing body armor was prepared for a fight and knew that the flagpole could be used for more than flaunting a flag.. And he probably didn't help his believability by claiming that he was acting in self-defense. In fact, pleading not guilty in the face of so much evidence against, might not have been the brightest move.

[LaosLover]

Excuse me Kancha-troll, but why do you even care?

 

Are you even American? Do I get upset if some loser in the britosphere gets in trouble?

 

Is it a heady man-crush for the guy with a gold toilet who views you as something he would scrape off his shoe? 

 

He love you long time.

Edited September 2, 2022 by LaosLover

[pegman]

12 hours 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.

How:  The insurrectionists were told to do what they did by their Messiah. 

 

Why: So there could be a coup d'état with their Messiah remaining as leader 

[bendejo]

4 hours ago, placeholder said:

Even if your version of events was correct, which it isn't, you really think that his claim that he was acting in self defense at any point was believable? 

In anything to do with DT or MAGA it's not a matter of believable, it's about sympathetic.  That crying performance Rittenhouse put on was just like my spoiled nephew trying to convince his mother he didn't want to go to school that day.  I don't think anybody with kids of their own couldn't see it was a an act, but they let him walk.  Crossed state lines with an automatic weapon and whilst in that other state did use that weapon to kill people in self-defense.  Goes back to the "well-behaved tourist" stupidity.

 

 

[bendejo]

2 hours ago, pegman said:

How:  The insurrectionists were told to do what they did by their Messiah.

Why: So there could be a coup d'état with their Messiah remaining as leader 

The US evangelicals say "it was god who made DT president,"  but they say that about all Republicans who get elected.  Perhaps if they were a little more astute in their scripture reading they may realize he is actually The Golden Calf.

 

 

[LarrySR]

Imagine being in a position in life where you actually admire someone like Donald Trump.

The mind boggles.

[Chomper Higgot]

10 hours 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!

 

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!

 

Both are the Grand Jury and the Trial Jury disagree with you.

 

And while it is of little real consequence, so do I.

 

[Chomper Higgot]

9 hours ago, KanchanaburiGuy said:

Things that are called "obvious" or "rational conclusions"........... often depend on how open or limited a person's thinking is.

 

To me, for example, it might be perfectly "rational".......... perfectly "obvious"..........for a man who served in the Marine Corp.......... to want to carry a Marine Corp flag to the rally, to separate himself from the rabble.......... and be seen and recognised as a "TRUE PATRIOT!"

 

See, to people who lack the imagination to consider the various other realistic possibilities........... answers become terribly easy.

 

They think square pegs can only go into square holes......... and lack the imagination to realize that if the hole is big enough......... or the peg small enough......... it doesn't really matter WHAT shape the hole is!

 

In my experience, "self-evident" and "obvious" and "only rational conclusion"......... are usually just cop-out words. They are just words people use to pretend  they have answers that they don't really have!

 

It's "obvious," so the person doesn't have to explain it! (Which, of course, they probably can't do, anyway!) Et cetera!

 

Pffft!

I’ve had it with Trump supporters claiming to be ‘True Patriots’.

 

The people who attacked the Capitol in an attempt to overthrow the election.

 

The people baying for the hanging of the Vice President for not breaking the law by halting the count.

 

The people who signed their names as fake electors and submitted fake election returns.

 

The people threatening election officials and their families for doing their job.

 

The people Government agents and their families for doing their job.

 

The people openly calling for violence and civil war because the leader they worship is being investigated for serious crimes.

 

There’s not a patriot amongst them, not one.

 

As for those that previously served in military or police, they gave their oath to uphold the constitution defend America against all enemies, foreign and domestic, and uphold the rule of law.

 

They have absolutely no argument that they did not know what they were doing and are doing was a crime against the US, an attack on the Constitution and an attack on US Democracy

 

Away with this MAGA claim to be ‘True Patriots’, I’m sick of hearing this bare faced lie.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited September 3, 2022 by Chomper Higgot

[Berkshire]

10 hours ago, KanchanaburiGuy said:

You're asking a bunch of questions that you, yourself, can't answer.......... and somehow apparently thinking that I'm then going to be under some obligation to answer them.

 

But all I'm seeing are rhetorical questions; questions with answers that could go both ways.

 

If you'd like to answer your own rhetorical questions with something substantive........ something that confirms the things you seem intent on insinuating.......... (so far, without evidence).......... I'd be happy to see it.

 

For example.........Do you have any evidence that the flagpole was intended  to be used as a weapon and that the Marine Corp Flag.......... a flag he'd almost certainly have to throw away if he intended to use the pole as a weapon!.......... (ask a Marine about casually throwing away a Marine Corp Flag! Lol)......... was just camouflage, a way mask the fact that he was, in actuality, carrying a "weapon?"

 

I say: Until you have evidence that says otherwise, the flag has to be taken at face value. Just like, until proven otherwise, a pen is just a pen, and a book is just a book!

 

No jury should have considered a flagpole......... a flagpole holding a flag!......... a "weapon"........  based solely on hindsight.

 

If they had no proof he intended it as a weapon beforehand.......... as opposed to it becoming one in the heat of the moment......... they had no business convicting him of felonies for "carrying a weapon" in places he wasn't supposed to! 

Not now, but perhaps in the future, you'll realize how nutty you sound.  This case is done.  FACTS:  The prosecution presented their case.  The defense presented their argument.  The jury made their decision.  I should point out that the jury has access to much more relevant information than you ever will.  Just because you read on some right wingnut website some bizarro conspiracy theory doesn't make you more informed.  Less informed, it seems.  It's ok to admit that you're wrong....on this and a great many other things.

[KanchanaburiGuy]

12 hours ago, placeholder said:

Even if your version of events was correct, which it isn't, you really think that his claim that he was acting in self defense at any point was believable? 

" As Rathbun backed away, Webster tackled him and then pulled at the officer's gas mask. Rathbun testified that he began to choke on his chin strap as Webster pulled at the mask. Video shows that Rathbun hit Webster's face while trying to push him away."

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

Webster was being verbally aggressive. Rathbun was the one who made things physically aggressive.

 

Rathbun hit Webster before Webster had any physical contact with Rathbun.

 

Because Webster himself was being aggressive........... aggressive in the same way a snarling dog is "aggressive," say.......... I don't think "self-defense" is a good argument.

 

But a "self-defense" argument IS justified by the video-verified sequence of events. (Remember the 8% rule of defense lawyers......... you only have to convince 1 juror out of 12! So a weak argument is still better than having NO argument!)

 

At no point in any of my posts in this thread have I said that Webster wasn't guilty. What I've said, in fact, was the sentence he deserved was 2 to 3 years. (Our newest Supreme Court Justice, Jackson, gave out sentences of less than 2 years for "assaulting an officer" convictions, when she was a Federal Judge.)

 

It was the SENTENCE that was inappropriate, in my estimation; not the verdict.

 

(And when the judge SAID that what he was guilty of was not just an assault on a person but an "assault on democracy"........... that proved to me that he was being sentenced not just for the crimes for which he had been convicted........ but for things the judge found personally offensive!)

 

I believe:

 

2 to 3 years----appropriate.

 

10 years----inappropriate.

 

 

 

 

Edited September 3, 2022 by KanchanaburiGuy

[ozimoron]

6 minutes ago, KanchanaburiGuy said:

Webster was being verbally aggressive. Rathbun was the one who made things physically aggressive.

 

Rathbun hit Webster before Webster had any physical contact with Rathbun.

 

Because Webster himself was being aggressive........... aggressive in the same way a snarling dog is "aggressive," say.......... I don't think "self-defense" is a good argument.

 

But a "self-defense" argument IS justified by the video-verified sequence of events. (Remember the 8% rule of defense lawyers......... you only have to convince 1 juror out of 12! So a weak argument is still better than having NO argument!)

 

At no point in any of my posts in this thread have I said that Webster wasn't guilty. What I've said, in fact, was that he deserved was 2 to 3 years.

 

It was the SENTENCE that was inappropriate, in my estimation; not the verdict.

 

(And when the judge SAID that what he was guilty of was not just an assault on a person but an "assault on democracy"........... that proved to me that he was being sentenced not just for the crimes for which he had been convicted........ but for things the judge found personally offensive!)

 

I believe:

 

2 to 3 years----appropriate.

 

10 years----inappropriate.

 

 

You've said your piece. You've added nothing new here. Others have disagreed with you, let it go unless you can produce something new. It's getting tedious. The guy is a violent, armed insurrectionist. He deserved what the judge gave him. Unless he appeals, it's over.

Edited September 3, 2022 by ozimoron

[KanchanaburiGuy]

1 hour ago, Berkshire said:

Not now, but perhaps in the future, you'll realize how nutty you sound.  This case is done.  FACTS:  The prosecution presented their case.  The defense presented their argument.  The jury made their decision.  I should point out that the jury has access to much more relevant information than you ever will.  Just because you read on some right wingnut website some bizarro conspiracy theory doesn't make you more informed.  Less informed, it seems.  It's ok to admit that you're wrong....on this and a great many other things.

I linked to where I got my information.

 

To you, apparently, APNEWS (Associated Press) is a "right wingnut website [with] some bizarro conspiracy theor[ies]."

 

(I wonder how often you yourself rely on AP information without realizing it........... because you see the name or masthead of the publication you happen to be reading............ and don't notice the little [AP] that precedes the article. Many, many, many, I'd guess! 555)

 

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

 

By the way.........

 

Here are the websites I looked at to inform myself:

 

-- APNEWS (First and primary)

-- CBSNews

-- ABCNews ( the American one, not the Australian one!)

-- CBCNews (Canada. To hopefully a less politically-tainted perspective.)

-- New York Times

 

There were others I opened while looking for specific pieces of information........... like "what were the six charges brought against Webster?"........ where, sorry, I didn't bother to notice the name. (When looking for raw facts like, "what were the charges," ANY source with the answer will do!)

 

So, there you go. A list of my "right wingnut websites" who, of course, are all well known for their "bizarro conspiracy theor[ies]." (!!!)

 

Pffft!

 

[KanchanaburiGuy]

46 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

You've said your piece. You've added nothing new here. Others have disagreed with you, let it go unless you can produce something new. It's getting tedious. The guy is a violent, armed insurrectionist. He deserved what the judge gave him. Unless he appeals, it's over.

Actually, the post you quoted added SEVERAL new things.

 

You trying to shut me up most likely means nothing more than that you are incapable of responding. (You haven't so far!)

 

I'm making reasoned, fact-based observations that some might realize are worth paying attention to............ while you apparently would prefer they cling to their knee-jerk emotional reactions, instead.

 

If you find what I say "tedious"........ dont read it! How smart do you have to be to figure THAT out?

 

Crikey!

[LaosLover]

14 minutes ago, KanchanaburiGuy said:

 

 

Crikey!

Yeah, another brit enjoying the physical security of the special relationship while hoping the US fails.

[Bkk Brian]

1 hour ago, KanchanaburiGuy said:

Webster was being verbally aggressive. Rathbun was the one who made things physically aggressive.

 

Rathbun hit Webster before Webster had any physical contact with Rathbun.

 

Because Webster himself was being aggressive........... aggressive in the same way a snarling dog is "aggressive," say.......... I don't think "self-defense" is a good argument.

 

But a "self-defense" argument IS justified by the video-verified sequence of events. (Remember the 8% rule of defense lawyers......... you only have to convince 1 juror out of 12! So a weak argument is still better than having NO argument!)

 

At no point in any of my posts in this thread have I said that Webster wasn't guilty. What I've said, in fact, was the sentence he deserved was 2 to 3 years. (Our newest Supreme Court Justice, Jackson, gave out sentences of less than 2 years for "assaulting an officer" convictions, when she was a Federal Judge.)

 

It was the SENTENCE that was inappropriate, in my estimation; not the verdict.

 

(And when the judge SAID that what he was guilty of was not just an assault on a person but an "assault on democracy"........... that proved to me that he was being sentenced not just for the crimes for which he had been convicted........ but for things the judge found personally offensive!)

 

I believe:

 

2 to 3 years----appropriate.

 

10 years----inappropriate.

 

 

 

 

This is simply untrue:

 

Webster shoved the metal barricade into him twice before there was any contact from Rathbun

[KhunLA]

Being ex NYC officer, he should know aggravated assault on police isn't taken lightly.

 

 https://www.rendelmanlaw.com/2021/08/26/what-are-the-penalties-for-assaulting-a-police-officer/

 

Edited September 3, 2022 by KhunLA

[pomchop]

maybe , just maybe, stiff sentences will send a message to all the right wing morons who are ready to take to the streets and riot when Cheetoh gets indicted...but frankly I doubt it as dear leader has promised to pardon them all and of course when dear leader speaks any possibility of rational thought disappears with the kool aide cups.

[KanchanaburiGuy]

3 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

I’ve had it with Trump supporters claiming to be ‘True Patriots’.

 

The people who attacked the Capitol in an attempt to overthrow the election.

 

The people baying for the hanging of the Vice President for not breaking the law by halting the count.

 

The people who signed their names as fake electors and submitted fake election returns.

 

The people threatening election officials and their families for doing their job.

 

The people Government agents and their families for doing their job.

 

The people openly calling for violence and civil war because the leader they worship is being investigated for serious crimes.

 

There’s not a patriot amongst them, not one.

 

As for those that previously served in military or police, they gave their oath to uphold the constitution defend America against all enemies, foreign and domestic, and uphold the rule of law.

 

They have absolutely no argument that they did not know what they were doing and are doing was a crime against the US, an attack on the Constitution and an attack on US Democracy

 

Away with this MAGA claim to be ‘True Patriots’, I’m sick of hearing this bare faced lie.

 

 

 

 

 

The word "patriot" is open to interpretation. Who you believe is a "patriot" very much depends on your perspective.

 

In a way, it's a lot like religion.

 

Whether you are Jewish, Muslim, Hindu or Christian, et cetera, you will believe that YOU'VE got the right answers.......... and everyone else has it wrong. 

 

If you believe that things should basically stay the same or regress to an earlier percieved ideal......... (a Conservative, generally speaking)............ then you're never going to consider people who want to make wholesale changes......... "Patriots."

 

If you think things can be a lot better than they have been and that we need to do away with the mistakes and attitudes of the past........... (a Liberal/Progressive, generally speaking).......... then you're never going to consider people who are hidebound and resistant to change........... "Patriots."

 

Each perspective has their own definition of what a "patriot" is. Each perspective will deny that the other guy's definition of "patriot " is valid!

 

-------------#

 

In 1776, a "Patriot" was a person who was prepared to commit treason. That was the Founding Father's perspective.

 

To the British, though, a "Patriot" was a person who would fight to keep the Colonies........... Colonies!

 

Very different perspectives........ and very different understandings of what a "Patriot" was!

 

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

 

To me, a "Patriot" is a person who's goal is to achieve a  BEST VERSION of the United States. So-called "Conservatives" have certain ideas about what that means.......... and.......... so-called "Liberals/Progressives" have certain ideas about what that means. Both sides have some good ideas............ and........... both sides have some bad ideas!

 

But whether ~~I~~ think their ideas are bad or good......... doesn't define for me whether or not I think they are a "Patriot!" 

 

If they sincerely want to work for the BETTERMENT of America.......... even if they want to do it in ways I personally do not believe in.......... I'm STILL willing to call them "Patriots!"

 

So, the question is..........

 

Regardless of YOUR OWN views of the events of Jan 6th............ do you think the insurrectionists were trying to do harm, and nothing but............ or............ were they trying to do what the treasonous Founding Fathers......... (our ultimate definition of what an "American Patriot!" is)............ aimed to do in 1776?

 

(Here's a hint: The quicker you come to an answer............ the less you've actually thought about it! Because it really isn't "as simple as all that!")

 

Cheers!