This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Violence is not an element of the crime Chansley pleaded guilty to, obstruction of an official proceeding. So it is irrelevant whether he was violent.
Do you believe that is the normal punishment for such crime?
Well, according to the plea agreement, the sentencing guidelines range was 41 to 51 months. He got 41. So, yes.
The question isn’t what sentencing guidelines say. The question is what does the average person get. For example, certain protestors without authorization got into private areas for senators to protest Kavanaugh. Were those persons even arrested let alone stuck with 41 months? The context of these statutes do suggest some degree of violence.
Moreover the elements of the crime require that it be unauthorized. Yet here the defendant is thanking the police for letting them in and was escorted by 9 police officers when there was no one else around; these police officers even tried to unlock doors for him. This is at least a mitigating factor.
He should’ve gotten jail time but 3.5 years seems excessive given that other protestors probably received zero jail time and the context muddies the water.
I am not familiar with those specific people. Did they do so with the intent to disrupt an official proceeding? And, apparently 300 people were arrested at some point. Not sure if they are the ones you are referring to.
Where do you see that? The statute reads:
I think you might be thinking of another charge such as entering or remaining in a restricted building
Well, he did get the low end of the sentencing range. And, besides, the final offense level it calculated after mitigating and aggravating circumstances are added. Eg: According to the plea agreement, his agreed-upon offense level was reduced for acceptance of responsibility
Count 2, 3, and 5.
And yes there was an intent to interfere with Kavanaugh deliberations.
Additionally, I imagine the looters who were attacking the White House got less than 3.5 years.
That is, there is massive discretion in charging and pleas. Citing the sentencing guidance is far downstream of the relevant decisions.
Yes, there is, and prosecutors always charge as much as possible, and most charges are eventually dropped when more facts come to the fore (and sometimes charges are added when more facts come to the fore). The entire allegation is that this guy was treated more harshly than is normal, but what the prosecutors did as in fact completely normal. That doesn't mean it is ok, but the claim that he was somehow was singled out is not supported by simply pointing to what was alleged in the indictment.
I cannot comment unless you can link to exactly what you are referring to.
Were they attempting to disrupt an official proceeding? It doesn't sound like it.
Honestly at this point I am once again detecting bad faith.
First, you sent authorization was not an element in the crime. It was in some of the charges. Moreover, there is a policy to overcharge to agree to a lesser plea. That didn’t seem to occur here.
Second, I have to link to a specific fact pattern? Were you not around when BK protestors were occurring? You don’t remember the facts?
Finally, you think violent repeated attacks against the White House (including using fireworks) that required a much larger police presence to repeal (because it was in fact much more violent compared to J6) and that involved arson is not comparable because it didn’t stop an official proceeding?
The central theme running through the above is that yes we can point to specific laws or specific decisions made by prosecutors to say this was unique. I’m not saying details don’t matter but it is also true that there are a shit ton of laws out there and prosecutors have a massive amount of leeway in what charges they pursue and what charges they don’t. Taken at a whole, focusing then on the specific indictment is a fools errand. Look at the totality of the circumstances.
Go back and watch the Washington DC riots. Go watch the J6 tapes (including the Tucker tapes). It is quite clear there are numerous worse actors compared to the Q shaman. Yet those worse actors do not appear to have been as heavily punished as the Q shaman. I know why that is. Do you?
No, I am afraid that I am the one who is detecting bad faith:
But not the one that he was convicted of. That is the ostensible complaint, right? That his conviction was somehow unjust. As I said, it is normal that "charges are eventually dropped when more facts come to the fore." That is what happened here, so what is the complaint? I have done work in criminal defense for a long time, and I don't know a single defense attorney who would complaint about this.
There is also a policy to charge as many crimes as possible, and then drop most of them. That is precisely what happened here.
I remember the general facts, but if in order to determine whether they were guilty of this very specific crime, I need more specific facts. If you are claiming that they committed identical crimes, then isn't it incumbent on you to explain how they are identical, in ways that are legally relevant?
Is this a joke? Yes, if it didn't stop an official proceeding then it is not the crime of disrupting an official proceeding, which would explain why they were not charged with disrupting an official proceeding. And the law defines "official proceeding" to include "a proceeding before the Congress" but not things going on in the White House.
You seem to have this all too common idea that what is "worse" is legally relevant. It isn't. What is relevant is whether the elements of a particular statues were violated. For example, if the shaman intended to prevent Congress from declaring Biden the winner, then he was guilty of attempted disruption of an official proceeding the moment he entered the capital, regardless how he got in or whether he prayed on the way in or not. US v. Farhane, 634 F. 3d 127 - (2nd Cir 2011) ["A conviction for attempt requires proof that a defendant (a) had the intent to commit the object crime and (b) engaged in conduct amounting to a substantial step towards its commission."].
And, for the record, plenty of Jan 6 rioters have been sentenced to far more than 41 months, as you would know if you spend 10 seconds googling.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link