A rowdy unarmed (not a single firearm) mob is not an “insurrection”. I’m not condoning what happened, but can we please stop using hyperbolic language?
However, I'm not sure where you got the "opinion" that an insurrection must be carried out with a firearm? You can do a quick Google search for the definition of the term. Here's one from the Cambridge dictionary
> an organized attempt by a group of people to defeat their government and take control of their country, usually by violence
Organized, it says right there. You think that mob was organized? There was no plan
Also, your CNN citation says in the headline that there was a gun found, but then the body of the article contradicts it
> Some of the weapons that were confiscated had been seen being used inside the US Capitol including a baseball bat, a fire extinguisher, a wooden club, a spear, crutches, a flagpole, bear spray, mace, chemical irritants, stolen police shields, a wooden beam, a hockey stick, a stun gun, and knives.
Where're the guns? CNN knows people only read headlines; they're so brazen with their narrative.
After they claimed over and over that Sicknick was killed with a fire extinguisher based on zero evidence for weeks there's no reason to trust the rest of these details in an article from February are true anyway, especially if CNN can't keep the facts straight between the headline and the article body
>On or about January 6, 2021, within the District of Columbia, CHRISTOPHER ALBERTS, did carry and have readily accessible, a firearm, that is, a Taurus G2C semi-automatic handgun, on the United States Capitol Grounds and in any of the Capitol Buildings.
"COUNT ONE
On or about January 6, 2021, within the District of Columbia, CHRISTOPHER
ALBERTS, did carry and have readily accessible, a firearm, that is, a Taurus G2C semi-automatic
handgun, on the United States Capitol Grounds and in any of the Capitol Buildings.
COUNT TWO
On or about January 6, 2021, within the District of Columbia, CHRISTOPHER
ALBERTS, did unlawfully and knowingly enter and remain in the United States Capitol and
grounds, a restricted building and grounds, without lawful authority to do so."
See my other comment, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26734738. Meets the definition of insurrection, and there were many weapons present, incuding the ones you acknowledged, several unlicensed guns, and Molotovs.
How many people were engaged in activities that fit the definition of “insurrection” and how many have been charged with more than just trespassing? How many with conspiracy? If that number is nearly zero, out of hundreds who entered the Capitol grounds, who in turn were a small fraction of the tens of thousands in DC that day to support Trump, how can all of it and all these participants be described in such extreme terms? That seems like a false description.
> Although prosecutors have loaded up their charging documents with language about the existential threat of the insurrection to the republic, the actions of many of the individual rioters often boiled down to trespassing. And judges have wrestled with how aggressively to lump those cases in with those of the more sinister suspects.
> “My bet is a lot of these cases will get resolved and probably without prison time or jail time,” said Erica Hashimoto, a former federal public defender who is now a law professor at Georgetown. "One of the core values of this country is that we can protest if we disagree with our government. Of course, some protests involve criminal acts, but as long as the people who are trying to express their view do not engage in violence, misdemeanors may be more appropriate than felonies.”
> The prospect of dozens of Jan. 6 rioters cutting deals for minor sentences could be hard to explain for the Biden administration, which has characterized the Capitol Hill mob as a uniquely dangerous threat.
It looks like your account has been using HN primarily for political and ideological battle. We ban accounts that do that, regardless of what they're battling for or against. There's plenty more explanation at https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comme..., but the short version is that it leads to tedious, predictable, and nasty threads that destroy the curious conversation HN is supposed to exist for.
I never said every single person in the crowd was an insurrectionist.
They don't need to be. Hundreds of people physically stormed the Capitol with the explicit intention of overturning a democratic election. What else would you call that but insurrection?
If they failed, it doesn't mean they weren't insurrectionists. It just means they were incompetent insurrectionists. It's not a good look to downplay crime and violence just because the people doing it voted the same way you did.
> Hundreds of people physically stormed the Capitol with the explicit intention of overturning a democratic election. What else would you call that but insurrection?
I would call it a protest or a riot. The vast majority were protesting against the legitimacy of the election results or simply there to rally for their candidate, both of which are legally allowed. That's not "overturning a democratic election" - that's drawing attention to the problem and calling for investigations. The fact that a few people within that crowd may have conspired to do something more shouldn't change the intent of the majority who were there. This is also why almost no one who entered the capitol will face any jail time or charges beyond trespassing.
Keep in mind, there have been numerous past protests at the Capitol in the last decade, mostly from the political left. To claim that this one is somehow worse does not seem fair. Likewise, Democrats have challenged election results numerous times - including the 2000, 2004, and 2016 presidential elections. Even right now, during this very election cycle, there is a case where Democrats are challenging election results for a House seat, with Pelosi's support (https://time.com/5950292/iowa-congress-election-rita-hart/).
> It's not a good look to downplay crime and violence just because the people doing it voted the same way you did.
I'm not downplaying anything, but rather describing things as they are. I feel your use of the word "insurrection" is exaggerating things. The only people using the word "insurrection" are activists and biased journalists - not our justice system. How many people have been charged or convicted for "insurrection"? How does that number compare to the number of people at the capitol?
We aren't talking about "the vast majority." I already said this. We're talking about the hundreds of people who physically stormed the Capitol with the explicit intention of overturning a democratic election. The fact that there were thousands of peaceful protesters right outside doesn't erase the hundreds of insurrectionists.
> Keep in mind, there have been numerous past protests at the Capitol in the last decade, mostly from the political left. To claim that this one is somehow worse does not seem fair. Likewise, Democrats have challenged election results numerous times - including the 2000, 2004, and 2016 presidential elections. Even right now, during this very election cycle, there is a case where Democrats are challenging election results for a House seat, with Pelosi's support
You're saying that public protests and legally challenging an election in court are the same thing as smashing your way into the Capitol building, attacking cops, beating a policeman to death, and publicly bragging about your plans to murder politicians.
Everything I just said is well-documented with multiple live videos, mostly taken by the people doing it. You can find them in just a few minutes on Google. ("Dawn Bancroft", for example.)
You're consistently talking about what you think should have happened and ignoring the facts of what actually did happen. I don't think there's any further productive discussion to be had here.
Upon watching the evidence and trial, it's clear it was organized. They had Save the Dates months ahead (at the exact time the election was being certified) with continued rhetoric that the election was stolen and that they had to march to the Capitol and fight.
Literally everything you're describing would be identical to that of a preplanned protest. The implication of "organization" is that of a plan for "insurrection", for which there is no proof of premeditation.
> with continued rhetoric that the election was stolen and that they had to march to the Capitol and fight.
None of which are proof of a planned insurrection. Of all the meanings you only picked the ones that fitted your predetermined conclusion.
Believing the "election was stolen" is an opinion that comes up every elections from both sides.
"Marching" most often means marches, which is a peaceful demonstration in itself, and the Capitol is not just the Capitol building, it's also the Capitol Grounds and the surrounding areas.
Fighting is a term often used colloquial non-violent way, as in "fight cancer" and "fighting for civil rights".
This is just moving the goal posts (not to mention plenty of weapons and threats were involved).
In all seriousness, at what point would you call something an insurrection?
Go ahead and define it now, that way in the future when "X" happens you can't reply with "X is bad, but it's not an insurrection". I'm being completely serious, please define insurrection, in your terms, so that in the future I can identify it accurately.
I feel like this has to be the first thing we do with folks who constantly say "X isn't Y". Okay, define how something gets classified as Y.
You asked a well-considered question and got a stupid response. What a waste.
My definition would be rioting, specifically using escalating violence until success, to attempt to coerce a system into passing laws that it would not otherwise have passed or wanted to pass (up to and including deposing the leader).
I feel like my view loosely fits the Capitol riot, heavily fits the BLM riots, and heavily fits the 1776 insurrection.
Gotcha, I do appreciate you taking the time to reply seriously. My issue with your definition is that means the only thing you'll deem an insurrection is a revolution (basically a successful insurrection).
I think the BLM protests (funny these are always deemed riots by certain folk, reminds me of how the military uses terminology to dehumanize, such as the word target) escalated to insurrection in one scenario that I know of, namely the CHAZ incident. Ultimately, that insurrection failed, since nothing significant changed.
I would argue folks, for some reason, only deem things X when it's too late. That goes for genocide, insurrection (which is done for many reasons along the entire political and human spectrum), slavery, etc.
The BLM protests did at times turn to riots. I don't say that to dehumanize anyone but there was violence and destruction. Mainly because the cause was highjacked by groups that love to break out into violence, such as Antifa.
If we can't call out such groups and recognize the damage they do, what happens to the next protest?
I'm not sure what you mean, where am I unwilling to call out a group?
The comment said BLM riots, which did not happen. In your own words, you are close to realizing why I say it's dehumanizing and meant to impart a meaning that isn't true.
You said: "Mainly because the cause was highjacked by groups that love to break out into violence..."
In other words, you actually do realize they aren't BLM riots. They were BLM protests, that were highjacked by groups outside BLM to result in riots.
So stop conflating riots at a BLM protest with BLM riots. They are not the same thing, and by doing that you attempt to de-legitimize the BLM movement.
I'm honesty not sure why you think I'm not willing to call a riot a riot. I'm just not willing to attribute the riot to BLM, since it doesn't align with their values or leadership whatsoever.
I call riots that happened at BLM protests "BLM riots".
They are not the same thing.
The reason they kept happening is the media, not you, were no willing to call out the violence. They were not willing to out of a fear that they would appear to be disagreeing with the cause.
Then you're willfully engaging in disinformation and dishonesty. If we can't agree to call things what they are, how can we hope to have any sort of discussion?
You have to know that "BLM riots" imparts to those around you a far different message than "riots that broke out at BLM protests". And in an age where folks don't look into things for themselves and rely on trusting others, someone other than me is likely to assume you mean that "BLM was rioting". That's why wording / word choice are so important.
I think the media _did_ call out the violence though, in fact I would say they focused more on that than they did the actual BLM protests (a majority were boring affairs, just folks marching and speaking). The media is more than willing to try and maintain the status quo by focusing on anything but the actual protests, and they do so by focusing on the violence more than anything else. I'm not sure how you came to the exact opposite conclusion.
I feel like they do this to any cause, not just BLM. Doesn't matter if it's a left leaning issue, a right leaning issue, or an issue supported by the majority of Americans. They portray it in whatever way maintains the status quo.
The footage of the people that actually got into the Senate seems to disprove this painting of the events. I didn't see anyone attempting to abolish the government or whatever. Rather, it was a few people taking pictures and standing around. I dont support them but I'm not going to lie about the footage and claim it was anything close to an unarmed insurrection
A mob occupying private land, for weeks (months?), and declaring autonomy under a radical, explicitly and overtly anti-american, revolutionary flag, threatening and ejecting any approaching officials, including medical services, with violence. Particularly when this mob is affiliated with a decentralized network throughout the united states with similar goals.
Storming the capitol with weapons, having leaders with knowledge of the layout, and actually spilling blood. The picture of the right in this country by media is generally a caricature of an inbred, uneducated southern hick, so it's easy to pretend that they planned for a serious coup and we're just completely incompetent. But the lack of weapons in any significant quantity, or their use, or even their brandishing in the capitol, suggests that there were never any serious plans for a coup or even for violence.
The fact that "insurrectionists" came within 5 feet of the entrance to the chamber with the politicians they were allegedly targetting and obliviously walked past it more likely shows that there was no serious preparation, given that the layout is easily searchable online.
This is manufactured hysteria by the media, for political goals. It comes from the same place as this twitch policy - we are in the midst of a dirty culture war.
Everyone knows that if you reside at the podium for 10 seconds uninterrupted, you become the President of the Senate and can issue any rules you want.
We're just lucky they didn't get the Gavel of Power too!
Or.. in the real world, we understand how the US political system works, realize there was no real "insurrection," and we rightly call it a bunch of jackasses trespassing.
I appreciate your perspective, but would argue you are overestimating the stability of our system. Also its not like those "jackasses" came out of nowhere... they were part of a protest organized by the sitting President to protest... the outcome of a typical election.
Oh come on. You have to keep your head pretty deep in the sand to think this was just tourists wandering through the Capitol. They killed a police officer and were chanting that they wanted to kill the VP and Speaker of the House. They flew a confederate flag inside the Capitol. Stop making excuses for traitors.
I watched the whole trial, it's pretty hard to excuse. Even GOP minority senate leader agreed he was guilty of inciting insurrection (despite voting not to convict on a technicality he created). Sorry if it doesn't match up with your worldview.
"Unarmed" is definitely false, per the other comments: the FBI confiscated "a baseball bat, a fire extinguisher, a wooden club, a spear, crutches, a flagpole, bear spray, mace, chemical irritants, stolen police shields, a wooden beam, a hockey stick, a stun gun, and knives."
But several people seem to be arguing that only firearms count. In that case: Christopher Alberts was arrested with a handgun and charged with unlawful possession of a firearm on Capitol grounds. Grant Moore was found an with unlicensed gun in his vehicle near the Capitol; Lonnie Leroy Coffman, the same, except it was multiple guns and 11 Molotov cocktails. (Source for all: https://www.usatoday.com/storytelling/capitol-riot-mob-arres...)
We can all be thankful he didn't use them, but a person who goes to a protest with Molotovs does not have personal defense in mind.
One more for future reference: Cleveland Meredith apparently arrived too late for the riot, but was arrested the day after with two unregistered guns after threatening to "put a bullet in [Pelosi's] noggin on live TV.”
