January 6th rioter found guilty of all 5 charges

[forkup]

It isn’t of any use as evidence against me

A guilty plea isn't of any use as evidence when it stands alone? Standing alone it is more than enough. It is an admission of guilt.

Not that it stands alone by the way. The prosecutors have a detailed record of their activities. https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-r...nload?utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
Page 9 to 32 give a detailed account of what they did including e-mail traffic and weapons purchases.

As to your "oh he is obviously pressured into the guilty charge" Even if true ( something you have no evidence of) it still puts you into the position of having to reject the prosecution's charges, the admission of guilt by the defendant, and the confirmation of guilt by the judge.

You also suddenly appear unwilling to discuss anything besides the premise of the OP? I'm sorry, but if you "don't give a fuck" what the OP did or didn't say in the thread premise why should I? It is you who went on the tangent about seditious conspiracy, not my fault that those charges actually have been filed in relation the Jan 6th.

 

[Zincwarrior]

I looked but did not find anything: so no sentence yet?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

A guilty plea isn't of any use as evidence when it stands alone? Standing alone it is more than enough. It is an admission of guilt.

Not that it stands alone by the way. The prosecutors have a detailed record of their activities. https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-r...nload?utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
Page 9 to 32 give a detailed account of what they did including e-mail traffic and weapons purchases.

As to your "oh he is obviously pressured into the guilty charge" Even if true ( something you have no evidence of) it still puts you into the position of having to reject the prosecution's charges, the admission of guilt by the defendant, and the confirmation of guilt by the judge.

You also suddenly appear unwilling to discuss anything besides the premise of the OP? I'm sorry, but if you "don't give a fuck" what the OP did or didn't say in the thread premise why should I? It is you who went on the tangent about seditious conspiracy, not my fault that those charges actually have been filed in relation the Jan 6th.

A guilty plea is also, defacto, a conviction

 

[BackAgain]

A guilty plea isn't of any use as evidence when it stands alone? Standing alone it is more than enough. It is an admission of guilt.

Not that it stands alone by the way. The prosecutors have a detailed record of their activities. https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-r...nload?utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
Page 9 to 32 give a detailed account of what they did including e-mail traffic and weapons purchases.

As to your "oh he is obviously pressured into the guilty charge" Even if true ( something you have no evidence of) it still puts you into the position of having to reject the prosecution's charges, the admission of guilt by the defendant, and the confirmation of guilt by the judge.

You also suddenly appear unwilling to discuss anything besides the premise of the OP? I'm sorry, but if you "don't give a fuck" what the OP did or didn't say in the thread premise why should I? It is you who went on the tangent about seditious conspiracy, not my fault that those charges actually have been filed in relation the Jan 6th.

Hey, stupid: a plea is not evidence against the party pleading guilty: it is a plea. Evidence is used in a contested case to try to prove the guilt of the defendant. No evidence is needed to prove guilt when a defendant is pleading guilty because the issue of guilt no longer needs to be proved.

One defendant’s plea of guilty isn’t evidence of anything at all relative to any other defendant (standing alone) because it can’t even be admitted into evidence at another defendant’s trial. (The “standing alone” reference is that a defendant who cops out may testify against a co-defendant provided the former is subject to cross examination).

Also, if you wish to quote me, do so. But you’d best not attribute to me words that I didn’t say and put them in quotations. That kind of behavior is not acceptable on this Board. Don’t do it again.

I have plenty of experience in pleas and trials. I know what an allocation is. I know what it means and what it doesn’t mean. Your bullshit spin will not stand in its place.

I also know that it IS a fact that many people have pleaded guilty to crimes they didn’t commit (or to charges higher than they actually did commit) to avoid the potentially worse consequences of losing at trial. You can pretend otherwise, but you’re quite wrong.

 

[bendog]

Hey, stupid: a plea is not evidence against the party pleading guilty: it is a plea. Evidence is used in a contested case to try to prove the guilt of the defendant. No evidence is needed to prove guilt when a defendant is pleading guilty because the issue of

no longer needs to be proved.

One defendant’s plea of guilty isn’t evidence of anything at all relative to any other defendant (standing alone) because it can’t even be admitted into evidence at another defendant’s trial. (The “standing alone” reference is that a defendant who cops out may testify against a co-defendant provided the former is subject to cross examination).

Also, if you wish to quote me, do so. But you’d best not attribute to me words that I didn’t say and put them in quotations. That kind of behavior is not acceptable on this Board. Don’t do it again.

I have plenty of experience in pleas and trials. I know what an allocation is. I know what it means and what it doesn’t mean. Your bullshit spin will not stand in its place.

I also know that it IS a fact that many people have pleaded guilty to crimes they didn’t commit (or to charges higher than they actually did commit) to avoid the potentially worse consequences of losing at trial. You can pretend otherwise, but you’re quite wrong.

False. For a guilty plea, the State must state what the evidence would be, and the defendant has to explicitly admit to the facts the State revealed.

 

[forkup]

Hey, stupid: a plea is not evidence against the party pleading guilty: it is a plea. Evidence is used in a contested case to try to prove the guilt of the defendant. No evidence is needed to prove guilt when a defendant is pleading guilty because the issue of

no longer needs to be proved.

One defendant’s plea of guilty isn’t evidence of anything at all relative to any other defendant (standing alone) because it can’t even be admitted into evidence at another defendant’s trial. (The “standing alone” reference is that a defendant who cops out may testify against a co-defendant provided the former is subject to cross examination).

Also, if you wish to quote me, do so. But you’d best not attribute to me words that I didn’t say and put them in quotations. That kind of behavior is not acceptable on this Board. Don’t do it again.

I have plenty of experience in pleas and trials. I know what an allocation is. I know what it means and what it doesn’t mean. Your bullshit spin will not stand in its place.

I also know that it IS a fact that many people have pleaded guilty to crimes they didn’t commit (or to charges higher than they actually did commit) to avoid the potentially worse consequences of losing at trial. You can pretend otherwise, but you’re quite wrong.

Even if true ( something you have no evidence of) it still puts you into the position of having to reject the prosecution's charges, the admission of guilt by the defendant, and the confirmation of guilt by the judge.

But you’d best not attribute to me words that I didn’t say and put them in quotations. That kind of behavior is not acceptable on this Board. Don’t do it again.

For this I do need to appoligize. Your words were " I don't care". I can only say it was me not checking the exact wording but knowing the gist of it. It doesn't change my point at all. You can't both object to me talking about another charge filed against other people who participated on Jan 6th and at the same time claiming that the verdict in the case of the OP is somehow exculpatory for what happened because it didn't include the specific charges I pointed out.

One defendant’s plea of guilty isn’t evidence of anything at all relative to any other defendant

The guilty plea itself isn't. The testimony given can be.

I also know that it IS a fact that many people have pleaded guilty to crimes they didn’t commit

Never claimed it isn't a fact. I claimed you have no evidence it is what happened in this case. For someone who takes offense when people misquote you when it doesn't actually change the premise, you sure seem willing to misrepresent my wording multiple times when it does.

 

[BackAgain]

False. For a guilty plea, the State must state what the evidence would be, and the defendant has to explicitly admit to the facts the State revealed.

The state states what the charges are in an indictment or charging document. The defendant either admits the “facts” or he (or she) doesn’t. It is an admission it is not evidence since there is nothing to be proved. Do you know why an admission is?

 

[BackAgain]

For this I do need to appoligize. Your words were " I don't care". I can only say it was me not checking the exact wording but knowing the gist of it. It doesn't change my point at all. You can't both object to me talking about another charge filed against other people who participated on Jan 6th and at the same time claiming that the verdict in the case of the OP is somehow exculpatory for what happened because it didn't include the specific charges I pointed out.

The guilty plea itself isn't. The testimony given can be.

Never claimed it isn't a fact. I claimed you have no evidence it is what happened in this case. For someone who takes offense when people misquote you when it doesn't actually change the premise, you sure seem willing to misrepresent my wording multiple times when it does.

You claimed that I said, "oh he is obviously pressured into the guilty charge". Prove it. Or withdraw it.

 

[Lesh]

Hey, stupid: a plea is not evidence against the party pleading guilty: it is a plea. Evidence is used in a contested case to try to prove the guilt of the defendant. No evidence is needed to prove guilt when a defendant is pleading guilty because the issue of guilt no longer needs to be proved.

One defendant’s plea of guilty isn’t evidence of anything at all relative to any other defendant (standing alone) because it can’t even be admitted into evidence at another defendant’s trial. (The “standing alone” reference is that a defendant who cops out may testify against a co-defendant provided the former is subject to cross examination).

Also, if you wish to quote me, do so. But you’d best not attribute to me words that I didn’t say and put them in quotations. That kind of behavior is not acceptable on this Board. Don’t do it again.

I have plenty of experience in pleas and trials. I know what an allocation is. I know what it means and what it doesn’t mean. Your bullshit spin will not stand in its place.

I also know that it IS a fact that many people have pleaded guilty to crimes they didn’t commit (or to charges higher than they actually did commit) to avoid the potentially worse consequences of losing at trial. You can pretend otherwise, but you’re quite wrong.

Do you understand the concept of discovery?

This creep's lawyers were shown the evidence against him and because of that he pled guilty rather than go to a jury and face a harsher sentence

 

[BackAgain]

Do you understand the concept of discovery?

This creep's lawyers were shown the evidence against him and because of that he pled guilty rather than go to a jury and face a harsher sentence

I think I grasp “discovery” far better than you do. Lol

What the fuck that has to do with anything under discussion is — completely lacking a basis in reality.

Listen: some people who get arrested are as guilty as all hell. But the newsflash is not exactly an unknown problem in our criminal Justice system: specifically, it can be safer and therefore more rational and logical to choose to plead guilty for pragmatic reasons (like the threat of more time in prison! Than it is to fight the charges even if you’re innocent (or only guilty of a lower charge).

Again, as I said before, I’m not denying this defendant pleaded guilty because he was actually guilty. (I assume he was guilty.)

But he didn’t plead guilty to insurrection. And he didn’t plead guilty to seditious conspiracy. He wasn’t even charged with those absurd crimes. his plea of guilt doesn’t constitute “evidence” of anyone else charged with crimes that day.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

What the fuck that has to do with anything under discussion is — completely lacking a basis in reality.

Discovery is when he realized he was fucked and pleaded guilty.

 

[BackAgain]

Discovery is when he realized he was fucked and pleaded guilty.

Maybe. Maybe not. Or, maybe he just caved at the last moment. Kinda depends on which defendant you’re talking about. One pled. One went to trial and was found guilty.

Do you recall that THIS thread is about the one who got convicted at trial by a jury?

 

[...]

January 6th rioter found guilty of all 5 charges. A big win for the DOJ. A big blow to Trump and his minions who claimed January 6th was nothing but a protest.
This was the first jury trial. It sets the stage for the the many who were arrested for January 6th riot will be seeing serious jail time.
We need to start building more prisons for all of the Trump minions and the Trump[ family

Jury finds first US Capitol riot defendant to go on trial guilty on all counts

A jury in Washington, DC, on Tuesday found January 6 rioter Guy Reffitt guilty of all five charges he faced related to the US Capitol attack, in the pivotal outcome of the first federal trial related to the riot.

www.cnn.com

And let the slaughter begin...

 

[...]

Commie trash

So Putin is a friend of yours...

 

[Lesh]

But he didn’t plead guilty to insurrection.

Reffitt, a Texas Three Percenter and supporter of then-President Donald Trump when he went to the Capitol on January 6, was charged with five counts -- wanting to obstruct the congressional certification of the 2020 presidential election, transporting guns into DC, carrying a Smith & Wesson handgun onto the restricted grounds of the Capitol, interfering with Capitol Police protecting the Upper West Terrace and obstructing justice by threatening his son and daughter when he returned to Texas.
The jury of six men and six women in DC's federal court deliberated for just under four hours Tuesday.

The maximum sentence for the most severe of Reffitt's charges -- obstruction of Congress and obstruction of justice -- is 20 years in prison. He is scheduled to be sentenced on June 8

 

[BackAgain]

Reffitt, a Texas Three Percenter and supporter of then-President Donald Trump when he went to the Capitol on January 6, was charged with five counts -- wanting to obstruct the congressional certification of the 2020 presidential election, transporting guns into DC, carrying a Smith & Wesson handgun onto the restricted grounds of the Capitol, interfering with Capitol Police protecting the Upper West Terrace and obstructing justice by threatening his son and daughter when he returned to Texas.
The jury of six men and six women in DC's federal court deliberated for just under four hours Tuesday.

The maximum sentence for the most severe of Reffitt's charges -- obstruction of Congress and obstruction of justice -- is 20 years in prison. He is scheduled to be sentenced on June 8

Yes. I know. I posted the NPR piece. And as I correctly noted, he did not plead guilty to insurrection.

 

[Lesh]

Yes. I know. I posted the NPR piece. And as I correctly noted, he did not plead guilty to insurrection.

He's facing 20 years for Obstructing a government proceeding and Obstruction of Justice...as well as carrying a weapon into the Capitol

 

[BackAgain]

He's facing 20 years for Obstructing a government proceeding and Obstruction of Justice...as well as carrying a weapon into the Capitol

Yeah. Again. Already known. Already discussed. And beside the point.

 

[Lesh]

Yeah. Again. Already known. Already discussed. And beside the point.

Read the thread title.

That IS the point

 

[BackAgain]

Read the thread title.

That IS the point

No. It is not the point. We all know he was convicted of those charges. The point is that they have nothing to do with insurrection of seditious conspiracy.

If there was any other “point” in relating the trivial “news,” that “point” is not exactly clear. What do you imagine the alleged “point” is?