The first of the January 6 people that have been brought up on charges by the Justice Department has been acquitted based largely on testimony of Capitol Police who said that demonstrators were waved into the Capitol and this was taken as permission to enter the property so no crime was actually committed.
Read much? Understand what you read? Your headline/title is incorrect or, at best, misleading. Try reading this. If you don't understand it, and why your headline is incorrect/misleading, just ask. https://www.npr.org/2022/04/07/1091392445/jan-6-riot-acquittal Hint: A more accurate title for your post: "One of the January 6th rioters has been acquitted of all charges by a Trump nominated Judge."
"Elections have consequences" ......... stated by guess who ?. Look into my crystal ball and you will see huge crocodile tears before this year is over.
I do read “much”. So, what you are proposing is that since the bench trial was overseen by a Trump appointed judge then the verdict is somehow out of some bag of tricks. I do see “much”. The video produced at the trial does indicate that people were being waved into the building by an officer ergo a trespassing charge has to be negated. I have read and heard “much”. It is on the backs of the prosecution to establish, on an individual basis, that each person charged was there to do mischief. Of the 500+ people who have been held since Jan 6th, the majority of the charges are based on trespassing. Being held for almost 2 years for trespassing is ludicrous at best so in my “opinion” every one of those being held for the misdemeanor should be at least cut loose. Note: I did write “cut loose”. That means total acquittal or a suspended sentence or time served Now, when are charges going to be brought against the officer who murdered Ashli Babbit? Answer. Never. I mean, the court system sent the officers involved with a tweaked out George Floyd killing to prison so what of the officer who shot unarmed Ashli Babbit? Now there’s the real miscarriage of justice!
That's interesting since you refer to an NPR (hardly a right-wing publication) news article entitled, "Judge issues the first outright acquittal of a defendant charged over the Jan. 6 riot."
And do note that the quote insinuates that the person who was acquitted was a rioter. The accused citizen wasn’t being charged for rioting, he was charged with trespassing. If NPR was in the least bit honest it would have read, Judge issues the first outright acquittal of a defendant charged with trespassing the capital building on Jan. 6th.
Yeah, I never refer to them as "rioters" unless it is in quotes. If people with guns marching down the streets looting, starting fires and taking over police stations is "mostly peaceful protests", I cannot refer to folks basically touring the Capitol building (a public building) as "rioters". Apparently a couple people did some damage, but nothing at all compared to BLM. I guess people who rely on NPR for their news don't actually "read much".
Ashli Babbitt. As I questioned in my original post, the agent / officer is, in a sense of the definition, persona non grata. He’s hidden away. No prosecution. No offense it seems. It was a “lawful” shooting they say. (Lawful shooting? ) Nothing to see here. Just a dead defenseless veteran woman who was murdered. Note: The medical examiner said she was shot in her left shoulder. Left shoulder? That bullet must have ricocheted around enough to kill her if she was shot in the left shoulder. I say…..BS Note 2 and edit: Bobbitt (Lorena) was the name of the nice lady who was fixated on a knife and focused on a certain man’s genitalia in 1993. Men who beat their wives gotta sleep sometime.
Dang, Ken. If I need to explain the difference in wording and meaning...... Maybe this is simply a case of semantics. I'll let it ride.
I love you left wing folks..hilarious. Why is it that person can’t expound on an issue without being labeled? No one came at you proclaiming you to be left wing, right wing or no wings at all. The material you brought forth is indeed known to be anti-conservative and the article header insinuates that the man was accused of being a rioter. It was incorrect in doing so and you were incorrect for relying on the misinformation gleaned from that header. That’s all. Do Note: No matter what the article said, you didn’t have to try to disparage one of the members by insinuating that the gentleman doesn’t read “much”. We ALL read and we ALL obviously write (a lot) and viewing past posts, I would say that the gentleman you questioned is more than just well read.
Perhaps, because if I am going to state a position and then leave a link, I'd try to make it a link to something that supports the position.