Comments by "Jack Haveman" (@JackHaveman52) on "'QAnon Shaman's' lawyer speaks out after Jan. 6 bombshell footage released" video.

@kairidon3363 He was held in solitary confinement when he had NOT be convicted of any crime. That's illegal.
47
@kairidon3363 I never advocated for reforms. I'm saying that the law was broken when the authorities held him in solitary confinement for over a year when he hadn't even been convicted of a crime yet. That's already covered under the law. In fact, under the Mandela Rules, solitary confinement for over 15 days is considered a form of torture. Worse, they withheld videos from his lawyer that may have helped Chansley in his trial. THAT'S illegal as well and it's ALSO covered by law. We don't need reforms. We need our authorities to abide by the laws that exist.
30
@gobbletegook Even if he spent years in his mother's basement, he was FREE to leave at any time. The door wasn't locked. That, DAG G, is the issue not your mocking description of his life. It was obvious that he was free to leave that basement because he showed up in Washington on Jan 6th.
20
@K33N4N Even if every word of your comment is true that doesn't negate that Chansley was held for 1.5 years in solitary confinement even though he'd never been convicted of a crime. Then prosecution did not give his lawyer all the video footage, concerning his client, which is required by law. Would it have made a difference in the end? Who knows. That's up to a judge and jury to decide. However, every American, no matter who he is or what he's accused, of has the right to a fair and speedy trial and Chansley received neither. There was no need to withhold the rights of Chansley. He may have still been convicted of committing a crime on that day but the prosecution made sure the evidence was stacked against him. That's a violation of a prisoner's rights and those responsible should be held to account.
11
@captainmordrum That's your evidence? He's lying. Is that how you handle all information that you don't like? Don't you think that some evidence would be more useful than just saying "He's lying". That might be helpful when you're 8 years old and in a school yard but this is US law. Also, Chansley was held in solitary confinement for over a year. Under the Mandela Rules, which is international law, solitary confinement for over 15 consecutive days is considered a form of torture. Chansley has also suffered from mental illness and to place such a person in solitary confinement is also unlawful. This isn't about being a patriot. It's about the law and the truth and how that law and truth are used and established. People screaming "liar", at each other, over a metaphorical line, is NOT how American judicial system works.
10
@kairidon3363 That's the dumbest response yet. What does it matter how often it happens when it shouldn't happen at all. It's against the law and it is EVERY time it happens. You're accepting of taking away someone's rights because it's happened before. That's NOT the approach that we should be taking. We should be saying that it should NEVER happen, that the law should always be adhered to. That's what we should be saying. Instead, you turn into group politics. I don't want to EVER see it happen. You seem to think that it's okay, because it's normal to take away a person's civil rights, that it's a normal way for a government to behave. I've never advocated for taking away any civil rights from anyone. If a person's civil rights are being violated, be it Democrat or Republican, it's WRONG. PERIOD. Now, let's uphold the US Constitution in every case, including this one.
8
@Burner377 It's nice to know that, as a nation, we don't mind inflicting, what is internationally known as torture, on prisoners who haven't even been convicted of a crime. That's puts us among the ranks of nations like North Korea, China and Venezuela. Pretty good company. You must be proud. I find it embarrassing and am appalled that anyone would openly support this kind of behaviour as a matter of law.
6
@Burner377 You still hand over ALL evidence. It's not up to the prosecutor to decide what evidence a defender might use or not use. Being in the Capitol building is quite relevant to his charges of being in the Capitol building and so would any videos of what he was doing in there. To add, he was charged with violent entry, sounds violent to me, and disorderly conduct and other charges. "Violent entry". That was one of his official charges. Also, calling people "scumbags" is schoolyard tactics, not what I would call a measure of one's credibility or of their cases.
5
@Burner377 We should BOTH talk to Congress unless you're ok with long solitary confinement for non-convicted political prisoners or not sharing evidence with your opponent. It would seem that this doesn't bother you one bit.....unless of course it's against your side. Then you might be singing a different tune. Also, someone chose what video evidence that the prosecution could have. That means they had to have gone through it just decided for themselves what would be exculpatory and what wasn''t. It's not up to them to decide that. What a great setup that would be for the prosecution. They can get any evidence that they want or just decide that some evidence isn't good enough to be used and the defence has to take their word for it.
2
@jodi2462 A lot of it is just deals made between the prosecutor and the defendant's lawyer. Quite often the defendant doesn't even know what they've discussed. His lawyer just comes out and tells him what was decided. So much is just a big game.
2
@0098Elaine He's had mental health issues in the last 15 years. That might have a lot to do with the way he was dressed or even why he was there.
1