As I wrote before, so many of the January 6th rioters gleefully posted vivid accounts of what they did on that day on social media that they pretty much eliminated any reasonable legal defense that could be mounted in court. The only option left was to throw themselves at the mercy of the courts, using permutations of “I am really sorry”, “I was stupid”, and “I was misled by Trump and others”. That defense is getting mixed results.
A Capitol rioter who attacked police officers working to hold back the angry pro-Trump mob on Jan. 6 was sentenced Friday to more than five years behind bars, the most so far for anyone sentenced in the insurrection.
Robert Palmer, 54, of Largo, Florida, wept as he told U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan that he recently watched a video of his actions that day and could not believe what he was seeing.
“Your honor. I’m really really ashamed of what I did,” he said through tears.
…Palmer made his way to the front line during the chaos and started to attack, throwing a wooden plank, spraying a fire extinguisher, then hurling it when it was done. He rooted around for other objects, prosecutors said. He was briefly peppersprayed by police before he attacked officers again with a pole. He pleaded guilty to attacking officers.
Palmer said in a handwritten letter to the judge that he felt betrayed by Trump and his allies who fed them conspiracy theories.
“Trump supporters were lied to by those at the time who had great power,” he wrote. “They kept spitting out the false narrative about a stolen election and how it was ‘our duty’ to stand up to tyranny.”
…Before Palmer’s sentencing of 63 months, the longest prison term handed down for a Capitol rioter was 41 months. That was the sentence received by both Jacob Chansley, the Arizona man who wore a horned fur hat, bare chest and face paint inside the Capitol; and New Jersey gym owner Scott Fairlamb, the first person to be sentenced for assaulting a law enforcement officer during the riot.
A college student got off leniently and was sentenced to one month, though she did get a dressing down from the judge.
A college student who posted online that “Infamy is just as good as fame” after she climbed through a broken window at Capitol was sentenced to a month in jail for her actions. Gracyn Courtright, 23, of Hurricane, West Virginia, didn’t injure anyone, though, and her sentence reflected that.
…Courtright, 23, of Hurricane, West Virginia, sobbed as she told U.S. District Court Judge Christopher Cooper that “if I could take back anything in my life it would be my actions on Jan. 6.”
She posted photos of herself online — like scores of other rioters — reveling in the moment. “Can’t wait to tell my grandkids I was here!” she wrote, and inside the Senate chamber, she was photographed holding a “Members only” sign.
“I will never be the same girl again,” the University of Kentucky student said through tears. “This has changed me completely.”
…Participating in a democracy isn’t like going to a University of Kentucky game and “rooting for a team just because of the color of their jerseys,” the judge said. “It’s certainly not resorting to violence when your team doesn’t win the game,” he told Courtright.
I suspect that some of the people felt that the whole thing was a lark that would be laughed off by the authorities. Others who knew that what they were doing was wrong may have felt that the sheer size of the numbers taking part provided some kind of immunity, that individuals could not be singled out for punishment. That may have worked if they did not incriminate themselves on social media. Then there are those who felt that Trump would never allow his loyal supporters be punished and would somehow take action on their behalf, which just shows how clueless they are since Trump has always been notorious for not caring what happens to people who no longer serve his purposes.
I am not sure how many of these self-reproaches are genuine and how many are because their lawyers told them that they had no other option. I suspect that many of these people have never been to prison and never expected to. It would be interesting to follow up and see what they think after they serve out their sentences.
I agree that many thought it was a lark or a justified action. They’d been steeping themselves in the idea of a righteous revolution--they also thought that their coup would prevail. And, the underestimated the ability to track people by electronic surveillance (not to mention by social media): welcome to the modern world!
Saying sorry, even if sincere, is not a defense. Many of these people have never faced the consequences of their actions in their lives (white people don’t have to.) I know because my classes are full of them, people who are unfamiliar with the idea of turning in their homework on time to receive full credit. Their defense is “I just forgot”. They complain madly when there are any consequences. Prison is quite a consequence: I’d also like to see what they think upon release.
White men, in particular, have never faced the consequences of their actions. Society tends to come down much harder on (some, not all) white women.
They probably also felt, with some justification, that if their efforts were successful and the election was overturned, they would get a mass pardon from Trump.
I recently spoke to a leftist friend of mine who is greatly concerned about what may happen in 2024: specifically, that conservative state legislatures may throw out their election results and appoint “alternative slates” of electors. He said that, if that were to take place, “people will be out in the streets burning things, and I will be out there with them.”
HIs justification was that, if a coup of that sort was attempted, then it would be up to the Supreme Court and the military to save democracy — but both institutions would be more likely to do the right thing if the country was staring down an abyss of social anarchy. I think he was right, and I can’t say for sure that I might not be out there committing acts of violence too.
Would I hope that such actions would be pardoned once democracy was restored? Sure, although obviously there would be no guarantee. I guess what I’m saying is that it’s reasonable to assume that political violence won’t necessarily have consequences, as long as your side wins.
The fact of the matter is that trump lied to everyone, all the time. But with him lying to everyone all the time, only a few thousand people were gullible enough to buy into his bullshit. Personally, I feel betrayed by the idiots who bought trumps lies hook, line, and sinker. Its no one else’s fault but theirs. I dont feel bad for any of them. They should be thanking all the gods they worship that they werent lined up against a wall and shot for being the traitors they are.
StonedRanger @4:
Only a few thousand? And what’s with the past tense? There are well over a few thousand who still think that the election was stolen.
Or maybe you meant that only a few thousand were motivated enough to show up in D.C. OK, that’s true enough; but I suspect that that says more about the character of the others than it says about their rationality.
Fixed that penultimate paragraph for you.
@Katydid, 2:
Well yes, that explains why there are so many more white women incarcerated than there are white men. [rolls eyes so hard the irises are no longer visible]. Meanwhile, in the real world, if you want exemption from the law, “white woman” is absolutely the best demographic you can possibly hope for, apart, obviously, from “rich”. Even reasonably well off white men can only dream of the free pass women get for basically almost all crimes, including and especially those of violence.
StonedRanger @4,
On one level at least 74 million were gullible enough to buy into his bullshit, given that they voted for him…
SonofRojBlake, did you happen to grow up as a woman? I doubt it. As John Lennon once observed, “Women are the n****** of the world”. That some women engage in atrocities doesn’t negate the fact.
Look at the 23-year-old who got a month in jail for climbing through a window during an insurrection, and now compare it to the 17-year-old who (illegally) had possession of an assault rifle, and (illegally) brought it across state lines and (illegally) assassinated 3 people with it…and walked.
No. I cannot begin to even imagine how that bizarre non-sequitur has any relevance to the bald fact that you said, in the context of a discussion on sentencing, that, quote “Society tends to come down much harder on (some, not all) white women.”, and in response I pointed out the bald fact that, in terms of sentencing to incarceration, this is ludicrously wrong.
OK. Let’s see if the figures agree with this, shall we? (Hint: I’m not going to look at just two cherry-picked examples, I’m going to use something called “data” -- get a grownup to help you if you need to look it up).
We’ll look at the figures for the most incarceration-happy shithole in the world: the USA, with both the highest absolute and the highest per-capita incarceration rate of any country. Over 2.2 million people incarcerated out of a population of 323 million.
Black people make up just 13% of the US population, but FORTY per cent of those incarcerated. “N******” indeed. There’s no doubt people of colour are getting shittily discriminated against right there. It’s obvious. (Actually to be strictly accurate -- it’s NOT “people of colour”, politically correct as that term is. It’s specifically Black people. Other “people of colour” include Hispanics, who aren’t massively disproportionately incarcerated (16% of population, 19% of prisoners) and Asians (5.6% of population, just 1.5% of prisoners). It’s very specifically African Americans who are the targets here.
Meanwhile, the total incarcerated population of adult females was: 213,700. Out of approximately 2.2 MILLION. So… the proportion of females in the incarcerated population is (drumroll)… less than 10%. I leave it as an exercise for you to look up on the demographic data source of your choice whether the US population is more or less than 10% female, and to draw you own conclusions as to whether women are being treated better or worse than men by the criminal justice system.
From the same Wikipedia entry where I got those figures, comes this:
Note that both the quoted studies are just about length of sentence: they say nothing about the fact that NINETY PERCENT of the people getting the point of being sentenced are men.
Now: are you going to take another swing (maybe cherry pick another couple of individual cases?) or admit you’re wrong? There’s more data I can throw your way if you try again. Come on, I do this for fun, I love it.
Leave it to Roj to completely (and deliberately) miss the point.
Out of curiosity, Kitty, what have you decided the point is?
Spot the difference, @sonofrojblake:
#2
#8
@khms, 11:
And yet, the entire point of the post, Katydid’s response, and my response to that response, is the severity of punishments meted out by society as represented in this case by the criminal justice system against the Jan 6 terrorists. I thought that was the point.
Indeed, to their credit, not even Katydid tried your dissembling bullshit in their further response @7, but rather stuck to the point of talking about criminal justice system sentencing. I mean, they cherry-picked just two examples that fitted their narrative, but they stuck to the point and didn’t whine “I meant society, not, y’know, one of the main direct interfaces between society and individuals”. Why can’t you?
Society tends to come down much harder on (some, not all) white women [than white men]
Roj, that is NOT what Katydid said, or meant to say, and you know it.
Eh? Read post 2. Didn’t you just copy and paste it? It says literally that. How about you tell me what you’ve decided Katy did said and meant, since I only have what they wrote to go on, and that’s not converting to me whatever it is you seem to know they meant.
Conveying, not converting
[“Katy”, eh? Way to go, Sonny]
I copied and pasted the words YOU ADDED. They weren’t in #2.
@17: so your contention is that the words “white men” don’t appear in post 2? As a specific comparator to white women and their treatment?
Baffling. And a bit embarrassing.
Read post 2 again.
@16:
Oh, John Morales thank you so much.
I die from embarrassment. How ridiculous and ignorant of me. How ludicrous and stupid I look.
I typed “Katydid”, and my phone autocorrected it to “Katy did” and I didn’t spot it and fix it before posting.
This obviously completely invalidates any argument I may have proposed and additionally makes me look like an anti-semitic transphobic misogynist Nazi to boot. I obviously deserve to be cancelled with immediate effect.
My undying gratitude for your assiduous policing.
/s (obviously)
@Raging Bee, 17:
OK, you pasted my version with a bit added for clarity. I’m going to paste just Katydid’s original words, with one emphasis, and ask you a simple question:
Harder. Not “hard”. Harder -- that’s a word comparing the treatment of white women to the treatment of some other group. Whom do you contend are that other group to whom white women are being compared?
And if your answer is NOT “white men”, could you explain your reasoning, referring only to post 2’s words?
sonofrojblake,
I believe you. Sorry.
Yes, I’m pretty sure she meant “harder on white women than we currently tend to be,” NOT “harder on white women than on white men.” She’s free to correct me on that, but until she does, that’s the interpretation I’m going with, and your added words are YOURS, not hers.
Wow, I ducked back in here only to find I’m “internet famous”. Is that like winning the most points in the game Whose Line is It Anyway?
Raging Bee, you understood what I was saying.
So, to be clear, your interpretation of this sentence:
… means society tends to come down harder on white women than we currently tend to be.
That doesn’t make sense.
Than we currently tend to be… what? Harder than we currently tend to be towards whom?
Can you even see how obtuse that looks? There’s a comparative in the sentence -- “harder”. The sentence follows a reference to white men in the previous sentence. You’d have to be reaching HARD to convince me that the original was comparing white womens’ treatment to something else… but you’re not even doing that. You’re saying it’s comparing white womens’ treatment to … y’know, what are we like, amirite? Or something.
Can you elucidate?
Ah, Katydid arrives to confirm that “Society tends to come down much harder on (some, not all) white women” doesn’t mean it comes down harder on them than it does white men, just, y’know, generally harder. Than, y’know, something.
Thanks for that comment, Katydid. It certainly added something to the conversation. Specifically, twenty five words. Well done.
Can you even see how obtuse that looks?
We can certainly see how obtuse you’ve chosen to be, especially after I’ve offered a possible clarification of what Katydid meant, and she confirmed my guess, and you then pretended she was being obtuse, while ignoring the subsequent clarification.
…Now: are you going to take another swing (maybe cherry pick another couple of individual cases?) or admit you’re wrong?
Why should she do any such thing, when you actually seem to be agreeing with her that maybe (in the area you cite at least) white women tend to be treated less harshly than they should be?
Hang on… are you saying that the point of post 2 is that white women are not treated harshly enough? I can agree with that, certainly.
It’s just that, to me, the comeback -- post 7 -- seemed to be saying that
(a) a woman who “just” climbed through a window (during a terrorist attack on the Capitol) was jailed while a man who killed three people was not and that, crucially,
(b) this was a BAD thing and a symptom of women’s generally harsher treatment.
Because if the point was women weren’t being treated harshly enough -- as you’re now apparently saying -- it seems an odd couple of examples to cherrypick.
Can you clarify -- is the point indeed that women should be treated much more harshly than at present?
I already did clarify, and you’re still obfuscating. It’s your fog-machine, you find your own way out of it.
Is the point indeed that women should be treated much more harshly than at present?
Yes or no. That’s all I ask.
Look, sonofrojblake is obviously right. That’s why people are always chanting, “Lock him up! Lock him up!”, at Trump for such minor things as eleventy million counts of blatant lying, corruption, and scheming to overthrow the US government, but would never think of doing anything like that to, say, Hilary Clinton for… um… something to do with emails.
Oh, wait.
(/snark)
@ 8 sonofrojblake
But seriously. This is so blatantly logically fallacious I can’t believe an actual adult typed this out and thought, “wow this is a really smart comment”.
Doofus, just to take the attempted insurrection as an example -- here’s a random photo of the participants. In your estimation, if the criminal justice system charged all these people with the exact same crime, and gave each the exact same sentence, would the proportion of women even begin to approach 10%?!
Hahahahah. Whatsamatter? Couldn’t find any studies from 1884?
@ 28 sonofrojblake
Yeah mate, we know. You have no idea how blindingly obvious it is. It’s called misogyny.
You really think people can’t tell your bizarre aggressive hostility to Katydid is not unrelated to what you perceive their gender to be?
@Silentbob the White Knight:
1. Your position is that the massive disproportionate number of males incarcerated is simply because males do more crimes, then? OK. Explain why I can’t use precisely the same logic to explain why there is a massively disproportionate number of Black people incarcerated. You don’t get to just ignore when your logic doesn’t work.
2. To counter a study you consider old, you produce a more recent study that contradicts it. You don’t just laugh and go “OOOOOLLDD!!!”. That’s not how science works. Special relativity was 1905, so it’s obviously wrong?
3. What do I perceive their gender to be? In which post did I use a gendered pronoun to refer to them, for instance? One post, please. “Katydid”, a word meaning long-horned grasshopper, is not gendered. It refers to both the male and female of that insect, so it’s no clue. What do YOU perceive their gender to be? I can guess, given your riding to their rescue.
4. No hostility. Sarcasm, at first, certainly. And that originated from them being wrong, provably. Not from any perception of gender. That’s in YOUR head. You might want to think about that.
Okay, SonofRojBlake is a troll. Got it.
Yeah, calling someone who criticized him a “White Knight” was a pretty obvious tip-off…
Two more posts, two more failures to answer a simple yes /no question… and I am a troll? Post 2 and all that followed it from the OP and their misguided allies is text book trolling. Turn, make an indefensible false statement, double down, disappear, come back claiming your point is clear even though it appears to have flipped 180… It’s a masterclass.
Go to bed, boy, you’re not fooling anyone.
Patronising AND sexist. You forgot to insult my race and sexuality, you must be tired.