What does that mean? What attacks? And what praise?

It just says (on David Gilbert's page) "Most Weather members were not prosecuted and did not serve time in prison, despite having been sought by the police for years; police misconduct led to the dropping of many charges (see: COINTELPRO)"

Everybody's heard of COINTELPRO, right?

Every thread like this, the anti-Boudin stuff sounds like the sort of propaganda they did back in the day.

They didn't like MLK Jr. either.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brink%27s_robbery_(1981)

DA Boudin's parents are David Gilbert and Kathy Boudin.

I think if you just say "murderer" it is dishonest by omission, but I doubt "felony murder" is widely understood either without an explanation.

I think most people are like "oh, felony murder, yeah, obviously those durn liberals have reduced murder to a misdemeanor in most cases, must have been really heinous to be a felony".

And every time I see someone bring it up regarding Boudin, I assess them as a particularly nasty propagandist who for some reason doesn't care about their personal credibility.

I'm not saying that his father should or shouldn't be released from prison, but the sentence clearly was a lot longer than many actual murderers get, like for instance the guy who killed George Floyd.

I don't think I need to read extensively about the events and trial for it to be obvious that at the time, it was about terrorism, and so they were being punished for being part of a group of terrorists. One may agree or disagree with it for political reasons, but it's not at all the same sort of thing as the ordinary murders in SF that people are blaming on Boudin now.

It's not universally agreed that felony murder should be a thing at all, although people of all types generally salivate at using it against their political enemies as for example after the Jan. 6th events.

If you are a patriotic person, you likely have noticed and disagreed that for political reasons people who work on national defense are sometimes equated with terrorists.

The point of calling someone a terrorist is generally to imply a lot of associated things without specifically lying. If it were worse than accurate specifics, people wouldn't substitute it.

I don't see what that has to do with his parents. As I understand it they weren't even onlookers to the killings.

She was waiting in a getaway vehicle at a different location from where the guards were killed by the people actually doing the robbery.

It seems like you are playing with ambiguous statements. If you disagree with any of my statements about the facts, could you please be specific and explain where your information comes from.

The people who were killed to rob the armored truck were the guards, not the police officers. The officers stopped them trying to get away. If I'd read about that, I'd forgotten. So I resolved the apparent inconsistency by assuming you meant the guards.

Now in the page about the robbery, I see the section titled "Car swap and second gunfight": (although, "This section does not cite any sources")

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1981_Brink%27s_robbery

So, after reading that, I would definitely not argue that 20 years in prison was too much. She may not have actually shot anyone, but I agree, was complicit. I don't think it was obviously too short a sentence, because of, like I said before, George Floyd's killer getting ~20 years.

But Gilbert isn't out. And I don't see (ctrl-F) what exactly he did. I can't judge Chesa Boudin if he has made some argument to defend his father unless I were to read it.

Since Gilbert didn't make a defense at trial, and Kathy Boudin plea-bargained, is it possible to say what specific actions they were imprisoned for?

There is a quote: "Our goal is to see that these people, who have contempt for society and have shown no remorse, will never see the streets of society again"

This seems to underline it was a political judgment, not about what was done, but about what they might do in the future. That doesn't make it arbitrary or incorrect, but it is about something other than the physical actions of those involved.

If you want to talk about why Kathy Boudin shouldn't have been released, that seems external to the topic of what Chesa Boudin has said or done that is unacceptable or reprehensible. It wasn't him that made that decision, was it? It seems like it should be moot now anyway. Surely the ongoing issue is his father?

You started this sub thread with “His parents were convicted of felony murder. That is not a violent crime per se.”

I hope you now have the facts to see that Chesa Boudin is pleading for clemency for a terrorist murderer. That is not the kind of person who should be a DA! That is the job of a defense attorney, and Chesa would have been a great candidate for the SF Public Defender’s office. But when you hire a criminal apologist to be the city’s prosecutor you get predictably disastrous results.

Why does Boudin maintain such exceptionally lenient policies wrt property crime, even more than those proposed in other cities, and even when suspects are multiple repeat, even professional offenders? Given that Boudin seems highly intelligent and sincere, I must conclude it's because he rejects on principal the salient effects of private property rights. Which isn't to say he would reject them outright in all cases, but that he sees private property rights principally as a tool of oppression, and so has no compunction jettisoning them if he feels that the harm done to minority communities in defending those rights outweighs the risk of capitalists walking away with their ball. Which also is pretty much the only way one could have honestly--albeit naively--defended Chavez.

I'm somewhat sympathetic to that view, at least intellectually. But I'm nowhere arrogant enough to believe anything good would come of imposing such radicals views. And as someone with a legal education, I think it's particularly unethical of him to use his particular office to impose such views. There are few schools of thought, Marxism and offshoots being the most well known, that believe such reforms can be effective without deep and abiding support within the broader society. Boudin is a modern day American revolutionary, and not necessarily in a good way IMNSHO. Our politics is already far too extremist, and only getting worse.

I recognize that he comes from a family that espouses similar beliefs. (Not just his parents, but his guardians and their circle of friends as well.) But I see no reason to speak to that--his own expressed views, personal and as an office holder, far more directly reflect his thinking.

I don't think you have to be particularly left-wing, let alone Marxist, to look back at history and see that fighting democratic movements because they were labeled as Communist or Marxist may not have been the right approach.

You compare Chavez to Trump. What if instead of having an election, Trump's opposition had forcibly removed him when it was clear impeachment was going nowhere? Some people would have made a sincere case for the negative consequences of that even if they opposed Trump.

>he rejects on principal the salient effects of private property rights

I think this accusation needs more support, surely Boudin constantly does things that imply private property rights.