US Politics Thread 2021-24

[Dowly]

Originally Posted by Rockstar

If the shoe fits wear it.

You must have quite a collection of perfectly fitting shoes.

[Buddahaid]

If you break forum rules get brigged.

[Rockstar]

Originally Posted by Dowly

I'm not arguing against him having a weapon, but whether his intent was to actually attack Zeldin. As you say, he had the ability and the opportunity to do so, yet he didn't use them. Like Buddahaid said, he was drunk. Maybe he had the bright idea to try to "look tough" by brandishing his weapon while confronting Zeldin?


The guy had ample opportunity to cause harm, but didn't. Even when Zeldin grabbed his right arm, his left hand was still free yet he did nothing but stood there mouthing off.

So everyone’s reaction of scrambling, grabbing limbs attempting to defend themselves and the candidate against someone assaulting them with a deadly weapon was unwarranted because the guy with the knife didn’t use it ‘yet’?

When someone approaches uninvited with knife in hand coupled with verbal threats. No reasonable person is going wait around for them to use it. A reasonable person will perceive that as a real threat to cause serious bodily injury or death. At least that’s what my training taught me.

What that guy did is not justifiable, nor is it normal acceptable behavior.

[mapuc]

This reminds me of the criminal laws in Sweden. a part called uppsåt=premeditation. Was it the guys premeditation to inflict harm to this other guy ?

Markus

[Rockstar]

Originally Posted by mapuc

This reminds me of the criminal laws in Sweden. a part called uppsåt=premeditation. Was it the guys premeditation to inflict harm to this other guy ?

Markus

Premeditation over here I think is more about how long someone may have been thinking about or planning a particular crime. But David Jakubonis was reportedly intoxicated when he drew his knife and approached Zeldin. He most likely was caught up in the moment, drinking liquid courage will do that to a person. Up until yesterday, he probably carried that knife in good faith for years. Regardless, what he did was absolutely with a doubt in every way imaginable an immoral and unlawful act. If it wasn’t for the proximity of innocent people he could have been shot and any reasonable person would have seen it as justified because he met the criteria for the use of deadly force. Good call by police and security for not escalating the situation.

As for his release, being he is an Iraq war veteran he might have some psychological issues which need to be addressed in a more professional setting. Holed up in a jail cell might not be the best thing for him. But I don’t really know.

There I said my peace and not once did I mention a political party or a media outlet.

[Rockstar]

Originally Posted by Dowly

You must have quite a collection of perfectly fitting shoes.

Oh the list of how many times I’ve worn perfectly fitted shoes is a long and distinguished one I tellya.

[u crank]

Did they take this guy away in real handcuffs or the new invisible ones?

[mapuc]

And now to something else

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1....15.22277693v1

Markus

[MaDef]

Among all respondents, 18.5% thought it at least somewhat likely that within the next few years, in a situation where they believed political violence was justified, “I will be armed with a gun”;

LMAO. I go armed everywhere (and has nothing to do with politics). these idiots are way behind the curve.

[August]

Originally Posted by Rockstar

As to why he was released, I don’t know. But what IS clear in the video is the person most certainly had a deadly weapon in his right hand and even balled his fist as if preparing to thrust it. He fulfilled the criteria for the use of deadly force to be used against him. He had the ability, he had the opportunity, and he placed the victim in jeopardy. Any reasonable person would be lead to believe the representatives life was in danger.

Only complete dumbass would say he just wanted to talk on the microphone. And he sure as hell didn’t walk up there to shake hands with the candidate as that’s pretty hard to do when you’re holding a knife in your hand.

They showed the weapon on the news tonight. It was some kind of twin bladed slashing weapon, not something designed for stabbing. It had two double edged blades about and inch or two apart and maybe an inch or two long each and was configured with finger holes that would have made it difficult to knock out of a hand. Someone could do some damage with it, maybe kill if it got at an artery.

Of course had a Democrat been attacked i'm sure that the same people trying to minimize this incident here would have been claiming it was nothing short of an insurrection.

[Buddahaid]

Originally Posted by August

They showed the weapon on the news tonight. It was some kind of twin bladed slashing weapon, not something designed for stabbing. It had two double edged blades about and inch or two apart and maybe an inch or two long each and was configured with finger holes that would have made it difficult to knock out of a hand. Someone could do some damage with it, maybe kill if it got at an artery.

Of course had a Democrat been attacked i'm sure that the same people trying to minimize this incident here would have been claiming it was nothing short of an insurrection.

And I'm just as certain you're wrong about that. What I'm more interested in is why he was released and what that story is.
If there was intent to do bodily harm with the knife I seriously doubt he would have been freed which makes it more likely he was just reaching for the mic.

[Rockstar]

Originally Posted by August

They showed the weapon on the news tonight. It was some kind of twin bladed slashing weapon, not something designed for stabbing. It had two double edged blades about and inch or two apart and maybe an inch or two long each and was configured with finger holes that would have made it difficult to knock out of a hand. Someone could do some damage with it, maybe kill if it got at an artery.

Of course had a Democrat been attacked i'm sure that the same people trying to minimize this incident here would have been claiming it was nothing short of an insurrection.

I agree stab or slash it could have been used to cause serious bodily injury even death. Just as those at the scene and the State of New York did, I considered it an assault with a deadly/dangerous weapon too. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to understand why he was charged with 2nd degree assault.

Reading some media reports it appears he’s got some serious life and mental health issues which needs to be worked out, pronto. However, unless wonder bread is found insane his ‘issues’ are in no way an excuse for assaulting a political candidate with a dangerous weapon. It is wrong on so many levels.

Though he may have been Released on Own Recognizance. I’d wager big money he’s going to be watched and hopefully the court orders some kind of therapy along with his jail time if found guilty. According some reports of his former neighbors thoughts he’s a “heavy drinker” and “a peculiar guy, he has social issues,” the ex-neighbor said. “He would say or do things like an adolescent would do.” “I always had this reservation about him,” the neighbor said. “He always had something not right with him.”

As to your last comment. Unfortunately I can’t help but think that would be the case. Already they’re going full on Baghdad Bob telling us he just wanted to talk in the microphone or the weapon was only a kid’s hello kitty key chain.

Me thinks this is what he has been charged with.

New York Penal Law
Sec. 120.05
Assault in the Second Degree

Assault in the second degree. A person is guilty of assault in the second degree when:
1. With intent to cause serious physical injury to another person, he causes such injury to such person or to a third person; or
2. With intent to cause physical injury to another person, he causes such injury to such person or to a third person by means of a deadly weapon or a dangerous instrument…

As for his release:

If you have been charged with a crime, you may be concerned about whether you will be able to pay bond to get out of jail. People in this situation may be able to obtain a release on their own recognizance, which means that they can get bail without paying bond. A defendant will need to sign a written promise to show up at their scheduled court appearance. They still must be deemed eligible for bail by the judge, and they may need to meet specific requirements to stay out of jail. These may include refraining from certain activities or meeting with a probation officer. If you fail to comply with the requirements, you will be subject to arrest even though you were released without bond.

[Buddahaid]

Thanks for the info. For him to be released means he is deemed not to be an imminent threat to society, and I still want to know where he stands.

[Skybird]

The Neue Zürcher Zeitung comments:


"We have a lot more evidence to show the American people," Republican Liz Cheney declared at the end of Thursday's prime-time televised hearing. In classic Hollywood fashion, she was already stirring up interest for the sequel in September, when the committee investigating the storming of the Capitol a year and a half ago plans to resume public hearings.

That's no accident: lawmakers hired a documentary filmmaker and former TV executive as a consultant to prepare their investigative findings for television audiences. His signature is unmistakable. The first "season," with eight hearings, was as exciting as a thriller, offering drama, catchy dialogue and unexpected stars.

It evoked images that many will not soon forget: a raging Donald Trump hurling his food at the wall in the White House, drunken adviser Rudy Giuliani talking up the president's rash victory speech on election night, the bodyguards of the ever-so-loyal vice president saying goodbye to their loved ones in fear of their lives in the face of an angry mob.

All this is best entertainment - if it were not grim reality. But is it more than an entertaining reappraisal of a traumatic event for the USA? Undoubtedly. The committee has worked out in detail that the former president must have been aware of his electoral defeat and still wanted to take every conceivable path to remain in power. Because none led to the goal, the only option was an escalation on January 6, 2021. Trump knew about his supporters' propensity for violence and fueled it. He watched the attack on the Congress building with satisfaction. Trump's closest allies pleaded with him for hours until he called on the chaos to leave.

The storming of the Capitol was not a protest rally that got out of hand, but the last attempt in a desperate plan. Whether Trump wanted to see it implemented this way or was never able to fully appreciate the implications is an open question. This is essential for any criminal proceedings, and it presents the Justice Department with an extremely delicate decision. Politically, however, the matter is clear: Both cases disqualify Trump for the presidency.

Initial polls now show that this view is gaining support among Republicans as well. Trump's ratings have begun to crumble in recent weeks, with half of party supporters wanting a different candidate for the 2024 election. At the same time, approval is growing for his current most promising opponent, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis. Experts attribute this to the hearings, even though Republicans follow them much less than Democrats.

Trump is well aware of this sentiment. He is therefore considering presenting the party with a fait accompli and announcing his new candidacy in the coming weeks, even before the November congressional elections.

That would be a highly unusual move - and a dangerous one for Republicans. The party has the best chance of a landslide victory in the fall. Sentiment is abysmal in the face of high inflation, the economic fallout from the pandemic and the war in Ukraine. Three quarters of the population think the country is moving in the wrong direction, more than at any time in almost a decade.

This also has to do with President Joe Biden, who lacks leadership in domestic politics and appears incapable of acting in the face of a razor-thin Democratic majority. His approval ratings have therefore fallen to a record low.

Republicans are gleefully exploiting this and could rely on the fact that for a majority of the population the price of gasoline is more important than lies about an election soon to be held two years ago. That is, unless Trump moves back to center stage. The former president divides conservatives and unites their opponents, so he is as much a liability to his party as Biden is to Democrats. He alone can screw up a Republican electoral triumph in the fall.

Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version)


With greetings from Philip K. Dick.

[Rockstar]

Originally Posted by Buddahaid

Thanks for the info. For him to be released means he is deemed not to be an imminent threat to society, and I still want to know where he stands.

The judicial system is not filled with fortune tellers who can peer into the soul of defendants and deem them to be this or that. That’s not their job or how the courts work, in fact the recent actions of Mr. David Jakubonis demonstrated quite clearly he can be a threat to society, especially after tipping back a few icy cold ones. It appears the rules for obtaining an ROR in New York have just gotten easier is all, and judges SHALL follow those rules. Back in the day a judge may very well have set bail and if it couldn’t be paid, the accused could’ve been kept in custody to ensure they met their court date.

As the lawyer office of Jeremy Saland puts it.

https://www.new-york-lawyers.org/bai...-offenses.html

While it may be somewhat of a shock to judges, prosecutors and criminal defense lawyers alike, bail in New York is a shell of its former self. Now, depending on the crimes charged, bail may no longer even be a consideration at your arraignment. As such, the vast majority of defendants will be released on the own recognizance, aka, ROR’d, or without monetary conditions. For those matters where the accusation involves a Qualified Offense allowing for a custodial securing order at your arraignment, the court must nonetheless consider the least restrictive measure to ensure your return.

Now, as for where he stands. I’d imagine that’s going to be dependent on how good his lawyer is. From what I’ve read depending on the circumstances he could get 2 to 5 years. IF he shows up for his court date. . If he’s found guilty, I think if it’s his first offense, consider his veteran status and mental health issues they might be more inclined to place him on probation and order therapy. However I’d rather see they make an example by awarding the maximum penalty and well publicized to send the message, this kind of crap will not be tolerated.