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

Can you please stop going at it with SM he is straight up lying and creating scenarios from whole cloth.

He is now trying to say its ok for people to just walk into the congressional chamber and protest, he is not even trying to actually have a debate and its detracting from the thread.

He is currently trying to win on word counts.

 

Yes he is verbose but I’m pretty verbose myself.

As stated before I actually have some time on my hand and I appreciate he’s arguing in his own words. In the Floyd thread he is bringing up arguments and evidence that Chauvin’s defense is bringing up and as a Minneapolis resident I have a personal interest in the case and my debate with him is helping in discussions and debates with people here. Especially those defending Chauvin.

This debate i have to say I think StupidMoniker’s position is very strained and I suspect he’s playing devils advocate. Even so I find it interesting and consider this intellectual sparring.

If you’re not interested in his posts or mine you can always scroll past them.

 

That is not at all different than other protesters.

They can be. You don't shoot someone for climbing through a window into an empty hallway because other people in another location have bats. Look at dozens of the protests around the country the last couple of years. Bats and clubs and pepper spray are ubiquitous. No one is shooting other protesters. Kyle Rittenhouse has been charged with 2 counts of murder and one count of attempted murder because he shot people who were literally chasing him and trying to beat him.

Yes, though as of yet I don't believe they have determined cause of death. As of now, I could not find one recorded death with pepper spray indicated as cause of death. That is with what must be millions of uses. To the extent anything could be called a non-lethal weapon, pepper spray would be it.

Use of a water pistol is assault.

I don't think there is an evinced intent to cause serious bodily harm or death to any officer in that video. Even when they are hitting them with riot shields. Just as I don't think the officers are trying to injure or kill the crowd in that video. They are engaged in low grade combat centered around advancing through or holding that position (depending on which side you are looking at).

You answered my question in your subsequent post. Officer Hodges doesn't address that he was saved by one of the rioters, but I can understand why he would not feel any particular feeling of goodwill for them.

You are reading something into my answer which did not appear there. Or perhaps I failed to understand your point in my response. I mentioned nothing about injuring or killing the security guard, I said if I push past a security guard blocking the door during a robbery, my intent is not to hurt the security guard, but to get past him (my intent wrt the security guard is benign). A robbery is inherently a violent crime anyway though, as you are taking the property of another by force or fear. A security guard can legally use force against you that is reasonable in response to the force or threat of force you are using in the robbery. So if you are sticking up the clerk with a gun, the guard can shoot you. If you are just grabbing the money out of the register and running full tilt at the guard blocking your way, he cannot.

As to your current question: If you are robbing a store and someone is killed, and you either cause someone's death in the commission of the felony or aid and abet the death of the person (this is a newish twist in the law in California only) then you can be charged under the felony murder rule.

With the evidence I have now, I wouldn't even know who to charge.

I didn't bring it up for partisan reasons, but rather because the response I have seen has been more hysterical from the Democrats than the Republicans. Compare the response of say Ted Cruz to say Nancy Pelosi and I think you would agree it is like they are describing two totally different events.

I suppose I just think you have to look at it on a more individualized basis. Someone hitting a cop with a flag in one area shouldn't transfer to a different person in a different area. Not knowing her intentions would weigh against shooting her though. Again, use of deadly force by law enforcement requires a particularized fear that the person against whom you are using the force represents an imminent threat of great bodily injury or death to you or another person. Given the video, I do not see to whom Babbitt represented an imminent threat.

Has that actually been determined? I have only heard of Officer Sicknick being a potential death from the riot. I know a number of the rioters died, but other than Babbitt I think that all comes down to natural causes. There were certainly a large number of injuries of varying severity.

I just don't take the chant of Hang Mike Pence Seriously. Maybe I am wrong and everyone was totally justified in fearing that the rioters were actually going to zip tie Mike Pence and hang him on the Capitol steps. I think it is very unlikely though. Were I an insurrectionist intent on killing Mike Pence, Nancy Pelosi, et al. I wouldn't go in armed with pepper spray and a flag pole. To me, other than the location, this riot did not seem radically different from the other riots, including the equipment, clashes with law enforcement, violent chants out of proportion to the actions being taken,

Obviously it is not a legal term. My contention is that it is not a real thing at all. Prior to the past couple of years, I had never heard the term before. Now I hear it all the time whenever a comparison is made. Why did I state the ideologies of the other protests? Identification so you would know to which protest I was referring. Deb4Rockets mentioned another great example, the protests where the guys took rifles into the courthouse. Those people seemed much more of an imminent threat than Babbitt, but no one shot them. The pro2A group in Virginia (IIRC) same thing.

Let me leave you with this. None of the other officers at any of the other barricades felt the need to shoot any of the rioters. Not the ones being hit with flag poles. Not Officer Sicknick. Not the ones hit with a fire extinguisher. Not the ones hit with riot shields. Only one person was shot the whole event. So somehow, Ashley Babbitt, not visibly armed, climbing through a broken window, within easy reach of the officer if he chose to run over and arrest her, she was the one person that was such an imminent threat that she must be shot in the neck.

A mob breaking through barriers and trying to target the people inside was the situation in Portland though. I might try to dig up the video tomorrow. The protesters were actively trying to set fire to the occupied building, endangering the people inside. I cannot know if there was one specific person they were targeting, but they were trying to light a courthouse on fire with people in it, they did it repeatedly, and eventually they were able to set part of the building on fire, though I don't think anyone inside was killed. This wasn't one person throwing a molotov cocktail and then running away. I don't know what the intent of those people could possibly be, but they seemed at least as intent on harming the people in the courthouse as the capitol rioters did on harming members of congress.

Maybe I have a weird perspective on this. All the cops I have talked to about it are of the opinion it was a bad shooting, including an investigator in my office that has done police shooting protocols (where they investigate officer involved shootings to determine if the officer should be charged/face discipline, etc.).

 

People can and have just walked into the congressional chamber and protested.

 

The video you posted undermines your point. You actually aren’t allowed to protest and disturb government processes. You are supposed to be allowed to observe the Democratic process as a free society, but you cannot take it upon yourself to obstruct the Democratic process. That’s why those observers got arrested as soon as they started protesting/obstructing.

The very point of the Jan 6 riot was to stop the Democratic process. It was illegal and undemocratic on its face. The protesters who shouted out in the Kavanaugh vote were breaking the law yes, but they were not using violence and they had no real intent on physically stopping the process. The intent was to voice their opinion to try and change public opinion to enact a different Democratic outcome. Our system is setup to allow that protest but intended to happen during the formative moments before the actual process is completed within the framework of government.

That’s a very long winded way of saying the January 6 MAGA terrorists were not just normal protestors. They were acting as a terrorist opposition group to American Democracy in that moment. Big freaking difference.

 

85 % of cops according to internal polling voted for Orange mango in 2016. There is an extreme bias in the law enforcement community for the mango chief.

 

I'll try to get back to the @StupidMoniker's longer response to me but will also point out another key difference. There is a big difference that during the Kavanaugh hearings and Jan. 6th that there was a pandemic going on and Congress already had rules limiting the amount of people that could be in the Capitol. We don't know how things would've been different if not for the pandemic but what we do know is that under pandemic rules there weren't supposed to be a lot of people especially the public in the Capitol.

So yes during the Kavanaugh hearings a lot of people were let in who started protesting. On Jan 6th. even without protesters a lot of people wouldn't have been let in. The protesters though chose to attack the Capitol PD rather than follow the rules in place. They said themselves they were going to "Storm the Captiol" ("Storm" isn't generally considered peaceful). You don't need to speculate on what their intent was their own actions and words already showed they were violent.

 

Ted Cruz was one of the many instigators of this seditionist act. He was one of the traitors involved in spreading the big lie to incite their cult. Of course his twisted truth will differ from most.

 

@StupidMoniker still waiting for your response to the entire scenario below. No handpicking one item from the entire scenario.

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, zip ties, Hang Mike Pence signs, and a hangman's noose to a peaceful gathering?

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. That includes the leader who ordered the charge, Mr. Orange man himself.

 

Imagine the freak out if 85% of police officers were polled to be Democrats. FoxNews would run with that 23 hours a day.

 

Ya law enforcement culture is like a cult in this country. They pretend they are war heros and brothers in arms polling a civilian populace. It's pretty sick. The proffesion in the US disproportionately attracts reactionary conservatives.

 

Former Republican Speaker of the House John Boehner lays the blame on Trump for Jan. 6th Insurrection in his latest book. I would've liked to see Boehner speak out much earlier about this but it is further evidence that the only principle that matters within the current GOP is loyalty to Trump.
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/07/us/politics/john-boehner-trump-capitol-riot.html

Boehner Blasts Trump, Saying He ‘Incited That Bloody Insurrection’
In his new book, John Boehner, the Republican former House speaker, sharply rebukes the former president for his role in the “mob violence” at the Capitol on Jan. 6

John Boehner, the Republican former House speaker, issues a stinging denunciation in his new book of Donald J. Trump, saying that the former president “incited that bloody insurrection” by his supporters at the Capitol on Jan. 6 and that the Republican Party has been taken over by “whack jobs.”

The criticism from Mr. Boehner in his book, “On the House: A Washington Memoir,” represents an extraordinary public rebuke by a former speaker of the House toward a former president from his own party and shows how much the Republican Party has shifted since Mr. Boehner left Congress in 2015. And his remarks came as Mr. Trump has sought to retain his grip on Republican lawmakers’ loyalty from his new political base in South Florida.

The Senate minority leader, Mitch McConnell, sharply criticized Mr. Trump at the end of the Senate trial for the former president’s second impeachment, pointing to his role in the Capitol riot. Others, like Representative Liz Cheney of Wyoming, the No. 3 in the House Republican leadership, have also excoriated him.

But Mr. Boehner’s remarks went a step further, serving as a rejection of what the party he once helped lead has morphed into over the last several years. While he has criticized Mr. Trump in the past, it’s his comments about the events of Jan. 6 that have the most resonance.

In the book, an excerpt from which was obtained by The New York Times, Mr. Boehner writes that Mr. Trump’s “refusal to accept the result of the election not only cost Republicans the Senate but led to mob violence,” adding, “It was painful to watch.”

At another point, he writes, “I’ll admit I wasn’t prepared for what came after the election — Trump refusing to accept the results and stoking the flames of conspiracy that turned into violence in the seat of our democracy, the building over which I once presided.”

He adds: “Watching it was scary, and sad. It should have been a wake-up call for a return to Republican sanity.” Nodding to the divisions between the parties in Congress now, he writes, “Whatever they end up doing, or not doing, none of it will compare to one of the lowest points of American democracy that we lived through in January 2021.”

Mr. Trump, he goes on, “incited that bloody insurrection for nothing more than selfish reasons, perpetuated by the bullshit he’d been shoveling since he lost a fair election the previous November.” Mr. Boehner writes, “He claimed voter fraud without any evidence, and repeated those claims, taking advantage of the trust placed in him by his supporters and ultimately betraying that trust.”

In an emailed statement, Jason Miller, a spokesman for Mr. Trump, called Mr. Boehner a “Swamp Creature” and accused him of favoring “Communist China” (The former speaker’s lobbying firm represents the Chinese Embassy in the United States). In a separate email to The Times, Mr. Trump asked of Mr. Boehner, whose love of merlot wine is legendary in Washington: “Was he drinking when he made this statement? Just another RINO who couldn’t do the job!”

The former president has continued to make wild and false claims about widespread voter fraud in the election, despite multiple court rulings against him and the certification of President Biden’s victory.

Of members of the House and the Senate who supported Mr. Trump’s efforts to overturn the election results, Mr. Boehner writes: “Some of the people involved did not surprise me in the least. The legislative terrorism that I’d witnessed as speaker had now encouraged actual terrorism.”

Mr. Boehner, whose tenure in the House Republican leadership coincided with the congressional obstruction of the Obama years and who was subsumed by the rise of the Tea Party and House members who were rewarded by conservative media appearances, writes that the G.O.P. must “take back control from the faction that had grown to include everyone from garden-variety whack jobs to insurrectionists.”

For now, Mr. Trump has retained support among Republican voters. A slim majority would like to see him as the party’s nominee again if he runs in 2024, something he has told advisers he’s serious about considering. And some House G.O.P. officials are deeply concerned about keeping him on their side in their efforts to retake control in the midterm elections next year.

 

You stupidfockers defending these treasonous assholes should be charged as accessories.

 

You keep on saying this yet it's been pointed out a few times that this protest was different than others for a few reasons. I admit I haven't seen all of the video from the protests around the Kavanaugh hearings but can you point out where protesters then were chanting to kill the VP or other members of Congress or to put them on trial?

We've seen several cases where LEO have been exonerated or not charged for shooting unarmed individuals on the basis of split second decision dealing with a potential threat. This was the case that brought Kyle Rittenhouse to Kenosha and in that case the LEO was not even charged for the shooting of Jacob Blake.

While there hasn't been a definitive death found there has been correlation shown of deaths after being pepper sprayed. There have also been many reports of serious injury.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/judyst...alth-hazards-of-pepper-spray/?sh=114995229794
"this systematic review of a variety of weapons for crowd control “identified 5,131 people who suffered injuries; two of these people died and 70 suffered permanent disabilities. Out of 9,261 documented chemical weapons injuries, 8.7% were severe and required professional medical management, 17% were substantial .”"

I'm not even going to bother with this.

"Low grade combat" is still combat, whether Hodges addresses he was saved by one of the rioters, he was put in harms way and assaulted by many others.

You've provided the answer. Harming someone, even if it wasn't their intent, in the commission of another crime is still a crime. You acknowledge that the rioters were trespassing (a crime) so it doesn't matter if they goal wasn't to harm the LEO it was still criminal of them to do so. And judging by the amount of injuries including the death of Sicknick they did a fair amount of harm to the Capitol PD.

I love it! I'm not partisan but the Democrats are more hysterical and I'm going to compare Ted Cruz (who never is hysterical) to Nancy Pelosi to support it.
Cont.

 

Cont.

Yes it does require a particularized fear that fear was supported by that Babbitt was part of a crowd that had been engaged in combat with the LEO and were publicly and repeatedly calling for the deaths of members of government that the Capitol PD were sworn to protect. Babbit had already breached several lines of defense and was preparing to breach another line of defense. That she ultimately wasn't armed we've already shown several incidences where LEO shootings of unarmed suspects were deemed reasonable.

Other posters have already provided evidence that Sicknick died due to actions of rioters that day. There is video of him being beaten by rioters.

You sure rely on conjecture a lot. We know for a fact they were chanting "Hang Mike Pence!" and they were willing to fight to get to Mike Pence. That doesn't need conjecture. That is words supported by actions.

True in the MI protests they didn't shoot anyone but at the same time they weren't fighting against LEO at the barricades. Whether that was due to that the MI Capitol PD used a strategy of non-resistance that is possible but that would remove agency from the rioters. The rioters on Jan 6th could've just followed the instructions of the Capitol PD and stayed outside and protested without going into the Capitol. They didn't.

As stated Babbitt had already crossed several lines of defense and was getting close to the Chambers of Congress while there still were members of Congress. As has already been established we've seen cases of LEO shooting unarmed suspects. In some cases with even less of a context of threat than Babbitt.

I can't speak about what exactly happened at Portland. There are many credible reports that LEO in Minneapolis used live fire against rioters attempting to storm the 3rd Precinct. I know first hand that they used rubber rounds that caused some severe injuries. I know that someone in my neighborhood lost an eye from those and that those type of weapons have been lethal.

I can't speak to who you've talked to but this is my own opinion. NO Capitol Hill officer will be charged from this. What we know for a fact though is that several rioters have been charged more severely than trespassing.

 

If 10 men confronted me, I would speak to them and find out what they want. I wouldn't walk to my car while they followed me. If, after speaking to them, they started following me, I would walk to one of the police officers that are invariably around at sporting events.

I would not lead a group of people following me to my home. Assuming that somehow a group of people was following me once I got in my car, I would call the police from my car and then drive to the nearest police station (or somewhere the police instructed me to meet officers),

This is not an action I would take. If I am in my car and have the advantage of mobility, why would I barricade myself inside my home?

I would never be in a scenario where all of the previous steps happened. But if there was for some reason an angry mob at my door and they were beating on it, I suppose I would be scared and confused, I may even call the police, assuming I could not just leave through an exit that the mob did not have covered.

I may. Mostly I would be very confused. How many people are in this mob? Is it still 10 men, none of whom are armed with more than a flagpole? How many cops came to confront them? What do I have at my disposal? Do I have any armed guards?

I don't really care about Trump one way or the other, so .... okay?

Probably for the same reasons that those types of things are brought to other protests/riots, to engage in low level skirmishing with riot police. The hangman's noose I would suggest was symbolic, like the guillotine prior protesters had brought to the capitol.

I don't think a persons rights should depend on how important the people being protested are.

I disagree. I don't think all of those people were acting in concert. There have been at least 19 people killed at protests related to the death of George Floyd, but I would not hold every protester responsible for those deaths, nor even every protester at the specific events where people were killed. That many people gather for one reason does not make each of them responsible for all of the actions of all of the others present. Maybe I am wrong and everyone in the Capitol was really a bloodthirsty savage that wanted to kidnap Pelosi and hang Mike Pence on the steps of the Capitol. Is it possible that you are wrong, that the rioters were by and large interested in having their message heard, that the gallows was symbolic?

I reviewed the speech he gave when they were doing the impeachment. I would say you are greatly exaggerating Trump's culpability. I can agree that Trump was pushing the idea that the election was stolen. I cannot agree that he ordered people to riot and attack the Capitol. In fact, he said quite the opposite, that people should peacefully protest. I am not even a Trump supporter, but I can read.

 

I was comparing more to the riots following the death of Floyd. The Kavanaugh hearings were when protesters were allowed to just walk into the senate chamber and only removed when they yelled during the voting. They were also allowed to scream directly in the faces of Senators from about two feet away. There is video of multiple women screaming at Jeff Flake (I think?) for some time as he is trying to get on an elevator.

Jacob Blake had a knife and was getting into someone else's car with her two children in the back seat. He had just been fighting the same cop who shot him. The cop was trying to arrest him. He had previously tased him. Do you see no diference between this and the shooting of Babbitt?

So across millions of uses there have been two people that died that they did not attribute directly to the pepper spray. Yes, I am fine calling it non-lethal.

An assault is putting someone in apprehension of harmful or offensive touching. Saying that using something on someone is an assault is meaningless, hence the silly rebuttal.

Yes, almost like different people have varying levels of danger and criminality. People fighting the police should be charged with fighting the police. People trespassing should be charged with trespassing. People who are trespassing and climb through a broken window should be viewed through that lens, and not collectively as someone seconds from murdering Mike Pence.

On this particular issue, I would say the Dems are more hysterical. When it comes to "censorship" of Dr. Suess, Reps are more hysterical. Do you disagree?

 

squirt gun assault:

https://www.eagletribune.com/news/l...cle_ab6e8544-f762-5beb-921d-184505b02203.html

squirt gun assault conviction in England:

https://www.eagletribune.com/news/l...cle_ab6e8544-f762-5beb-921d-184505b02203.html

 

In Texas you can shoot and kill people breaking in and entering your house.

I disagree. Once violence had begun outside, all those entering afterwards were acting in concert. They could have chosen not to enter at that point, and become accomplices.

I disagree. He incited them, and once it became violent he did absolutely nothing but watch, smiling with his family as they watched it unfold. He never even called to see if his Vice President was OK. I guarantee you, if that same group of people had been predominately Islamic, black, or Asian he would have taken action, and not told them he loved them afterwards. His history of silence when perpetrators are white speaks for itself.

 

As I pointed out earlier the rules were different then as we didn't have a pandemic. Under pandemic rules in place on Jan. 6th the public wasn't allowed into the Capitol. Besides that though you didn't answer my question whether there at the Kavanaugh protests there were people chanting to kill members government.

They are not the same I will agree with that. From what I remember about the Blake case the LEO didn't know that Blake was reaching for a knife but shot based on suspicion that he was going for a weapon but hadn't confirmed that he had one.

For Babbitt she had already breached several lines of defense. The LEO wasn't at all the lines of defense but did know they had been breached violently. He is making a judgment call about the nature of the threat based on that information. You're asking for a standard that would be almost impossible to meet, that somehow he could've known the extent of Babbitt's actions earlier or later or what she was or wasn't armed with.

You're also acting as though she doesn't have any agency in this matter and is just a helpless victim. She chose to put herself into that situation and chose to attempt to get past LEO performing a lawful duty while she was doing a criminal act.

You can call it what you want but again the official definition is "less than lethal". Also the link I provided stated in addition to death there have been many cases of severe injury.

Except she was with those people and you only have conjecture that she wasn't actually out to murder Mike Pence. For that matter can you prove that her actions during that time didn't involve assaulting LEO? I admit I don't but I'm not relying on conjecture.

Also in this debate you're taking the side of prosecution and not defense. As you've capably argued in the other thread it's not the job of the defense to present an argument for innocence but the prosecution's to provide guilt. As we all know reasonable doubt is the standard. Therefore if you're accusing the LEO that shot Babbitt of not being justified you have the burden of presenting a case that can counter reasonable arguments. Now you make an argument that the LEO should've known that Babbitt wasn't armed so didn't represent a threat. That might work if things were flipped but by the standard you've stated it would be reasonable doubt that given she was with a crowd that was acting violently and attempting to penetrate a line of defense he was duty bound to protect.

I will go further though and say whether prosecution or defense the argument is already weak from the start given that you base it on events that happen in the future to when Babbitt was shot and rely on unsupported conjecture of the thought process of the rioters including Babbitt.

On this issue particular issue sure I can agree that AOC and some other Democrats exaggerated but that is really not that relevant to the specific situation we're discussing. Why you chose to bring that up doesn't appear to matter but you still felt necessary to bring it up.