You're viewing a single thread.
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 vaguely recall one of them having not entered the Capitol? So they were part of the group milling around outside, which mostly wasn't charged.
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.”
Yes, that is what I meant.
Language is hard sometimes
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.
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.