Jan 6th "Thug" called the "Praying Grandma" convicted...

I just read through this whole thread. I did not see Damo “defend” this lady or say, or even imply that her conviction is somehow wrongful. I did see a compare and contrast between people who would applaud this lady’s conviction and defend the dropped charges in many of the BLM protest situations. That’s what I see.
 
leaningright said:
I just read through this whole thread. I did not see Damo “defend” this lady or say, or even imply that her conviction is somehow wrongful. I did see a compare and contrast between people who would applaud this lady’s conviction and defend the dropped charges in many of the BLM protest situations. That’s what I see.
Click to expand...

are you gonna vote for trump?
 
Damocles said:
She entered the capital, stayed 10 minutes to pray, then left...

Is this the kind of thug you are talking about, Jarod?

https://coloradosun.com/2024/04/05/rebecca-lavrenz-falcon-jan-6-riot/
Click to expand...

I think a conviction is in order, she did break the law, and it was brought to the attention of the authorities.

I do not think she deserves jail time or anything like that, if her record is clean.

To me, her age and the fact that she was praying is not relevant.

I would not call her a thug.
 
Damocles said:
She entered the capital, stayed 10 minutes to pray, then left...

Is this the kind of thug you are talking about, Jarod?

https://coloradosun.com/2024/04/05/rebecca-lavrenz-falcon-jan-6-riot/
Click to expand...

Courts will often look to mitigating factors when deciding to either apply the law as written, or give a person a break.

Remorse for the crime is key, to getting a break, when you deliberately go lawless.

Damo does this person sound like they have remorse?

...Lavrenz, a 71-year-old great-grandmother... told The Gazette that she had no regrets about storming the Capitol and that she was on a God-driven mission.

“I felt I was there on assignment from God,”...
Click to expand...

#PartyOfLawAndOrder
#UnlessItIsOneOfOurs
 
archives said:
She said “she had no regrets about storming the Capitol,” in other words, she admitted breaking the law, how is she not guilty?

Found guilty of misdemeanors, just as you or I would be if we did the same thing
Click to expand...

The law needs to be enforced and we cant make exceptions for politics, age or religious activities.

She likely will not get jail, and I would not believe it is appropriate unless there is something I do not know.
 
Damocles said:
So the same folks who think that burning other folks' properties is "mostly peaceful protest" that nobody should face any consequences for alternatively say that when a lady breaks nothing, does no damage and leaves she should face the full penalty of law because she made the fatal mistake of disagreeing with leftists...

I'm glad her attorneys are appealing, I wonder how it will turn out. I also wonder if Jarod would object if this "Thug" got a pardon? (Which was my original question, ay?)
Click to expand...

Pardon?, no I do not think this is the correct situation for a pardon, as she has expressed no contrition and appears to be proud of breaking the law.
 
Jarod said:
The law needs to be enforced and we cant make exceptions for politics, age or religious activities.

She likely will not get jail, and I would not believe it is appropriate unless there is something I do not know.
Click to expand...
She has no remorse. I see that as a good reason.
 
Damocles said:
So the same folks who think that burning other folks' properties is "mostly peaceful protest" that nobody should face any consequences for alternatively say that when a lady breaks nothing, does no damage and leaves she should face the full penalty of law because she made the fatal mistake of disagreeing with leftists...

I'm glad her attorneys are appealing, I wonder how it will turn out. I also wonder if Jarod would object if this "Thug" got a pardon? (Which was my original question, ay?)
Click to expand...

I cant speak for others, but In my opinion, people who burn other 'folks' property should face consequences.

NOBODY said the 'praying lady' should face the full penalty. You are very hyperbolic on this issue. Emotions?

I do not want her convicted because she disagreed with anyone, I want her convicted because she broke the law, and it would weaken the law to let her walk away scott free.
 
Damocles said:
So the same folks who think that burning other folks' properties is "mostly peaceful protest" that nobody should face any consequences for alternatively say that when a lady breaks nothing, does no damage and leaves she should face the full penalty of law because she made the fatal mistake of disagreeing with leftists...

I'm glad her attorneys are appealing, I wonder how it will turn out. I also wonder if Jarod would object if this "Thug" got a pardon? (Which was my original question, ay?)
Click to expand...

Damocles_Derp said:
WHATABOUT ...
Click to expand...
FLOL

Damocles please quote ANYONE here saying the "mostly peaceful protesters", were the ones who "burned property"?

You are such a derp. Jan 6th was MOSTLY people who protested legally. That is true. But those who were not peaceful and entered the Capital should be charged and convicted.

During the Antifa riots, most of the people were protesting legally and not burning property. But those who did should be prosecuted.


And yet you Damo, felt the need to LIE and suggest, those you hate who are left of Magats were calling those who burned property the mostly peaceful ones', when NO ONE did.

You are a liar Damo and that is a fact.
 
Last edited:
Damocles said:
Your attempt at gaslighting your way out of this by attempting to rewrite history has been noted.

It is a description of what happened, not a strawman. Explain your support of one over the other, or do you believe that they too should have faced consequences? (This is an easy one, if you are into lying to yourself you can say they "should" have and lament while tearing up and tearing your hair out while crying out about how upset you are that they didn't face consequences in order to "prove" me wrong. You can even do this while pretending you cannot remember what I am talking about, in other words you can even keep trying to gaslight the history right out of existence, but it won't really work).
Click to expand...

Have you seen where someone said those who set fire to other folks property should not face consequences? Seems hyperbolic to me.
 
Damocles said:
I have asked questions, I have not defended anyone. Reading comprehension is not your strong suit, and that's all on you.

You don't like the questions because you think the answers would make you feel poorly, I get that. You don't have to participate, especially not by making up something then pretending I said it and fighting that strawman.
Click to expand...

She only asked a question, you failed to answer. You don't like the questions because you think the answers would make you feel poorly, I get that. You don't have to participate, especially not by making up something then pretending I said it and fighting that strawman.

You started with a strawman over the 'people setting fire to other folks property'.
 
BartenderElite said:
What have I "gaslighted?

You apparently have lumped me in w/ a group of people you saw on TV, or read about, or something. I think anyone who broke the law in the BLM riots should be held accountable to the rule of law, and anyone who broke the law on 1/6 the same.

Again - I'm sorry that your thread failed.
Click to expand...

It appears if some lunatic says something they do not like on TV they attribute it to anyone who is not a right wing nut.
 
evince said:
The real Damo would have hated everything trump


This is so sad


This man declined far over these few years I have known him


It’s pathetic
Click to expand...
And he has resorted to LYING a lot, and accusing others of gaslighting when he says something stupid that is a lie.

No one. NO ONE, called those 'burning property' the 'mostly peaceful protestors'. That never happened.

But just like with Jan 5th where Magats point out and we accept, that MOST of the people who walked to the Capital did not enter the Capital and engage in crimes and just protested, we can ALSO support the arrest and jailing of those who were NOT the peaceful protesters. Same for the Antifa riots. Stating that most of them were not engaging in 'burning property', is, in no way an appeal to not prosecute those caught doing it. And no one on this forum has any issue with those law breakers being prosecuted.

So the post below is simply ....ummmmm.... gaslighting.

Damocles said:
Your attempt at gaslighting your way out of this by attempting to rewrite history has been noted.

It is a description of what happened, not a strawman. Explain your support of one over the other, or do you believe that they too should have faced consequences? (This is an easy one, if you are into lying to yourself you can say they "should" have and lament while tearing up and tearing your hair out while crying out about how upset you are that they didn't face consequences in order to "prove" me wrong. You can even do this while pretending you cannot remember what I am talking about, in other words you can even keep trying to gaslight the history right out of existence, but it won't really work).
Click to expand...
 
Jade Dragon said:
So her being an old woman is supposed to be some kind of sympathy play? What, we're supposed to feel sorry for her because she's old? What old person wouldn't take offense to being given the kiddie gloves for being old? What type of law and order would we have if age was an exception to crime? She's not a dumb kid who doesn't know better.
Click to expand...

We should want her pardoned because she was 'praying'. I assume to a Christian God.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top