This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
SW-User
It really depends. Those who attended the protest that day fall into 1 of 3 categories, in my opinion.
1. Those who genuinely just wanted to protest peacefully and did so. These people probably made the majority
2. Those who had no intention of storming the Capitol, but got swept up in the moment and did so anyway. Some of these people were more inclined to become violent, whilst others were probably bemused and went along with whatever the crowd was doing
3. Those who had planned days or weeks prior to storm the Capitol, some with the express purpose of taking hostages (i.e. Pence or Pelosi) in some vein attempt to change the election outcome. A good example were the people dressed in militia gear with handcuffs, baseball bats, riot gear, mace etc. It was probably this category of people who incited a lot of the violence that led to the building being stormed.
If all a person did was walk with the crowd into the Capitol building, hang about and then leave when police regained control - probably not worth much time. However, if there's video evidence of a person attacking police, stealing riot gear, breaking federal property etc. yeah, throw the book at them.
And the Proud Boys who dressed as militia, were communicating via radio and assigning tasks to break into the building and take hostages - those guys need the full extent of the law.
1. Those who genuinely just wanted to protest peacefully and did so. These people probably made the majority
2. Those who had no intention of storming the Capitol, but got swept up in the moment and did so anyway. Some of these people were more inclined to become violent, whilst others were probably bemused and went along with whatever the crowd was doing
3. Those who had planned days or weeks prior to storm the Capitol, some with the express purpose of taking hostages (i.e. Pence or Pelosi) in some vein attempt to change the election outcome. A good example were the people dressed in militia gear with handcuffs, baseball bats, riot gear, mace etc. It was probably this category of people who incited a lot of the violence that led to the building being stormed.
If all a person did was walk with the crowd into the Capitol building, hang about and then leave when police regained control - probably not worth much time. However, if there's video evidence of a person attacking police, stealing riot gear, breaking federal property etc. yeah, throw the book at them.
And the Proud Boys who dressed as militia, were communicating via radio and assigning tasks to break into the building and take hostages - those guys need the full extent of the law.
LeopoldBloom · M
@SW-User Whoever made the decision to not have adequate protection when it was known for weeks that there would be a large demonstration, needs to be held accountable. Same for whoever refused to send in reinforcements the moment the rioters breached the entrances. If any of this is traced back to Trump, the only appropriate punishment is the firing squad. Most of those Confederate fuckers never swore an oath to defend the Constitution, but he did, and it applies, even if he wasn't paying attention at the time.
pianoplayingsteve · 31-35, M
Do you have video of the proud boys doing that?@SW-User
SW-User
@LeopoldBloom We know some of the people who hold responsibility. For instance, Mayor Bowser didn't want a large National Guard presence in advance as she thought it would send the wrong message to the protestors. There were 340 members of the D.C. National Guard there that day, but their involvement was limited to traffic management. Hence the delay in getting extra National Guard members in place.
@pianoplayingsteve Yep. The New York Times released a fantastic video analysis in July that goes into detail on who the key players were that day and what lead to the storming of the Capitol. At every turn, it's a Proud Boy leading the way - they planned to have members at certain points around the building in an attempt to gain access to the building. Many have been arrested, and the filings detail pre-fundraising for protective gear and communicative equipment, amongst many other charges.
In short - they weren't there to peacefully protest that day. In fact many didn't even bother attending Trump's rally.
@pianoplayingsteve Yep. The New York Times released a fantastic video analysis in July that goes into detail on who the key players were that day and what lead to the storming of the Capitol. At every turn, it's a Proud Boy leading the way - they planned to have members at certain points around the building in an attempt to gain access to the building. Many have been arrested, and the filings detail pre-fundraising for protective gear and communicative equipment, amongst many other charges.
In short - they weren't there to peacefully protest that day. In fact many didn't even bother attending Trump's rally.
LeopoldBloom · M
@SW-User The real crime is not cultivating informants or infiltrating those groups. The FBI has certainly done that in the past. It's not like the Proud Boys suddenly arose out of nowhere and there wasn't time to infiltrate them. But it's more likely that the Trump Administration did have advance notice, and either chose to not act on it, or even worked with the right wing gangs to make them as effective as possible. The Portland police department has been caught coordinating with the Proud Boys on several occasions. After the testimony yesterday from the officers who resisted the rioters, it will be interesting to hear the explanation from the officers who let them in.
SW-User
@LeopoldBloom [quote] Trump Administration did have advance notice[/quote] It was certainly Trump's intention for something like that to happen, no doubt. His actions speak volumes that day. For instance, when he was told that Pence had been evacuated and was only moments away from rioters, Trumps response wasn't to call for peace, but to instead Tweet that Pence was a coward. That's going to spur these psycho's on.
[quote] the officers who let them in.[/quote]
It depends on which officers. There were those who were told to let protestors through and abandon their post, as they were outnumbered/overpowered, and protestors had breached behind them anyway.
But then there are other scenarios which look totally suspect. police taking selfies with rioters? Seemingly opening doors and allowing them in? I'm guessing poor training, poor judgement, lack of experience. But you're right, it'll be interesting to hear their thought processes.
[quote] the officers who let them in.[/quote]
It depends on which officers. There were those who were told to let protestors through and abandon their post, as they were outnumbered/overpowered, and protestors had breached behind them anyway.
But then there are other scenarios which look totally suspect. police taking selfies with rioters? Seemingly opening doors and allowing them in? I'm guessing poor training, poor judgement, lack of experience. But you're right, it'll be interesting to hear their thought processes.
LeopoldBloom · M
@SW-User It's a big building, and events were different depending on where you were. Some officers let the rioters in and made kissy-face with them, while others resisted as they were supposed to. One outcome of these hearings will have to be protocols for purging federal law enforcement of people who are not committed to protecting and preserving our federal government. They can get a job in private industry if they don't like Uncle Sam.
AthrillatheHunt · 51-55, M
@SW-User I think your 3 categories could be applied to almost any protest or demonstration. I like how you think.