4 ms·

So you are saying that the difference is such that one group should not be prosecuted and the other group should? What criteria are you using to differentiate?

So you are saying that the difference is such that one group should not be prosecuted and the other group should? What criteria are you using to differentiate? Storming government buildings other than the Capital is OK? How about we just prosecute everyone who breaks the law?

Jtsummers 6y ago
> So you are saying that the difference is such that one group should not be prosecuted and the other group should? What criteria are you using to differentiate? Storming government buildings other than the Capital is OK? I said nothing of the sort and I don't know how you would interpret my words that way. From the poster I responded to: > The other kind of insurrectionists seem to also have little to fear from the law My response was about the notion that protesters and rioters this summer were "insurrectionists", they were not. At least not as a general rule. Some of them, maybe, probably always are in political protests. But most of them were there to either create havoc (rioters) or protest for change to the way policing is conducted in the US (the protestors). The people who went into the US Capitol Building on 6 January, 2021 were intending to prevent the carrying out of a legal process to certify the results of a democratic election and, in their minds, prevent the succession of the presidency. That makes them insurrectionists, not just protestors anymore, at least as regards the US Constitution and democratic process. Besides, protestors and rioters in 2020 were prosecuted. And it's moronic or ignorant to say they weren't.
- gwright 6y ago
  > Besides, protestors and rioters in 2020 were prosecuted. And it's moronic or ignorant to say they weren't. That some people were prosecuted doesn't negate the overall acceptance by the left of the violent activity as legitimate political activism because it was in support of particular favored political opinions. The very clear message was that as long as you were spouting the approved political mantras the violent activities were OK. Attempting to discern who is or who isn't an "insurrectionist" is a distraction. Trespassing, breaking and entering, looting, vandalism, destruction of property, arson, assault are all crimes that should be prosecuted and not excused if you are committing them while having the correct political thoughts. BTW, yesterday's opportunists have to be the saddest lot of "insurrectionists" I've ever seen. They seemed more interested in posting selfies than overthrowing anything. They should be mocked mercilessly and prosecuted vigorously.
outworlder 6y ago
It's not just about a government building. Noone should care about that. If the building was empty, this would be trespass. No, they were threatening and intimidating lawmakers that were in session to try to manipulate the election. This is an enormous difference. Also pipe bombs shouldn't be ok. Not sure why this is being ignored.
- gwright 6y ago
  > No, they were threatening and intimidating lawmakers that were in session to try to manipulate the election. This is an enormous difference. Sure, it is a difference -- as in not identical. But what do you conclude from that difference? That crimes that are less serious than this should be excused when committed as an act of protest but these crimes are different and should not be excused? The assertion is that there is a double standard between these types of events. That some riots are excused and yesterday's are not. You seem to be asserting that there isn't a double standard because the events were different in the way that you described and so it sounds like you are saying the different treatment is justified. No one is excusing yesterday's rioters but you seem to be excusing previous incidents of rioting because they were different.
akiselev 6y ago
>How about we just prosecute everyone who breaks the law? That would be a novel and very welcome thing in America.
grahamburger 6y ago
I do think we should prosecute people who break the law. Maybe not every single one of them, but a lot of them. I personally find the cause of BLM to be just and the cause of MAGA tremendously unjust, so if it were up to me I would show more leniency (within the bounds of the law) to the BLM group. Probably fortunately for all parties, though, it's not up to me.
- gwright 6y ago
  This seems tremendously unjust to me. You're suggesting that an arsonist, for example, should be treated differently if they burned a building down based on their political ideology? How do you think the victims of these crimes are going to feel about your notion of "justice"?
  - grahamburger 6y ago
    I do think sometimes the intent of a person matters when they've committed crime. This is codified in U.S. law. Killing someone in self defense, killing someone because you're angry with them, and killing someone because they're gay and you don't like gay people: each the same crime, but treated differently in U.S. law. I don't know about arson, but I do think that for example occupying a government building because you want the elected officials there to take action on supporting human rights should be treated differently than occupying a government building because you want your favorite candidate to be president despite losing the election.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]

Jtsummers 6y ago

> So you are saying that the difference is such that one group should not be prosecuted and the other group should? What criteria are you using to differentiate? Storming government buildings other than the Capital is OK? I said nothing of the sort and I don't know how you would interpret my words that way. From the poster I responded to: > The other kind of insurrectionists seem to also have little to fear from the law My response was about the notion that protesters and rioters this summer were "insurrectionists", they were not. At least not as a general rule. Some of them, maybe, probably always are in political protests. But most of them were there to either create havoc (rioters) or protest for change to the way policing is conducted in the US (the protestors). The people who went into the US Capitol Building on 6 January, 2021 were intending to prevent the carrying out of a legal process to certify the results of a democratic election and, in their minds, prevent the succession of the presidency. That makes them insurrectionists, not just protestors anymore, at least as regards the US Constitution and democratic process. Besides, protestors and rioters in 2020 were prosecuted. And it's moronic or ignorant to say they weren't.

gwright 6y ago
> Besides, protestors and rioters in 2020 were prosecuted. And it's moronic or ignorant to say they weren't. That some people were prosecuted doesn't negate the overall acceptance by the left of the violent activity as legitimate political activism because it was in support of particular favored political opinions. The very clear message was that as long as you were spouting the approved political mantras the violent activities were OK. Attempting to discern who is or who isn't an "insurrectionist" is a distraction. Trespassing, breaking and entering, looting, vandalism, destruction of property, arson, assault are all crimes that should be prosecuted and not excused if you are committing them while having the correct political thoughts. BTW, yesterday's opportunists have to be the saddest lot of "insurrectionists" I've ever seen. They seemed more interested in posting selfies than overthrowing anything. They should be mocked mercilessly and prosecuted vigorously.

outworlder 6y ago

It's not just about a government building. Noone should care about that. If the building was empty, this would be trespass. No, they were threatening and intimidating lawmakers that were in session to try to manipulate the election. This is an enormous difference. Also pipe bombs shouldn't be ok. Not sure why this is being ignored.

gwright 6y ago
> No, they were threatening and intimidating lawmakers that were in session to try to manipulate the election. This is an enormous difference. Sure, it is a difference -- as in not identical. But what do you conclude from that difference? That crimes that are less serious than this should be excused when committed as an act of protest but these crimes are different and should not be excused? The assertion is that there is a double standard between these types of events. That some riots are excused and yesterday's are not. You seem to be asserting that there isn't a double standard because the events were different in the way that you described and so it sounds like you are saying the different treatment is justified. No one is excusing yesterday's rioters but you seem to be excusing previous incidents of rioting because they were different.

akiselev 6y ago

>How about we just prosecute everyone who breaks the law? That would be a novel and very welcome thing in America.

grahamburger 6y ago

I do think we should prosecute people who break the law. Maybe not every single one of them, but a lot of them. I personally find the cause of BLM to be just and the cause of MAGA tremendously unjust, so if it were up to me I would show more leniency (within the bounds of the law) to the BLM group. Probably fortunately for all parties, though, it's not up to me.

gwright 6y ago
This seems tremendously unjust to me. You're suggesting that an arsonist, for example, should be treated differently if they burned a building down based on their political ideology? How do you think the victims of these crimes are going to feel about your notion of "justice"?
- grahamburger 6y ago
  I do think sometimes the intent of a person matters when they've committed crime. This is codified in U.S. law. Killing someone in self defense, killing someone because you're angry with them, and killing someone because they're gay and you don't like gay people: each the same crime, but treated differently in U.S. law. I don't know about arson, but I do think that for example occupying a government building because you want the elected officials there to take action on supporting human rights should be treated differently than occupying a government building because you want your favorite candidate to be president despite losing the election.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]