Why Is Black Lives Matter Activist Facing Four Years in Jail While Stanford Rapist Gets Six Months?

[KamaAina]

http://www.democracynow.org/2016/6/7/why_is_black_lives_matter_activist

In California, Black Lives Matter activist Jasmine Richards faces up to four years in prison at her sentencing today after she was convicted of a rarely used statute in California law known up until recently as "felony lynching." Police accused her of trying to de-arrest someone during a peace march in Pasadena last August. The arrest and jailing of a young black woman activist on charges of felony lynching has sparked a firestorm of protest, with supporters vowing to pack the court today. Meanwhile, in another California case, a judge sentenced white former Stanford University swimmer Brock Allen Turner to six months in jail after he was convicted of three felony counts of sexual assault. We get reaction from California Senate President Pro-Tem Kevin de León and Los Angeles City Councilmember Gil Cedillo. "You started your show talking about someone from Stanford who rapes a woman and gets six months, and then you’ve got a woman who is part of the Black Lives (Matter) movement who is trying to bring forth the challenges that face us in America around racism and racial discrimination, and she’s participating, trying to exercise her First Amendment rights, ... and she’s going to be given four years?" Cedillo says. "Something’s wrong with that picture."

[CincyDem]

1. Ahhh....she can't swim ?

[Delphinus]

2. Something is

indeed wrong with this picture.

[malthaussen]

3. "Privilege" means "Private Law."

There's a reason for that.

-- Mal

[NobodyHere]

4. The BLM activist hasn't been sentenced yet

The whole 4 years vs 6 months is premature IMO

[okieinpain]

8. +1 n/t.

[AtheistCrusader]

72. Why?

Is it not wrong to forcefully remove people from lawful police custody? This was not for a fellow protestor. This was for someone the police arrested for dining and dashing. Completely unrelated to the nearby protest.

[okieinpain]

7. Why is it even possible.

[jberryhill]

64. Because the "name" given to a statutory offense is not as important as its elements

Most of the charges were dismissed.

It turns out, however, that it is a crime in California to attempt to remove someone from police custody when they've been lawfully arrested for theft.

[TeddyR]

65. I suspect that's a crime

In most jurisdictions.

[jberryhill]

66. It is

In California, it turns out to be under the heading of "lynching" because it came about in the context of people storming jails to take out those to be lynched.

But the reason for the "de-arrest" is not in the statute, which merely makes it an offense to "de-arrest" people, as artfully stated in the OP.

What happened was that there was a demonstration going on in a park. Thoroughly unrelated to the demonstration, a woman had eaten at a nearby restaurant, skipped out on the tab, and proceeded near to the park. The police caught up with the thief at the park, at which point the demonstrators believed the thief to be under arrest for participating in the demonstration, rather than using the crowd to evade capture for the theft. At that point, it turned into an ugly scene, with Ms. Richards attempting to "de-arrest" the thief.

Most of the charges against Ms. Richards were dropped, with the exception of the remaining one, for which she was sentenced to 90 days less 18 days served.

[LoverOfLiberty]

69. Thanks for the explanation n/t

[okieinpain]

111. Thanks. N/t

[saidsimplesimon]

9. I'll save comment until sentence is passed.

Thank you NobodyHere for saving me an immediate read.

I have recommend the piece and will read in full later. I support BLM and Senator Sanders.

[JackRiddler]

53. Oh please.

That 4 years would even come into question, or that they would level a charge called "lynching," is suffic

The Minneapolis police called BLM a terrorist organization!

[AtheistCrusader]

71. That's an appropriate name for the law.

It is named that, because at the time it was codified in statute, it was to STOP people from forcing their way into jails, physically seizing a prisoner, and lynching them or other bodily harm before trial.

The mechanism is; physically and forcefully removing the person from lawful arrest. That's all. It doesn't have anything to do with putting a rope around their neck. It doesn't differentiate between whether the person is being freed, or seized for the purposes of harming them.

I suggest you actually do a little bit of research on how laws are written and passed. It's a useful skill, and, not to be rude, but you could use the knowledge. Seriously.

[JackRiddler]

93. I knew that and your condescension leaves me unimpressed.

It's a disgusting abuse of the law and you know it.

[Kentonio]

104. Err, how is that an abuse of the law?

[AtheistCrusader]

110. No, it isn't.

Also, the law was in the process of being re-named because it is apparently confusing to some people. The change was passed prior to the alleged crime, and took effect on or around January 1st.

Still illegal to attempt to remove someone from lawful police arrest, but it has a less confusing name.

[jberryhill]

6. Specifically to what has she been sentenced?

[Skittles]

103. 90 days

[Iggo]

10. Kick.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

11. Only the latter strikes me as outrageous. N.T.

[malaise]

12. Simple -BWB

[FBaggins]

13. Her sentence was for 90 days... not four years.

18 of which have already been served.

[Maedhros]

14. Three things:

1. The Stanford rapist is rich, the BLM activist is not.
2. The Stanford rapist is white, the BLM activist is not.
3. The Stanford rapist did not contest authority, the BLM activist did.

Lesson: do not be poor and black and question authority. Sadly, too many Americans are OK with this.

[BlancheSplanchnik]

20. You forgot something important:

Stanford rapist is male.

Also lesson--don't be female, in any capacity. White, black, rich, poor, young, old, contesting authority, attempting to defend oneself, going to a party, walking, living in one's home, sleeping, having a drink, .....

[Maedhros]

26. Yes - I did miss that.

Thanks for pointing it out.

Rich, white, male. It's win-win, all around. Laws are made for other people...

[BlancheSplanchnik]

30. Yep.

Ugh.

As smirkymonkey pointed out, the only way rape threads get any traction around here is if it gets derailed into a race issue. Then, the good liberals will come out swinging for minority rights. While forgetting about the female victims of MEN.

[jberryhill]

34. You both missed something

She didn't get 4 years.

She got 90 days, 18 of which were for time served.

And what she did had nothing to do with BLM activism. She was trying to "de-arrest" someone who was not part of a protest, but had skipped out on a restaurant without paying the tab.

[BlancheSplanchnik]

40. I must admit, my focus was on the woman raped by the Stanford scumbag

And on the fact that rape threads and the women who are raped often get little attention, here and elsewhere.

[jberryhill]

38. So, on point 3

You believe that if the police arrest someone for theft who skipped out on a restaurant without paying, then it is appropriate to "question authority" by attempting to physically remove that person from custody?

Do you think the server at the restaurant - whom this person fucked - is rich and/or white?

[AtheistCrusader]

59. The stanford rapist faced 20 years. Five felonies. The lesson is; know the facts of the case.

Otherwise you will fail to make any sort of meaningful comparison between the two.

Person A: Attempted to remove a lawfully arrested person from police custody. (Felony)
Person B: Raped a person. (Five felonies.)

Person A faced 4 years.
Person B faced 20 years.

Person A was sentenced to 90 days.
Person B was sentenced to 180 days.



I would argue that Person B is entitled to, at minimum, another 3 months if we just compare felony counts upon which there was a conviction. (Person B was only found guilty of three felony counts)

Due to the severity of the crime, of course, I would argue for a lot more than just 3 months more. I would START with sentencing him to the amount of time he spent denying it, then penalty on top, but this sort of thing has been ruled unconstitutional via the fifth as a tool that could be used to attempt to force self-damaging testimony, so it's just a personal preference and not a policy suggestion.

[passiveporcupine]

15. Stanford rapists' dad wrote letter

complaining that six months is too long for the 20 minute actions of his son's life.

[KamaAina]

16. "20 minutes of action"

a phrase that will live in infamy alongside Clayton Williams' "relax and enjoy it" and Todd Akin's "legitimate rape victims have ways to try to shut that whole thing down".

[passiveporcupine]

19. The disconnect is absolutely unreal

Of course his real message is that it was not a serious crime because his son was drunk (not drunk enough to try to escape from the two guys who caught him in the act).

But I wish I could respond to him:

It only takes a couple of seconds to aim a gun and pull a trigger and kill someone. Does that mean the perp should not have to spend more than a couple days in prison...you know, just to be fair to him?

[BlancheSplanchnik]

32. "Not serious crime because his son was drunk"--sorry I have to disagree.

Daddy's real message is, sonny boy got some pu**y; there's no crime in that.

A woman and her personhood doesn't even come to mind for him and too many others like him.

I'd bet good money Daddy would have said the same thing if his little chip-off-the-old-block was sober.

[smirkymonkey]

87. Exactly, if you kill someone in a vehicular homicide, do they let you off

with a slap on the wrist because "you were drunk and didn't really mean it"? Or if you commit a robbery or a murder under the influence, does the fact that your judgment was impaired due to drink or drug get you years knocked off your sentence because the Judge is pretty sure you wouldn't have done those things if you had been sober? NO.

It's only rape where it is a factor that the perpetrator was drunk that grants them leniency. Total bullshit.

[BlancheSplanchnik]

96. More women in the legal system and government. Progressive women.

That's the only thing I can imagine would change the way women are treated in the courts. A LOT more women.

[FrodosPet]

123. I made that point years ago

I said years ago more progressives need to get into law enforcement and prosecution.

It did NOT go well. It is much easier to complain than repair.

[BlancheSplanchnik]

124. Yep. It seems if you say something, no matter how correct, ....

If people aren't ready to hear it, it won't go anywhere...temporarily.

Gotta keep passing around more evolved ideas, though. Eventually they reach critical mass.

More women are going into such areas, now. Those numbers will grow, as long as we're not forced into reproductive slavery by conservatives!

[TipTok]

125. I was wondering what the mothers life must be like...

... In that household.

Not pleasant I suspect...

[BlancheSplanchnik]

126. Seriously.

Absolutely...couldn't possibly be otherwise.

Hope this shakes her up. Who knows what could happen...

[skepticscott]

31. A good reason for you not to be a judge either

A good judge does not indulge personal grudges and biases. Or assume executive powers.

[NaturalHigh]

117. Your reply is all sorts of wrong.

I don't even know where to begin.

[BlancheSplanchnik]

33. "Action" in such contexts is a synonym

for P-U-*-*-Y

[Scruffy Rumbler]

21. Has anyone asked the father how many of these "20 minute actions" he has committed? nt

[Rex]

28. And if what his son did is what the father considers action, then maybe LEO needs to take a peek

in his basement. That is some creepy shit, rich or poor. Raping a women is action? Do tell dad. I want to hear more from daddy warbucks.

[harrose]

97. He needs to be thrown in jail for a long sentence...

... then, maybe, he'll have a better appreciation of the damage his son did to the victim.

[mahatmakanejeeves]

112. What's the charge?

Writing a letter to a court?

[Dr. Strange]

114. What about the woman who said, "He doesn't need to be behind bars."

Should she be thrown in jail too?

[Rex]

17. White rich male vs. black middle class female.

She never stood a chance, we live in a plutocracy that is run by very rich white conservative men.

[jberryhill]

36. So why is she only getting 72 days?

How does your theory explain that?

[Rex]

37. Not long enough for you?

Yeah what she did is equivalent to what he did, thanks for playing.

[jberryhill]

41. Who said they were equivalent?

Perhaps we might start with understanding how long a month is.

The Stanford sentence is an outrage.

That does not mean its okay to help people rip off restaurant staff and waiters who are trying to make a living.

[Rex]

47. Oh I see, you are talking apples to my oranges.

I was talking social ranking in our society.

[jberryhill]

55. ...and I was talking about a misleading headline

[AlbertCat]

44. White rich male vs. black middle class female.

Wait...

They're in the same case?...against each other?


Or is it two completely different cases, each with it's own set of evidence, residences, judges , etc. and for 2 unrelated crimes?

[Rex]

46. What case? I am talking about ranking in our plutocracy, what are you talking about?

Are you unaware there is a inherent hierarchy in America?

[AtheistCrusader]

50. Are you unaware of the actual facts of the case beyond the headline?

(yes)

[Rex]

58. ARF?

[AtheistCrusader]

61. See post 59. I spelled it out for you.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=7888817

[jberryhill]

60. "a plutocracy that is run by very rich white conservative men"

The very rich white conservative man who sentenced Ms. Richards is second from the left in this picture, incidentally:



Judge Elaine Lu

[Jack Rabbit]

18. White privilege?

If we white folks don't think too much about white privilege, it is because few individual whites know when he's been its beneficiary. For example, I don't know if I was ever hired for a job because I am a white male over somebody who isn't; I seldom knew who my competition for that position was.

In this case, however, I just can't think of a better answer.

[meow2u3]

27. More like right-wing white privilege

Liberal whites would have the book thrown at them for much lesser offenses.

[Igel]

89. I know I was.

Then again, they delayed hiring anybody for over a month, hoping that an Asian would apply for the job.

That's what my boss told me straight out. "We waited for a Chinese to apply, because they work harder and are smarter than whites. But we hired you because the other applicant was black, and they're even more stupid and lazy than whites."

Boy, did I feel privileged.

[DebbieCDC]

22. #WhitePrivilegeMatters

excuse me while I vomit

[Nye Bevan]

23. Another vote for "let's see what she gets".

If she does get four years I will unequivocally condemn the sentence, but I suspect that it will be a lot less.

[jberryhill]

35. 90 days, 18 already served

For trying to "de-arrest" someone who skipped out on a restaurant without paying.

[Nye Bevan]

42. Thanks. Seems like a more than reasonable sentence (nt)

[jberryhill]

68. The judge, incidentally, is a minority woman and Democrat

Judge Elaine Lu is, in this OP, the agent of institutional racism and white male privilege.

https://ballotpedia.org/Elaine_Lu

[Rex]

39. Yep.

[jberryhill]

62. I see, and how much does Judge Elaine Lu have?

Or are you opposed to minority women judges in general?

[d_legendary1]

29. She doesn't know the secret hand shake

Nor does she have the capital to hire a really good attorney to get herself a reduced sentence. Nor is she the right color to stand trial.

[AtheistCrusader]

74. Nor did you read anything past the headline of either case.

[d_legendary1]

108. Nor did you

Judge in the rapist case is also an alumni where this puke attended school.

Kid's old man is loaded so it means high priced attorneys.

BLM activist is working class, which means public defender (if she can afford the fee).

BLM activist is still black.

What exactly did I miss?

[AtheistCrusader]

109. That one party got a sentence commensurate with the crime.

I agree, the rapist's legal team was more effective, and I also agree the judge is corrupt.

That's where the inequity between the two cases ends.

[d_legendary1]

116. Excercising 1st amendment rights should not commensurate a crime

She was not inciting a riot. She was protesting peacefully before this woman appeared out of nowhere. Her charges were trumped up and she got 90 days for it. If she had a good team of lawyers she would have gotten off with a slap on the wrist.

But being working class, a minority, and being a victim of selective enforcement (lynching, really?) she ends up serving more time than she's supposed to.

[AtheistCrusader]

118. Wrong. She was mistaken, no doubt.

But the person she tried to liberate from lawful arrest was not even part of the protest.

That's not protected first amendment expression. She can't even argue that the person she was trying to free was unlawfully arrested.


For the severalth time, Lynching is the name of the law, not the act she was committing. It was a problem that precursored events in which prisoners were lynched, so the name stuck. It in no way suggests she was trying to actually lynch anyone, only that she was trying to free someone from lawful arrest. That is not a meaningful objection. The law is not 'selective', if you attempt to remove someone from police custody in any state in the union, you will be charged with a crime, even if the name varies.

90 days is not unreasonable. The 180 days for the rapist, that's unreasonable. On the low end of the scale. In fact, it's not even on the scale.

[IronLionZion]

43. Incorrect headline. Jasmine Richards got 90 days in county jail

plus 3 years probation.

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-0507-black-lives-pasadena-snap-story.html

Jasmine Richards was arrested by Pasadena police in September after a demonstration in La Pintoresca Park. Police arrived at the scene after a woman reportedly walked out of a restaurant in the 1300 block of North Fair Oaks Avenue without paying. The woman joined a group of people, including Richards, who had gathered at the park after a peace march, said her attorney, Nana Gyamfi.

When police took the woman into custody, Richards tried to start a riot, prosecutors said. Richards was arrested several days later after police reviewed evidence of the incident.

The rapist "faced" 6 years which is what prosecutors asked for. Yes, it is widely viewed as lenient that he only got 6 months but the judge in that case is facing public backlash which can affect his reelection chances.

I'm all in favor of more equal sentencing, but this is a poor example to use. There really is no comparison between police interference/inciting riot and raping an unconscious woman behind a dumpster hard enough to give her severe bruising. It's like comparing apples to raping someone.

[AlbertCat]

45. I'm all in favor of more equal sentencing, but this is a poor example to use.

This ^

[alp227]

51. The Democracy Now story was published at 5am PT today,

many hours before this sentencing.

[hfojvt]

56. nothing quite like riling people up before the fact

and without the facts.

I used to think that journalism from the left was a positive thing.

Then I saw too much of it.

[IronLionZion]

73. Clickbait

[AtheistCrusader]

76. initially there were five felony counts against the rapist, so theoretically, up to 20 years consecu

tively. (Would never happen)

The comparison was severely flawed, even muddying the waters between charges and sentencing in the two cases.

[Rex]

48. I see some here are confused and don't understand the inherent social ranking in our society.

For them it is about a court case. Oh well, maybe one day they will get it.

[jberryhill]

70. Where do Democratic Asian women fall in that ranking?

https://ballotpedia.org/Elaine_Lu

[IronLionZion]

78. We should ask Donald Trump

He knows exactly what sort of people can be judges.

[jberryhill]

79. Well, it is apparently the belief of many here at DU that minority women cannot be trusted

I guess Judge Lu heads home from the court, takes off her skinsuit and is a rich white guy.

[IronLionZion]

82. It's also the belief of most Americans that a judge would be white and male

it's often the default thought when someone's ethnicity or gender is not specified.

[jberryhill]

83. Yeah, this thread is unintentionally revealing

The racist and sexist assumptions of the knee-jerk brigade here are pretty clear.

[AtheistCrusader]

77. We're not confused. We're informed.

Because we GAVE A SHIT ENOUGH TO RESEARCH THE FACTS OF BOTH CASES.

[Igel]

90. You're using the court case as evidence for the ranking.

But it doesn't fit.

It's a datum that has to be thrown out, I guess, because we have to assume the premise. That's the only true way of constructing a syllogism.

[PufPuf23]

49. Racism and the power of wealth and privilege. eom.

[MrScorpio]

52. Why?

Do we real really need to ask?

This has been the story of America since day one.

[jberryhill]

63. Because Democratic minority women judges are biased? Is that what you want to go with?

Do you know who it was that sentenced her to 72 days?

[MrScorpio]

86. Anti-black bias is not just a problem of the right

It's a systemic problem which infects everything, including the left and Democrats.

[smirkymonkey]

88. Thank YOU!

[jberryhill]

92. And that bias is evident in this case how?

[MrScorpio]

94. If all other conditions had been the same and our white preppy, rapist had been black instead...

I seriously doubt that the results of his case would play out in the exact same way.

Anti-Black bias is something that gives all whites the benefit of the doubt, therein it is the epitome of unearned white privilege.

[jberryhill]

95. Which has what to do with this?

The judge in the Stanford rape case is facing a recall, as Superior Court judges in California are elected.

I am asking you what Judge Lu did in this case which demonstrates some sort of bias?

[MrScorpio]

98. It's not the judge, it's the system ...

One that gives black defendants harsher sentences for the same crimes committed by whites: http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/08/30/770501/study-black-defendants-are-at-least-30-more-likely-to-be-imprisoned-than-white-defendants-for-the-same-crime/

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/courts-are-biased-against-blacks-with-white-offenders-less-likely-to-be-jailed-for-similar-crimes-8959804.html

The racial disparities are pretty apparent.

[jberryhill]

99. I'm aware of that

In what way does this case illustrate that statistical reality?

The identity of the victim also influences sentencing decisions, although in this instance we do not know the identity of the restaurant owner, cooks and waitstaff who were robbed.

What I do not understand, and what I would like to know, since I am missing something, is how does this case render "same crime, different punishment" on the basis of race to be apparent?

The systematic consequences are that the judge in the Stanford case is likely to not be a judge in the foreseeable future. What should be done to the judge in this case, in your opinion?

[MrScorpio]

101. Looking beyond the statistics, it's quite clear that if you're black in America, you're screwed

By a so-called criminal system which is racially biased and indiscriminately and disproportionally affects black people in favor of whites. It always has been and isn't going to be changed in the future. Not only are white defendants given more lenient sentences, but white victims are given consideration as well.

But not always, of course, especially if you're a white woman who was raped by a white man... That's patriarchy at work.

"Same crime, different punishment" is merely a template by which the we can see that the system is inherently biased and unfair. Basically, it would be naive to not account for the way that race affects prosecutions and verdicts. Pretty much, it's not to be trusted at all in that regard. As I said, if you're black, the system is going to everything that it can to screw you.

The judge in the Stanford case? Who knows what's going to happen to him or what should happen to him. I would imagine that it all depends on how many whites are incensed enough by the verdict in order to do something about it. I find it interesting that this judge only came under scrutiny at this point.

[Kentonio]

105. Except that in this case, that very clearly did not happen.

The 'system' could have sentenced her to 4 years, but instead gave her a 90 day sentence because it was clear that she'd broken the law by misunderstanding what was happening that day, and had instead jumped to incorrect conclusions.

A lot like what it happening in this thread in fact.

[MrScorpio]

106. Well, let's compare apples to apples...

Here we have a young black man who was wrongfully convicted of rape, who only got out of prison after the accuser who falsely accuser recanted. By that time, he had spent FIVE YEARS IN PRISON. No six month sentence, no probation... Straight to prison.

His take on Turner's sentence, compared to his own, is quite straight forward: Turner was definitely the recipient of white privilege at work. Something that could never be assigned to any who's black.

Wrongfully Convicted Black Man Who Spent 5 Years in Prison for Rape Comments on White Student’s Lenient Sentence

Judge Aaron Persky, however, dismissed both the sentencing guidelines and the recommendations of prosecutors in sentencing 23-year-old Turner to six months in prison for assaulting a female student behind a dumpster. It is likely that with good behavior, Turner will be out of jail in only six months.

Speaking to the New York Post, Banks discussed how this kind of leniency is not shown to poor kids.


“I would say it’s a case of privilege,” Banks said. “It seems like the judge based his decision on lifestyle. He’s lived such a good life and has never experienced anything serious in his life that would prepare him for prison. He was sheltered so much he wouldn’t be able to survive prison. What about the kid who has nothing, he struggles to eat, struggles to get a fair education? What about the kid who has no choice who he is born to and has drug-addicted parents or a non-parent household? Where is the consideration for them when they commit a crime?”

Although the judge was empathetic to Turner, Banks said the judge in his case couldn’t have cared less.

http://yourblackworld.net/2016/06/07/wrongfully-convicted-black-man-who-spent-5-years-in-prison-for-rape-comments-on-white-students-lenient-sentence/

[Kentonio]

107. Yep, and these cases are a great way of pointing out the horrible disconnect in the justice system.

A simple look at the proportion of each race in jail also more than proves the argument.

Just not the case that the op is talking about.

[uponit7771]

100. +1

[AtheistCrusader]

54. This headline is a fallacy, known as a 'False Dichotomy'.

The Stanford rapist FACED, a lot more than 6 months. He was sentenced to 6 months. He FACED 20 years for the five separate felony counts.

The activist (who was not being an activist at the time, so it is as irrelevant as the swimmer being a swimmer at the time of the rape, since he was not swimming) FACED 4 years, and was sentenced to 3 months.

Not equitable, but not because the activist's sentence was too long, but rather because the rapist's sentence was far too short, and the judge now faces a credible recall effort for doing so.

In all 50 states, it is unlawful to attempt to remove a person who has been arrested from police custody. The penalty is not trivial, and 90 days is actually quite light for the crime. (Worse crime than the crime the person the activist was trying to liberate was accused of.)

[melman]

81. Why even bother?

OP posted to generate outrage. Outrage was achieved.

Most people reading and rec'ing aren't interested in anything else.

[AtheistCrusader]

85. True, but damnit... the truth.. It wants to be known.

It does seem a waste at times though.

[Albertoo]

102. True, alas

[NaturalHigh]

119. All true, but the truth is often ignored in favor of outrage.

[guillaumeb]

57. It cannot be racism because the US is "post racial". eom

[blackspade]

67. "felony lynching" WTF?

Is that some kind of sick joke?

What a bunch of bullshit.

[KamaAina]

75. We hashed that out last week

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10027879004

[jberryhill]

80. Turns out it is illegal in California to attempt to remove people from custody

...when they have been lawfully arrested.

Who knew.

[bighart]

84. Good greif people

It is always a good idea to make sure you know what you are commenting about before you say something.
The level of ignorance of the case and sentence involving the BLM activist displayed in the comments made in this thread is truly amazing.

I thought we are supposed to be the ones that actually look at the facts and make rational, reasoned decisions but this thread proves that is a faulty belief.

[Igel]

91. It's not just true, it's truthy.

A higher level of truth than mere facts and understanding. Don't worry about the emote in your brother's eye when you have a beam of light in your own, apparently.

[mahatmakanejeeves]

113. Wednesday morning update

Last edited Wed Jun 8, 2016, 02:40 PM - Edit history (1)

In an exception to my usual policy, I'm going to link to a website that is not that of a mainstream print journalism organization. The bloggers at this site can hardly be accused of being hostile to Richards.

This is quoted material from the article. The article notes that the correct name of the charge for which Richards was convicted is “attempting to unlawfully remove a suspect from police custody.” The old name was “felony lynching.”

Also note that the person who had allegedly left the restaurant without paying was a "suspect {who} had already assaulted and injured someone.” There is no indication that Richards was aware of those allegations.

Black Lives Matters Pasadena Activist Jasmine Richards Sentenced to 90 Days in Jail in “Unlawful Taking” Case

By EDDIE RIVERA, Community Editor

4:46 am | June 8, 2016

Black Lives Matter Pasadena activist Jasmine Richards was sentenced Tuesday morning to 90 days in LA County Jail less 18 days time served. Richards was also ordered to attend anger management classes following her conviction last week. Richards was found guilty of “Attempting to unlawfully remove a suspect from police custody” in an incident last August. ... The charge, until last year, was known as “felony lynching.”
....

LA Deputy District Attorney Christine Kee asked for 180 days in County Jail, and pointed out Richards’ previous convictions over the years, including petty theft and assault. Richards had also received two violations while on bail for the charge. The probation department’s recommendation was for one year in County Jail. ... Kee told Judge Lu that Richards had “inserted” herself in to a case that “had nothing to do with her, and where a suspect had already assaulted and injured someone.” She “did not allow the police to do their job,” Kee added. ... Richards has previous convictions for assault and petty theft in 2010 and 2011, Kee reminded the judge.
....

Richards will return to court July 14 for pre-trial hearings in her two pending misdemeanor cases. She is charged with making a criminal threat and disturbing the peace in one incident, and battery of a police officer and resisting arrest in a second incident. ... Prosecutors said they have video of both incidents.

Let's go back to September:

Black Lives Matter demonstrators denounce arrest of Pasadena organizer

By Brian Day, San Gabriel Valley Tribune

Posted: 09/03/15, 9:51 PM PDT | Updated: on 09/03/2015

PASADENA >> Southland Black Lives Matter activists expressed outrage Thursday over what they described as the “targeted arrest” of a Pasadena organizer on “false” felony charges stemming from a confrontation with officers at La Pintoresca Park last weekend. ... Jasmine Richards, 28, was arrested Wednesday afternoon on suspicion of taking a person from lawful police custody by means of a riot — legally defined as lynching, inciting a riot, resisting or obstructing police and child endangerment.
....

This was Richards’ second arrest by Pasadena police since late-march {sic}, when she was arrested on a series of misdemeanor charges stemming from a March 24 Black Lives Matter rally. That case is pending.
....

Richard’s arrest Wednesday resulted from a confrontation four days earlier at La Pintoresca Park between police trying to arrest a woman on suspicion of battery and Black Lives Matter protestors led by Richards, Ibarra said. ... Officers had responded to a report that a woman punched at least one restaurant staff member after being unable to pay her bill while eating at a restaurant in the 1300 block of North Fair Oaks Avenue, police said. The restaurant staff pointed out the suspect, 20-year-old Benita Escoe of Pasadena, who had since walked to the park, Ibarra said.

Police took Escoe into custody for the alleged assault when Richards and other protestors, who had gathered a the park following a peace march, rushed toward the arresting officers, Ibarra said. ... Richards and other members of the group repeatedly tried to grab Escoe away from police custody, Ibarra said.

[snooper2]

115. is democracynow.org trying to make people more ignorant on purpose?

[mahatmakanejeeves]

121. While we're at it....

Here are the charges of which Brock Turner was convicted:

All-American swimmer found guilty of sexually assaulting unconscious woman on Stanford campus

By Michael E. Miller
@MikeMillerDC

March 31

....
It took the jury two days to find Turner guilty of three felonies: assault with intent to rape an intoxicated woman, sexually penetrating an intoxicated person with a foreign object and sexually penetrating an unconscious person with a foreign object. Prosecutors had dropped rape charges several months earlier.

[Dr. Strange]

122. That does seem to be the case.

SEN. KEVIN DE LEÓN: Well, listen, I’m not familiar with the legal details of this case, but nonetheless...

.
.
.

COUNCILMEMBER GIL CEDILLO: Again, I also don’t know the details of the case, but ...

[NaturalHigh]

120. She got 90 days, a fair sentence for what she did.

[TipTok]

127. The point is that the rapists punishment was too short...

That doesn't negate the fact that the woman in the other case didn't deserve everything she got.

[jamese777]

128. One case has nothing to do with the other n/t