Proud Boy Joe Biggs receives 17 years in Jan. 6 seditious conspiracy case
3 years ago by MicroWave to c/politics
Joe Biggs, a Proud Boys leader convicted of seditious conspiracy who the government says "served as an instigator and leader" during the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol, was sentenced to 17 years in federal prison on Thursday.
It is among the longest sentences in Capitol riot cases. The record is the 18-year sentence given to Oath Keepers founder Stewart Rhodes, also convicted of seditious conspiracy, after prosecutors sought 25 years in federal prison in his case.
In general, a conspiracy charge can't be sustained on speech alone; even speech wherein two or more people agree to commit a crime. It additionally requires some overt material act in furtherance of the conspiracy.
If Alice, Bob, and Carla get together and make a plan to break Dan's window and steal his fancy new TV, that's just talk. But if Alice then goes to the hardware store and buys a window-smashing hammer, now all three can be convicted for conspiracy to commit burglary.
In this case, Biggs' overt acts in furtherance of the conspiracy included actually breaking down fences to get at Congress.
indeed. this is why the speech itself must be considered as part of the conspiracy. the comment by his lawyer seems to take the entire act and reframe it around the speech, when its clear the speech and the act are, essentially, one in this case.
edit: errant full stop
Yeah, the latest conservative tactic for pardoning criminality seems to be generalizing the acts into meaninglessness then pretending that generalized act is what's being prosecuted. This case very clearly fits the definition of a criminal conspiracy but they're trying to convince the base that the DoJ is ready to prosecute all conservatives for wrongthink.
So is conspiring to overthrow the govt, so…..
He didn't threaten to do it, he did it
Conspiracy, by definition, is talking about commiting a crime, and then doing an action to actually commit the crime.
So let's say I get some friends together and we talk about pulling a heist on the local art museum. That in and of itself is not a crime, we are just talking. But if we start going out and casing the joint, buying crow bars and shit to actually do it, it becomes a conspiracy to commit burglary, which is a crime. Even though we didn't actually break into the place yet, it becomes a crime when we make actions toward the crime.
Dude made statements about overthrowing the government. Not a crime. But then he went to the government and started jumping fences, and breaking into buildings. Crime.
Also, by your logic yelling fire wouldn't be illegal, it's literally speech. Also threatening is a crime. If I say, I'm gonna hit you with this hammer, and I have a hammer in my hand, that is assault, which is totally a crime. Didn't actually hit you, just threatened to but with the clear ability to go through with that threat.
That's not true at all. It is illegal in many places to make threats or intimidate people. See here: https://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/...
It actually isn't.
"Shouting fire in a crowded theater" is a popular analogy for speech or actions whose principal purpose is to create panic, and in particular for speech or actions which may for that reason be thought to be outside the scope of free speech protections. The phrase is a paraphrasing of a dictum, or non-binding statement, from Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.'s opinion in the United States Supreme Court case Schenck v. United States in 1919, which held that the defendant's speech in opposition to the draft during World War I was not protected free speech under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. The case was later partially overturned by Brandenburg v. Ohio in 1969, which limited the scope of banned speech to that which would be directed to and likely to incite imminent lawless action (e.g. a riot).[1]
The paraphrasing differs from Holmes's original wording in that it typically does not include the word falsely, while also adding the word "crowded" to describe the theatre.[2]
It's not as cut and dry as that-
“The falsely shouted warning, while technically speech, could potentially violate a state's criminal laws against disturbing the peace or disorderly conduct, whether or not it provokes a stampede, for instance."
-Nashwa Gewaily, a media and First Amendment lawyer
so is a conspiracy, incitement, etc... we are talking about the freedom of speech vs freedom of concequence from that speech. that is what I take issue with. inciting panic in closed confines has immediate consequences - this is clear and therefore typically prohibited.
political speech fomenting real-world violence (or panic) should result in the same level of legal consequence when action is taken based on that speech. imho, you can not separate the speech from the act once the act has taken place.
your point is well taken - speech must be protected.
but my illustration is indended to be as outlandish as I believe the lawyer's statement was. once there is an overt act, the speech is no longer separate and protected. his statement appears to try and separate the two. separating speech from the resulting act (and therefore consequences) seems to be the current playbook and it infuriates me.
I hope we are not talking past each others here as I believe I understand your point, but my comment was to illustrate the silliness of the statement by Biggs's lawyer.
edit: context
He’ll be 57 when he gets out so that’s a good 40+ years left for his political career.
Trump won’t pardon them. He hates his base more than we do. He only pardons people who are on a level that allows to them to help Trump personally.
Also, I’m pretty damned cynical, but I still think there is less than a 50% chance trump wins. Unfortunately 49% is very uncomfortable.
He failed. If he actually wanted a successful coup he should have organised his merry band of idiots. But since everyone involved is completely feckless, Trump included, that was never going to happen.
I believe he'd absolutely pardon them. Not because he cares about them, but because it would "legitimize" his claim that the election was stolen. Or just because it would be a distraction for people to talk about while he does whatever he wants.
If New Hampshire decides he's ineligible for the primary because of his past bullshit, it'll absolutely start a domino effect of other states doing the same.
I'm not american, so I'm not sure, but doesn't that mean if he literally can't be the republican candidate if too many states say no?
I mean, yeah, he can run independent I suppose, but Trump's ego isn't just about being president. He gets off on having the GOP under his thumb. Once that goes away, even if he "wins" as an independent, would he even be able to accomplish anything?
He'll take that to the corrupt supreme Court where all of those constitutional originalists will have a sudden change of heart just like they do when the Bible they love so much says something they don't care for.
The only thing that makes me think he might not is that he could've preemptively pardoned everyone involved in this in the dead time between the certification and Brandon taking office and he didn't. Idk why he didn't, it would have cost him nothing and made people much more likely to commit overt acts of terrorism for him a second time, but he didn't.
Not in their minds. In their minds they "did it" and "stood up to a tyrannical government" and "tried to stop the Dems from stealing" they just got stopped by the deep state once again cuz it is afraid of how awesome trump is.
These people don't live in reality. They've built a whole alternate one where trump is a billionaire and Russia helping him get elected was a hoax and the corrupt Ukraine phone call is a hoax and trump has a 6 pack of abs.
They literally built a Golden idol of him.
They went to the grassy knoll to wait for JFK to come back from the dead.
They try to deposit trump bucks in atms.
But they also build your house, drive on your roads, send their kids to your schools and vote in your elections.
They are ignorant, and stupid, yes. But the only way to fix that is education and they hate that too.
Just a friendly reminder to any shit-birds reading; this is the nicest version of what we will do to traitors. You will not overthrow the government, you will not reinstate a four time impeached Yankee carpet bagger as president, you will not pass go, nor will you collect $200. You will simply rot in prison, again: at best.
These guys got so caught up in brainwashing themselves. Honestly they think they are the next Nelson Mandela of the US. Then they find out effectively none were supporting them.
When they go to jail there won't be any protest. They will be alone. What a hill to die on.
Honestly they think they are the next Nelson Mandela of the US
There were like the Tory militias fighting for George III against George Washington. These assholes were literally trying to destroy the government set up by George Washington and the founding fathers.
No <3
It sort of started out for contexts like the drunken bean pole baiting the bouncer. I think the current more political/court system is an OK variation. It might be getting older but it's still useful, funny, poignant
Play stupid games, win stupid prizes
First
Just a reminder: on the day tweets were claiming the gallow was brought into DC by one of the vehicles in Alex Jones' motorcade.
We need to be clear here: Mike Pence was going to be assassinated on January 6th.
And Pence is still jerking them all off, his would be lynchers.
Hey, it's his thing. He likes his wife to control his behavior towards women and his would be assassins to piss on him.
With good behavior, he can be free in only 14.5 years, and he was let off lightly.
Imagine throwing away almost 15 years of your life, destroying your family, and losing everything you worked for, because you believed Trump. Then finding out that it was all one big lie.
Tarrio is the one I'm waiting on... Good riddance to bad rubbish!
Aren't they named after a show tune?
I like calling them Pink Boys (in the Subgenius sense).
That's just what The Conspiracy would have you believe! XD
Trump was perfectly situated to build a coalition of easily manipulated rural blue collar workers who felt (rightly in many cases) that they've been abandoned by the Democratic party...wealthy elites who saw one of their own and felt comfortable and confident that he'd protect their interests...and closet racists, bigots, and neo-fascists all across the country who heard his dog whistles loud and clear.
Combine that with party discipline to fall in behind whoever the party tapped and he ended up with just enough people in just the right locations to snatch the 2016 election.
Unfortunately for Trump, over the next four years, he failed to deliver much of any value to those rural voters, and failed to inflict enough cruelty for the far right contingent, and was too volatile for comfort for enough of those elites that he couldn't put together enough of an effort to take 2020.
While I don't want to jinx it, I feel like 2016 was an absolute perfect storm for him and he'll never be able to scrape up the necessary votes in the necessary states to win another presidential election.
Not long enough, but when is it ever?
This is the best summary I could come up with:
The record is the 18-year sentence given to Oath Keepers founder Stewart Rhodes, also convicted of seditious conspiracy, after prosecutors sought 25 years in federal prison in his case.
The government sought 33 years for Biggs, an Army veteran who sustained a head injury in Iraq and then served as a correspondent for the conspiracy website Infowars.
Prosecutors argued that he was a “vocal leader and influential proponent of the group’s shift toward political violence” and used his “outsized public profile” and his military experience as he “led a revolt against the government in an effort to stop the peaceful transfer of power.”
He ruled earlier in Thursday's hearing that Biggs’ tearing down of a fence that stood between police and rioters qualified him for a terrorism sentencing enhancement sought by prosecutors.
The other Proud Boys will also be sentenced in the coming days: Rehl on Thursday afternoon, Pezzola and Nordean on Friday and Tarrio on Tuesday.
The actions of the Proud Boys on Jan. 6 were “quintessential pollical behavior” up until the riot turned violent, Pattis said, arguing that prosecutors had used his client’s political speech as evidence of criminal intent.
The original article contains 787 words, the summary contains 192 words. Saved 76%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
Thanks Bot, but in this particular case I’m going to savour every word of the full article. No hard feelings.
Let's get all the Pink Boys and Oath Breakers into prison. And same for those that planned the coup and goaded them into this.
Also, I want to get Flynn and his brother and Wray under the microscope, too. What did they know, when did they know it and who were they talking to?
Susprised they've given him a harsh sentence
Harsh? Please. He tried to overthrow the government and he got less time than someone caught with a single joint in Mississippi
Pretty sure that's an exaggeration
I'll just leave this here then.
https://hightimes.com/...
Again, they were not "just given harsh sentences because of having weed". Reoffending is the cause
The government was seeking 33 years. This is a lenient sentence.
@lemmy.world
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles. Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to US politics and contain quality and original content. Social Media adjacent hosts like Substack are allowed, but ONLY if they tie back to a company/subsidiary. No personal or friend group blogs and no self-promotion. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and re-hosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing other users of being bots or paid actors.
- No memes, trolling, misinformation, or low-effort posts/comments (including reposts). If you see posts like this that anger you, do not engage. Report, block, and live a happier life than they do. Any slap-fight is subject to comment removals. Fights full of rule violations will result in temporary bans to cool off.
- No manipulating votes via bots or alt accounts; this will result in permanent bans. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in an account ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be permanently banned.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules and use critical thinking when reading, posting, and commenting. Users that repeatedly have comments or posts removed, weaponize reports, or violate the code of conduct, will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users. The reason(s) behind moderator action(s) are publicly available through the Modlog.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
go to feed...
@lemmy.world
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles. Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to US politics and contain quality and original content. Social Media adjacent hosts like Substack are allowed, but ONLY if they tie back to a company/subsidiary. No personal or friend group blogs and no self-promotion. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and re-hosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing other users of being bots or paid actors.
- No memes, trolling, misinformation, or low-effort posts/comments (including reposts). If you see posts like this that anger you, do not engage. Report, block, and live a happier life than they do. Any slap-fight is subject to comment removals. Fights full of rule violations will result in temporary bans to cool off.
- No manipulating votes via bots or alt accounts; this will result in permanent bans. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in an account ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be permanently banned.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules and use critical thinking when reading, posting, and commenting. Users that repeatedly have comments or posts removed, weaponize reports, or violate the code of conduct, will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users. The reason(s) behind moderator action(s) are publicly available through the Modlog.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
go to feed...
— Biggs’ lawyer, Norm Pattis
got it! gonna find the nearest crowded movie theatre and yell "FIRE!" at the top of my lungs. thanks, norm!
save