38 ms·

Regardless of your opinion of BLM, there's a huge difference between rioting in the streets, and rioting in the fucking Capitol building while Congress is in se

Regardless of your opinion of BLM, there's a huge difference between rioting in the streets, and rioting in the fucking Capitol building while Congress is in session. The latter seems to wander dangerously close to treason, depending on their goals.

sokoloff 6y ago
I'm not sure I see the same huge difference you describe. The streets are a shared publicly owned resource just as the Capitol is. People who could be identified acting lawlessly in either situation should be prosecuted to the full extent with an eye towards stopping lawless idiocy. Just for clarity: People standing peacefully nearby whose worst law-break is a curfew violation? I don't think they should face any consequences, which I realize makes the curfew on its own fairly toothless, but that's already the case now. But when you pick up a rock or bottle and throw it at police, that's AB-DW on police in my book. (Same thing with criminal trespass and malicious destruction of property for the events yesterday.) Basically, if you're acting like a lawless idiot, I don't care what your shirt says or what sign you're carrying while you do it.
- SamoyedFurFluff 6y ago
  Right but in this case BLM got arrested so much people were put in holding buses in this case nothing happened
  - sokoloff 6y ago
    If fewer than 100 people are charged as a result of yesterday's events, I agree that's a grave miscarriage of justice. I don't care if they're arrested right now (as the violence has ended), but I care greatly that they are eventually charged and that those facts are transparently shared with the public.
    - SamoyedFurFluff 6y ago
      Yes, my confusion is that mass arrests happened during BLM protests and after them. In this case during the protests there were no similar actions and that’s what people are pointing out as disproportionate.
      - sokoloff 6y ago
        To be perfectly honest, I hope they’re arrested on/after Jan 21, so they can’t be pardoned by 45.
    - InitialLastName 6y ago
      Last I saw 52 people had been arrested. In interviews on C-SPAN last night, the DC Attorney General (an elected official by the city) made clear that many of yesterday's actions fall under his jurisdiction, but that (because DC is a federal district directly controlled by the executive branch) he is only able to operate under the guidance of the US Attorney for the District of Columbia, a Trump appointee named Michael Sherwin [0] [0] https://www.justice.gov/usao-dc/meet-us-attorney https://www.justice.gov/usao-dc/meet-us-attorney
- chimprich 6y ago
  > The streets are a shared publicly owned resource just as the Capitol is. There's one absolutely huge difference here, and that is that the streets are designated for public access, while the seat of government and the offices of elected representatives are not. Just because something is publicly owned does not make it legal to access, protest in, or damage. Consider some other publicly-owned properties: nuclear missile sites, courtrooms, the President's bedroom, police evidence rooms. This is such an obvious distinction I am puzzled why it apparently needs pointing out.
eplanit 6y ago
I think you place too much emphasis on the symbolism of the capitol building. There was far less damage done to the Capitol (fortunately) than was done in the streets during BLM riots. And, the police killed an unarmed woman -- no outrage for that?
- sokoloff 6y ago
  From what I understand (and I realize that more will come out over time), she was shot while actively trying to breach into a room that she knew she was not authorized to enter and which was secured and defended by armed police. At some point, an element of “what did they think would or should happen?” has to be considered.
  - eplanit 6y ago
    I agree -- and the same thought should occur to someone punching a police officer during an arrest, or grabbing the officer's gun, running away, etc., right? It seems that usually when those things happen, however, that itself is cause for riots.
    - sokoloff 6y ago
      Yes with an asterisk. I put punching a police officer or grabbing for their gun into a very different category than running away. In my worldview, the first two, standing alone, subject you to lawful use of force, including deadly force if necessary. The last subjects you to being chased but not to the lawful use of deadly force merely as a result of running away.
- cultus 6y ago
  You don't think that the US government should be able to defend itself? That's an interesting opinion.
gwright 6y ago
The difference is that we could have prevented the wildfire by putting out the small fires in the first place instead of viewing them as legitimate activities. Can we ditch the "treason" talk? It is just technically inaccurate. I wouldn't even say "insurrection". This was basically a low-grade riot at a symbolically significant location. Everyone should be prosecuted, including perhaps the people responsible for the atrocious police preparation and response. Even if the mob had managed to physically control the building there was no way that would have resulted in any actual change in the proceedings. I'm not going to defend Trump on this either, but it is a mistake to think that Trump is the source of the discontent. He has taken advantage of the discontent but he isn't the source.

sokoloff 6y ago

I'm not sure I see the same huge difference you describe. The streets are a shared publicly owned resource just as the Capitol is. People who could be identified acting lawlessly in either situation should be prosecuted to the full extent with an eye towards stopping lawless idiocy. Just for clarity: People standing peacefully nearby whose worst law-break is a curfew violation? I don't think they should face any consequences, which I realize makes the curfew on its own fairly toothless, but that's already the case now. But when you pick up a rock or bottle and throw it at police, that's AB-DW on police in my book. (Same thing with criminal trespass and malicious destruction of property for the events yesterday.) Basically, if you're acting like a lawless idiot, I don't care what your shirt says or what sign you're carrying while you do it.

SamoyedFurFluff 6y ago
Right but in this case BLM got arrested so much people were put in holding buses in this case nothing happened
- sokoloff 6y ago
  If fewer than 100 people are charged as a result of yesterday's events, I agree that's a grave miscarriage of justice. I don't care if they're arrested right now (as the violence has ended), but I care greatly that they are eventually charged and that those facts are transparently shared with the public.
  - SamoyedFurFluff 6y ago
    Yes, my confusion is that mass arrests happened during BLM protests and after them. In this case during the protests there were no similar actions and that’s what people are pointing out as disproportionate.
    - sokoloff 6y ago
      To be perfectly honest, I hope they’re arrested on/after Jan 21, so they can’t be pardoned by 45.
  - InitialLastName 6y ago
    Last I saw 52 people had been arrested. In interviews on C-SPAN last night, the DC Attorney General (an elected official by the city) made clear that many of yesterday's actions fall under his jurisdiction, but that (because DC is a federal district directly controlled by the executive branch) he is only able to operate under the guidance of the US Attorney for the District of Columbia, a Trump appointee named Michael Sherwin [0] [0] https://www.justice.gov/usao-dc/meet-us-attorney https://www.justice.gov/usao-dc/meet-us-attorney
chimprich 6y ago
> The streets are a shared publicly owned resource just as the Capitol is. There's one absolutely huge difference here, and that is that the streets are designated for public access, while the seat of government and the offices of elected representatives are not. Just because something is publicly owned does not make it legal to access, protest in, or damage. Consider some other publicly-owned properties: nuclear missile sites, courtrooms, the President's bedroom, police evidence rooms. This is such an obvious distinction I am puzzled why it apparently needs pointing out.

eplanit 6y ago

I think you place too much emphasis on the symbolism of the capitol building. There was far less damage done to the Capitol (fortunately) than was done in the streets during BLM riots. And, the police killed an unarmed woman -- no outrage for that?

sokoloff 6y ago
From what I understand (and I realize that more will come out over time), she was shot while actively trying to breach into a room that she knew she was not authorized to enter and which was secured and defended by armed police. At some point, an element of “what did they think would or should happen?” has to be considered.
- eplanit 6y ago
  I agree -- and the same thought should occur to someone punching a police officer during an arrest, or grabbing the officer's gun, running away, etc., right? It seems that usually when those things happen, however, that itself is cause for riots.
  - sokoloff 6y ago
    Yes with an asterisk. I put punching a police officer or grabbing for their gun into a very different category than running away. In my worldview, the first two, standing alone, subject you to lawful use of force, including deadly force if necessary. The last subjects you to being chased but not to the lawful use of deadly force merely as a result of running away.
cultus 6y ago
You don't think that the US government should be able to defend itself? That's an interesting opinion.

gwright 6y ago

The difference is that we could have prevented the wildfire by putting out the small fires in the first place instead of viewing them as legitimate activities. Can we ditch the "treason" talk? It is just technically inaccurate. I wouldn't even say "insurrection". This was basically a low-grade riot at a symbolically significant location. Everyone should be prosecuted, including perhaps the people responsible for the atrocious police preparation and response. Even if the mob had managed to physically control the building there was no way that would have resulted in any actual change in the proceedings. I'm not going to defend Trump on this either, but it is a mistake to think that Trump is the source of the discontent. He has taken advantage of the discontent but he isn't the source.