• Melllvar@startrek.website
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    21
    ·
    8 months ago

    I don’t usually approve of courts making examples of people, but the court needs to make an example of this guy.

    • die444die@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      8 months ago

      Out of curiosity, why do you not usually approve of it and what in this case makes it justified to you?

      My reason for not approving of the court making examples of people would be along the lines of it not really working - people still commit crimes no matter how many examples seem to be made, and giving someone an excessive punishment to dissuade others is inherently unjust - so for me it’s hard to see a reason it would be okay in any case, even this one.

      Your reasoning against it may be different though.

      • Melllvar@startrek.website
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        7 months ago

        I don’t usually approve because two people convicted of similar offenses ought to be dealt similar punishments.

        But violence or intimidation towards elected representatives is a crime that is worse than the sum of its parts.

        • ArtZuron@beehaw.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          7 months ago

          Especially if its for political reasons. That makes it terrorism and not just violence.

  • AutoTL;DR@lemmings.worldB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    8 months ago

    🤖 I’m a bot that provides automatic summaries for articles:

    Click here to see the summary

    The harrowing October 2022 attack sent shockwaves through Washington at a time of rising threats against public officials, raising fresh concern over violence driven by increasingly hostile political rhetoric and partisan animosity.

    Congressional lawmakers reflected at the time on their safety as fears of political violence remained heightened in the wake of the January 6, 2021, US Capitol attack and other incidents targeting members of Congress in recent years.

    DePape’s attorney, Jodi Linker, conceded on the first day of the trial that her client was the one to attack the 83-year-old Paul Pelosi, but argued that his motivation for the assault did not match the charges against him.

    Testifying in his own defense on Tuesday, DePape, gave jurors a closer look at his motives before the attack, becoming emotional at times as he shared examples of conspiracy theories he felt were true.

    “I’m telling him, I have other targets, but if you stop me, I’ll go through you,” DePape said, recounting a conversation with Paul Pelosi, adding that he then reacted and hit him “in the head,” because his plan was “basically ruined.”

    Pelosi, who underwent surgery to repair a skull fracture and injuries to his hand and arm, told jurors that his recovery has been difficult, with spells of lightheadedness and headaches.


    Saved 66% of original text.

  • shiveyarbles@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    7 months ago

    This seems so absurd. The guy smashed another guy’s skull with a hammer in front of police, and it’s news that he’s guilty? How strange is that.