,
132 tweets,
25 min read
Read on Twitter
daniel borden will be sentenced tomorrow after pleading guilty in may 2018 for his role in the brutal beating of deandre harris on august 12, 2017. 
he entered an alford plea for felony malicious wounding - briefly, this means he maintains innocence while admitting he knows the state has sufficient evidence to convict him (because he's, you know, on video committing the crime)
two other men have already been tried, convicted, and sentenced for their participation in this beating. alex ramos & jacob goodwin were convicted in 2018 and will serve 6 & 10 years, respectively.
tyler davis goes to trial nextoPXg8eDJ
tyler davis goes to trial nextoPXg8eDJ
both goodwin & ramos were sentenced to the terms recommended by the juries in their respective trials. having entered a guilty plea, borden's sentence is left to judge moore to decide. malicious wounding is a class 3 felony in VA, punishable by 5-20 years.
while borden's very young age & guilty plea are factors that will work in his favor, the judge has previously noted that borden was the only assailant to use a weapon in that incident. video shows him striking a prone deandre with an objeEN7M
at alex ramos' sentencing for the same crime, judge moore made it abundantly clear how he feels about this incident.
and, for the record, for all the fascists out there reading this whose eventual, inevitable trials i will attend & cover: i absolutely will write the truthFc03
that was one of the stranger hearings i’ve ever attended, which is an incredible bar to clear.
for his brutal assault on deandre harris on 8/12/17 in charlottesville, daniel borden was sentenced to 20 years, with 16yrs 2mo suspended. that’s an active sentence of 3yrs 10mo. he’ll get credit for the approximately 16 months he’s already served, so he’ll be out in 2.5 years.
he has 20 years of good behavior beginning *today,* not upon release. that means he has to be on his best behavior in jail or risk having to serve that full 20 years. he will have 5 years of supervised probation upon release.
the only witnesses the defense called were the defendant’s parents. his mother testified to exactly what you’d expect - he’s a nice boy, he had trouble in school, her divorce was hard in him, she’ll take care of him when he’s released...
although i should note she did call @shaunking “fake news” on the stand. she had no idea her son was attending unite the right. she learned of his involvement in the beating when a friend sent her shaun’s article the monday after A12.
the defendant’s father’s testimony was... i mean, unorthodox does not even begin to cover whatever the hell that was. i’ve never seen anything like it. i had just started to write “why is this being allowed?” when judge moore interrupted to say “i’m not gonna allow it.”
prior to the senior mr borden taking the stand, the defendant’s attorney, hallahan, told the judge that what he was going to do would normally draw objections, but that he’d discussed it with the commonwealth & they’d agreed to let him do what was about to do.
what followed was 40 minutes (minus the 5 minute recess the judge gave the defense attorney so he could calm down because he’d begun interrupting & yelling at the judge) of the defendant’s father presenting the results of his own “investigation” into the broader events of A12.
he began by addressing the “commie killer” hard hat his son was wearing that day. he is a retired air force pilot & says his son knows “the soviets” are “our mortal enemy,” reminding the court that reagan called them an evil empire.
off to a great staRwBn
off to a great sta
RwBnat a sentencing hearing, it’s normal to hear from witnesses to the incident about factors that may mitigate the severity of the defendant’s behavior. it’s also normal to hear from friends & family who didn’t witness the incident about the defendant’s character. this was neither.
borden’s father said he had “done quite a comprehensive investigation” on the case, including reading the heaphy report “entirely, in depth.” by this logic, i should also have been allowed to testify.
if you want to try the case, take it to trial. if you want to present facts or speculate that your client didn’t hit the victim as many times as it appears on video, take it to trial. if you want to present your own independent “investigator” of the incident, TAKE IT TO TRIAL
at one point hallahan asked that the judge take judicial notice that the sound of the board his client was wielding as a weapon on video made a different sound on each of the three strikes he’s seen landing. JUDICIAL NOTICE. of the sound a board makes.
judge moore told him he’s welcome to present an argument, but it wasn’t something he was going to take judicial notice of.
hallahan was arguing that 1 of the 3 blows hit the concrete floor, not the victim. again, take that shit to trial if you want.
hallahan was arguing that 1 of the 3 blows hit the concrete floor, not the victim. again, take that shit to trial if you want.
i’m a bit out of order here. i’m sitting in a restaurant with my notebook out on the table trying to make sense of this hearing before city council starts in an hour. the hearing was odd in that defense & prosecution presented argument on the video simultaneously?
i’ve never seen anything like it. ACA antony played video for the judge, with defense atty hallahan at her side. she’d play a brief clip & make her point. then hallahan would make his comments, usually arguing with the judge for a moment. went on that way for about a half hour.
there were repeated references by all parties involved to an incident that occurred immediately before the assault. i’ll note now that deandre harris was acquitted & corey long null processed due to noncooperation from the complainant on all charges related to this incident.
the incident in question was the tussle over harold crews’ flagpole. crews is the chairman of the north carolina leave of the south. he alleges that harris struck him with a flashlight after long attempted to take his flagpole. again, harris was acquitted.
not only were allegations of assault by long & harris found to be untrue, THIS WAS AN ENTIRELY DISTINCT INCIDENT. hallahan brought it up repeatedly in attempts to smear the victim of this brutal beating as violent. he said several times the victim “came here looking for a fight.”
i’ll note, too, for folks unfamiliar - charlottesville is a small town. the same judge, judge moore, has heard countless hours of testimony related to this case at this point. he presided over the trials for borden & ramos, too. he’s seen all of this evidence hundreds of times.
the judge is not pleased with hallahan’s repeated assertions that harris struck crews. he says his recollection from that case, in which harris was acquitted, that the flashlight struck either the flagpole or crews’ hand -NOT his head.
ACA antony points out that the incident didn’t involve the defendant at all (he was 1/2 a block away) and there’s no indication he even directly witnessed it. the idea that he got involved in the assault to “defend” crews is unsupported by any facts.
hallahan kept referring to the two sides as “the alternate left” and “the alternate right” (vs standard convention in these cases being “alt right” or “protesters” and “counter protesters”)
i swear to god at least twice though he said “alternate white”
anyone else hear that?!
i swear to god at least twice though he said “alternate white”
anyone else hear that?!
as defense and prosecution co-presented the video (again, what the fuck was that?) hallahan kept making assertions that just weren’t supported by the video. he said the video showed several assaults taking place as protesters walked down market street. the judge was puzzled.
his angle, in many cases, was proving that the atmosphere was chaotic and violent & the police weren’t doing anything. no one disputes that. but what does it have to do with borden choosing to run toward a man already beaten on the ground & hit him with a board?
hallahan also noted, repeatedly, the “bad words,” “foul language” being used by the VICTIM & people he was with prior to the assault.
he played the clip many times, counting the number of times the victim said the phrase “bitch ass.”
apparently 6+ gets you a near fatal head wound
he played the clip many times, counting the number of times the victim said the phrase “bitch ass.”
apparently 6+ gets you a near fatal head wound
while discussing the unnamed “alternate right guy” hallahan says also was beaten, he says none of the “alternate left people” “were even investigated.” (remember, harris was TRIED AND ACQUITTED)
it’s possible he’s referring to a different incident, as there was also discussion later of one of harris’s assailants being struck by an unnamed person AFTER he beat harris, but “not investigated” is not the same as not charged or not convicted.
the CW and the judge were upset with hallahan’s baseless, inappropriate assertion. CW atty joe platania, who was only observing at this stage, said “investigated is different than charged. be more careful.”
judge moore said “words are important in the business of law.”
judge moore said “words are important in the business of law.”
i absolutely do not think hallahan simply misspoke. this is his MO. he knows where the line is and he intentionally steps over it time & time again. he wants to provoke and inflame. he enjoys it - you can see it in his face.
borden didn’t testify, but we heard his thoughts today - immediately after the assault, he addressed the camera on baked alaska’s livestream. “we just beat the shit out of a bunch of communists,” said the young man in the “commie killer” helmet who’d just nearly killed a man.
sorry, you’ll have to stay tuned until after i livetweet this six hour small town city council meeting for the conclusion of this violent white supremacist’s felony sentencing hearing.
just another day in charlottesville.
just another day in charlottesville.
i promise it’s worth the wait. the judge gives an attorney a time out. the defendant’s father tries to introduce his own “investigation” into evidence. it was weird!
so we left off with borden's comments on baked alaska's livestream right after he'd assaulted harris. he also said "freedom of speech is not a human right, it's an american right." and "fuck antifa. fuck communists. they got their asses kicked multiple times." he was thrilled.
during the presentation of the video, hallahan kept directing the judge's attention to another fight sometimes visible on the video. ACA antony finally says, i don't know who he is, but he doesn't get hit UNTIL AFTER he struck harris twice with a weapon & ran away.
again, this is a SENTENCING HEARING, not a trial. even at trial, repeatedly distracting the judge with a mostly unrelated incident is questionable. but of what possible value is the fate of another assailant in terms of mitigation for your client here?
hallahan also, again, asks the judge if he recalls the incident in which harris (the VICTIM) struck another man with a flashlight. judge moore says he is familiar with the incident, but harris was acquitted on those charges & moore believes the flashlight struck the flagpole.
hallahan contradicts himself a lot. but this is a big one. he made a big deal about the fact that it DOES NOT MATTER if harris' blow landed on crews or not. that if you take a shot at someone and miss, it doesn't matter - it's the intent that matters. remember that for later.
so, i got out of order before. at this stage, antony & hallahan are done co-presenting the video to the judge. here's where hallahan calls the defendant's father to the stand.
of this helmet, his father says, dismissively, "it's satire," and that the commie killer text is from full metal jacket.
(please explain the satirical value of the totenkopf, the insignia worn by SS onY9CD5EOY1
(please explain the satirical value of the totenkopf, the insignia worn by SS onY9CD5EOY1
while the commonwealth had prior knowledge of hallahan's unorthodox plan, the judge made it only a few minutes into the father's testimony before asking what the possible relevance of any of it was.
failure of police to act would be relevant if this were a CIVIL SUIT against the city or the police or if this case were about daniel borden getting assaulted... but it's about what daniel borden did to deandre harris. his father's opinions about the heaphy report are irrelevant.
hallahan told judge moore, "the police let this happen." moore still thinks the line of questioning is inappropriate, saying MAYBE it would be relevant if this assault had happened in the park, but it was blocks away. & borden DOUBLED BACK to join an assault already in progress.
while hallahan and the judge were arguing, the defendant's father (still on the witness stand, surrounded by printed out pages of his own "investigative report" into the crime) said "may i speak?"
(witnesses can only answer questions, they don't get to just TALK)
(witnesses can only answer questions, they don't get to just TALK)
throughout his testimony, borden's father holds up pages of his "report," which appeared to be quite lengthy and consisted of what looked like still frames from various videos of the incident & events leading up to it and a surprising amount of TEXT - presumably his own analysis.
based on his expert... viewing of publicly available videos of the events of august 12th, the defendant's father testified that borden was "just trying to get out of the area. he'd seen enough violence" & that he "picked up the board for personal protection."
he added his own expert analysis here, saying "based on what i've seen, i'm not sure i would've left that park with anything less than an m1 abrams tank." he isn't laughing. it was, perhaps, something of a joke, but he's taking his role as INVESTIGATOR AND EXPERT very seriously.
"i've done a study of these people," the defendant's father testified, referring to "antifa." "and what they specialize in is gang-style beatdowns."
"i saw numerous incidents of antifa personnel [sic] engaging in hit & run assaults."
"i saw numerous incidents of antifa personnel [sic] engaging in hit & run assaults."
hallahan, prompting the witness to continue describing the kind of horrible antifa violence he saw on video of an event he did not attend, says there were "flamethrowers." plural. the judge interjects to ask if he misspoke - did he intend to use the plural?
there was ONE flamethrower - corey long's famous aerosol can.
hallahan first pretends he doesn't understand the question. then says he doesn't remember what he said. "i remember what you said," judge moore said flatly, unamused. hallahan interrupts, arguing.
hallahan first pretends he doesn't understand the question. then says he doesn't remember what he said. "i remember what you said," judge moore said flatly, unamused. hallahan interrupts, arguing.
"MR HALLAHAN, STOP." judge moore doesn't exactly yell, per se, but there was an increase in volume and a very firm tone as he cut off hallahan's continuing equivocation on the matter of what he said or meant.
"you've already used words you don't mean," the judge told him, referring to previous incident where he said the "alternate left people" involved in another incident "were never investigated," when what he meant was no charges were filed.
hallahan is visibly angry. he's petulant and argumentative, interrupting and raising his voice at the judge. "i'm trying to put on my case but the court is getting me on edge," he says. so the judge gives him a brief recess so he can collect himself. a quick timeout to reset.
back in the courtroom after the recess, but not yet back in session, the defendant's father takes his seat back on the witness stand. he asks the judge "may i speak freely?" to which he is told, "you're a witness. you respond to questions."
could i summarize this in a more concise manner? probably. but i'm so stuck on how wild it is that someone who was NOT A WITNESS TO THE INCIDENT was allowed to testify to events THAT THE DEFENDANT HIMSELF DIDN'T EVEN WITNESS that took place in the vicinity of the crime.
like... this is literally just some person who was in another state when the crime occurred being allowed to sit on the stand and talk about some stuff he saw online about UNRELATED INCIDENTS taking place around the same time on the same block as this crime.
he is testifying to facts not in evidence not only because there is no one present who witnessed the events he's talking about, but because a lot of them have NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS CRIME.
this is like if your neighbor's house got broken into while you were out of town & they called you to testify about what you saw your dog doing on the nanny cam earlier the day of the incident.
asked about his son's statements on the livestream immediately after the assault, the witness says his son was traumatized by the violence he'd witnessed, recalling from his time in the air force, "you wouldn't believe some of the things men say after a combat mission.
he says he believes his son was experiencing "target fixation,"- a phenomenon he says is common in military pilots, where they are so focused on their target that they don't notice anything else around them.
"dan had no recollection of anyone around him. he was so full of fear."
"dan had no recollection of anyone around him. he was so full of fear."
the commonwealth never objected to any of the witness's testimony, although platania did stand up at one point & note for the record that they "understand that mr borden has a lot to get off his chest" & will allow him to do so, but that the CW concedes none of this as fact.
further, the commonwealth noted for the record that the witness was testifying extensively to incidents that there is no record the defendant himself had any personal knowledge of.
i guess for the CW atty, there's no harm in letting the defense shoot themselves in the foot.
i guess for the CW atty, there's no harm in letting the defense shoot themselves in the foot.
during one of hallahan's many disagreements with the judge, the judge said to him, "so you're saying that mr harris [the victim] came there looking for a fight and mr borden didn't?"
hallahan responded, "mr borden was at the park for quite some time enjoying a soda."
hallahan responded, "mr borden was at the park for quite some time enjoying a soda."
other fascists take note: having your daddy testify that he's watched video of you drinking a mountain dew half an hour before you nearly beat someone to death with a wooden board is unhelpful at your felony sentencing hearing.
platania's cross examination of this witness was brief. "it sounds like you've watched a lot of videos," he says. "i've watched every frame of every video," the defendant's father says, with anger in his voice.
platania recited for the witness borden's own words after the assault - "fuck antifa. fuck communists. they got their asses kicked multiple times." he says borden looked gleeful in the video & asks his father if he still maintains that his son was 'full of fear.' (he does)
"it sounds like you don't think your son did anything wrong," platania said.
"i absolutely do not think my son did anything wrong," said daniel borden's father, regarding the incident in which his son nearly murdered a man, beating him repeatedly with a board.
"i absolutely do not think my son did anything wrong," said daniel borden's father, regarding the incident in which his son nearly murdered a man, beating him repeatedly with a board.
he's heated at this point & goes off on a tirade about all the things harris (the victim, the man lying prone on the ground, assaulted by several other men, when his son joined the melee already in progress, hitting him so hard with a board that it BROKE) did wrong.
platania quietly interrupts to say he has no further questions.
the judge asks the witness he knows the man whose video borden spoke on (it's baked alaska). they show him a still & he has no idea who the man is. his son's friends had left early & weren't on the videos he watched
the judge asks the witness he knows the man whose video borden spoke on (it's baked alaska). they show him a still & he has no idea who the man is. his son's friends had left early & weren't on the videos he watched
he leaves the stand & borden's mother is called. on his way back to his seat, he tries to offer his stack of papers to ACA nina antony. i can hear her say, politely, "... you can keep that" and refuse the "evidence" prepared by this "witness"
so remember the helmet? the white hard hat with COMMIE KILLER and an SS totenkopf? he found it in his mom's garage. she got it from a welder she worked with because she needed it to access a construction site for work.
she says the helmet used to say ZODIAC KILLER because the welder she got it from looked a bit like the zodiac killer. still no mention from anyone of the totenkopf (and there never will be).
after the wildly aggressive tone of her ex-husband's testimony, ms borden seems calm, but nervous. she seems... normal? she says the normal things you'd expect from a mother at her troubled young son's sentencing hearing. he struggled in school, her divorce was hard on him, etc.
she says he had an IEP in school, although doesn't specify what for (IEPs can be for a wide range of physical, emotional, mental, or other health impairments -- anything from blindness to ADHD to chronic headaches to autism to literally anything!), & he didn't finish high school
although, no offense to ms borden, she might not even know. she said the IEP "took a long time to develop" "because they're federally funded by the state of ohio."
i assume this is some kind of anti-government comment, but... that's not how any of this works.
i assume this is some kind of anti-government comment, but... that's not how any of this works.
when pressed about her "fake news" comment, she concedes that her son was involved, but insists the article she saw "didn't match up" to what happened. "what my son did, that is quot;
https://t.co/dBQFGwPdgp
https://t.co/dBQFGwPdgp
it sounds like she's been fed some alt-right conspiracy theories, probably by her ex-husband and her son. she mutters some almost incoherent sentence fragments about the victim - "with the backpack and there maybe being some spray cans in there"
she rambled a bit before platania interjected to clarify a known fact - "there's a group of people savagely beating an unarmed individual on the ground."
she insists, though, that "what @shaunking wrote was not correct."
she's released without any redirect from hallahan.
she insists, though, that "what @shaunking wrote was not correct."
she's released without any redirect from hallahan.
she brought with her six letters - one she wrote, one from her own mother, and several from friends of hers who know her son. the judge stepped out for a few minutes to read over them. this is what they needed three months to get together?!
because the defendant pleaded guilty, we're looking at sentencing guidelines. while the law fixes punishment at 5-20yrs, the guidelines on this offense put it at 1yr6mo - 4yrs2mo. the judge can, of course, go over the guidelines. antony asks him to consider that high end a floor.
while borden's young age, lack of past criminal history, cooperation with law enforcement (he turned himself in very quickly), and decision to waive a preliminary hearing & ultimately a trial by pleading guilty all work in his favor... this was still a very brutal beating.
ACA antony says she doesn't want the court to punish the defendant for his father's testimony (an incredibly sick burn that i don't think registered with him at all - i was sitting right behind him), but it is troubling that they don't think he did anything wrong.
hallahan says there is probably no decision the court could reach that would satisfy everyone, saying specifically, unsettlingly (but accurately) that "the alternate right" as he kept calling them "thinks he did nothing wrong and should be rewarded."
he asks the judge to "take the association of august 12th out of it" and "look at it as a guy in a parking garage hitting somebody with a stick." he wants the court to "take out all the drama" associated with the case.
so many times today i had to pick my jaw up off the floor.
so many times today i had to pick my jaw up off the floor.
hallahan also... argues that harris' injuries weren't severe? he says the CW kept referencing severe injuries but asks "IF these injuries were so significant," why were they not detailed in the presentencing investigation report? he holds up the report & waves it to demonstrate.
"i would argue the injuries were not significant enough for anyone to take note of," hallahan says, eport in hand. he also points out, snidely, that harris himself isn't even here participating (because he's trying to move on with his life - he had to testify at 2 trials already)
i won't post pictures. that kind of trauma porn is not my style - they're easy to find if you want them. but deandre harris' injuries from that beating were VERY severe. his wrist was broken. covered in bruises & cuts. his SKULL was fractured & his scalp was stapled back together
i know he knows this. the judge knows he knows this. hallahan knows we all know he knows.
it is a defense attorney's job to vigorously defend their client, but this is trash. morally, ethically, professionally trash. and incorrect - he stipulated to those facts at the plea stage.
it is a defense attorney's job to vigorously defend their client, but this is trash. morally, ethically, professionally trash. and incorrect - he stipulated to those facts at the plea stage.
hallahan says SOME people come to the court with excuses & blame. they might blame his father for making him this way politically. or blame the police for not keeping things under control. (it sounds like hallahan is doing exactly that) but that his client swung that board.
his client entered an alford plea - he does not admit to malice. he'd wanted to plead guilty to the lesser charge of unlawful wounding, but the CW would not accept it. hallahan says there was "heat of passion" and "mutual combat" whicps://t.co/2otIQRvVhZ
he says the failure of law enforcement officers to prevent the violence is a mitigating factor. so his argument is... because the police didn't stop other people from committing crimes, it's less bad that his client committed a crime. by that logic, the purge is on!
he also seems to believe that holding & not using a weapon for any period of time is a mitigating factor when you do finally use that weapon. he says borden picked up the board & held it for several blocks WITHOUT attacking anyone!
so i guess anyone who shoots someone outside a gun store gets points for waiting. unless you shoot the cashier, you're really a model citizen.
"he didn't pick up the board & run at somebody right away," after all.
"he didn't pick up the board & run at somebody right away," after all.
"the victim, who has chosen not to participate" (because he lives several hours from here, has a job, & is trying to move on with his fucking life after a horrible assault & has already testified about this MANY TIMES) "did not come here to demonstrate peacefully," hallahan said
"he [deandre harris, the VICTIM in this case] came here looking for a fight and unfortunately he found one. he doesn't come into this with clean hands." hallahan reluctantly concedes that "LEGALLY, he's a victim in this case..." but doesn't act like he knows that.
remember this from earlier? hallahan's insistence that it DOESN'T MATTER if harris missed or not when he swung at crews?
in his closing, he argued that it MATTERS A LOT!!! if some of his client's blows didn't land on harris.
in his closing, he argued that it MATTERS A LOT!!! if some of his client's blows didn't land on harris.
he even uses the same analogy of shooting at someone several times. before he argued that hitting the target is irrelevant - it's intent that matters. now he says shooting someone twice and missing once is VERY different from shooting someone three times.
and the board sounds he asked the judge to take notice of earlier? he says it's clear from the tape (it's not clear) that the 3rd crack was the sound of the board hitting the concrete floor, NOT mr harris.
one of the recommendations in the presentence investigation report is that borden not attend political rallies after his release. hallahan says "it's like nascar - people go to see the wrecks. people don't go to those rallies for good reasons, they go to..." and trailed off.
i suspect he decided not to finish that sentence when he realized how right he was about his clients own motivations for attending the rally that got him here. except he didn't go to SEE the 'wrecks,' in this analogy. he went to cause one.
judge moore is not shy about his feelings at this stage of a case. with verdicts in and deliberations over, there is no need for him to remain a neutral party anymore. "i don't think there's a lot of mitigation in this case," he starts off.
as to mitigation, judge moore says there's the plea, his age, and the fact that "apparently he's been a very nice person up to the point of the crime, but unfortunately that's been the case for most people charged with violent felonies" out of A12.
as to the question of whether it matters if he missed, the judge says it doesn't really matter. "he kept swinging. that's not mitigation."
further, he believes all 3 blows landed on the victim.
"he is going to be punished for what he did."
further, he believes all 3 blows landed on the victim.
"he is going to be punished for what he did."
"i saw him swing with full force 3 times" "while other people were beating a person on the ground." harris was beaten by 5-6 people, some with weapons. no one was attacking the defendant. he was not defending anyone.
judge moore on the assault: the victim was defenseless. "at the end, he wasn't even moving. he was knocked senseless."
"what i saw was malice & intent to do serious bodily harm."
"this is one of the worst beatings i've ever seen as a lawyer or a judge"
"what i saw was malice & intent to do serious bodily harm."
"this is one of the worst beatings i've ever seen as a lawyer or a judge"
borden read a pre-written statement. this was not testimony - he was not under oath nor was he asked any questions. but he read his statement for a full 10 minutes. he said he heard about the rally during a conversation about the monuments. that he cared deeply about them.
borden said he's not "from a family of evil, hateful bigots" but a military family." buddy, the two aren't mutually exclusive.
when he sees those confederate monuments, he doesn't see white supremacy, "i see boys & men from the hills & farms of virginia" who fought in the war
when he sees those confederate monuments, he doesn't see white supremacy, "i see boys & men from the hills & farms of virginia" who fought in the war
"i did not come to partake in a riot or hurt people," he says. he didn't come with a weapon, just a helmet and a mountain dew (terrible advertisement for mountain dew) and that he wasn't involved in ANY fistfights prior to this incident.
of being cleared from emancipation park after the unlawful assembly was declared, borden said "i did not want to go out into the street with antifa," and begged the police to let him stay in the park. his friends had left him, so he left the park with people he didn't know.
borden claims he felt he "needed to get involved" after seeing "an elderly man" get hit in the head (referring to crews, who according to the courts, DID NOT get hit in the head)
as borden entered the parking garage, "only by pure chance did mr harris come right in front of me" [at this point harris is already being beaten. he's bleeding, stumbling, & falling as he attempts to flee to safety]
"i was gonna do everything i could to keep him on the ground."
"i was gonna do everything i could to keep him on the ground."
borden says he had no way of knowing harris had been hit by anyone else and that he believed harris was a threat to other people's safety. that he had no way of knowing if he was armed & dangerous.
[he's lying on the ground, beset by 5 other men, bleeding, and not moving.]
[he's lying on the ground, beset by 5 other men, bleeding, and not moving.]
he was so focused on his own actions that he says he didn't notice anything going on around him. when he saw the incident in the news later, he says he broke down in his father's kitchen. "i knew i had just made a bad call & a horrible mistake"
did he? did he realize he'd done something wrong? or was he, like james fields when he found out he'd killed heather heyer, just upset he was going to face consequences for his actions?
"i'm a normal person capable of love, empathy, and remorse," says the young man who, moments after nearly beating a young black man to death, gleefully told a neonazi social media personality how the victim deserved it.
borden apologizes to deandre harris, saying he'd been looking forward to apologizing to him in person. he apologizes, too, to deandre's parents, saying he thinks about them the most. he apologizes to "charlottesville as a whole" and to his own family (several of whom are weeping)
he says he spends a lot of time alone these days [he's mostly in segregation for his own protection], which gives him a lot of time to think about "the 4.7 seconds that has effectively ruined my life forever."
after borden's remarks, the judge said, again of the assault "it's one of the worst things i've ever observed in the legal field."
and that it shows the danger of a mob mentality -- many people involved did things they wouldn't normally do.
and that it shows the danger of a mob mentality -- many people involved did things they wouldn't normally do.
judge moore to the defendant: "i do think what you ended up doing was what you intended to do," even if it wasn't what you planned to do. "when you swung that board, that was an intentional act."
he tells borden we're all very lucky mr harris didn't die. given the severity of the beating, the blows to his head & neck, it's remarkable he didn't. borden should count himself very lucky he's facing malicious wounding and not murder.
"your father's testimony aside," judge moore believes borden's comments to baked alaska immediately after the incident were significant. "you did look gleeful," he says.
moore says he won't exceed the guidelines, but opines that a jury probably would've given him 6-10yrs.
and that is the end of that hearing. a fourth assailant in this beating, tyler davis, is set to have a jury trial on february 11th. i'll bring you that in equally excruciating detail then.
and, just in case you thought jail was rehabilitating this racist piece of shit:
if you’d like to see more, my digitized notes from this hearing are available to folks who’ve subscribed to my patreon at the “decipherer of my handwriting” level
patreon.com/posts/23971561
patreon.com/posts/23971561
