Redbrick is correct. You are glossing over a lot of egregious violations of his constitutional rights, just because he participated in activities protected by the 1st Amendment (speech, assembly that you find distasteful. That a riot broke out and he stepped outside of a rope line (that's all they could charge him with) does not entitle the government to repeatedly contrive reasons to search & seize his property for the purpose of catching him in additional frivolous/technical violations of law/court order, hoping to find grounds keep stacking on time to his sentence JUST BECAUSE OF HIS POLITICAL VIEWS.sombear said:He could have spent a year in jail and paid 100k, among other things. His social media posts and what he said on the phone to his fellow police officer were really bad. Nobody violated his plea agreement, and half the things he said are inconsistent with his court filing. I don't even know if all these things are true. But, even if they are, they would not be all that unusual in exchange for no prison time and a low fine.Redbrickbear said:sombear said:A large number of J6-ers were treated unfairly.Redbrickbear said:
[the testimony of Michael Shane Daughtry, who was arrested for being present at the January 6 attack. It is pure police state stuff. (If you don't want to go to X to read it, check it out here in one place via ThreadReader). If true in its details, then the feds' reaction to J6, at least in his case, is a greater source of concern than the attack itself. The key thing to look at here is that for the first time I can think of, many people on the Right have lost faith in the police and the judiciary. As a London man told me over the weekend (see below), the rape-gang scandal in Britain has caused many British people, for the first time in memory, to lose confidence in the justice system that is, in the police and the judiciary.] -Rod Dreher
........................................
[When I asked about my 6th Amendment right to a speedy trial, I was advised by Federal Court Judge Randolph D. Moss that the Sixth Amendment had been suspended due to Covid-19 and the large number of arrest made from the January 6th incident. The Sixth Amendment also gives me the right to a Fair Trial, does this mean I didn't have the right to a fair trail either? I'm not sure how a Federal Court Judge can legally suspend one of the Bill of Rights.
In June 2022, I was told by prosecutors that I could plea guilty to Trespassing on the Grass or face going to court in Washington DC on several other (made up) felony charges that they knew I had not committed. So because I had no chance of a fair trail and facing several false charges, I was forced to plead guilty to Trespassing on the Restricted West Lawn. My plea agreement stated the maximum amount of probation I could receive would be one year but for this non violent misdemeanor crime, I was sentenced to:
1: Two additional months of House Arrest with Location Monitoring for a total of 18 months.
2: Three additional years of Supervised Federal Probation with travel restrictions for a total of 4 years and 8 months of Supervised Federal Probation even though the plea agreement I had signed stated a maximum of 1 year probation.
3: Firearm Confiscation and Restrictions in clear violation of my 2nd amendment rights.
4: Mandatory random drug testing even though I have no drug history. I have passed all these tests.
5: Mandatory mental health evaluation, even though I have no mental health history. I passed this test.
6: $525.00 in restitution for damage to the Capital Building even though I never entered or even touched the Capital Building. I paid this fine.
7: 60 hours of community service. I completed all the community service.
After my sentencing, my home was again searched by a Federal Probation Agent who searched backpacks, closed closets, closed drawers, including my girlfriends underwear drawers even though they had a court order advising that Probation Agents could only take illegal items that are "In Plain Sight".
My home has now been searched 7 times in 4 years. It's been searched by the FBI, the Federal Marshalls, the DOJ, and Federal Probation several times.
Everyone always come wearing SWAT vests and heavily armed even though the only crime I've ever been accused of is illegally walking on the grass....]
He's not one of them. He's flat lying in this story. He did a lot more than stand in grass. He was part of one of the first groups to storm but backed off when hit with rubber bullets. His own social media posts were his worst enemy. The judge treated him very well, even took into consideration his difficult upbringing. And prosecutors did not renege on the plea deal.
So he never entered the Capitol and never assaulted any cops
(And he has ZERO criminal history and was a police officer)
They also let him plead to a low level offense
Why does that make all the other things they did to him right?
Read the list....its amazing and sickening
Did the Biden admin treat illegal immigrants this way?
There was a time when the left would have condemned such activity by courts & law enforcement. Now they are the ones doing it. Organized crime kingpins are not subjected to the kind of scrutiny this guy got. Courts would never allow it. but political conservatives are fair game.
We are watching "repressive tolerance" be applied by the left to the right, not for the defense of liberty but of the left's own hegemony. The right cannot be allowed the same degree of liberties as the left, because the left is good and the right is bad.
"...I suggested in 'Repressive Tolerance' the practice of discriminating tolerance in an inverse direction, as a means of shifting the balance between Right and Left by restraining the liberty of the Right, thus counteracting the pervasive inequality of freedom (unequal opportunity of access to the means of democratic persuasion) and strengthening the oppressed against the oppressed. Tolerance would be restricted with respect to movements of a demonstrably aggressive or destructive character (destructive of the prospects for peace, justice, and freedom for all). Such discrimination would also be applied to movements opposing the extension of social legislation to the poor, weak, disabled. As against the virulent denunciations that such a policy would do away with the sacred liberalistic principle of equality for 'the other side', I maintain that there are issues where either there is no 'other side' in any more than a formalistic sense, or where 'the other side' is demonstrably 'regressive' and impedes possible improvement of the human condition...."
-Herbert Marcuse, "Repressive Tolerance"
If we ever normalize that way of thinking, the Republic is done for. It could even devolved to a point where a sitting administration attempts to win elections by launching myriad prosecutions against its political rivals in order to discredit them, to diminish their resources, to generate helpful media narratives.
Oh, wait......