Capitol currently in lockdown

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

No. The protestors were trapping elected officials in the building by forming a physical barricade. Even the protestor interviewed in the post says this - they “locked arms” outside the door and that is when the police moved in. This is NOT nonviolent, and they are very lucky that more of them did not get arrested with serious charges. Physically trapping someone in a building is different from striking them, but it is definitely not “nonviolent.” Any protester who claims it was “peaceful civil disobedience” to try to trap a bunch of Senators in a building is just completely deluded or dishonest.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2023/11/16/dnc-protests-hq-washington-dc-ceasefire/

That actually is non-violent.

Also, if that building only has one exit, that's a serious problem.

It’s not nonviolent to trap someone in a building. Blocking movement is a well known tactic abusers use, and it can also be a form of kidnaping under the law.

Do you honestly think you can trap a bunch of Congressmembers in a building with no police response? Maybe that’s what these protestors stupidly thought but there is a big difference between a “die in” in the atrium of a Senate office building, and trying to trap Senators in a building.

It is non-violent to link arms in front of a door. Which darn well better not be the only entrance/exit to the building, because that would be a huge violation of fire codes.

By your definition, a man who pins a woman to the floor or wall and does not allow her to leave with her being uncertain whether she s about to be raped or killed, is non-violent. I'm sorry, but your definition does not agree with the law.

In any event, the discussion is not the issue. The police were not reacting because the action was violent, but because the action was illegal. It is illegal to trap people inside a building and refuse to let them leave. Period. By breaking the law, the protesters were subject to whatever force the police deemed necessary to stop the illegal action. If they were asked to disassemble and leave and they refused, then they were definitely committing criminal actions that needed police response.

I'm sincerely horrified that you think is an analogous situation.

And no, police do not get to use "whatever force they deem necessary" to stop an illegal action.

I'm actually horrified that you don't. You have an extremely unreasonable believe that people you support cannot be violent and cannot commit violent acts that scare others. After 1/6, politicians definitely feel threatened by mobs especially mobs outside of their place of work, who are protestng the work that they are doing. You may think that they were obviously not being violent, but from the victims' perspective, there was no such assurance that the mob was being friendly and would not resort to violence.

The politicians in the building were being illegally detained by a mob and there was definitely a perceived threat whether they intended it or not. Yes, I think that what the mob did was violent, threatening and criminal. And the police did what they needed to do.

Definitely in the class of "do stupid things, win stupid prizes"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

No. The protestors were trapping elected officials in the building by forming a physical barricade. Even the protestor interviewed in the post says this - they “locked arms” outside the door and that is when the police moved in. This is NOT nonviolent, and they are very lucky that more of them did not get arrested with serious charges. Physically trapping someone in a building is different from striking them, but it is definitely not “nonviolent.” Any protester who claims it was “peaceful civil disobedience” to try to trap a bunch of Senators in a building is just completely deluded or dishonest.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2023/11/16/dnc-protests-hq-washington-dc-ceasefire/

That actually is non-violent.

Also, if that building only has one exit, that's a serious problem.

It’s not nonviolent to trap someone in a building. Blocking movement is a well known tactic abusers use, and it can also be a form of kidnaping under the law.

Do you honestly think you can trap a bunch of Congressmembers in a building with no police response? Maybe that’s what these protestors stupidly thought but there is a big difference between a “die in” in the atrium of a Senate office building, and trying to trap Senators in a building.

It is non-violent to link arms in front of a door. Which darn well better not be the only entrance/exit to the building, because that would be a huge violation of fire codes.

By your definition, a man who pins a woman to the floor or wall and does not allow her to leave with her being uncertain whether she s about to be raped or killed, is non-violent. I'm sorry, but your definition does not agree with the law.

In any event, the discussion is not the issue. The police were not reacting because the action was violent, but because the action was illegal. It is illegal to trap people inside a building and refuse to let them leave. Period. By breaking the law, the protesters were subject to whatever force the police deemed necessary to stop the illegal action. If they were asked to disassemble and leave and they refused, then they were definitely committing criminal actions that needed police response.

I'm sincerely horrified that you think is an analogous situation.

And no, police do not get to use "whatever force they deem necessary" to stop an illegal action.

I'm actually horrified that you don't. You have an extremely unreasonable believe that people you support cannot be violent and cannot commit violent acts that scare others. After 1/6, politicians definitely feel threatened by mobs especially mobs outside of their place of work, who are protestng the work that they are doing. You may think that they were obviously not being violent, but from the victims' perspective, there was no such assurance that the mob was being friendly and would not resort to violence.

The politicians in the building were being illegally detained by a mob and there was definitely a perceived threat whether they intended it or not. Yes, I think that what the mob did was violent, threatening and criminal. And the police did what they needed to do.

Definitely in the class of "do stupid things, win stupid prizes"

You think it's the same when someone pins someone else to the floor with their body and when people link arms in front of a building entrance.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

No. The protestors were trapping elected officials in the building by forming a physical barricade. Even the protestor interviewed in the post says this - they “locked arms” outside the door and that is when the police moved in. This is NOT nonviolent, and they are very lucky that more of them did not get arrested with serious charges. Physically trapping someone in a building is different from striking them, but it is definitely not “nonviolent.” Any protester who claims it was “peaceful civil disobedience” to try to trap a bunch of Senators in a building is just completely deluded or dishonest.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2023/11/16/dnc-protests-hq-washington-dc-ceasefire/

That actually is non-violent.

Also, if that building only has one exit, that's a serious problem.

It’s not nonviolent to trap someone in a building. Blocking movement is a well known tactic abusers use, and it can also be a form of kidnaping under the law.

Do you honestly think you can trap a bunch of Congressmembers in a building with no police response? Maybe that’s what these protestors stupidly thought but there is a big difference between a “die in” in the atrium of a Senate office building, and trying to trap Senators in a building.

It is non-violent to link arms in front of a door. Which darn well better not be the only entrance/exit to the building, because that would be a huge violation of fire codes.

By your definition, a man who pins a woman to the floor or wall and does not allow her to leave with her being uncertain whether she s about to be raped or killed, is non-violent. I'm sorry, but your definition does not agree with the law.

In any event, the discussion is not the issue. The police were not reacting because the action was violent, but because the action was illegal. It is illegal to trap people inside a building and refuse to let them leave. Period. By breaking the law, the protesters were subject to whatever force the police deemed necessary to stop the illegal action. If they were asked to disassemble and leave and they refused, then they were definitely committing criminal actions that needed police response.

I'm sincerely horrified that you think is an analogous situation.

And no, police do not get to use "whatever force they deem necessary" to stop an illegal action.

I'm actually horrified that you don't. You have an extremely unreasonable believe that people you support cannot be violent and cannot commit violent acts that scare others. After 1/6, politicians definitely feel threatened by mobs especially mobs outside of their place of work, who are protestng the work that they are doing. You may think that they were obviously not being violent, but from the victims' perspective, there was no such assurance that the mob was being friendly and would not resort to violence.

The politicians in the building were being illegally detained by a mob and there was definitely a perceived threat whether they intended it or not. Yes, I think that what the mob did was violent, threatening and criminal. And the police did what they needed to do.

Definitely in the class of "do stupid things, win stupid prizes"

Agreed. Voice of reason.

Unfortunately, January 6 ruined things for everyone who wants to protest at the Capitol.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:When a country votes in terrorists to run and lead the country and continue to do so for years they are terrorists as well.

Their last elections were 17 years ago, so everyone under the age of 35 definitely did not vote for them or otherwise.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s “non-violent” to trap people and leave them wondering what’s next? It’s not intended to traumatize and control? After what happened on Jan 6?

Leave them wondering what’s next? The protesters were a bunch of left-wing Jewish elite college grads. As a left-wing Jewish graduate of an elite college, albeit one who thinks JVP is wrong about Israel, I can tell you there was no reason to fear what might have come next.

So they think their Harvard degrees protected them from the law? Lol.

No, I (the left-wing Jew) thinks their Harvard degree means you don’t need to worry that they’re going to do anything that physically harms you because they probably can’t.

You think the Capitol police had all of their resumes and thought “oh yeah this is all just innocent stuff”? For that matter you think an Ivy League degree means the person will never engage in political violence? Are you familiar with the Weathermen?

What you really seem to think is that because they are “highly educated” that different rules should apply - they are just cosplaying revolutionaries! Forget that they triggered the evacuation of elected representatives from the building! They’re still just kids who are learning!

No, I don’t think different rules should apply. I don’t think police should hurl ANY protesters down stairs, whatever their backgrounds are.

I also don’t think they’re just kids, I think they’re wrong and not actually helping anything.

But I think they’re harmless physically. What were they gonna do, write an essay at someone?

Do you feel that way about the 1/6 protestors?

This was NOT a peaceful protest. It was a physical threat against elected officials.

Play stupid games ….

No, of course I don’t feel that way about the 1/6 protesters. They were trying to break into a government building and stop an official proceeding (and succeeded, assaulting police in the process). These protesters were outside the building, not a government building, making rhetorical demands, not trying to prevent any specific action that was happening there.

Just because lawmakers and Capitol Police were involved in both situations doesn’t make them the same.

Your version of the facts doesn’t match up against the videos, police statement, or even the protestors own words to the Washington Post. They were physically blocking exit from the building. That is not “peaceful protest.”

As for it not being a government building, that’s the tell that you’re being dishonest. The DNC is literally in the middle of the Capitol complex and often haw elected reps in the building - and in fact was hosting a bunch of them at the time.

It is literally not in the middle of the Capitol complex. It’s a couple of blocks south of the main House office buildings and even farther from the Capitol. I’ve been there.

It’s literally steps away from the House office buildings.

It’s a third of a mile from each of the House office buildings. There’s no way this protest was anywhere near the threat that January 6 was to the normal operations of Congress or to the lawmakers inside the building. Did the protesters try to enter?

I agree they deserved (and sought!) to be arrested, but I’m sure the police could have dispersed them with less force than they did.

did you forget the DNC pipe bomb?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

No. The protestors were trapping elected officials in the building by forming a physical barricade. Even the protestor interviewed in the post says this - they “locked arms” outside the door and that is when the police moved in. This is NOT nonviolent, and they are very lucky that more of them did not get arrested with serious charges. Physically trapping someone in a building is different from striking them, but it is definitely not “nonviolent.” Any protester who claims it was “peaceful civil disobedience” to try to trap a bunch of Senators in a building is just completely deluded or dishonest.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2023/11/16/dnc-protests-hq-washington-dc-ceasefire/

That actually is non-violent.

Also, if that building only has one exit, that's a serious problem.

It’s not nonviolent to trap someone in a building. Blocking movement is a well known tactic abusers use, and it can also be a form of kidnaping under the law.

Do you honestly think you can trap a bunch of Congressmembers in a building with no police response? Maybe that’s what these protestors stupidly thought but there is a big difference between a “die in” in the atrium of a Senate office building, and trying to trap Senators in a building.

It is non-violent to link arms in front of a door. Which darn well better not be the only entrance/exit to the building, because that would be a huge violation of fire codes.

By your definition, a man who pins a woman to the floor or wall and does not allow her to leave with her being uncertain whether she s about to be raped or killed, is non-violent. I'm sorry, but your definition does not agree with the law.

In any event, the discussion is not the issue. The police were not reacting because the action was violent, but because the action was illegal. It is illegal to trap people inside a building and refuse to let them leave. Period. By breaking the law, the protesters were subject to whatever force the police deemed necessary to stop the illegal action. If they were asked to disassemble and leave and they refused, then they were definitely committing criminal actions that needed police response.

I'm sincerely horrified that you think is an analogous situation.

And no, police do not get to use "whatever force they deem necessary" to stop an illegal action.

The analogous situation is a man blocking a woman from leaving the house while shouting at her. And yes, this is considered abuse.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When a country votes in terrorists to run and lead the country and continue to do so for years they are terrorists as well.

Their last elections were 17 years ago, so everyone under the age of 35 definitely did not vote for them or otherwise.

Ok. But what have they done to get rid of Hamas?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Democratic members of Congress are ignoring their constituents to support a genocide. The protesters were tame compared to what they deserve.

There’s only one side advocating genocide here - and they were rioting last night in front of the DNC.

They’re the ones screaming for the elimination of all Jews. That’s genocide.

Some of the protesters last night are Jews. They are not advocating for elimination of themselves.

Actually they are. But they are too stupid to recognize it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

No. The protestors were trapping elected officials in the building by forming a physical barricade. Even the protestor interviewed in the post says this - they “locked arms” outside the door and that is when the police moved in. This is NOT nonviolent, and they are very lucky that more of them did not get arrested with serious charges. Physically trapping someone in a building is different from striking them, but it is definitely not “nonviolent.” Any protester who claims it was “peaceful civil disobedience” to try to trap a bunch of Senators in a building is just completely deluded or dishonest.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2023/11/16/dnc-protests-hq-washington-dc-ceasefire/

That actually is non-violent.

Also, if that building only has one exit, that's a serious problem.

It’s not nonviolent to trap someone in a building. Blocking movement is a well known tactic abusers use, and it can also be a form of kidnaping under the law.

Do you honestly think you can trap a bunch of Congressmembers in a building with no police response? Maybe that’s what these protestors stupidly thought but there is a big difference between a “die in” in the atrium of a Senate office building, and trying to trap Senators in a building.

It is non-violent to link arms in front of a door. Which darn well better not be the only entrance/exit to the building, because that would be a huge violation of fire codes.

By your definition, a man who pins a woman to the floor or wall and does not allow her to leave with her being uncertain whether she s about to be raped or killed, is non-violent. I'm sorry, but your definition does not agree with the law.

In any event, the discussion is not the issue. The police were not reacting because the action was violent, but because the action was illegal. It is illegal to trap people inside a building and refuse to let them leave. Period. By breaking the law, the protesters were subject to whatever force the police deemed necessary to stop the illegal action. If they were asked to disassemble and leave and they refused, then they were definitely committing criminal actions that needed police response.

I'm sincerely horrified that you think is an analogous situation.

And no, police do not get to use "whatever force they deem necessary" to stop an illegal action.

I'm actually horrified that you don't. You have an extremely unreasonable believe that people you support cannot be violent and cannot commit violent acts that scare others. After 1/6, politicians definitely feel threatened by mobs especially mobs outside of their place of work, who are protestng the work that they are doing. You may think that they were obviously not being violent, but from the victims' perspective, there was no such assurance that the mob was being friendly and would not resort to violence.

The politicians in the building were being illegally detained by a mob and there was definitely a perceived threat whether they intended it or not. Yes, I think that what the mob did was violent, threatening and criminal. And the police did what they needed to do.

Definitely in the class of "do stupid things, win stupid prizes"

You think it's the same when someone pins someone else to the floor with their body and when people link arms in front of a building entrance.

Have you ever been targeted by a mob? This was a mob with potentially violent intentions. You think you knew their intentions. You claim innocence on their part and no ill intent. The victims had no such knowledge. For all they knew, someone could shoot through the doors, the doors could have been broken down and they could have been crushed by a rush of people. If you've ever been either targeted or in the middle of a mob, you know that regardless of intent, many people can and do get injured or killed.

So, you have this pristine line in your mind that these people were not going to do that. The people inside of that building have no such line and no such assurance that they aren't going to be like the victims of a stampeding mob or shot by a random gun in the crowd.

I think you are not only naive, but you are willfully ignoring the threat because you support the cause of the mob. But make no mistake, the mob was violent and once they chose to barracade the doors, they were criminally responsible and no longer peaceful.

Grow up. You aren't 12 anymore. You cannot ascribe innocence to people who choose criminal ways of trying to protest. And you should not be protecting them.

[Anonymous]

I really hope you're not a police officer who feels entitled to use whatever force, based on the possibility that somebody who is not currently doing anything might in future do something.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I really hope you're not a police officer who feels entitled to use whatever force, based on the possibility that somebody who is not currently doing anything might in future do something.

They were mobbing the doors, linking arms to block anyone from getting out, and blocking the other doors with dumpsters. This is hardly some Minority Report situation.

[Anonymous]

People who now suddenly feel free to vent their long-standing anti-semitism and share talking points with Iran *want* to be seen as radical. They want to get as close to violence as they can without actually losing their freedom. They want the edgy, “we’re cool enough to support terrorists—whoa!” vibes. Or, hey, I’m cool and counter-cultural enough to be a self-hating Jew.

The problem is their “radical” personas aren’t helping the cause of innocent Gazans. They are not making a ceasefire likelier. They are just giving their own anger a platform and having their thrilling moment. It’s like antifa getting off on their own war games.

Gather a legitimate, sane, pro-peace group and exercise true non-violence and you might actually aid the people who are caught in this mess

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:People who now suddenly feel free to vent their long-standing anti-semitism and share talking points with Iran *want* to be seen as radical. They want to get as close to violence as they can without actually losing their freedom. They want the edgy, “we’re cool enough to support terrorists—whoa!” vibes. Or, hey, I’m cool and counter-cultural enough to be a self-hating Jew.

The problem is their “radical” personas aren’t helping the cause of innocent Gazans. They are not making a ceasefire likelier. They are just giving their own anger a platform and having their thrilling moment. It’s like antifa getting off on their own war games.

Gather a legitimate, sane, pro-peace group and exercise true non-violence and you might actually aid the people who are caught in this mess

+1000. I would like to know how many of these are former antifa “punch a nazi” types.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:People who now suddenly feel free to vent their long-standing anti-semitism and share talking points with Iran *want* to be seen as radical. They want to get as close to violence as they can without actually losing their freedom. They want the edgy, “we’re cool enough to support terrorists—whoa!” vibes. Or, hey, I’m cool and counter-cultural enough to be a self-hating Jew.

The problem is their “radical” personas aren’t helping the cause of innocent Gazans. They are not making a ceasefire likelier. They are just giving their own anger a platform and having their thrilling moment. It’s like antifa getting off on their own war games.

Gather a legitimate, sane, pro-peace group and exercise true non-violence and you might actually aid the people who are caught in this mess

There are plenty of those but no one wants to pay attention to them— it’s much easier to find a nutjob to complain about.

Van Jones asked for less bombing of civilians in Gaza and the crowd chanted “no ceasefire”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I really hope you're not a police officer who feels entitled to use whatever force, based on the possibility that somebody who is not currently doing anything might in future do something.

So, if this had happened at a synagogue, with a mob that surrounded the building, barricaded most doors and then used their bodies to block the main doors, chanted and criticized the Jews that were trapped inside. You think the police should have just stood outside and watched this happened and not intervened? The Jews that were inside the synagogue should feel perfectly safe that the mob chanting anti Jewish criticism should be fine because they were not being violent? And if you were inside the building, you would have assured the others trapped inside that they had nothing to worry about because the protesters outside were not being violent. Right?