Unlikely. The US executes people when there’s so much new evidence after sentencing pointing toward them not being guilty that the original prosecutors plead for them to not execute. The Dem establishment’s complaints against ICE are mostly just procedural; they just argue for things like more transparency for these detention centers, not their abolishment.
A full pardon? Maybe for some of them, especially the zine guy, but the guy who actually shot the cop, unlikely. No democrat would want the optics of that.
Cop shot first. The guy who shot him did so in community defense.
In fact that cop may have given the shooter’s attorneys an argument to revisit Harlow v Fitzgerald, and hand the SCOTUS the full text of §1983. They were given, unknowingly, an illegally edited text in 1982 when Harlow v Fitzgerald established Qualified Immunity, which is illegal according to the full statute as recorded in the 1871 Congressional Record.
First off, the shooter claims that the cop was about to murder an unarmed protestor.
But more importantly, it was just one person who shot. Collective punishment is literally against the Geneva Convention.
Imagine getting a 50 year prison sentence because you were peacefully protesting at a place where someone else shot a cop. By the same logic, every cop that was present when Alex Pretti was executed should have 50+ year prison sentences.
I know reading comprehension is not great on this site, but I’m in no way shape or form making an argument the protestors were in the wrong. Literally just providing context.
It’s cool that you were able to get that snarky remark in, but I was not necessarily disagreeing or arguing with you.
However, reading your comment again, it still comes across as cop apologetics. It’s the “the protest did end with a cop being shot”. It’s a justification. Maybe you didn’t intend that, but that’s the implication.
It’s not in any way a justification. In fact the language is deliberately neutral as not to imply the protestors did anything wrong (which they didn’t) a protest happened and a cop was shot. Just stating objective fact, because that is a crucial detail the the other commentary left out, which makes their comment sound like they arrested and sentenced these people purely for protesting. (Which they kind of did, and the cop being shot was just their justification, but that’s besides the point)
Also 50, 70, and 100 year sentences for people who were protesting against ICE in Texas
Wow this completely flew under my radar wtaf
What are the chances that these people will get pardoned, etc, when(if) normality returns?
Also what’s the chances that the judge who handed down these long and unfair sentences will get any repercussions for being so obviously corrupt?
Unlikely. The US executes people when there’s so much new evidence after sentencing pointing toward them not being guilty that the original prosecutors plead for them to not execute. The Dem establishment’s complaints against ICE are mostly just procedural; they just argue for things like more transparency for these detention centers, not their abolishment.
The last time that a Democratic president was in office for a federal execution was Lyndon Johnson.
A full pardon? Maybe for some of them, especially the zine guy, but the guy who actually shot the cop, unlikely. No democrat would want the optics of that.
Cop shot first. The guy who shot him did so in community defense.
In fact that cop may have given the shooter’s attorneys an argument to revisit Harlow v Fitzgerald, and hand the SCOTUS the full text of §1983. They were given, unknowingly, an illegally edited text in 1982 when Harlow v Fitzgerald established Qualified Immunity, which is illegal according to the full statute as recorded in the 1871 Congressional Record.
I mean to give full context, that protest did end with a cop getting shot.
But the sentences are still wildly excessive including 30 years to someone for carrying a box of magazines.
First off, the shooter claims that the cop was about to murder an unarmed protestor.
But more importantly, it was just one person who shot. Collective punishment is literally against the Geneva Convention.
Imagine getting a 50 year prison sentence because you were peacefully protesting at a place where someone else shot a cop. By the same logic, every cop that was present when Alex Pretti was executed should have 50+ year prison sentences.
I know reading comprehension is not great on this site, but I’m in no way shape or form making an argument the protestors were in the wrong. Literally just providing context.
It’s cool that you were able to get that snarky remark in, but I was not necessarily disagreeing or arguing with you.
However, reading your comment again, it still comes across as cop apologetics. It’s the “the protest did end with a cop being shot”. It’s a justification. Maybe you didn’t intend that, but that’s the implication.
Did I comprehend ok?
It’s not in any way a justification. In fact the language is deliberately neutral as not to imply the protestors did anything wrong (which they didn’t) a protest happened and a cop was shot. Just stating objective fact, because that is a crucial detail the the other commentary left out, which makes their comment sound like they arrested and sentenced these people purely for protesting. (Which they kind of did, and the cop being shot was just their justification, but that’s besides the point)
How many years were did shooters of Pretti and Goode receive?