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”.
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.
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.
I wish this graphic included a # and % for each category and color coded for misdemeanants and felons.
Yeah… it’s really not data. It’s just a drawing.
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
Much like Jesus died for your sins, they were arrested for my amusement
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.
They’re all terrorists though.
Ah you’re right.
Maybe dead terrorist
deleted by creator
The one rioter that got shot dead there.
Fully acquitted… from life
deleted by creator
Oh I didn’t hear about that. Another rioter got trampled?
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
Yeah let’s call it what it is, a straight up coup attempt.
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.
Well, every person there is guilty of insurrection.
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?
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’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.”
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.
Yes, that is what I meant.
Language is hard sometimes
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.
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.
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.)
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.
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?
If these people were on the left they wouldn’t even be alive to get convicted. Instead, all but the most egregious get to walk off scot free.
