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

Not guilty... Case Closed. Good try Feds.

 

Walk through

 

****ing HANG them for breaking into the capitol - that is what the penalty for treason is....need to set an example.

DD

 

You got me. I don't know how I could have possibly thought that someone that calls himself The Blumpkin Official might be less than a serious terrorist threat intent on the violent overthrow of the United States government. Clearly these were no simple rioters, no more dangerous than your typical BLM/Antifa rioter. These were highly trained commandos of a white supremacist revolution. One of them managed to sit in Pelosi's chair and write a mildly offensive note on her scratch pad. Clearly we averted a Nazi takeover of the United States by a whisker. It's a miracle every single radical right wing insurrectionists forgot to bring one of their many guns for the assault.

These were stupid people doing an insane thing for a ridiculous reason that led to dozens of people being seriously injured and at least one directly attributable death. To me, it does a serious disservice to pretend they were some well organized fighting force intent on a serious and deadly goal. Every time such comical evidence is presented in support of this idea, the dignity of the law is damaged, IMO. Charge them with trespassing. Charge those who rioted with rioting. Then move on. Holding someone without bail for three months because he wrote "Hey Pelosi, Bigo was here biotch" on Pelosi's note paper and sat in her chair is a mockery of the justice system.

 

You always go to go there. Always have to compare looters and rioters in neighborhoods that have had thousands of straws break thousands of camels' backs who are products of poverty and poor resources. Like do you think those looters go read Jacobin, watch The Young Turks and are addicted to socialist subreddits or something?

The difference here is that the rioters at the Capitol are explicitly political people brainwashed by online right wing rhetoric while people like looters during protests are apoltical Individuals who probably never vote and follow politics.

They are two entirely seperate problems that have two entirely different solutions. One problem is online and media radicalization and the other is socioeconomics disparities leading to a large population of lost people who are more prone to loot. And on top of that bad faith actors like the Proud Boys and Boogalo boys going in these neighborhoods and instigating riots.

Did you see any leftist groups at the Capitol trying to egg on those MAGA brainwashed idiots at the Capitol?

The biggest difference between BLM protests and MAGA protests is the more entrenched in politics and following politics BLM activists are the more likely they are to engage in peaceful protests while the more entrenched in politics MAGA people following their right wing sources, the more likely they are to engage in some act that promotes violence like the Capitol riot or showing up to a BLM protest kitted out like they are about to do a helo raid in Marjah Afghanistan.

 

I've noticed the pattern too of him always bringing up BLM in defense of something those white supremacists types do, or taking the side of perpetrators of assaults on people of color.

 

You and everybody else knows that's not why he is being held without bail.

Howell seethed that his conduct in the Capitol showed a “total disregard for the law … total disregard for the US Constitution,” as she agreed with prosecutors that Barnett could not be released before he faces a trial for the riot.

"Howell highlighted that at the time of his arrest, Barnett told law enforcement that they wouldn’t find evidence linking him to the siege because he is “smart.”

“I don’t know how smart Mr. Barnett is, but he’s certainly a bragger. Bragging to law enforcement about what he’s done to cover his tracks … is not a smart thing to do,” she said."

You continually inject misinformation and obfuscate the truth in your diatribes.

Why?

You claim to want to just have an honest debate but you always distort everything.

 

Have they arrested the Mr. Show guy?

 

Given how many people we hold in jail needlessly because of our bail rules, I think the justice system has already made a mockery of itself.

I get your point. Despite his brave talk, he's probably not a credible threat of violence at the moment. But after thousands upon thousands of minority, indigent, or otherwise defenseless people are oppressed by our bail system as we silently look the other way, I'm not going to use this case of a self-entitled white man to suddenly cry foul about how our justice system treats the grist in the mill.

I'd also say be careful about interpreting his (and other rioters') silliness as harmlessness. Don't take them literally but take them seriously, as they say. White nationalism today is characterized by this sort of silliness. Pepe the frog, troll face, all kinds of internet memes are calling cards and recruiting tools for their organizations. Should I believe Q Anon is harmless because it's ridiculous? Should I dismiss the seriousness of a white supremacist if he uses a cartoon character as his avatar? This dude might not be Oath Keeper material, but any idiot with a finger can shoot a gun.

 

@deb4rockets

 

Good post. Yes there was a lot of silliness and stupidity on Jan. 6th but there were also people who came prepared to literally capture members of Congress and the VP. That they didn't has much more to do with that Capitol PD managed to hold them off long enough to evacuate the floors of Congress. Even so we still saw them get to the floor of the Senate, Congressional offices and go through papers in documents. We know for a fact that one "protester" tried to sell material taken form Congress to the Russians and it wouldn't surprise me if others were able to.

What is even more sad is we saw protesters go through Ted Cruz's documents and threaten him, although for mistaken reasons, yet Cruz still excuses and defends that.

The fact is that this was an invasion of the seat of our government. This wasn't looting a Target, torching a liquor store or even ransacking a police station, those are serious but not nearly as important.

 

We all know why Cruz is fine with it.

 

I just scroll through much of his stuff now. We don't agree on much, so debating is futile. It's like a merry go round that just keeps going in circles.

 

Some of them yes, some of them no. More yes in places like Portland where it leans more white and Antifa, more no in places like Ferguson where it leans more black and BLM.

I am less concerned with motive and more concerned with behavior.

On one level yes, but on another level, no. They are both lawless riots and the solution is to not be a lawless rioter. In terms of the punishment one receives for being a lawless rioter, I don't find it critical whether it is based on socioeconomics, racism, delusional support for a moron, or joy over the victory of a local sports team. The same behavior should be regulated in the same way.

Yes, quite clearly there was a left wing radical that was there. He was seen instigating and egging people on. He was even interviewed after the fact. He called himself a journalist in interviews.

Okay. So what though? I don't want the country to be in the business of regulating what people think. The law regulates behavior. Regulating thought is an extremely bad idea.

I was against the shooting of David Dorn. Does he not count?

There is a difference between a bail system where the state sets a standard bail amount associated with each crime where some people can afford it but other cannot and holding people without bail. It sucks if you cannot afford the 500 bucks to bail out on a weed case, but it would be so much worse to be held with no option for bail on the same case. No bail generally reserved either for the most serious crimes (murder, terrorism, child rape, etc.), or people that have already been found guilty and are awaiting sentencing.

Fair enough. The MAGA morons are the subject of this thread, so it seems appropriate to discuss them here, but I can see where you are coming from.

I would say to judge each individual on a case by case basis. Is there anything to suggest this guy is on the verge of gunning people down?

Did you know that the infamous zip tie guy in black tactical gear found the zip ties on the floor inside the capitol and was there with his mother?

So I don't know that anyone was actually coming prepared to capture members of Congress and the VP, but have admittedly not been following it that closely. I don't know what was being sold to the Russians. If it was any sort of dangerous intel, that would be treason and could result in the death penalty. If it was some random memo about a bill under consideration, that would be far less worrisome. Haven't seen any mention of it.

Ted Cruz is always going to do whatever he thinks is best for Ted Cruz. Since he was reelected despite the huge national support for Beto in their race, I think he feels very comfortable in his position.

I don't see it as radically different than attacking a police station or courthouse. In a way it is less egregious to me than destroying a private business, especially a small business that may not even be insured. If my life savings were put into a liquor store and a bunch of morons burned it to the ground, that would be far more devastating to me than a riot at the capitol.

I bet we agree on far more than we disagree on, as nearly everyone does. We tend to focus on our disagreements, because it is boring to discuss the notion that two plus two equals four.

 

Insofar as punishment is a deterrent of illegal behavior, motive is going to influence the efficacy of deterrence and recidivism. If someone is punished for stealing bread because he was starving, he's still probably going to steal bread when he's starving in the future. Someone doing it for kicks might stop after taking a punishment. Likewise, if a rioter storms the capitol because he thinks there is an existential threat to the future of democracy unless he violently overthrows the government, he's not likely to be dissuaded with typical punishments. Somebody storming the capitol to celebrate the Wizards winning the championship probably would be dissuaded. So shouldn't motive matter?

If you have no money, a bail that'll cost you $500 is just as good as no bail at all. You make a distinction without a difference. And, aside from withholding bail from suspects in very serious crimes or people found guilty, they also refuse bail to people who are considered a credible threat of violence or a flight risk. It has not historically been difficult for prosecutors to argue denying minorities bail over such pretexts and a better-safe-than-sorry (for the reputation of the judge) mindset.

Aside from demonstrating his disregard for the law and law enforcement by storming the capitol building, trespassing into Pelosi's private space, writing a taunting message to her, proclaiming things like he's ready to die a violent death to defend his freedoms, arming himself with a stun gun, stuff like that -- aside from that no.

He was finally granted bail, which I think is the right call. I think the state should demonstrate more threat than that. But the dude is a piece of ****. Making flip justifications for his actions, posing for dumb photos, and writing juvenile messages doesn't make him just a dumb yokel messing around. Most people would have a little voice in their heads saying, "That's Pelosi's private office, you can't go rifle through her stuff!" He's willing to go further in his war on democrats than most would dare. So, he got his bail in the end, but gotta say I don't really feel sorry that he had to wrestle with uncaring gears of the justice system. He supported the 'law and order' candidate, and now he gets to see what law and order feels like.

 

No, because deterrence is not the only consideration in determining punishments. If it were, everything should be punished with the death penalty, as it would be the ultimate deterrent. Additionally, riots are nearly always ideological in some form or fashion, and we certainly should not be changing our responses based on the decision of the local authority of which rioters they agree with ideologically. Unfortunately, that appears to be exactly were we find ourselves in some places around the country. If I burn a police car, the punishment should be the same whether I am angry at the police for shooting someone, I am protesting taxation and spending, I hate the combination of the colors black and white on a vehicle, I saw other people doing it and I want to fit in, it's cold outside and a fire would be nice, or any other reason that doesn't amount to legal justification.

Except other people can potentially help you raise bail money. It was done on a mass scale for people arrested at BLM demonstrations and on a micro scale for Kyle Rittenhouse. The distinction is critically important.

I am mostly familiar with my own jurisdiction, but locally when danger to the community or flight risk were at issue, bail was just set at a high amount or conditions were put on the person's release (such as habitual drunk drivers being forbidden from driving).

So just no then? Or did you feel one or more of those was an indicator that he might be on the verge of gunning someone down. If there were a time when he was going to gun people down, wouldn't attacking the Capitol have been the perfect opportunity? If I say, "Give me liberty or give me death." should I be imprisoned?

I agree that him being granted bail was the right call. I think all of his actions seem to indicate he is a dumb yokel messing around. Dumb people are often willing to go further than others would dare, or put another way, "Fools rush in."

 

Doesn't matter if he was with his cousin second removed or if got the zip ties out of trans dimensional porch. (I supposed he just found the tactical gear lying around Congress) He was there with the tools to capture people among people who were saying they were not just going to capture members of government but kill them.

That you think invading a liquor store is more serious than invading the seat of our government pretty much says it all.

 

So the guy people point to as evidence that they were there to capture people because he had zip ties having found the zip ties lying on the floor makes no difference? The "tactical gear" was just clothing, he wasn't calling in artillery. The big bad of the Capitol invasion following him mommy around saying, "Don't vandalize anything, we aren't Antifa." "Don't break this." "Easy, easy, easy, no vandalizing." is irrelevant? To quote President Biden, "Come on, man."

I think destroying someone's livelihood is more serious than sitting in Nancy Pelosi's chair and writing "Hey Pelosi, Bigo was here biotch" on her notepad, yes. What effect does that have on the liquor store owner? What effect does it have on Pelosi/the government? Each individual action should be looked at. Attacking officers is battery on a peace officer. Being in a place without authorization is trespassing. Taking stuff that doesn't belong to you is theft. Intentionally killing people unlawfully is murder. Burning down a building is arson. Etc. Walking around the Capitol without authorization is trespassing (or some similar federal crime, unauthorized access or whatever) even if you are dressed in fatigues, even if you pick up some zip ties off the floor, even if someone else was chanting, "Hang Mike Pence!"

 

You are so full of **** I can smell it through the interwebs.

 

Zip ties got there somehow. Was that just office supplies?

We have a law on the books to make sedition a federal crime. What act do you need to perpetrate for the law to apply? I know you don't want to consider motive, but our laws are written to do so. Intent to overthrow or defy the authority of the United States by force is written into it. So while the physical action might have been trespassing, the intent and effect was to defy the authority of the US to elect its president. Your reductionist lens prevents you from acknowledging the extent of the crime.