Cowboys for Trump creator found guilty in second US Capitol attack trial

[JacksinPA]

Cowboys for Trump creator found guilty in second US Capitol attack trial

Judge declares Couy Griffin guilty of one of the two offenses, bolstering a key theory from lawyers in hundreds of related cases

www.theguardian.com

Judge declares Couy Griffin guilty of one of the two offenses, bolstering a key theory from lawyers in hundreds of related cases
-------------------------------------------------------
A New Mexico county commissioner who founded a group called Cowboys for Trump was found guilty by a judge on Tuesday of breaching the US Capitol during the January 6 riot, a second consecutive win at trial for the US Department of Justice.



Kid Rock says Donald Trump sought his advice on North Korea and Islamic State
Read more

Following a two-day non-jury trial, the US district judge Trevor McFadden said the defendant, Couy Griffin, was guilty of one of the two misdemeanor offenses.

The ruling bolsters a key theory from prosecutors in hundreds of related cases.

They argued that the Capitol grounds were strictly off-limits on 6 January 2021, and that should have been apparent to the thousands of Donald Trump supporters who breached them in an attempt to stop Congress certifying Joe Biden’s election.
==========================================
Two down.

 

[Chomsky]

Cowboys for Trump creator found guilty in second US Capitol attack trial

Judge declares Couy Griffin guilty of one of the two offenses, bolstering a key theory from lawyers in hundreds of related cases

www.theguardian.com

Judge declares Couy Griffin guilty of one of the two offenses, bolstering a key theory from lawyers in hundreds of related cases
-------------------------------------------------------
A New Mexico county commissioner who founded a group called Cowboys for Trump was found guilty by a judge on Tuesday of breaching the US Capitol during the January 6 riot, a second consecutive win at trial for the US Department of Justice.


Kid Rock says Donald Trump sought his advice on North Korea and Islamic State
Read more

Following a two-day non-jury trial, the US district judge Trevor McFadden said the defendant, Couy Griffin, was guilty of one of the two misdemeanor offenses.

The ruling bolsters a key theory from prosecutors in hundreds of related cases.

They argued that the Capitol grounds were strictly off-limits on 6 January 2021, and that should have been apparent to the thousands of Donald Trump supporters who breached them in an attempt to stop Congress certifying Joe Biden’s election.
==========================================
Two down.

The real news is the judicial precedence set, that entering the Capitol that day, even non-violently, violates federal statute. That is a big deal!

 

[Crovax]

The real news is the judicial precedence set, that entering the Capitol that day, even non-violently, violates federal statute. That is a big deal!

I think it is a bad precedent set especially if we look at future applications of this precedent

 

[Chomsky]

I think it is a bad precedent set especially if we look at future applications of this precedent

Why is that?

 

[Crovax]

Why is that?

Non violently entering a public building is a crime. You don't see possible problems with that?

 

[lwf]

Non violently entering a public building is a crime. You don't see possible problems with that?

When you have to climb over a wall to get in, then it is pretty obviously trespassing.

 

[Chomsky]

Non violently entering a public building is a crime. You don't see possible problems with that?

The bolded is not accurate

The statute broken was prohibiting entering a restricted area.

Unfortunately, I can no longer access the OP article - but it is in there.

 

[Crovax]

The bolded is not accurate

The statute broken was prohibiting entering a restricted area.

Unfortunately, I can no longer access the OP article - but it is in there.

I would have to see what they are calling a "restricted area" to make that judgment then. IMO as a general rule I think we should air on the side of caution when prosecuting people for existing in public buildings

 

[lwf]

I would have to see what they are calling a "restricted area" to make that judgment then. IMO as a general rule I think we should air on the side of caution when prosecuting people for existing in public buildings

From the article.

"The judge found Griffin guilty of entering a restricted area protected by the US Secret Service but cleared him of disorderly conduct.
McFadden said Griffin should have known not to scale walls and enter the Capitol grounds, but said Griffin was innocent of disorderly conduct because he never tried to rile up the crowd at the Capitol or engage in violence."

 

[Chomsky]

I would have to see what they are calling a "restricted area" to make that judgment then.

That's fair.

IMO as a general rule I think we should air on the side of caution when prosecuting people for existing in public buildings

And that's even more-so. I'm definitely with you, here.

 

[What if...?]

I would have to see what they are calling a "restricted area" to make that judgment then. IMO as a general rule I think we should air on the side of caution when prosecuting people for existing in public buildings

Breaking windows and doors and crashing barricades.

None of those things are “existing in public buildings”. They are breaking into a building.

 

[Chomsky]

From the article.

"The judge found Griffin guilty of entering a restricted area protected by the US Secret Service but cleared him of disorderly conduct.
McFadden said Griffin should have known not to scale walls and enter the Capitol grounds, but said Griffin was innocent of disorderly conduct because he never tried to rile up the crowd at the Capitol or engage in violence."

It was an interesting decision.

I'm a bit surprised the defendant beat the Disorderly Conduct charge. I'd have to look at the specific statute, but my familiarity on my state's level seems to be less narrow than in this instance.

 

[lwf]

It was an interesting decision.

I'm a bit surprised the defendant beat the Disorderly Conduct charge. I'd have to look at the specific statute, but my familiarity on my state's level seems to be less narrow than in this instance.

Sounds to me like he climbed over the wall, entered the restricted area, and then started praying. Climbing the wall would certainly be intentional trespassing, but if all he was doing was praying then I don't see how that would be disorderly conduct. Especially if no one asked him to leave. He didn't steal anything, didn't break anything, didn't resist capitol police (I'm assuming.)

If that's the case, I'd agree with the judge's decision.

 

[Crovax]

Breaking windows and doors and crashing barricades.

None of those things are “existing in public buildings”. They are breaking into a building.

Did the accused do any of thise things?

 

[The AntiDonald]

I think it is a bad precedent set especially if we look at future applications of this precedent

Maybe you should review some of the thousands of hours of video. If you'll notice, there were signs hung all along the fencing saying the capitol grounds were closed to the public. There were manned police barricades at the most frequently used entrances.

If I enter city hall where I live during hours that it's closed, not only will I get arrested, but I will also be convicted and laughed at for even trying to beat it in court.

The capitol grounds were clearly marked. The complex was closed for two reasons. Covid and the electoral vote count. There are endless ways an idiot could learn that before embarking on his attack.

Guilty, period.

 

[What if...?]

Did the accused do any of thise things?

Evidently. And everybody who robs a house gets busted for breaking and entering. Not just the guy who kicked in the door.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

Did the accused do any of thise things?

3 people show up at your home. The first one kicks the door in and the other two walk in after him. Are you saying only the first one should face a charge?

 

[The AntiDonald]

I would have to see what they are calling a "restricted area" to make that judgment then. IMO as a general rule I think we should air on the side of caution when prosecuting people for existing in public buildings

But he had to break the first law in order to, as you call it, exist in a public building.

 

[Ginger Ale]

Did the accused do any of thise things?

If a bunch of people tore the door off a closed bank, and went in to it illegally, I would know not to go in there, would you not?

 

[Chomsky]

Sounds to me like he climbed over the wall, entered the restricted area, and then started praying. Climbing the wall would certainly be intentional trespassing, but if all he was doing was praying then I don't see how that would be disorderly conduct. Especially if no one asked him to leave. He didn't steal anything, didn't break anything, didn't resist capitol police (I'm assuming.)

Unfortunately I can't access the article, so I'll thank you for bringing this to my attention.

My knowledge of Disorderly Conduct is that it is something which alarms or disturbs another, or disturbs the peace.

So I could see where scaling a defensive wall could be alarming to those on the other side expecting the wall to be their defense.

But that being said, I could see where given the right circumstance around an event like you describe might move a judge to drop the Disorderly Conduct charge. I'd have to know the details & context firstly, though.

 

[Crovax]

Evidently. And everybody who robs a house gets busted for breaking and entering. Not just the guy who kicked in the door.

3 people show up at your home. The first one kicks the door in and the other two walk in after him. Are you saying only the first one should face a charge?

Funny how you would both use the same poor analogy within seconds of each other.

The capital is public property and is there evidence that he was connected with the people doing the damage

 

[Grand Mal]

Non violently entering a public building is a crime. You don't see possible problems with that?

If you broke in It's breaking and entering, right? And causing damage inside aggravates the offense.
The guy got off on one misdemeanor, guilty on another. I'd say he was treated fairly.

 

[Crovax]

If a bunch of people tore the door off a closed bank, and went in to it illegally, I would know not to go in there, would you not?

Public property vs private property

 

[Chomsky]

Maybe you should review some of the thousands of hours of video. If you'll notice, there were signs hung all along the fencing saying the capitol grounds were closed to the public. There were manned police barricades at the most frequently used entrances.

If I enter city hall where I live during hours that it's closed, not only will I get arrested, but I will also be convicted and laughed at for even trying to beat it in court.

The capitol grounds were clearly marked. The complex was closed for two reasons. Covid and the electoral vote count. There are endless ways an idiot could learn that before embarking on his attack.

Guilty, period.

These guys knew what they were doing.

They simply felt they were too personally empowered to be obligated to abide by the rule of law & order.

I have no sympathy for the them . . .

 

[Crovax]

If you broke in It's breaking and entering, right? And causing damage inside aggravates the offense.
The guy got off on one misdemeanor, guilty on another. I'd say he was treated fairly.

He did not break in nor did he cause damage on the inside