Guilty as charged.

Jury convicts Guy Reffitt, first Jan. 6 Capitol riot defendant to stand trial

A federal jury on Tuesday convicted the first person to stand trial on charges related to the Jan. 6, 2021, storming of the U.S. Capitol by a mob of supporters of then-President Donald Trump.

The defendant, Texas resident Guy Reffitt, was convicted of all five charges he faced in U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C.
https://www.cnbc.com/2022/03/08/jur...-6-capitol-riot-defendant-to-stand-trial.html

The first of many to come, hopefully. Traitors deserve to go to jail.

I'm inclined to have some degree of sympathy for these fools since they fell under the spell of a master conman. But idiocy is not a defense for criminal behavior. I just hope this guy realizes his mistake and is remorseful. It shows what can happen when you let a cretin like Individual 1 influence your thinking.

 

Did he hurt anyone?

 

he should have taken a plea deal, not smart

 

Try Google.

 

facing up to 60 years...

"Guy Reffitt, first January 6 defendant to stand trial, found guilty on all charges"

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/guy-reffitt-january-6-capitol-riot-verdict/

"His son, Jackson Reffitt, testified against him and offered some of the strongest evidence in the trial."

 

had a gun, good thing the 1-6ers never got to members of Congress or the Vice President

"Witness: Guy Reffitt Wanted to Remove ‘Corrupt' Lawmakers in Jan. 6 Riot"

https://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/w...move-corrupt-lawmakers-in-jan-6-riot/2907094/

"The first person to be tried in the Jan. 6 assault on the U.S. Capitol was a Texas militia member who advocated for physically removing and replacing "corrupt" members of Congress as he drove to Washington, D.C., a former group member testified Friday."

"He also is charged with obstructing justice for allegedly threatening his children if they reported him to law enforcement after the riot."

 

Another "very fine" person.

 

I figured a discussion with an informed person that supports the "light on crime" agenda was worth having. Did he hurt anyone?

 

I don't know, try Google.

 

An idiot, but the charges are insipid....

 

If he had been part of the BLM riots, those charges would have resulted in the prosecutor saying "It's not your fault" with a slap on his butt and then let go.

 

I don't need a forum to sit on google. I understand why you don't want to answer.

 

Finally, someone convicted of actual violence. Even though it doesn't appear to have happened at the riot, but rather afterward Reffitt 'did use physical force with the intent to hinder, delay and prevent the communication to a LEO and judge of the US of information...' The rest of the convicted counts relate to nonviolent activities.

...at least not all the people being held for over a year now are just trespassers and 'illegal' demonstrators. Just most of them...

 

did they ever exercise their right to a speedy trial if they wanted one?

 

What do you mean? How does one 'exercise' their right to a speedy trial? The court system moves as fast as it moves. The problem is that a lot of these folks are denied bail and so they have no choice but to wait on the extremely slow and 'pandemic backlogged' courts from behind bars, often in solitary confinement for no good ****ing reason.

 

everyone has a right to a speedy trial, all they have to do is ask

 

No. The system doesn't work that way.

...are you trying to be cryptic about something?

 

You're looking in the wrong end of the telescope, Doof. Crimes aren't decided based on the "overall outcome" the way we might do when our kids are in school (ie harmless pranks). Crimes are offenses that exist regardless of the outcome so not only is the word "hurt" ambiguous in this sense, it's also irrelevant.

I'm too tired to look up the case but from the linked article...

"Assault" is the act of making a verbal or physical threat (just lunging at someone). It does NOT require ACTUAL physical contact. Add in Pelosi's authority and there are probably harsher penalties.






Again, it's a crime to threaten someone and since this threat involved minor children, the question of "child endangerment" is a factor. I think we can probably agree that a minor has to be quite scared to testify against a parent/guardian.

Also, he hurt himself with this specific threat because there is no way to back-pedal that he wasn't aware that he committed any crimes at the Capitol. He would have to be consciously aware to know that (1) he did commit actual crimes (although "ignorance of the law is not a defense") and (2) he was reasonably concerned that his involvement could lead to arrest and/or conviction. That "doubt" is removed with this statement.




If the mother(s) of his two kids hasn't filed for divorce yet, she should probably focus on that and getting her kids relocated. He won't be a happy camper whenever he gets out (and whether they choose to visit him or not) but the kids are the victims in this scenario. Their father, probably his side of the family and any of his friends and neighbors are going to blame the son for testifying. Hopefully, his mother and extended family are well grounded and can provide him the emotional and financial support he and his sister will need in the absence of their father.

Prison time is never just about the incarcerated person. It impacts the whole family. I can only hope they have what they need to see their way through to a brighter future.

 

if you ask for a speedy trial and are denied, the case can be thrown out

 

lol

Jan 6 is the only thing dems are holding on to, wishing it stops Trump from running in 2024.

Russia collusion, remember? went on for 2 years..... here we are at it again, it's Jan 6 now. There will always be a 'crisis' manufactured by the left, fearful of Trump's return! man, how much we miss him today. Putin and Xi Jingping vs Biden//Harris... god help us.

 

Not necessarily. "Speedy" is not a standard legal term. There are many factors involved, if it's a local, State and/or Federal crime, which courts have jurisidiction, etc. and some of them depend on the specific crimes in question.

Here is a general overview of what this looks like at the Federal level.

https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=/prelim@title18/part2/chapter208&edition=prelim

 

there are very few exceptions to this if the defendant fights it

it's like the right to remain silent

 

Around 50% of the people in jail in the US are unconvicted awaiting trial. Are you suggesting its just because they dont know to 'ask for a speedy trial'?

 

False. No one has to "ask" for a speedy trial. A "speedy trial" is fundamental and applies to ALL criminal prosecutions. If the prosecution delay's for too long then a case can be thrown out based on that alone. Not whether or not the defendant "asked" for a speedy trial. Although asking for one does expedite such type of hearings/determinations.

Sixth Amendment;

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

 

I'm glad he's going to prison. But, I don't see anything in any of his charges that indicates that he is a traitor. Perhaps I missed that. Could you provide it please?