New York Times managed this with eloquence.
Should also be one dot labeled “running for president”
And another that is labeled “ate a bullet for breaking a secure barrier”.
Imagine trying to martyr someone climbing through a broken window to threaten Congress while being warned by the Capitol Police that they will shoot them for doing it.
Regardless of whether some Congress critters deserve to be threatened, it’s just the most privileged idiocy at best, especially to do it because the election didn’t go the way you wanted.
It’s probably already been said, but that event is White Privilege personified. The fact that you have so little interaction with law enforcement, not even any real negative interaction, and see all the white badasses in movies able to not get shot when they’re the Badass In The Right and the Dumb Cops Don’t Get It, so they let you by…
Think how many stories of minorities getting serious abuse, fear, or even just killed. Those stories become the infamous “Talk” some PoC parents have to have with their kids about interaction with the police. It’s generational. They’d know the chance of being shot is real.
But this white chick? Nah. Not gonna worry. The shock from everyone surrounding the issue is just further proof.
Not trying to make this a race thing, but just SMH at the whole wildly different worldview some people have.
I get what you’re saying, but imagine for a second that Trump managed to convince two states legislators to send in R electoral college votes and throw out the democratic election. Imagine how pissed you’d be. It’s not that hard to imagine liberals storming the capital because of a stolen election.
I don’t find the reverse scenario to be that far fetched. I get their misplaced anger. They were sold lies and those lies are enraging if you believe them. I don’t think it’s that hard to see the other side’s viewpoint.
Ohh empathy! Always nice to see a dose of that!
If some dumbass lib climbed through a window at the head of mob chanting for the President’s blood because they lost and were stupid enough to fall for easily disproven lie I also wouldn’t blame the Secret Service for popping their head.
I’d say the exact same thing as I say about Babbit.
“Skill Issue.”
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
Look at all those Antifa people who got in trouble /s
not pictured: all the Federal agents that incited the poor peaceful MAGA sight-seers.
/s
Would be nice to see a video of the event to finally set the record straight.
It’s a damn shame no one took any pictures the whole day
I wish this graphic included a # and % for each category and color coded for misdemeanants and felons.
deleted by creator
This certainly is data, which doesn’t exist purely in tabular tables. If you’re interested in doing so you could count to see how many records exists in the set, and you can easily view the “prosecution_result” field for each record. The data is also arranged into groups for easier consumption of trends that the creator is showcasing.
If you were to look at the raw data, probably stored in tabular records, you wouldn’t gain much insight into the overarching trends without spending more time studying and taking notes than the few seconds it took to absorb the trends in the author’s visualization.
Assuming they had a proper criteria/methodology rather than just anecdotes and the like, it’s data. It’s a weird visualization of that data, but it’s still data.
Phrased another way, using only the data provided by the drawing, you could turn this into more common presentations. This includes a spreadsheet, pie chart, or a bar graph.
That’s what I’ve always said about pie charts
Also, they’ve only caught like half the people who were there.
Being there was perfectly legal. Attending a riot can be a lot of fun. In fact, if everyone is well behaved, it’s encouraged and called peaceful protest.
Everyone that entered did so illegally. The ones that stayed outside were perfectly legal, and are not part of the group that is still wanted by law enforcement.
Being there was not legal they were told to disperse when they failed to do so it then became a crime.
Moreover, a riot is not a protest and even a protest isn’t always legal (even in western countries where they are a fundamental right, i.e. an expression of free speech)
Where’s the arrow pointing to the dead lady?
What about the arrow pointing to the guy who accidentally tasered himself so hard in the balls that he died?
You can die from that? Thank you for saving my life
Well there go MY weekend plans :/
Ha, that’s my weekend plans sorted!
To be fair, that tickmark would be under terrorist.
deleted by creator
Ah you’re right.
Maybe dead terrorist
deleted by creator
The one rioter that got shot dead there.
Fully acquitted… from life
2A abortion, popular these days on the right. :p
deleted by creator
Oh I didn’t hear about that. Another rioter got trampled?
deleted by creator
Much like Jesus died for your sins, they were arrested for my amusement
In that case, the mediator between Jesus dying for your sins and them being arrested for your amusement is Chris Chan being arrested for your sins 😂
deleted by creator
Yeah let’s call it what it is, a straight up coup attempt.
Fortunately it was a coup attempt conducted by the least competent group of people on the planet.
be a chud
use guns as a substitute penis
Try to fuck the entire country
Not a one brought a gun
tragic
A few did. They never got to live out their cowboy-like fantasy of using it there, though.
Skill issue, if Wahlberg had been on that capitol things would have gone down different.
The timidity of the prosecutors is appalling. Some did bring guns. All intended to commit felonies. removed got shot and died. If it had been a 7-Eleven instead of the Capitol, every single one of them would have been charged with felony murder.
Which slur did you use that got turned into removed ?
tsk tsk, so much for the tolerant anti-insurgents.
I used the b word to describe Ashlii Babbitt.
And so was the Beer Hall Putsch. How did that turn out in the log run?
Remember that Hitler had an unsuccessful coup attempt before getting into full power.
The majority of them were given charges of breaking and entering into a capitol building or picketing in a capitol building. Not really sure what the graphic is trying to convey. It makes it seem like the majority plead guilty to inssurrection.
I agree - people were under-charged.
It’s showing what it says on the label - outcomes of cases relating to Jan 6. People are overwhelmingly guilty. Where’s the reference to insurrection?
Well, every person there is guilty of insurrection.
It’s not as clear as it should be, it means convicted people that are still fighting the charges
Add: I want to read the article of the story behind the two who were acquitted.
Formally speaking, a conviction will attach once a defendant is found guilty by a trial court. Even while one or more appeals may be ongoing, it is accurate to describe the defendant as convicted. The status of a federal conviction sticks until such time the conviction is judicially overturned by a successful appeal, or when pardoned by the executive. But not clemency, which is a reduction in the penalty by the executive, but retains the conviction.
A person who has their conviction overturned or pardoned can no longer be accurately described as convicted. Although colloquially, it’s unclear if “ex-convict” is an acceptable description or not.
I would say that one shouldn’t use “ex-convict” if the conviction was overturned, since that’s essentially saying the conviction was incorrect to begin with (as far as I understand), while it could be correct for someone who was pardoned, since it isn’t directly about the conviction being wrong in that case (unless I’ve misunderstood that).
while it could be correct for someone who was pardoned,
Correct. Accepting a pardon requires the person to admit that they are guilty. Important to remember if the Grand Cheeto ends up winning and pardoning any/everyone involved. Part of a presidential pardon is accepting that you are guilty of the crime, and accept the pardon for said crime. You can’t accept the pardon without simultaneously admitting guilt, because the executive branch can’t pardon an innocent person.
I phrased it that way because I’m also unsure as to how “ex-convict” should be used and how most people use it. I’ve heard other people say it to mean anyone who has been released from prison, although that doesn’t make much sense for someone who just serves their time.
As a result, so far as I’m aware, it’s colloquially ambiguous, and lawyers and jurists may have a more stringent definition they might use.
I want to read the article of the story behind the two who were acquitted.
My guess: able to hire expensive lawyers.
I vaguely recall one of them having not entered the Capitol? So they were part of the group milling around outside, which mostly wasn’t charged.
I’d expect more acquittals tbh. It was, at the outset, a legal and constitutionally protected protest. I’m still not entirely on board with calling it an insurrection, a coup, etc. but it definitely devolved into a non-peaceful event, and I’m pretty ambivalent when it comes to the prosecutions due to that. They fucked around, they should find out. You don’t wander off with the speaker of the house’s podium and not have the full focus of government come down on your ass.
I would 100% expect acquittals for anyone who stayed outside though, as a hypothetical condition that might warrant acquittal… That for me would be a solid indicator that their intent was limited to peaceful protest. Could very well be that there were only two people who did so.
I’d also like to read an article on the acquittals, but I find their presence to be encouraging, and I’m assuming you don’t feel that way.
On the left side of the fence though, the presence of acquittals, even so few, lends a great deal of credibility to the cases… Does it not? Wasn’t a kangaroo court if it wasn’t 100%, right? I think so anyway :)
This is more likely a case where the people that were only outside were never even convicted of a crime.
The FBI seems to be after the people they have credible evidence of actually engaging in violence or planned violence.
For clarity, I’m assuming you meant “accused” or “tried” rather than “convicted.”
Yes, that is what I meant.
Language is hard sometimes
Yeah, the feds have an astonishingly high conviction rate in general, because they typically only bother prosecuting the cases they know they can win. By the time you’re indicted, their case against you is likely already ironclad. Which brings us to the current post, where the overwhelming majority of people who were prosecuted either took a plea deal or were found guilty.
I’m still not entirely on board with calling it an insurrection, a coup, etc.
What were they trying to do, and how were they trying to accomplish it?
There’s video of people outside fighting the police. “Just being outside” isn’t really a valid defense either.
Compared to the total number of federal defendants (using 2022 data), there appears to have been a slightly higher rate here of going to trial than defendants overall. Both sets demonstrate that when federal prosecutors bring cases, they don’t tend to miss. Also demonstrated is how federal trials rarely result in an acquittal.
Does this mean judges and juries are biased against federal defendants? Likely not, since again: federal prosecutors tend to only pursue a case they know they can win. Knowing this, it must be a tough job for federal public defence lawyers but someone has to do it.
Doesn’t that article indicate that if you go to trial you have about a 25% chance of being acquitted?
In the Pew Research article? I arrived at a trial acquittal rate of about 17%.
In fiscal year 2022, only 290 of 71,954 defendants in federal criminal cases – about 0.4% – went to trial and were acquitted, according to a Pew Research Center analysis of the latest available statistics from the federal judiciary. Another 1,379 went to trial and were found guilty (1.9%).
While that’s still about 1 chance in 5, that’s still some really bad odds when it comes to the matter of possibly being imprisoned. I imagine most Americans think they’d have better odds than that, but the data shows otherwise, to a scary degree.
I did my math wrong lol. Hm. I guess that just seems really high to me. Like, if you’re in federal court, then you definitely should take it to trial, as you’ve got a super high chance of getting out of it. From the title of the article it just seemed way worse.
I’m not sure I’d characterize any of the figures as “a super high chance of getting out of it”, unless you mean leaving in handcuffs. Bear in mind that defendants that plead not-guilty but are then found guilty at trial get a worse penalty than if they had pleaded guilty in the first place. The federal sentencing guidelines intentionally recognize that people who plead guilty are taking some responsibility for their crime, and so it shaves a few months off.
Defense attorneys are supposed to help a defendant weigh the bird in hand (a plea deal with the prosecutors) against the two birds in the bush (prospect of acquittal at trial). And that’s only if the prosecutor wants to even do a deal: they don’t have to, since sometimes justice cannot be served by anything less than a jury verdict. Other times, a lack of a plea deal is part of looking “tough on crime” or to set an example.
But wouldn’t the pleaded guilty and convicted people overlap?
Also, source article?
the distinction is between those who worked out a plea bargain (plead guilty) and those who were found guilty by a jury at trial (plead not guilty and were then convicted). both are, technically, convictions, but the difference is between those who owned up to their crimes (and saved the courts and the taxpayers the trouble and expense of a trial) and those who tried to get away with it.
The latter group of defendants – the ones convicted by a jury – also receive heavier sentences, since the federal sentencing guidelines recommend that defendants pleading guilty before trial get a reduced severity score, potentially shaving months off the sentence, or omitting the custodial sentence entirely, replaced by probation.
Which is, by the way, a massive legal injustice the way the system is set up, as it’s part of the way cops force the innocent into false confessions, by holding the threat of doing disproportionate time for a crime they didn’t even commit, but most of these people caught less time than a black man found with a dime bag.
I understand where you’re coming from, and fully agree that anytime someone goes to prison for something they didn’t do, society is doubly worse off: once because the wrong person has been jailed, and once more because the real culprit has evaded justice.
That said, what you’re describing is an issue with the practice of plea bargaining, not necessarily with giving less time for defendants pleading guilty. There are very compelling arguments that we should ban plea bargaining, as it’s extremely one-sided, among other things. But while plea bargaining is partly enabled because the sentencing guidelines allow leniency for pleading guilty, I would argue we should keep the latter.
As a society, we should incentivize people to voluntarily come forward and atone for their crimes. If a murderer pleads guilty and divulges the location of the buried body, the victim’s family can have a proper funeral service. But if that murderer instead flees, there’s a chance that officers can make an arrest, but there’s also a chance of successfully evading the law. Even if taken into custody, there’s no requirement that a hardened murderer needs to reveal the burial location, and our laws prohibit beating that answer out of anyone.
A principle in law is that different criminal behavior should be punished proportionally. Ruthless killing versus accidental death. An accident versus indifference to human life. A clouded conscience versus a maligned intention toward the victim’s family during a prolonged trial. This is what the sentencing guidelines seek to implement, moral hazards be darned.
Yeah I assumed that, but the graphic should really make that clear.
Source copied from the NYT w/o paywall. (Where you see lots of ellipses, you’re missing neat dynamic graphics.)
Oh, look what just dropped into my news feed:
Conservative activist group Judicial Watch said in a Friday press release its lawyers are representing Aaron Babbitt in the lawsuit. Babbitt is seeking $30 million.
…
But Babbitt said in the lawsuit his wife was ambushed when she was shot and multiple people yelled, “You just murdered her.”
Jesus christ these people are fucking morons. “ambushed”? An officer yelling at you with a gun pointed at you is “ambushed”? Who gives a fuck what people yelled.
Bitches
I don’t see any orange dots. Where are the orange dots? We know there should be orange dots there. Not in the acquitted pile either. Where are the orange dots?
Where are the red dots? I don’t see any red dots there. There were a lot of red dots involved with this. They still are.
Where are the red and orange dots?
someone explain the satire
(orange=cheeto man & red=gop, I’m guessing)
That was a good guess. You’ve been keeping up at least.
Orange I’m assuming it’s Trump. And red is… American Indians?
