US politics: just for you

[JGP]

Just now, Zorral said:

Because his desire to kill ME.

Bingo

[Week]

Why does he hate Manhole Eunuchsbane (ME) so much? 

 

I kid - just a random "remember a guy" moment 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

1 hour ago, Larry of the Lake said:

He's going away for 18 years. 

No, he's not. That's the point some of us have been making. He will likely not even do half the time unless he's a real villain inside and he's smart enough to know how to avoid as much of his time as possible. 

I get the overall argument you're making and how it should apply to most people, but not this motherfucker. 

[mormont]

1 hour ago, JGP said:

I occasionally wonder about the rarified circles you inhabit, mormont.

Just the real world.

I deal with incidents in a bar as part of my job. I've seen multiple cases where an asshole sexually harasses a girl and her boyfriend/friend/some passer-by punches the harasser in response. I've never seen one of the harassers express any remorse or reflection or intent to change their behaviour as a result of being punched. Just indignant anger.

I too have a daughter and I have deliberately avoided one particular person in her life because I don't trust myself not to punch that person for how they've treated her. But I don't kid myself that if I did, it would have any effect beyond making me feel better. It would not change how that person acts to her. That's not how people work. What would happen is, that person would tell themselves a story about how I'm out of order for punching them, and then go right on as they were. And that's what the guy in your story did too: he now tells a story about how you were the asshole in that incident and he did nothing wrong.

That's how people work. And to get back to topic, if Rhodes does get a beat-down in prison, it will to him just be further vindication for his twisted world view. It would feel good to us to read about it, mind you.

[Larry of the Lawn]

18 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

No, he's not. That's the point some of us have been making. He will likely not even do half the time unless he's a real villain inside and he's smart enough to know how to avoid as much of his time as possible. 

I get the overall argument you're making and how it should apply to most people, but not this motherfucker. 

Ok. 

1.  Please show me some evidence that people facing seditious conspiracy/ terrorism charges don't serve a full sentence.  This guy has already been spouting off since his conviction.  Not exactly demonstrating an inclination to keep his nose clean for the parole board.    Even half of that sentence is a long time!

2.  Ok, this guy is awful.  I wouldn't bat an eye if he died tomorrow.  My argument isn't about him.  For any prisoner there are always going to be people who consider that individual to be the Biggest Piece of Shit Ever.  I'd rather not the state be able to insist on a longer sentence than ordered just based on the grounds the person sucks.  How do you determine when and how that special consideration is justified?  

We're already using domestic terrorism laws against environmental protesters and vandals.  Using an edge case to argue for more draconian state authority is asinine even if it feels appropriate.  

 

[JGP]

13 minutes ago, mormont said:

Just the real world.

Yeah, not so much as you think. I appreciate your intelligence, your educational background, and your experience. I really do. I know I didn't when was a fiery hearted fucker way back in the day, but now... definitely. Point remains.

 

13 minutes ago, mormont said:

I too have a daughter and I have deliberately avoided one particular person in her life because I don't trust myself not to punch that person for how they've treated her. But I don't kid myself that if I did, it would have any effect beyond making me feel better. It would not change how that person acts to her. That's not how people work. What would happen is, that person would tell themselves a story about how I'm out of order for punching them, and then go right on as they were. And that's what the guy in your story did too: he now tells a story about how you were the asshole in that incident and he did nothing wrong.

That's a reasonable facsimile of the story he might've told his people, but suspect he didn't tell anyone. I mean, neither his insurance provider or the city police came after me for the dent I put in the hood of his jacked up truck, so I'd surmise in similar situations this particular individual gives similar behavior on his part more than a second sober thought. 

And yes, my girls had questions. It wasn't a pleasant teaching moment, but I owned up-- and agree to move on.

 

13 minutes ago, mormont said:

If Rhodes does get a beat-down in prison, it will to him just be further vindication for his twisted world view. It would feel good to us to read about it, mind you.

This, is a valid point. It may, however, be just the negative stimulus he needs if he's also been isolated from his... peers. 

Edited July 14, 2023 by JGP

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

13 minutes ago, Larry of the Lake said:

Ok. 

1.  Please show me some evidence that people facing seditious conspiracy/ terrorism charges don't serve a full sentence.  This guy has already been spouting off since his conviction.  Not exactly demonstrating an inclination to keep his nose clean for the parole board.    Even half of that sentence is a long time!

How often do we even deal with sedition charges? Regardless, Rhodes does not have a criminal history prior to this and is a lawyer. Why do you think there's any chance he'll serve the full sentence? And why do you think it's too harsh for this specific person?

Quote

2.  Ok, this guy is awful.  I wouldn't bat an eye if he died tomorrow.  My argument isn't about him.  For any prisoner there are always going to be people who consider that individual to be the Biggest Piece of Shit Ever.  I'd rather not the state be able to insist on a longer sentence than ordered just based on the grounds the person sucks.  How do you determine when and how that special consideration is justified?  

Er, when that person actively tries to destroy the government. You're making a macro argument when this specifically is a micro one. There are a number of cases where I think the approach you're taking is the right one. Just not here.

Quote

We're already using domestic terrorism laws against environmental protesters and vandals.  Using an edge case to argue for more draconian state authority is asinine even if it feels appropriate.  

I think most of us would agree that's a misappropriation of the law. 

[JGP]

1 minute ago, Tywin et al. said:

I think most of us would agree that's a misappropriation of the law. 

I'd be surprised if it doesn't get squashed.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

23 minutes ago, JGP said:

I'd be surprised if it doesn't get squashed.

Idk the details, but in theory it sounds like garbage that shouldn't hold up. 

[The Anti-Targ]

2 hours ago, Zorral said:

Because his desire to kill ME.

And he's not going away for 18 years at all.  We know how this works. Especially if a fascist is potus in two years he'll be pardoned and out of jail free.

In which case 18 or 25 years makes no difference.

[Larry of the Lawn]

1 hour ago, Tywin et al. said:

How often do we even deal with sedition charges? Regardless, Rhodes does not have a criminal history prior to this and is a lawyer. Why do you think there's any chance he'll serve the full sentence? And why do you think it's too harsh for this specific person?

Er, when that person actively tries to destroy the government. You're making a macro argument when this specifically is a micro one. There are a number of cases where I think the approach you're taking is the right one. Just not here.

I think most of us would agree that's a misappropriation of the law. 

To the bolded, I think anything over say a ten year sentence for anyone is too long, but that's not relevant.  The sentence was within the sentencing parameters.  I have zero thoughts on what's an appropriate sentence for this specific guy.  

I'm making a macro argument because the issue of the state being able to appeal a sentence for not being harsh enough is a macro issue.  My opinion on an 18 year sentence being a long time or harsh has, and I'll say it again since you apparently missed it the first couple times, absolutely nothing to do with Rhodes specifically.  

As far as the parole or not goes, the sentence is 18 years.  You seem to think he's going to serve less than half of that.  I disagree.  You're probably more familiar than I am with examples of cases where convicted terrorists have been paroled early.  

The problem with trying to say that there are some cases that deserve certain consideration but not others is you have to explicitly define what makes them different.  But you can't just say well, this situation is different because I feel like it is.  If you want to make that argument, make that argument.  

 

Edited July 14, 2023 by Larry of the Lake
Spelling

[Larry of the Lawn]

1 hour ago, JGP said:

I'd be surprised if it doesn't get squashed.

I'm not just taking about Cop City in Atlanta, we have already convicted several people of domestic terrorism for vandalizing oil pipelines.  

 

1 hour ago, Tywin et al. said:

 

I think most of us would agree that's a misappropriation of the law. 

That's kind of my entire point.  

[JGP]

7 minutes ago, Larry of the Lake said:

I'm not just taking about Cop City in Atlanta, we have already convicted several people of domestic terrorism for vandalizing oil pipelines.  

I was speaking to the appeal there, Larry.

As much as I don't like the OG sentence, can't see the Courts agreeing with any argument to revisit. State could try a circuitous work around in the line of the Courts have entertained appeals when the sentences were deemed unduly heavy, but  there were likely exigent circumstances for such instances and have my doubts that'd be successful either.

Not a lawyer though. 

Edited July 14, 2023 by JGP

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

6 minutes ago, Larry of the Lake said:

To the bolded, I think anything over say a ten year sentence for anyone is too long, but that's not relevant. 

I'm sure Hitler and Stalin would agree if you were their judge 

Look, I've said several time, being lenient is my general belief, but some people forfeit that. Rhodes tried to overthrow the government by violent means. He should really be dragged behind a horse in the street and then thrown into the ocean. 

There's a reason why we hang dictators from lampposts after all.

Quote

I'm making a macro argument because the issue of the state being able to appeal a sentence for not being harsh enough is a macro issue.  My opinion on an 18 year sentence being a long time or harsh has, and I'll say it again since you apparently missed it the first couple times, absolutely nothing to do with Rhodes specifically.  

I heard it and like I said, 99.99% of the time you'd be right. This is the .01% when you're not.

Quote

As far as the parole or not goes, the sentence is 18 years.  You seem to think he's going to serve less than half of that.  I disagree.  You're probably more familiar than I am with examples of cases where convicted terrorists have been parolesd early.  

There's a 0% chance he serves the full sentence unless he commits crimes while in prison. He's been accused of a lot of other things, but best I cant tell there are no charges coming and if that's the case he'll be treated like a first time offender which means he's not going to come close to serving it out. That's why they want to add more time because if nothing else it really means he'll serve two additional years or so. 

Quote

The problem with trying to say that there are some cases that deserve certain consideration but not others is you have to explicitly define what makes them different.  But you can't just say well, this situation is different because I feel like it is.  If you want to make that argument, make that argument.  

I did, it's called sedition by violent means. That shit isn't something you can just let slide. 

[Larry of the Lawn]

35 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

. 

I did, it's called sedition by violent means. That shit isn't something you can just let slide. 

And what's the sentence for that?

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

50 minutes ago, Larry of the Lake said:

And what's the sentence for that?

Sharks get hungry too. Walk the plank if I ran everything. But since I don't, life in prison is fair. Normally just attempt to rehabilitate and give them a fair chance at parole. However, this scum has lost that chance in my book. Like I said before, there's nothing to try and redeem here. Most crimes you can forgive. Not this one and the head of the snake needs to suffer. 

Edited July 15, 2023 by Tywin et al.

[Zorral]

Since we're still running Guantánamo, that's where Rhodes should be.  It is/was filled with those accused of attempting to take out the US government.

[LongRider]

 

Looking up information on Rhodes sentence. 

 

Rhodes, 57, of Granbury, Texas, was sentenced to 18 years in prison and 36 months of supervised release.

from here 

 

 Supervised Release

Whereas parole boards grant early release in the state system, federal courts impose supervised released during sentencing; supervised release is the part of the defendant's sentence that follows time behind bars.    from here

 

It seems that parole for federal prisoners has changed and is rarely used for class A or B felonies.  

 

From wiki article on supervised release:   United States federal probation and supervised release are imposed at sentencing. The difference between probation and supervised release is that the former (probation) is imposed as a substitute for imprisonment,[1] or in addition to home detention,[2] while the latter (supervised release) is imposed in addition to imprisonment.   Wiki here

 

So it looks like the chances are good that he will a good long time, as he is not eligible for parole.  If Trump doesn't get elected and pardons him, that is.

[James Arryn]

The sentencing guidelines basically have this down to math. If the sentence given was outside the range established by the guidelines, then there’s an argument*. If it was at either extreme of the guidelines recommendation then there’s maybe an argument, but weaker. Otherwise not. You can look it up yourself if you have access to an FSG handbook, or otherwise you can find it online. I haven’t ever done that, so I don’t know how reliable this calculator is, but it’s the us sentencing commission’s, so I’d guess pretty solid: https://guidelines.ussc.gov/grc

The media always relays potential sentencing by talking in terms of maximums, and this creates the false impression that max sentences are the norm. It’s very much not, in fact it’s usually only given to repeat offenders or if the crime committed was exceptionally serious for that crime.
 

*Edit: to be clear, I mean a moral, ethical or logical argument, not a legal one. I have spent too much time in my life arguing with conservatives about how their feelings about how horrible the criminal is do not excuse exceptional mistreatment under the law. 

Edited July 15, 2023 by James Arryn

[Jaxom 1974]

Just saw an interesting, to me anyway, thought on Twitter (I know, I know...but it is a valid thought...):

If Trump somehow doesn't win the Republican nomination, what happens when he doesn't concede he has lost? Would he? He needs to win, but he doesn't seem the sort to lose what he believes is his (Jan. 6), and simply run as a third party candidate...

Edited July 15, 2023 by Jaxom 1974