Originally published at: State rep pleads guilty to allowing violent protesters inside Oregon state capital | Boing Boing
…
was banned from the state capitol for 18 months
Nice slap on the wrist for another nazi white domestic terrorist.
Minor little nitpick - you put the wrong state in the Headline. It was Oregon, not Ohio.
This is precious:
Nearman, 57, made his remarks during an interview with conservative talk show host Lars Larson following his sentencing.
“I don’t think I committed a crime, and I don’t think I did anything wrong,” Nearman said.
Asshole.
I have to imagine that fines and penalties for these infractions were set assuming that they would never be used, or only in cases of non-violent protests they wanted to stop or prevent by threat of fines. This year has really demonstrated what happens when people step far outside the lines and these punishments are nowhere near adequate.
No real remorse for his participation in an attempted putsch. We know how letting fascists off easy ends up.
Did he lose his job? If I opened the warehouse door for burglars, I sure would.
Not so minor! Good catch, and welcome to boing boing!
@frauenfelder can you fix?
Not a harsh enough penalty.
Agreed! I just watched the full video for the first time. That was aggressive AF. I can’t believe none of those “demonstrators” were shot or injured. They were attacking the Staties!
I can.
White supremacy makes it harder for TPTB to shoot wound and kill their own kind - again, had the rioters been any color other than White, the staties would likely have opened fire without hesitation.
I know, I know. It just never gets easier to take.
He did. He was unanimously ejected from the state legislature.
I would not be surprised if the judge calls him back and either levies severe contempt charges, including prison time, or vacates his plea deal. By recanting his guilty plea on a RWNJ talk show, he is regaining the benefit his illegal actions were meant to reap. As such, his plea should be nullified.
The first legislator to be expelled in Oregon history.
Welcome aboard, comrade. Proofreading skills are a welcome addition to the crew.
So, we’ve got Übermensch and Untermensch and Nearman?
He is to men what Near Beer is to beer.
Ain’t that no shit.
My problem is that usually if you go out to commit one crime and it turns into another crime, you are on the hook for it. Like you go to a commit robbery with two of your friends but it gets violent and turns into battery charges. You might be charged with that even if you didn’t actually get involved. Because by participating in the robbery you become accountable for the consequences of the robbery. I don’t know, it might not work the same in all jurisdictions.
Or it’s the thin-skull rule: You punch someone and they fall over and it turns out they had a congenitally thin skull which fractures and they die. You committed homicide. You didn’t mean to kill anyone, you didn’t have a way of knowing the person was especially susceptible to death from your attack. Still, they died and you killed them.
The criminal justice system is sort of a blend of holding people accountable for their intentions and for the consequences of their actions. More than anything else that’s the principle I see suspended when dealing with white supremacists. Sure, charge them with the literal crime they intended to and did in fact commit: trespassing, for instance. But don’t look at the surrounding circumstances or the outcomes of their crimes.
Yes, that’s a nicely clarifying distinction.
In terms of charges and sentencing, intention matters in some ways, but unintended effects do too-- or rather, both should.
So when a white guy does a crime, a white judge tends to suddenly care much more about supposedly innocent or harmless intentions (“He was just visiting the capitol,” or a rapist was “just going with the flow of a drunken moment,” etc.), and less about apparently unintended effects (an insurrectionist certainly didn’t intend to permanently maim that security guard, etc.).