January 6 accused acquitted on all counts

[Shaul]

A man accused for actions related to the January 6 Capitol building happenings was acquitted of all charges.

Judge issues first outright acquittal of Jan. 6 riot defendant

 

[Shadow Wolf]

So, is ignorance of the law and blaming someone else now a valid legal strategy?

 

[Heyo]

So, is ignorance of the law and blaming someone else now a valid legal strategy?

Context?

 

[Watchmen]

So, is ignorance of the law and blaming someone else now a valid legal strategy?

No, and if you think that’s what happened in this case then you are misinformed. Everyone is entitled to a fair trial based on evidence. In this case, it was a close call, and close calls favor the defendant in a criminal trial.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Context?

The defense was basically he didn't know he wasn't supposed to be there and it was someone else's fault for misbehaving. Last I knew those aren't valid excuses for breaking the law.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

No, and if you think that’s what happened in this case then you are misinformed. Everyone is entitled to a fair trial based on evidence. In this case, it was a close call, and close calls favor the defendant in a criminal trial.

He broke the law and someone else was blamed. That's wrong.

 

[F1fan]

As I understand the case the guy had a person videoing his actions that day and he wasn't shown doing anything deliberately against the law. The guy is an idiot to join a rally that claims there was election fraud, but the event got out of hand and I suspect there were quite a few people caught up in what happened around them. The guy has had enough trouble with the law as it is, so it's not as if he got off Scott-free. He's endured a lot of stress and hopefully will think more rationally in the future.

There are over 800 people in the courts, and many hundreds still being sought for crimes that day. There is a severe shortage of prosecutors to process these crimes, so I can see where some lower end offenders might get their case dismissed.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Since people apparently aren't reading the article:

Martin claimed that he thought the police had allowed him into an entrance near the Capitol Rotunda on Jan. 6, 2021.
...
People were streaming by and the officers made no attempt to stop the people,” said the judge

Ignorance of the law and blaming someone else.

 

[Heyo]

The defense was basically he didn't know he wasn't supposed to be there and it was someone else's fault for misbehaving. Last I knew those aren't valid excuses for breaking the law.

Who is "he"? I get the feeling you linked to an article or video that somehow isn't shown to me.

Edit: Never mind, I found out by clicking "show ignored content".

 

[stvdv]

A man accused for actions related to the January 6 Capitol building happenings was acquitted of all charges.

Judge issues first outright acquittal of Jan. 6 riot defendant

Thank God

 

[Nakosis]

So, is ignorance of the law and blaming someone else now a valid legal strategy?

Yes,

Ignorance of the law can't be used as an excuse but it also doesn't mean one will automatically be prosecuted.
If someone can show another had some reasonable accountability for the incident.

I'd imagine the judge would also have to consider the actual harm caused. It would have been quite a different ruling I suspect if he had been among those trying to intimidate congressmen.

 

[Twilight Hue]

A man accused for actions related to the January 6 Capitol building happenings was acquitted of all charges.

Judge issues first outright acquittal of Jan. 6 riot defendant

That's good news.

People do have that right to petition and redress their grievances to their government in a peaceful manner.

I think a substantial majority of people fit that description.

 

[Revoltingest]

Since people apparently aren't reading the article:

Ignorance of the law and blaming someone else.

I've read of this case in the news.
Perhaps the linked article left out the evidence leading to the decision.
Remember...to convict, there must be certainty beyond a reasonable doubt.
Judge issues first acquittal to Jan. 6 riot defendant
Excerpted...
McFadden said it was reasonable for Martin to believe that outnumbered police officers allowed him and others to enter the Capitol through the Rotunda doors on Jan. 6, 2021. The judge also said Martin’s actions were “about as minimal and nonserious” as anyone who was at the Capitol that day.

Martin is the third Capitol riot defendant whose case has been resolved by a trial. He is the first of the three to be acquitted of all charges that he faced. The first two Capitol riot trials ended with convictions, although McFadden acquitted one of those defendants of a disorderly conduct charge after a bench trial last month.
:
Martin, whose bench trial started Tuesday, testified that a police officer waved him into the building after the riot erupted. A prosecutor dismissed that testimony as “nonsense.”

The judge, however, said video shows two police officers standing near the Rotunda doors and allowing people to enter as Martin approached. One of the officers appeared to lean back before Martin placed a hand on the officer’s shoulder as a possible sign of gratitude, the judge said.

McFadden described Martin’s testimony as “largely credible.” The judge said it was not unreasonable for him to believe that officers allowed him to enter the Capitol, even though alarms were blaring and broken glass was strewn about the floor.
:
The judge said Martin appeared to be a “silent observer of the actions of others.” McFadden didn’t find any evidence that Martin intended to disrupt Congress from certifying President Joe Biden’s electoral victory.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

McFadden said it was reasonable for Martin to believe that outnumbered police officers allowed him and others to enter the Capitol through the Rotunda doors on Jan. 6, 2021.

Except it's not reasonable.
Again, ignorance is supposed to be no excuse.

 

[Revoltingest]

Except it's not reasonable.
Again, ignorance is supposed to be no excuse.

I don't see the claim of ignorance as a defense.
If one is given tacit approval to enter by someone
with apparent color of authority, then it's reasonable
for one to assume permission.
Also relevant is one's conduct after gaining entry, ie,
peaceful, & not involved in theft, vandalism, or assault.
Also...
https://www.hg.org/legal-articles/ignorance-of-the-law-when-is-it-a-valid-defense-52276

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I don't see the claim of ignorance as a defense.
If one is given tacit approval to enter by someone
with apparent color of authority, then it's reasonable
for one to assume permission.
Also relevant is one's conduct after gaining entry, ie,
peaceful, & not involved in theft, vandalism, or assault.
Also...
https://www.hg.org/legal-articles/ignorance-of-the-law-when-is-it-a-valid-defense-52276

It's a place people aren't allowed in, during a time when it's being invaded by a mob.
If they wanted to go around the cops they should have at least tried for entrapment. At least that's more believable than "I thought the cops where just letting the horde inside where we're not supposed to be."

 

[Revoltingest]

It's a place people aren't allowed in, during a time when it's being invaded by a mob.

If law enforcement allows a civilian to enter,
then that civilian may assume that it's legal.
If not, then the problem is the cop, not the
civilian.

I don't like the Jan 6 insurrectionists either,
but we shouldn't have a system that just
convicts everyone there, regardless of
circumstances. Otherwise, every innocent
demonstrator at at a riot could be found
guilty of a crime under the what's good for
the goose is good for the gander legal theory.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

If law enforcement allows a civilian to enter,
then that civilian may assume that it's legal.
If not, then the problem is the cop, not the
civilian.

That's called entrapment. (But that also requires a judge to openly shame the cops)

 

[Revoltingest]

That's called entrapment. (But that also requires a judge to openly shame the cops)

If there's no intent to entrap, then it's not entrapment.
What motivated the cop to do what he did? Dunno.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

If there's no intent to entrap, then it's not entrapment.
What motivated the cop to do what he did? Dunno.

No intent to entrap, but it satisfies the other conditions like leading someone into doing something the individual normally wouldn't do.
As for the cop, it's hard to tell. Some were helping the mob some where being attacked by the mob. But it needs looked into with this case.