In my last post about The Shaman I stipulated that the case against him rested upon whether he knew he wasn't allowed on the property. Trespassing requires that the person know they are not to be on a location. This was the argument used successfully to convict the men who shot Arbery in Georgia. I said:
Well that is a valid question. We know that in certain areas and certain points protestors were *let into the building*. I do not know if Shaman was a part of the crowd that met police resistance or if he was one of those who was let in.
Well know the Washington Post has released video showing that The Shaman was a part of a group who overran Capital Police:
The prosecutors noted that Carlson only showed Chansley’s actions from 2:56 to 3 p.m.
— The Washington Post (@washingtonpost) March 14, 2023
But video released Monday, and played at Chansley’s sentencing in November 2021, showed that he was part of a mob that breached an outer police line at 2:09 p.m. https://t.co/zkZlAKFL0c pic.twitter.com/ASfNTFzLIu
As you can see, the police were keeping people from entering. The crowd overran the "blockade' and stormed the building. Shaman was in that initial crowd. Hence; it cannot be said that he wasn't aware of not being allowed in. Because of this, it doesn't matter that he was shown around the building. He was still trespassing.
Now you could argue that after entering he was made to believe he was not trespassing. That would be a lift for his defense attorneys. So far I have not seen any evidence of such a claim. Certainly a trespass can be recinded at any time by the property owner or agent thereof. So it's not beyond reasonable doubt that after his clear trespass he came to the belief that it was "OK" for him to remain on premises. To that end the ball is and was in his lawyer's court to find those officers, depose them and find out if they did indeed give Shaman the impression that he was no longer considered trespassed.
All that said, I still do not think his 4 year sentance is anywhere near appropriate and I would argue it is a clear violation of the "cruel and unusual punishment" prohibition in the US Constitution.