4 ms·

Funny "coup" where none of the plotters were armed.

• guerrilla 5y ago
  Does incompetence and failure bear on intent? I don't think that usually flies in court.
  • TheBlight 5y ago
    Is it remotely plausible to believe a group of unarmed protestors were seriously attempting to gain control over the most powerful superpower the world has ever seen with their barehands? This narrative strains credulity, counselor.
    • guerrilla 5y ago
      That does seem to be the intent they announced.
    • unishark 5y ago
      It's plausible that it's what some people were personally thinking (or a better word might be "LARPing"). But for the reasons you point out, it's not realistic to suggest that the loftiness of the goal implies the danger was historically-serious, or requiring some kind of revolutionary increase of law enforcement (beyond handling protests at the capital more wisely next time).
• Thorrez 5y ago
  > 17 charged with weapons crimes > These include people arrested outside the Capitol grounds with weapons like guns and Molotov cocktails https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/02/04/us/capitol-arrests.html https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/02/04/us/capitol-ar...
• anigbrowl 5y ago
  No, not really. Quite a few successful coups have been essentially bloodless and relied on a combination of surprise and bluff. Napoleon's actual seizure of power was disorganized to put it mildly: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coup_of_18_Brumaire https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coup_of_18_Brumaire Also, there are charges pending against people who had a stash of firearms in a hotel in Virginia, just across the Potomac, and planned to bring them over at a later stage. Firearms are largely banned in DC so the idea was to take over the Congress first and then establish a defensive perimeter. Now, I didn't say it was a good plan.