Southwest suburban man charged with firing gun during January 6 US Capitol insurrection

John Banuelos arrested at sister's house in Summit, IL and charged with firing gun during January 6 US Capitol insurrection - ABC7 Chicago

I find the insane amount of time it took them to arrest the guy to be interesting. Was it supreme incompetence or on purpose? I don't know.

In comparison to the other defendants, he should get at least ten years. If he gets less than 3, I'll be real suspicious.

 

So, what are the facts of the case's. Or, does it matter? Just give him 10 years. **** it?

Wreckless discharge in Washington D.C. carries a maximum penalty of 1 year in jail and a $1,000 fine.

 

https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?edition=2011&req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title18-section1752

10 years.

 

If he's actually guilty of that charge.

I'm thinking they may not choose to charge him with:

84-PRESIDENTIAL AND PRESIDENTIAL STAFF ASSASSINATION, KIDNAPPING, AND ASSAULT

 

I wonder if he will be singing Justice for All at the next Trump rally.

 

I wonder if he'll be falsely charged like a lot of the other protesters.

 

What you are quoting is a chapter heading - not the law.

Look at 1752 (b)(1)(A)

You might not like the law but that's what the law says and yes they did charge him with it.

 

I think he's been treated with kid gloves unlike the other protesters who were massively overcharged.

Appeals court ruling means over 100 Jan. 6 rioters may be resentenced | The Spokesman-Review

 

The court ruling says one of the charges has to dropped because it doesn't apply.

BTW, Trump has been charged with the same crime. That, too, will have to be dropped, of course.

 

Sounds good.

 

Ok, let's look at that:


(b) Violation of this section, and attempts or conspiracies to commit such violations, shall be punishable by-

(1) a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than 10 years, or both, if-

(A) the person, during and in relation to the offense, uses or carries a deadly or dangerous weapon or firearm;

And what "section" is it? It's:

18 U.S. Code Chapter 84 - PRESIDENTIAL AND PRESIDENTIAL STAFF ASSASSINATION, KIDNAPPING, AND ASSAULT

 

That's a chapter.

This is the section -
§1752. Restricted building or grounds

"§" means something.

Section sign - Wikipedia

 

That's a section, under that chapter.

 

Which is irrelevant as a matter of law.

 

Actually, it isn't...lol

 

Yes, it is.

 

Here's something to help people out.

Trespassing on a Restricted Building | 18 U.S.C. § 1752 (thefederalcriminalattorneys.com)

 

Well, Bob, you and I might almost never agree, but you are named after my favorite comedian of all time, and you nailed this one. They were definitely already searching for him, so it wasn't just that they weren't looking for him, but I'd love to hear why it took them so long to act with any kind of real urgency. The only thing that makes me thing he deserves less than 10 years is that he did fire the gun into the air, instead of at people. Even then, he's a thug.

 

Who was falsely charged and why are you okay with him firing a gun during a violent riot?

 

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/ju...6-sentence-ruling-affect-100-cases-rcna141465

Why can't you make an honest claim?

 

A question isn't a claim. It's a question. If you need more help understanding this middle school English lesson, I guess I can keep going. But points for being dishonest while accusing others of dishonesty. And since you can't be bothered to read your own link (big surprise), it doesn't even talk about people being falsely charged. It just says the sentencing was too high. Do you know the deference between charging and sentencing?

Why can't you make an honest claim? Why can't you read your own links?

 

You asked why I am ok with someone firing a gun at the J6 protest. You reference a non-existent comment. IOW, a dishonest claim.

A charge was dropped because it was applied unlawfully. That's a false charge.

 

So now you do think he should be charged for it? Funny.

I referenced your own claim. And your link mentions nothing about any charge being dropped.

 

I never said he shouldn't...lol

FFS, dude...lol...


The ruling by a three-judge panel in Washington, D.C., looked at a lower court's "enhanced" sentencing of a defendant over his “substantial interference with the administration of justice” on the day Congress was certifying Joe Biden's victory over Donald Trump. The appeals court ruled that “‘administration of justice’ does not encompass Congress’s role in the electoral certification process.”

 

You had suggested that the charges would be dropped.

What specific charge was dropped, "dude"? I see sentencing guidelines being appealed, but I don't see any actual charges dropped. Maybe you just forgot to read your link and meant to send a different one?