Reply to was 1/6 an insurrection and are we in the throes of a civil war?

Forum Index » Political Discussion

Reply to "was 1/6 an insurrection and are we in the throes of a civil war?"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]1/6 was the redneck reverse of a BLM protest. And their savior Trump hasn't even tried to help any of his minions who got nto trouble. [/quote]
No, it was way more serious than that.  Sure some of the people there were just standard meal team six afficianados but others went much further.  They were specifically trying to stop the electoral count and overthrow the election.  It was straight up an attempted coup.[/quote]

So we had an insurrection/revolution where a bunch of gun owners left their firearms at home?  Is that how you’re seeing this?[/quote]
What you’re seeing is uninformed and incorrect.
https://www.npr.org/2021/03/19/977879589/yes-capitol-rioters-were-armed-here-are-the-weapons-prosecutors-say-they-used[/quote]

You’re evading the issue. Is your position that we had an insurrection/revolution where a bunch of GUN OWNERS left their FIREARMS at home?

The NPR article details pepper spray, stun guns and baseball bats which is very consistent with some of the left riots we’ve seen, particularly in the Pacific Northwest. [/quote]
There were plenty who actually had guns there.
https://nypost.com/2022/12/23/capitol-riot-report-details-weapons-toted-by-28k-strong-trump-mob/[/quote]

“Plenty”?  Five firearms documented in the article, none at the Capitol, out of 28,000 people there that day.  My guess is the guys and gals who were armed with firearms knew to stay out of the cap building because most responsible gun owners are exceedingly careful about where they take their firearms.

This has to be the first revolution in history where a bunch of gun owners left their guns at home. [/quote]

You're right. This could be the first revolution in modern history where guns where left at home. It is what it is. Any other thoughts back on topic?[/quote]

Most reasonable people in a nonpartisan context would say if the gun owners leave their firearms at home, it wasn’t an insurrection/revolution. It was a riot.

Be careful about the standards you set. E.g., protestors storming the senate during the confirmation hearings of a SCOTUS nominee. [/quote]

bOtH sIDeS  :roll:

(IOW not the same)[/quote]

It’s not “both sides”. I’d be equally appalled at trespassing and interruption of government proceedings during the BK hearings  being stretched into insurrection/revolution charges. I’d feel the same way about the attacks on the federal courthouse in Portland. But believe me that it wouldn’t take many changes to the indictments in the Jan 6 cases to be applied to the people trying to stop the BK confirmation hearings. [/quote]

Except for that whole trying to overthrow the election part.  It's kind of a big distinction.[/quote]

Not if you expect equal justice under the law.  You’re kinda proving the allegation that this is political.

The law doesn’t say:  it is illegal to interrupt government proceedings to prevent an electoral count but it is okay to interrupt BK confirmation hearings.

The law doesn’t say: it is illegal to trespass and remain in the capitol building to stop and electoral count but it is legal to trespass and remain in the capital to prevent/protest BK hearings.

Again, this isn’t a defense of the J6 rioters. But your distinctions only matter if you bring politics into it. 
 [/quote]

This. [/quote]

Not, not really "this", because the PP was factually incorrect about the various laws that do, and do not apply to these different circumstances.[/quote]
+1 Just at its most basic level, the people at the hearings had been allowed into the Capitol and cleared by security. No one on January 6 had because the Capitol was closed to the public due to Covid.[/quote]

I’d love to know which laws I’m wrong about.  Prosecutorial discretion is a real thing. But political legitimacy of any government rests on the just treatment of the minority party. And that’s based on equal justice for all.

On the BK hearings, your comment is revisionist BS. There were at least 225 arrests at the BK senate confirmation hearings.  I remember that very clearly.  Some were arrested for blocking physical spaces and others for outbursts in the hearing room. 
[b]
By elements of the crimes, the BK protestors could have been charged the same as about 75% of those charged for the J6 riots.[/b] But I think every single one paid a fine and moved on with their life.  Again, prosecutorial discretion is real, but if either party truly wishes to govern in this country, then equal justice under the law has to mean something.[/quote]

No, they couldn't Facts and laws matter. The BK people were prostesting and by your own admission, were arrested. The J6 people were literally staging a coup. It wasn't "riots" it was a freaking coup attempt. Hence the laws they are being charged under are related to disrupting a consitutional action, not just "a protest"[/quote]

Facts and laws do matter. And you need to read the thread.

Roughly 1150 people have been arrested and charged for J6.

15 face insurrection/revolt charges (seditious conspiracy). A little over 1%.

Approx 295 have faced violence charges but not seditious conspiracy charges (assault, resisting arrest, violence in government building). About 25%.

The balance have faced disorderly conduct type charges, categorized as obstruction of an official proceeding, trespassing or remaining in a restricted government area, etc.  This is about 75% of the people charged. When I say the BK protestors are in family with this 75% group, that’s what I mean.  But they were given citations, paid fines and moved on with their lives.

Again, less than 2% of J6 rioters are facing insurrection/revolt/coup charges.  So, no, I don’t accept that beyond the 15 people charged with seditious conspiracy that this was a coup attempt. It was a riot for the overwhelming majority of people there and DOJ’s charges reflect that reality. Otherwise, DOJ is letting over 1100 people off easy. 
[/quote] 
Hypothetical. Let’s say you have a weird mole. Let’s say that it’s malignant melanoma. That’s [i]way[/i] less than 2% of your body, so that’s not a big deal, right? Do you have cancer or not if you just have a really small cancer? Should we globally say “Generic Republican Traitor Supporter does not have cancer,” or should we say you do?

If we say you do [i]not[/i] have cancer, you get to move forward with your life as normal and you will not be given treatment targeting the malignant cells, but if you do say you have cancer you can get that excised and maybe a course of chemo and some scans to make sure it’s not more than just that one tiny weird mole.

Do you see where I’m going or is this way too confusing for a maga?[/quote]

I see that you don’t understand how the law works. I see that you don’t understand how to make a proper analogy. I see that you don’t understand how frame an argument.  And, FWIW, I suspect that you don’t really understand cancer either.

FTR, not a maga. Just someone that finds this whole thing super weird.  [/quote]

DP...  I don't think the PP's commentary is specifically about how the law works - but it IS a very apt analogy of what is wrong with today's GOP.  It has within it a malignant melanoma that keeps on growing yet the GOP refuses to accept the diagnosis and refuses to treat it.[/quote]

So this is about politics after all?  I said three or four pages back that nothing short of the legitimacy of our government is at stake here if this even has the whiff of politics.  Here’s a comparison for you:  using the state apparatus to hammer the political opposition because it won’t deal with its problems in the way YOU want is straight out of the authoritarian handbook, in particular the Latin American variety.

I want to be exceedingly clear that I believe the overwhelming majority these prosecutions meets the letter of the law for the crimes charged. I only equivocate because I haven’t done a deep dive on every case. But man-oh-man are we playing with fire here and nobody on the side in power seems to care. [/quote]

I don’t think it’s about politics, but the GOP is defending and making excuses for criminals. They’re trying to make criminals out to be victims. That is dangerous. Wanting to excuse and not prosecute people who broke the law, but have similar political beliefs, is straight up corruption. [/quote]

It’s not about prosecution, it’s about equal treatment and similar sentences. One judge gave a man who set a fire that killed the father of five children only ten years, and gave a little speech about leniency in this case because it was during the George Floyd protests. Some of the j6 protesters were given much longer sentences for lesser crimes, and let’s face it, it’s because of political reasons.[/quote]

Name those Jan 6th perpetrators ghat got more than 10 years.  You are lying.

It's neither her nor there but cop city protestors have gotten felony murder charges.  As far as I am aware not a single Jan 6th defendent has been charged with felony murser despite all of them being eligible.[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics