6 ms·

The fact that they got as far as they did is only going to embolden them to do it again.

DamnYuppie 5y ago
It was a protest turned aggressive, it was in no way an insurrection, no evidence has been presented that was the intent of the group what so ever. Also why would you even bother doing it that way? You could use far fewer people who are coordinated and go after the politicians at their homes where there is much less security.
- MisterBastahrd 5y ago
  Because the entire point of it was to pressure Congress into forcing the election of Trump by interfering with the counting of electoral votes which had already taken place. After exhausting all their legel remedies, the last thing they thought they could do was scare Congress and Pence. This isn't some new information.
- vsareto 5y ago
  Plenty of videos of people in the crowd caught saying that they were seeking the chamber and congressional members to stop the certification. Admitting you’re trying to stop the process is an act of resistance against the government.
  - gruez 5y ago
    >> It was a protest turned aggressive, it was in no way an insurrection, no evidence has been presented that was the intent of the group what so ever. >[...] Admitting you’re trying to stop the process is an act of resistance against the government. So you're saying resisting the government = insurrection? Is picketing outside of government offices (ie. the kind where you block people/cars from entering/leaving a building) an "insurrection"? Or does it only apply to capitols? Suppose you got a bunch of picketers to surround your state capitol, and representatives couldn't enter, would that be an insurrection?
    - cogman10 5y ago
      There's a pretty clear dividing line in the fact that violence was involved or attempted. So, yes, you can picket government buildings all you want, but the moment you start killing security and seeking to kill representatives, you've insurrected or are a party to an insurrection. > Insurrection - a violent uprising against an authority or government.
      - gruez 5y ago
        >There's a pretty clear dividing line in the fact that violence was involved or attempted. BLM protests can get pretty violent. Are they insurrections?
        cogman10 5y ago
        No, they are riots, because they are missing the second half of the insurrection requirement. > a violent uprising against an authority or government. 2 elements needed to be insurrection, Violence, and against authority or government. BLM riots are violent, but not targeted at the government. The Jan 6 insurrection was both violent and against the government. They disrupted government operations to try and change the results of an election. Can you find a definition of insurrection that wouldn't include the Jan 6 riots? Can you name a BLM riot which was targeted at the government?
        abduhl 5y ago
        What about this one? "Portland protest declared a riot Sunday as federal building is breached" https://nypost.com/2020/07/26/portland-protest-declared-a-riot-sunday-as-federal-building-is-breached/ https://nypost.com/2020/07/26/portland-protest-declared-a-ri... In fact, wouldn't all of the BLM movements accurately be described as targeted at the government because they were explicitly aimed at enacting change in government institutions like the police? In another post you say that "until a BLM protest attempts to use force to overthrow a city, state, or federal government, it's a riot at best when violence is involved." But how do you classify the CHAZ in Seattle, where force was used to overthrow city and state governments and establish an "autonomous" zone where guns and violence were the only recognized power by the occupiers?
- cogman10 5y ago
  > It was a protest turned aggressive We call that a riot.
giantg2 5y ago
You mean how they got as far as prison?
tamaharbor 5y ago
I think if it were a real coup, they would have brought weapons.
- twofornone 5y ago
  A key point that many people seem to miss. A band of unhinged, bloodthirsty right wingers, staged a preempted coup, targeting politicians, and did not bring the guns that they're famous for amassing? Clearly this was not what it's being made out to be. Never let a crisis go to waste I suppose...
  - beams_of_light 5y ago
    But did enter the Capitol building with hand held weapons, body armor, zip ties to subdue people, and were heard talking about locating members of Congress. Enough with the disingenuousness.
    - twofornone 5y ago
      But no guns. Why would they plan a violent insurrection/coup without guns? Moreover, the "handheld weapons" consisted largely of sticks and flagpoles, with some bearspray...you know, things you'd bring to a riot? And zipties were found on one or two participants. The only disingenuousness here is the attempt to manufacture an insurrection out of a riot.
      - beams_of_light 5y ago
        Several of the insurrectionists did have guns. The protest began peacefully, and turned violent following Trump's speech, where he urged the crowd to "fight like hell". These people aren't normal like you and I. They are extremely impressionable and subject to radicalization. Listen to the Channel 5 interview with the QAnon Shaman on YouTube. Does that strike you as someone that is capable of functioning in civil society?
      - danans 5y ago
        > Why would they plan a violent insurrection/coup without guns? To minimize the chances they got shot at by police (only 1 person was). They wanted to overturn the election, not die. But just in case they needed it, this group had an armed backup force waiting at a hotel in VA: https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/legal-issues/quick-reaction-force-capitol-riot/2021/04/14/2021da66-9d39-11eb-8005-bffc3a39f6d3_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/legal-issues/quick-reac...
fallingknife 5y ago
They only got that far because they were deemed (correctly) to be not a real threat and allowed in. The police could have mowed them down but they (rightly) decided it was better to just let it go and be embarrassed than to slaughter rioters in front of the capitol. Same goes for BLM rioters. I'd rather be in a country that allows a bit of chaos rather than using the full, deadly force of the state.
- MisterBastahrd 5y ago
  Sorry, but that's ridiculous. There's no scenario where a bunch of cops with pistols would have opened fire on a crowd that large. They would have been instantly overwhelmed.
  - fallingknife 5y ago
    1. Cops in the US have a lot more than pistols. Assault rifles, flash bangs, tear gas, not quite tanks, f'ing helicopter gunships. 2. Live fire was way more than these guys bargained for. If they heard gunshots, even just pistol fire, and saw bodies dropping they would have scattered.
- beams_of_light 5y ago
  The insurrectionists at the Capitol killed and injured Capitol police officers. If Mike Pence had been complicit with their wishes not to certify the election, we'd be living in a dictatorship. It was a very serious and pivotal moment for the country.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - ryan93 5y ago
    Yes it was a riot. No evidence any cops were killed
  - AnimalMuppet 5y ago
    If Mike Pence had been complicit, they wouldn't have needed the rioters. I agree that "it" was serious, but the "it" was Trump's attempt to not certify the results of the election, not so much the protest/demonstration/riot/incursion into the Capitol. Mike Pence did what he was supposed to, under severe pressure to do otherwise. The country (especially the left) owes him a huge debt of gratitude.
abduhl 5y ago

It was a protest turned aggressive, it was in no way an insurrection, no evidence has been presented that was the intent of the group what so ever. Also why would you even bother doing it that way? You could use far fewer people who are coordinated and go after the politicians at their homes where there is much less security.

MisterBastahrd 5y ago
Because the entire point of it was to pressure Congress into forcing the election of Trump by interfering with the counting of electoral votes which had already taken place. After exhausting all their legel remedies, the last thing they thought they could do was scare Congress and Pence. This isn't some new information.
vsareto 5y ago
Plenty of videos of people in the crowd caught saying that they were seeking the chamber and congressional members to stop the certification. Admitting you’re trying to stop the process is an act of resistance against the government.
- gruez 5y ago
  >> It was a protest turned aggressive, it was in no way an insurrection, no evidence has been presented that was the intent of the group what so ever. >[...] Admitting you’re trying to stop the process is an act of resistance against the government. So you're saying resisting the government = insurrection? Is picketing outside of government offices (ie. the kind where you block people/cars from entering/leaving a building) an "insurrection"? Or does it only apply to capitols? Suppose you got a bunch of picketers to surround your state capitol, and representatives couldn't enter, would that be an insurrection?
  - cogman10 5y ago
    There's a pretty clear dividing line in the fact that violence was involved or attempted. So, yes, you can picket government buildings all you want, but the moment you start killing security and seeking to kill representatives, you've insurrected or are a party to an insurrection. > Insurrection - a violent uprising against an authority or government.
    - gruez 5y ago
      >There's a pretty clear dividing line in the fact that violence was involved or attempted. BLM protests can get pretty violent. Are they insurrections?
      - cogman10 5y ago
        No, they are riots, because they are missing the second half of the insurrection requirement. > a violent uprising against an authority or government. 2 elements needed to be insurrection, Violence, and against authority or government. BLM riots are violent, but not targeted at the government. The Jan 6 insurrection was both violent and against the government. They disrupted government operations to try and change the results of an election. Can you find a definition of insurrection that wouldn't include the Jan 6 riots? Can you name a BLM riot which was targeted at the government?
        abduhl 5y ago
        What about this one? "Portland protest declared a riot Sunday as federal building is breached" https://nypost.com/2020/07/26/portland-protest-declared-a-riot-sunday-as-federal-building-is-breached/ https://nypost.com/2020/07/26/portland-protest-declared-a-ri... In fact, wouldn't all of the BLM movements accurately be described as targeted at the government because they were explicitly aimed at enacting change in government institutions like the police? In another post you say that "until a BLM protest attempts to use force to overthrow a city, state, or federal government, it's a riot at best when violence is involved." But how do you classify the CHAZ in Seattle, where force was used to overthrow city and state governments and establish an "autonomous" zone where guns and violence were the only recognized power by the occupiers?
cogman10 5y ago
> It was a protest turned aggressive We call that a riot.

giantg2 5y ago

You mean how they got as far as prison?

tamaharbor 5y ago

I think if it were a real coup, they would have brought weapons.

twofornone 5y ago
A key point that many people seem to miss. A band of unhinged, bloodthirsty right wingers, staged a preempted coup, targeting politicians, and did not bring the guns that they're famous for amassing? Clearly this was not what it's being made out to be. Never let a crisis go to waste I suppose...
- beams_of_light 5y ago
  But did enter the Capitol building with hand held weapons, body armor, zip ties to subdue people, and were heard talking about locating members of Congress. Enough with the disingenuousness.
  - twofornone 5y ago
    But no guns. Why would they plan a violent insurrection/coup without guns? Moreover, the "handheld weapons" consisted largely of sticks and flagpoles, with some bearspray...you know, things you'd bring to a riot? And zipties were found on one or two participants. The only disingenuousness here is the attempt to manufacture an insurrection out of a riot.
    - beams_of_light 5y ago
      Several of the insurrectionists did have guns. The protest began peacefully, and turned violent following Trump's speech, where he urged the crowd to "fight like hell". These people aren't normal like you and I. They are extremely impressionable and subject to radicalization. Listen to the Channel 5 interview with the QAnon Shaman on YouTube. Does that strike you as someone that is capable of functioning in civil society?
    - danans 5y ago
      > Why would they plan a violent insurrection/coup without guns? To minimize the chances they got shot at by police (only 1 person was). They wanted to overturn the election, not die. But just in case they needed it, this group had an armed backup force waiting at a hotel in VA: https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/legal-issues/quick-reaction-force-capitol-riot/2021/04/14/2021da66-9d39-11eb-8005-bffc3a39f6d3_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/legal-issues/quick-reac...

fallingknife 5y ago

They only got that far because they were deemed (correctly) to be not a real threat and allowed in. The police could have mowed them down but they (rightly) decided it was better to just let it go and be embarrassed than to slaughter rioters in front of the capitol. Same goes for BLM rioters. I'd rather be in a country that allows a bit of chaos rather than using the full, deadly force of the state.

MisterBastahrd 5y ago
Sorry, but that's ridiculous. There's no scenario where a bunch of cops with pistols would have opened fire on a crowd that large. They would have been instantly overwhelmed.
- fallingknife 5y ago
  1. Cops in the US have a lot more than pistols. Assault rifles, flash bangs, tear gas, not quite tanks, f'ing helicopter gunships. 2. Live fire was way more than these guys bargained for. If they heard gunshots, even just pistol fire, and saw bodies dropping they would have scattered.
beams_of_light 5y ago
The insurrectionists at the Capitol killed and injured Capitol police officers. If Mike Pence had been complicit with their wishes not to certify the election, we'd be living in a dictatorship. It was a very serious and pivotal moment for the country.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- ryan93 5y ago
  Yes it was a riot. No evidence any cops were killed
- AnimalMuppet 5y ago
  If Mike Pence had been complicit, they wouldn't have needed the rioters. I agree that "it" was serious, but the "it" was Trump's attempt to not certify the results of the election, not so much the protest/demonstration/riot/incursion into the Capitol. Mike Pence did what he was supposed to, under severe pressure to do otherwise. The country (especially the left) owes him a huge debt of gratitude.

abduhl 5y ago