this post was submitted on 15 Nov 2023
63 points (100.0% liked)

politics

18904 readers
4066 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. 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.
  2. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  3. 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 another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. 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.
  6. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple 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.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

• Register To Vote

• Citizenship Resource Center

• Congressional Awards Program

• Federal Government Agencies

• Library of Congress Legislative Resources

• The White House

• U.S. House of Representatives

• U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

• News

• World News

• Business News

• Political Discussion

• Ask Politics

• Military News

• Global Politics

• Moderate Politics

• Progressive Politics

• UK Politics

• Canadian Politics

• Australian Politics

• New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
outrageousmatter@lemmy.world
aidan@lemmy.world
jordanlund@lemmy.world
HLMenckenFan@lemmy.world
little_cow@lemmy.world
63
Prosecutors grapple with alternate reality defense of the political fringe in Paul Pelosi trial (www.politico.com)
submitted 10 months ago by jeffw@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world
10 comments fedilink hide all child comments
top 10 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] MrZee@lemm.ee 17 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

IANAL, but my reading of this defense is different than what I’m seeing in most of the comments here.

He isn’t simply pleading insanity. The defense is trying to avoid a guilty verdict on some particular charges with large prison sentences. The defense is claiming that he did not intend to interfere with official duties.

He’s facing two charges: attempted kidnapping of a U.S. official (which requires the intent to interfere with official duties) and assault on an immediate family member of a U.S. official (which also requires the intent to interfere with or retaliate against the official over their duties). The kidnapping charge carries a 20-year prison sentence and the assault has a 30-year term.

They’re basically saying, “yes my client committed assault and kidnapping, but not for the reason required to be found guilty of those particular charges. Therefore, he is not guilty.

It doesn’t sound like their argument holds up because, even though his reasons are crazy, they still show he intended to interfere with official duties. But this is not a “put me in an insane asylum” attempt. It’s a not-guilty (of those particular charges) attempt.

[–] Nougat@kbin.social 16 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Hypothetical: A carjacker takes a car while the owners are still in it. The owners happen to be the Pelosis. That would not be chargeable as "kidnapping of a US official," with that intent to interfere with official duties; the carjacker was not targeting the Pelosis because of their relationship to government.

In this case, the Pelosis were clearly the targets because of Nancy Pelosi's status as an elected official, and her purported involvment in some corruption in government.

[–] MrZee@lemm.ee 3 points 10 months ago

Agreed. Good explanations.

[–] charonn0@startrek.website 16 points 10 months ago (2 children)

If he's too crazy to be guilty, then he's too dangerous to be freed.

[–] Makeitstop@lemmy.world 3 points 10 months ago

That's how insanity pleas are supposed to work. You don't go free, you just get locked up in a different place, and without a date set for your release.

[–] captainlezbian@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago

Yeah that’s usually how insanity works. If you want to be free asap don’t plead insanity. What could’ve been over in a decade could easily be the equivalent of life probation if you’re ever deemed sane enough to be let out

[–] captainlezbian@lemmy.world 0 points 10 months ago

Yeah that’s usually how insanity works. If you want to be free asap don’t plead insanity. What could’ve been over in a decade could easily be the equivalent of life probation if you’re ever deemed sane enough to be let out

load more comments (-1 replies)
[–] drekloge@lemmy.world 7 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

Here's the thing I'm curious about: If this defense is even remotely successful, and they can show that his state of mind was caused by the absolute nonsense he was consuming for news, do you think laws will change about what claims can be made without proof on the internet? Screaming "fire" on the internet and whatnot.

[–] IHadTwoCows@lemm.ee 3 points 10 months ago

I for one am very glad that we protect the free speech of those that radicalized him. If we didnt do that then they might become dangerous and want to impose on the rights of others

[–] Semi-Hemi-Demigod@kbin.social 1 points 10 months ago

Known as the Savage defense