Breaking 1-06-21: MAGA terrorist attack on Capitol

I think you are clearly struggling with the differences between defending a position you personally hold on a message board and representing a client in a courtroom. Which totally makes sense given your half-ass debate club style of posting.

 

You do understand the concept of multiple lines of defense? Would you then say it was improper of the LEO on the plaza to have set up barricades and been defending with physical force there since the plaza doesn't lead directly to the Congressional Chambers?

If I recall correctly this would be ex post facto as you're arguing that they weren't that dangerous based on what would've been from the future of the LEO in that instance. Further arguing essentially a "best of all worlds" by stating that there were few injuries or deaths but ignoring that the Capitol PD did hold off the assailants long enough to empty the chambers.

Have you ever been pepper sprayed? I have as part of a training exercise and was exposed to it during the George Floyd protests. Pepper spray isn't non lethal it is officially classified less than lethal. That is a critical distinction and use of the pepper spray would still be considered assault and in this case assault on an LEO.

Apparently we are watching different videos if you consider those actions benign. It's a even more bizarre coming from a prosecutor. Those people were assaulting the LEO.

Under the reasoning you're presenting if I were to rob a liquor store and to do so I ran over the security guard that would be benign because the goal is the liquor and the security guard was just an obstacle.

Let me ask you this. You're not arguing as a defense attorney here but making an argument to prosecute the LEO that shot Babbit. If you were the DC DA would you charge that LEO based on this evidence?

Again I'm surprised as a lawyer you don't recognize the importance of precision in use of terms and examples. I'm not a lawyer but in legal discussions over code and contracts precision is important.

Further you say "you don't have a political dog in the fight" yet you say "especially a Democrat". Besides that the Representative quoted in the video is actually a Republican, why do you think it is important to state AOC's party affiliation as being relevant to trusting her word if this isn't political?

And how are the LEO at the time supposed to know that? Again you're arguing future events that had yet to occur at the time of the situation we are discussing. Future events that were further shaped by events that we are debating that by the time that the rioters got to the Chambers there were no members of Congress there.

This would be like if an arsonist had set fire to an occupied apartment complex but no one was hurt because the FD was able to evacuate everyone argued that their motives weren't that bad because no one was actually hurt.

On top of that you're also engaging ideological "whataboutism" which is irrelevant to the actual facts of the case.

Yet you keep on feeling the need to justify it.

Yes I agree that Chauvin was part of a racially driven uproar. Doesn't change the facts of the cases and I've stated that outside factors such as the media or wider social issues shouldn't affect the case.

The outside factors though are coloring your views of these case otherwise why bring it up?

You're not engaging in a dispassionate examination of the facts you're adding partisanship to your arguments.

 

Hopefully after all of them have ratted on each other.

 

I do understand the concept of multiple lines of defense. I wouldn't say it was improper to set up barricades and defend them with physical force, if that standard is evenly applied (which it was not, see previous capitol protests). Confrontation causes injuries, so of course there were no injuries in previous protests when people were allowed all the way into the hearing chamber to scream and demand the vote go a certain way and then be removed one at a time.

I am arguing that they weren't that dangerous, because they were unarmed and they wanted to protest the certification of the election. If you let them do that, then what danger do they pose? Obviously we cannot know for certain what would have happened if they did B instead of A in any particular scenario, but we do know not a single firearm was located among any of the people who entered the Capitol. Does that sound like something an armed insurrection would do? Leave their firearms behind?

No, I don't participate in the kinds of activities that result in being pepper sprayed. All alternative devices were renamed less than lethal because there is a tiny chance that someone can have a freak reaction that results in death. They didn't become more lethal, the label just more accurately reflects that there is a miniscule chance of death. In this ACLU report weaponreport_final_web_1.pdf (aclu.org) they looked at 31 combined studies in which who knows how many people were exposed to chemical irritants and they found of the 5,131 people with reported injury/death, one died from being in a room with a CS gas canister and one died when a launched CS gas grenade struck them in the head, causing traumatic brain injury. There were no reported deaths from OC (pepper spray). As far as I can tell, there has not been a single death attributed to pepper spray. I am comfortable calling it non-lethal.

I don't consider them benign. They are participating in a riot. I just 1) don't consider anyone in the video to be at imminent risk of great bodily injury or death, and 2) consider the actions taken to protect the one officer who became trapped and was in a situation that could cause serious bodily injury or death indicative of the desire of the crowd to avoid that. I don't know why I answer everyone else's questions when mine are always ignored.

If you rob a liquor store and during the robbery the security guard stands in the doorway blocking your exit, I would not say you have an intent to harm the security guard, nor would I say he was in great danger, if you tried to push your way past him.

I haven't seen enough evidence yet, nor heard enough testimony. I would require additional information (the officer's name, for example). If a review of additional evidence did not show me that she was an imminent threat of great bodily injury or death to the officer or another, then yes.

My mistake on his party affiliation. I thought I said Oklahoma (D), my cursor must have been in the way). As for AOC, I think her statements are very political. The fact that I don't have a dog in the fight doesn't mean I cannot recognize when there is a narrative being pushed. I am not blinded to politics because I am not a huge fan of Republicans or Democrats. Certainly there are representatives and senators that were there who did not feel threatened.

How do officers at other riots know that the rioters are not going to kill anyone? They don't. The reason they don't shoot the rioters is because they are not an imminent threat of great bodily injury or death. I am not asking the officers to have magical knowledge of the future, I am asking them to observe the present. Being in the halls of congress should not cheapen a person's life, and as far as I know, trespassing there is not a crime subject to summary execution without a trial. So, the standard for use of deadly force is the same for capital police as it is for any other police officer.

Unless Ashley Babbitt set fire to the building, it is nothing like that.

I am comparing police responses to two situations where people engaged in similar behavior. Whataboutism isn't a thing, by the way. It is a buzz word that people have started throwing around when they are called out on their hypocrisy. If I said I don't like Democrats running deficits, and thus prefer Republicans, you would be right to point out that Republicans also run deficits. That is just argumentation, not whataboutism. Drawing comparisons between situations, actors, actions, etc. is just how discussions occur. This is one of many new trends that needs to go the way of bell bottoms.

Justify using that rhetorical device? I don't understand why it is being attacked in the first place, but certainly I believe I am allowed to present my argument in a manner I choose. I noticed that Chauvin's attorney used the same rhetorical device in court without objection.

The outside factors don't change the facts, but they do change the treatment of the officers involved by both the media and by the prosecuting attorneys, that is why I brought it up. I disagree with you. I am dispassionately examining the facts and my arguments are non-partisan. The only thing I said which could potentially be seen as partisan is that I don't trust a Democratic Congressman's account of the police action as being necessary to save the lives of the members, as AOC said the same thing about her life being in imminent danger when she was in a building that was never even entered by the rioters. Even that is moot, because the guy is not even a Democrat. So the one point that even touches on partisanship can be discounted.

 

@StupidMoniker Unarmed? Au contraire

https://www.factcheck.org/2021/03/capitol-protesters-were-armed-with-variety-of-weapons/

 

DOJ: 'Zip tie guy' and mother stashed weapons outside Capitol

https://www.wusa9.com/article/news/...-says/65-d536fbae-4c26-4011-a62d-ebb9e3855e0e




Stun guns, 'stinger whips' and a crossbow: What police found on the Capitol protesters
In all, police recovered a dozen guns and thousands of rounds of ammunition from seven people who were arrested before and after the Capitol riot.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-new...what-police-found-capitol-protesters-n1254127

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-new...what-police-found-capitol-protesters-n1254127

 

Does a mob have to be armed to beat someone or pose a threat? Nope, they are still dangerous. Does screaming "Hang Mike Pence" seem like a non-threatening act? Does spraying Bear Spray and beating officers with flag poles outside seem like a mob that could do the same to Senators and Congressmen inside? They sure as hell seemed dangerous to me, especially considering the numbers. This went well beyond wanting to simply protest certification. This was by no means a peaceful act. Get that through your thick skull.

 

time for a chanting walk-through of the Carlson family residence. I’ll bring the zip ties.

 

LOL

 

Yes, that was a misstatement. None of them had firearms on their person and Ashley Babbitt was unarmed. A number of the rioters had typical riot weapons such as bludgeons and chemical irritants. Some people at various times and places had other weapons outside. There was a guy outside the capitol 6 hours later with a handgun. There was a guy with a gun and 11 molotov cocktails in his truck. There was a guy with a bunch of guns at his house. My point still stands. The people participating in the riot had the typical stuff we have seen at the protests for a year. Some clubs, some pepper spray, various bits of armor, shields, flags, etc. To me this is not especially different than the rioters outside the courthouse in Portland or the rioters in Ferguson or any of the other various riots. As such, I would say they should be subject to the same rules of engagement. When they were throwing molotov cocktails at an occupied courthouse with federal court employees inside in Portland, would people be okay with shooting them? I wouldn't. I consider Ashley Babbitt in that class or less unless and until I see substantial evidence to suggest she was an imminent threat of great bodily injury or death to another.

 

There is a difference between throwing a molotov cocktail and running away vs having a mob trying to break into the building in great numbers with high value personell while trampling over multiple officers and already successfully being inside the building in mass.

So if there was a mob of people with a judge inside who was the mob's target that were trying to storm into the building and successfully already crossed multiple security checkpoints by trampling over law enforcement and guards of the building and are actually inside the court house and there is only one more line of defense before they reach the judge, yes it would be reasonably justifiable for a protection detail to shoot someone who's breaking through the last line of defense.

Again, shooting someone who threw a molotov cocktail into a building after they have already done it and ran away wouldn't be an act of self defense at that point but a punative measure.

If a shop owner had a mob of people break into their store and the shop owner was the target rather than the 50 inch tv, the shop owner would have rightful justification to shoot at the mob.

At that point the guards who saw that mob already trampled.over multiple security checkpoints only could assume their intentions was physically harming the US legislators in the building. There isn't a Best Buy in the Capitol building if I recall so the security isn't thinking "they are here to loot". Their mindset is rationally beliving "they are here to physically harm the legislators".

 

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...itt-capitol-mob-trump-qanon-conspiracy-theory

 

Given other recent comments from Boehner he surely refers to Ted Cruz here.

 

Except that you have to consider other information and numbers. The Capitol PD had information that this protests was larger than other protests and also info that it was likely violent with threats made to members of Congress. The actions of the protesters by the time the reached the Capitol were different than other protesters in that they were actively fighting LEO.

As you've noted in other debates there are other weapons besides firearms that are dangerous that can be lethal. You've stated that things like bats and clubs which the protesters did have can be lethal.

There is discussion that LEO Sicknick died of a reaction to Bear Spray which is very concentrated Pepper Spray. Use of pepper spray is assault.

Again if you don't see how they are assaulting the LEO including hitting them with riot shields, shields that they took off of the other LEO, and other weapons as saying the crowd wanted to avoid harm, we are watching different videos.

As far as answering your questions. I can't speak for others but I have answered your questions. You've been ignoring the answers when they don't fit your arguments.

A very bizarre statement coming from a prosecutor. Under your argument if someone were to injure or kill a security guard in a robbery they shouldn't be charged with murder or assault because that wasn't their intent. I'm pretty sure you know that isn't the case.

I asked with the evidence you have now but fair enough.

Honest mistake on the Congressman's party affiliation but the fact that you still felt it necessary to bring up AOC and her party affiliation even though it's at most tangentially relevant is injection of partisanship.

Again the present they are observing is rioters overrunning barricades, physically assaulting other LEO, while chanting the want to kill the VP. Regarding what Ashley Babbitt's intentions were we don't know nor the LEO at that moment, for that matter we don't know what she is carrying. It wasn't as though the rioters before they stormed the Capitol stopped and emptied their pockets and back packs. Their actions show that they were not benign and said themselves that they were threatening.

The argument that well they didn't actually kill anyone (even though they actually did) or that "Hang Mike Pence" is empty rhetoric is speculation and conjecture on what the LEO could've known at that moment.

Yes "whataboutism" isn't a legal term but the fact that you continue to bring up party and differing ideologies when we're discussing actions is essentially "whatabout". You're arguing here to discount something that you specifically brought up. If so why did you bring it up? Why was it important to state the ideologies of those other protests?

 

Just for further reference since @StupidMoniker cited this video as central to his argument that the rioters weren't really out to harm the Capitol Hill PD.

Yes he is correct there is one rioter heard saying to back up to let LEO Hodges back so it is a fair argument to say that not every single rioter meant harm. That said we see the vast majority of rioters assaulting the LEO, and yes trying to batter a shield wall of LEO is assault. That's been true since Ancient times. Breaking a shield wall is attacking and certainly meaning harm to your enemy.

Further in the video you see rioters using riot shields to try to hit the LEO.

Next here is LEO Hodge's own description of what happened and he states that he was assaulted and not just with pepper spray.

 

Your logic is really twisted beyond belief.

You are comparing apples to oranges.

Better yet, how about this scenario?
What if you pissed someone off in an argument at a sporting event and then a group of about 10 men confronted you, and followed you to your car? What if they started following you home, and you and your family drive home, run inside and call the cops. What if they start beating on the door? Would you be scared? What if they beat the police officer when he arrived at your house with a pole, then started screaming your name? Would you feel threatened? Would you be scared for your life, whether you saw a gun or not? What if they were screaming to hang your family members? What if they had just sprayed bear spray into your neighbor's face, who came to confront them? Would you be scared? Would you feel threatened? What if they started breaking your windows and crawling inside your house chanting your name, and calling for your wife and kids? Would you feel threatened?

Now, you aren't the Vice President, a US Senator, or Congressman, but they are actually humans too, believe it or not. They get scared too. Guys were screaming out for some of them as they went searching, and everyone tagging along was guilty by association. This was a traumatizing day for many of them, regardless of whether they were harmed or not. You, nor I know what may have happened, armed or not, but the prior acts of violence before entering set the stage for a less than peaceful situation that our ex President sat back and watched!

Bear mace in a hunter's pocket is different than bear mace shot in a policeman's face. Zip ties in someone's hand or pocket storming the US Capitol is a whole lot different than zip ties in my garage. Scenarios and circumstances matter. Why would you bring bear mace or zip ties to a peaceful gathering? Give me a break. Everyone participating was guilty by association.

This was the US Court House, with the Vice President, US Senators, and Congressmen inside the building. We aren't talking people looting in a street, rioters destroying property, or criminals breaking into places of businesses to steal some shoes, tvs, or other goods. We aren't even talking about a bunch of men strapped up with assault rifles walking into the Michigan Court House in protest.

We are talking about a mob of angry people scaling walls, breaking glass, beating cops with poles, setting up a hangman's noose, breaking down barricades, and screaming to hang our Vice President. Luckily, they were able to get Pence and everyone else to safety, and out of a potentially deadly situation. That mob of people could have easily overtaken a few, zip tied their hands, and dragged them off to beat them down, kidnap them, or hang them. Anyone who took part in that was guilty by association. It's no different than two bank robbers walking into a bank, one doing all the dirty work, beating down a couple customers, while the other just watches. They are still in it together.