Law Pelosi desk "invader" asks judge for freedom to sell cars

[TheBlondBomber]

god your pathetic low grade 'gotcha' attempt isnt going to work on me, but heres some of your own words. i know you have a hard time being able to read, so i bolded and underlined the words you should be looking at




its not my business what the law defines as a deadly and dangerous weapon. you claim to be a former prosecutor (lol)

youre a big boy so i'm sure you'd have no problem being able to look up on your own what the law defines as a deadly or dangerous weapon, and then take that up with the courts. your argument wont go anywhere with me. i dont have the power to drop the federal charges these 440+ maga muppets have been hit with

it certainly wouldn’t meet the statutory requirements for “firearm” or “deadly weapon” but it would be a jury question as to whether a stun gun is a “dangerous weapon”. I’m sure there’s case law that supports that proposition and some that doesn’t. But ultimately the act of carrying a weapon while committing a non violent act isn’t violent. Not sure what yoir point is bringing up what he’s charged with. I already know.

 

[Strychnine]

They are in clear violation of 40 USC 5104 (e)(2)(G).

Justice Kavanaugh should do his job then.

 

[TheBlondBomber]

Justice Kavanaugh should do his job then.

Uhh what? Please explain what Kavanaugh could do about those people who didn’t get charged.

 

[Strychnine]

Uhh what? Please explain what Kavanaugh could do about those people who didn’t get charged.

He could ASK for justice. But since he hasn't pursued it at all, I'm gonna say he's all good with his outcome and that justice has been done.

 

[TheBlondBomber]

He could ASK for justice. But since he hasn't pursued it at all, I'm gonna say he's all good with his outcome and that justice has been done.

Are you not American? Do you not know how cases arrive at the Supreme Court? Do you know that the role of the Supreme Court is to determine the constitutionality of statutes, precedent and governmental action? Do you not know that it’s a prosecutor who files charges and a judge is a neutral arbiter? Do you not realize how inappropriate it would be for Kav to even suggest charging these protestors? Are you retarded?

 

[idrankyourbeer]

it certainly wouldn’t meet the statutory requirements for “firearm” or “deadly weapon” but it would be a jury question as to whether a stun gun is a “dangerous weapon”. I’m sure there’s case law that supports that proposition and some that doesn’t. But ultimately the act of carrying a weapon while committing a non violent act isn’t violent. Not sure what yoir point is bringing up what he’s charged with. I already know.

sorry skippy, but i cant take you seriously, nor can i be bothered to give a shit about your backwards logic when you try to compare what these insurrectionists did on january 6th to a bunch of jaywalkers screaming at the sky, all because you are mad that trump lost the election and are looking for a way to try to excuse the insurrectionists actions or blame everybody else for it.

clearly these maga muppets are heroes to you, just like donald trump. its okay, you can admit it. we've all believed in some kind of bullshit and fairy tales at one time in our lives right? but if biden lost the election and it was the left who stormed the capitol trying to prevent the election from being certified, you wouldnt be trying to downplay their actions. you would be condeming such a disgusting act against their own country and calling for their heads on a guillotine for high treason. there is no sense in denying that. you people are just that transparent.

you say to be a former prosecutor. just what clown courtroom do you claim to have ever practiced in? the kangaroo court of social media? did you stop practicing due to a twitter ban?

 

[TheBlondBomber]

sorry skippy, but i cant take you seriously, nor can i be bothered to give a shit about your backwards logic when you try to compare what these insurrectionists did on january 6th to a bunch of jaywalkers screaming at the sky, all because you are mad that trump lost the election and are looking for a way to try to excuse the insurrectionists actions or blame everybody else for it.

clearly these maga muppets are heroes to you, just like donald trump. if biden lost the election and it was the left who stormed the capitol trying to prevent the election from being certified, you wouldnt be trying to downplay their actions. you would be condeming such a disgusting act against their own country and calling for their heads on a guillotine for high treason. there is no sense in denying that. you people are just that transparent.

you say to be a former prosecutor. just what clown courtroom do you claim to have ever practiced in? the kangaroo court of social media? did you stop practicing due to a twitter ban?

Is there a point you’re trying to make? I get it. January 6th was bad. I agree. Very bad. Not the worst thing ever like some make it out to be, but it was still bad.

My point has been consistent. Barnett should not have been held for three months with no bail on non violent charges. His treatment appears to be politically motivated because people who did way worse than what he did at riots this summer were not treated in such a manner.

but you’re hysterical and devoid of logic so you missed all that.

 

[Ophydian]

Member when for several weeks in the summer the left had a shitfit about "unmarked soliders" policing the Portland protest. The called them Secret Police and Shadow Soldiers...all because a grainy tic tok video obstructed the fact that they were wearing an insignia.

The cop that shot and killed an unarmed protestor at the capitol wasn't in uniform though. No markings whatsoever identified him as a cop, and he never issued a single warning. Weird how no one on the left cares anymore.

Its shocking that actual secret service were in the Capitol protecting the VP and VP elect. It’s almost as if you can’t understand the difference.

 

[idrankyourbeer]

Is there a point you’re trying to make? I get it. January 6th was bad. I agree. Very bad. Not the worst thing ever like some make it out to be, but it was still bad.

My point has been consistent. Barnett should not have been held for three months with no bail on non violent charges. His treatment appears to be politically motivated because people who did way worse than what he did at riots this summer were not treated in such a manner.

but you’re hysterical and devoid of logic so you missed all that.

no he’s not charged with any violent offenses. He’s charged with:

• Obstruction of an Official Proceeding & Aiding and Abetting (new charge)
• Entering and Remaining in a Restricted Building or Grounds with a Deadly or Dangerous Weapon
• Disorderly and Disruptive Conduct in a Restricted Building or Grounds with a Deadly or Dangerous Weapon
• Entering and Remaining in Certain Rooms in a Capitol Building (new charge)
• Disorderly Conduct in a Capitol Building (new charge)
• Parading, Demonstrating, or Picketing in a Capitol Building (new charge)
• Theft of Government Property

essentially he’s charged with trespass, obstruction, disorderly conduct and theft. No violent offenses. Gtfo.

the bolded isnt violent charges, says the apologist. its such a crying shame that the judges also seem to be devoid of all logic and don't seem to agree with that when it was time to decide on bail.

 

[rearnakedchoke]

Wasn’t trump gonna pardon all these rubes?

 

[TheBlondBomber]

the bolded isnt violent charges, says the apologist

Yes. He trespassed and engaged in disorderly conduct with a stun gun in his pocket. As I’ve discussed ad nauseum, carrying a weapon while trespassing doesn’t make your trespass violent. If you’re kicked out of a restaurant and you refuse to leave, you’re trespassing. Having a pocketknife on yoir pocket doesn’t make your trespass any more violent.

disorderly conduct can be something as innocent as making too much noise or causing a disruption.



this woman is engaged in disorderly conduct under 40 USC 5104 (e)(2)(G). If she had a mace on her key ring, would you say that she is engaged in violence?

 

[idrankyourbeer]

Yes. He trespassed and engaged in disorderly conduct with a stun gun in his pocket. As I’ve discussed ad nauseum, carrying a weapon while trespassing doesn’t make your trespass violent. If you’re kicked out of a restaurant and you refuse to leave, you’re trespassing. Having a pocketknife on yoir pocket doesn’t make your trespass any more violent.

disorderly conduct can be something as innocent as making too much noise or causing a disruption.



this woman is engaged in disorderly conduct. If she had a mace on her key ring, would you say that she is engaged in violence?

sadly i dont believe that these judges looked at these guys as simply just a bunch of peaceful jaywalkers screaming at the sky, the same way that you do, and perhaps they look at the case, and look into their prior history and see some of these people as dangerous offenders who could be a threat to society.

thats why some of them who have been hit the hardest arent being granted bail. after all, theyve been slapped up on federal charges and many of the crimes are in fact violent. you may not look at trespassing onto federal property armed with a deadly or dangerous weapon as a violent act, but the law defines otherwise. and thats likely not how the judges are going to look at the case either when their charges are brought up, and you damn well better know that a prosecutor, whos job is to convict, isnt going to try to downplay those charges either when they put the case in front of a judge

there is no reason for the guy to be carrying a taser or any type of weapon while trespassing in federal property. he has no reason to be in there, nor a reason to justify having weapons on him to defend himself in an area he illegally entered and is not permitted to be in. just because he didnt pull it out and use it on somebody doesnt mean its not a violent offense he that can be charged with. and if anyone is going to be made an example of by the court system, this guy is likely going to be one of the top guys to take the fall.

if i broke into a 7-11 with a weapon in my pants or get caught selling some dope to an undercover with a gun/knife/taser tucked on me and they found it on me during the event, guess what? i'm also getting slapped with more charges, and many of them will be considered by the legal system as violent offences. i'd likely never be able to own a firearm again if they convict me on those violent offences, and no matter how many times i try to argue in front of a judge how unfair that is because i didnt actually shoot anybody with that gun, they arent going to let me have my cake and eat it too.

my heart bleeds purple piss for these insurrectionists. play stupid games, win stupid prizes

 

[TheBlondBomber]

sadly i dont believe that these judges looked at these guys as simply just a bunch of peaceful jaywalkers screaming at the sky, the same way that you do, and perhaps they look at the case, and look into their prior history and see some of these people as dangerous offenders who could be a threat to society.

thats why some of them who have been hit the hardest arent being granted bail. after all, theyve been slapped up on federal charges and many of the crimes are in fact violent. you may not look at trespassing onto federal property armed with a deadly or dangerous weapon as a violent act, but the law defines otherwise, and thats likely not how the judges are going to look at the case either when their charges are brought up, and you damn well better know that a prosecutor, whos job is to convict, isnt going to try to downplay those charges either when they put the case in front of a judge and make a motion to deny bail.

there is no reason for the guy to be carrying a taser or any type of weapon while trespassing in federal property. he has no reason to be in there, nor a reason to justify having weapons on him to defend himself in an area he illegally entered and is not permitted to be in. just because he didnt pull it out and use it on somebody doesnt mean its not a violent offense he that can be charged with. and if anyone is going to be made an example of by the court system, this guy is likely going to be one of the top guys to take the fall.

if i broke into a 7-11 with a weapon in my pants or get caught selling some dope to an undercover with a gun/knife/taser tucked on me and they found it on me during the event, guess what? i'm also getting slapped with more charges, and many of them will be considered by the legal system as violent offences. i'd likely never be able to own a firearm again, and no matter how many times i try to argue in front of a judge how unfair that is because i didnt actually shoot anybody with that gun, they aint gonna let me have my cake and eat it too.

my heart bleeds purple piss for these insurrectionists. play stupid games, win stupid prizes

Well it turns out the judge was wrong for denying Barnett a Bond as the DC circuit forced the trial judge to set a bond. And despite your hysterics about how dangerous he was an how violent his intent was (despite him not using the stun gun, which is hilarious), the trial judge didn’t use that as a basis for keeping him with no bond. The trial judge didn’t set a bond because of the note he left.

So despite your hysterics, the trial judge didn’t think he was too violent to be let out. He was pissed about Barnett calling Pelosi a biatch.

 

[idrankyourbeer]

Well it turns out the judge was wrong for denying Barnett a Bond as the DC circuit forced the trial judge to set a bond. And despite your hysterics about how dangerous he was an how violent his intent was (despite him not using the stun gun, which is hilarious), the trial judge didn’t use that as a basis for keeping him with no bond. The trial judge didn’t set a bond because of the note he left.

So despite your hysterics, the trial judge didn’t think he was too violent to be let out. He was pissed about Barnett calling Pelosi a biatch.

i'm so hysterical that i'll just keep repeating the same word over and over and that will make it true in my own little world. look at me everybody, i'm a parrot. polly wants her cracker. HYSSSTERICAL!

oh he didnt use the taser on anybody? oh good heavens no! that means they better drop those violent offences hes being charged with, like entering a restricted building with a deadly or dangerous weapon, or disorderly conduct in a restricted building with a deadly or dangerous weapon.

quick skippy, you better go tell those judges and federal prosecutors that those arent actually violent offenses because he didnt tase nobody, and what he participated in was more or less the same as a jaywalker screaming at the sky! i'm sure they will look at things the same way that you do, and simply just give everybody their get out of jail free cards, and then you guys can move onto more important things, like whats on hunters laptop, or poking fun of joe bidens golf game.

the blond bomber to the rescue! here to save the day with his world renowned logic.

 

[TheBlondBomber]

i'm so hysterical that i'll just keep repeating the same word over and over and that will make it true in my own little world. look at me everybody, i'm a parrot. polly wants her cracker.

oh he didnt use the taser on anybody? oh good heavens no! that means they better drop those violent offences hes being charged with, like entering a restricted building with a deadly or dangerous weapon, or disorderly conduct in a restricted building with a deadly or dangerous weapon.

quick skippy, you better go tell those judges that those arent actually violent offenses because he didnt tase nobody, and what he participated in was more or less the same as a jaywalker screaming at the sky! the blond bomber to the rescue! here to save the day with his world renowned logic.

Once again, you fail to make a coherent point and resort to acting like a 7th grader. Did I ever say he wasn’t guilty of what he’s been indicted? No. The only question is in regard to whether the stun gun is considered a “dangerous weapon” under the statute.

And yeah, he wasn’t being violent by keeping his stun gun in his pocket. I don’t see how that’s debatable. He was wrongfully denied a bond according to the DC Circuit. He wasn’t denied bond because of his supposed violence, but because he wrote a note calling Pelosi a biatch.

I’m not sure where we disagree. Do you think he should have been kept in jail without bond indefinitely? If so, what criteria are you using for denying bond? If you’re caught with any sort of weapon while committing a felony, you can be detained without bond for months at a time? Seems pretty totalitarian.

 

[PainIsLIfe]

Oh snaps I forgot that time "the left" tried overthrow our democratically elected government by bombing a Federal building, having armed stand offs with authorities for weeks, and storming the seat of our entire government.

Cool whataboutism.

Not what you posted, but I'd hardly call the 6th an attempted coup. Certainly dumbasses and some where violent, but 99% of the protesters were peaceful and didnt run into the capitol building.

And we didnt have politicians defending the actions of 2 dozen nuts in the Bundy standoff, while we have politicians on the left excusing theft, arson, and violence against random police because people are frustrated.

Btw, what federal building did the right bomb?

 

[PainIsLIfe]

god your pathetic low grade 'gotcha' attempt isnt going to work on me, but heres some of your own words. i know you have a hard time being able to read, so i bolded and underlined the words you should be looking at




its not my business what the law defines as a deadly and dangerous weapon, and i dont have to answer to you.

you claim to be a former prosecutor (lol) youre a big boy so i'm sure you'd have no problem being able to look up on your own what the law defines as a deadly or dangerous weapon, and then take that up with the courts. your argument wont go anywhere with me.

i dont have the power to drop the federal charges these 440+ maga muppets have been hit with. so youre barking up the wrong tree. your time could be better spent polishing up trumps boots for him. if its any consolation to you, just to make sure you know, trump lost the election.

I thought I heard that there were only a few dozen people charged for the 6th?

 

[TheBlondBomber]

Not what you posted, but I'd hardly call the 6th an attempted coup. Certainly dumbasses and some where violent, but 99% of the protesters were peaceful and didnt run into the capitol building.

And we didnt have politicians defending the actions of 2 dozen nuts in the Bundy standoff, while we have politicians on the left excusing theft, arson, and violence against random police because people are frustrated.

Btw, what federal building did the right bomb?

Democrats will refuse to acknowledge that there was much more violence perpetuated by the left at a random riot during the Summer of George than on 1/6. They say things like “I’m happy to talk about that when it’s appropriate but I will not let you compare two riots. It’s whataboutism.”

All they say is “insurrection” and “attack on democracy” while ignore the fact that they were cheering on a secessionist movement and new government that was formed in CHAZ 6 months prior.

 

[idrankyourbeer]

Once again, you fail to make a coherent point and resort to acting like a 7th grader. Did I ever say he wasn’t guilty of what he’s been indicted? No. The only question is in regard to whether the stun gun is considered a “dangerous weapon” under the statute.

And yeah, he wasn’t being violent by keeping his stun gun in his pocket. I don’t see how that’s debatable. He was wrongfully denied a bond according to the DC Circuit. He wasn’t denied bond because of his supposed violence, but because he wrote a note calling Pelosi a biatch.

I’m not sure where we disagree. Do you think he should have been kept in jail without bond indefinitely? If so, what criteria are you using for denying bond? If you’re caught with any sort of weapon while committing a felony, you can be detained without bond for months at a time? Seems pretty totalitarian.

im not a judge, i dont look into the criteria of whats required to hold somebody if theyre arrrested. to my understanding, if the person can be considered a danger to society, a high risk to reoffend, or some other state or allied country wants them extradited, or they are considered a flight risk, then the judge will hold them without bond.

but even without looking it up, i'm sure a taser is easilly defined as a dangerous or deadly weapon. every year people die as a result of them. many of whom arent even violent criminals but are simply just trying to flee from police to avoid being arrested.

theyre not designed to be deadly, but they can be if the circumstances are right. if not deadly, the least they could be defined as is dangerous. if i go around tasing enough random people at will, i'm sure that lots of them are going to fall into something and get injured, and some would even die from a heart attack.

 

[idrankyourbeer]

I thought I heard that there were only a few dozen people charged for the 6th?

we're at over 440 now apparently. the number wouldnt be so high if the maga muppets thought that their insurrection was the coolest shit theyve ever done so they posted media and bragged about it on facebook only for their so-called friends to snitch them out and the feds came to their doors afterwards

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/capitol-riot-arrests-fbi-wanted-officer-assaults-daniel-hodges/