A few thoughts about January 6, 2021

Revnak

We must imagine Sisyphus horny
Legacy
May 25, 2020
2,944
3,099
118
Country
USA

Asita

Answer Hazy, Ask Again Later
Legacy
Jun 15, 2011
3,198
1,038
118
Country
USA
Gender
Male
Maybe the trespassers thought they simply engaged in a peaceful protest? Some are claiming they were invited into the capital building. I think they'd be guilty of trespass whether they knew they were or not. They'd certainly have to pay for any damages caused by the trespass, whether intentional or not.
It was always virtually inevitable that they'd claim as much, but that in itself only holds as much weight as any other plea of not guilty. While it is true that most people who are not guilty will say as much, so too will most people who are guilty say some variation of the same. When there is no reasonable defense that you were uninvolved with a criminal act, the next defense is typically to try and mitigate culpability, often by arguing that the defendant had a reasonable belief that their actions were somehow permissible. But claiming that they thought they were allowed amounts to very little unless they can demonstrate that a reasonable third party would have shared that belief. And frankly, in this particular case, that argument runs into more than a few contradictions, such as the construction of a rudimentary gallows outside Capitol Hill coupled with the mob having a rallying cry about hanging the politicians ("Hang Mike Pence" getting the most press) they were marching on. Then there's the rioters that came with zip-ties and other tools indicating an intent to - at minimum - kidnap those same politicians they were literally breaking down doors to try and force their way to, and the ones that came with guns, machetes, crossbows, and Molotov cocktails. A reasonable third party would not look at that and assume that the group had peaceful intentions.

And then it comes to actual violent actions there's also the matter of them coming into direct conflict with, assaulting and overwhelming the police (138 of which were injured), the fact that Congress ended up being evacuated for its safety, and the fact that they planted pipe bombs in several offices. And you want to spin that as nothing more severe than trespassing? Heck, in the immediate aftermath, even the likes of Mitch McConnell were quick to condemn it as a failed insurrection, and the FBI was equally quick to characterize it as an act of domestic terrorism. The immediate domestic response was bipartisan condemnation of what amounted to an inexcusable and undemocratic effort to overturn the election.

To put extremely mildly, in light of everything that happened, to argue that they thought they were engaged in peaceful protest is one hell of an uphill battle that doesn't really hold up to even perfunctory scrutiny. That defense pretty much went out the window by the time they put up the gallows and started chanting that the politicians they were marching on should be hung, at which point they were quite literally acting as a lynch mob and sacrificed any right to the assumption that they were speaking figuratively.

To veer to analogy for a moment, if I said you deserved to be shot and pointed a loaded gun at you, you'd have me dead to rights on assault with a deadly weapon, regardless of whether or not I ever pulled the trigger. I could (and inevitably would, as barring a good plea deal it's smarter than outright admitting to attempted murder) claim that I never intended to pull that trigger. But frankly, the simple fact that I'd make such a plea means very little. After all, that kind of talk is cheap and my actions conveyed quite the opposite. I couldn't just say that I was never serious and expect the jury to just buy it, ignoring all the evidence suggesting otherwise in favor of simply taking me at my word, and thereby excuse me of criminal wrongdoing. Hell, even if they did believe I had no intent of following through, it would not change the fact that I threatened you with a deadly weapon, which is still very much a criminal offense which could land me in prison for a good decade. Or to use a more historical example, when they caught Guy Fawkes standing with a slow match over 36 barrels of gunpowder, the Gunpowder Plotters did not get to plea that they had committed no actual crimes on the grounds that Parliament remained conspicuously unexploded, much less that said powder kegs should not constitute evidence of intent to blow it up.

So too is it here. They don't get to chant about hanging the politicians on the gallows they built and were breaking down doors to get to, and then turn around and claim they totally weren't serious about it when they get taken to task for it. That's functionally little more than a variation of the Sideshow Bob Defense, using the failure of a criminal endeavor to argue that that same endeavor was never attempted. "Heads I win, Tails doesn't count as flipping the coin", so to speak.

And quite frankly, the argument of ignorance, of believing that the lynch mob they were marching with - one that constructed a gallows and literally kept shouting its intent to use it on the people they were marching on - did not have violent intent would already be an uphill battle, but - as touched on before - that's not where the story ends. It's strained before we even take into account the 138 police officers they injured, the weapons and kidnapping tools they brought, etc. Never mind that on top of all that, we're talking about a case wherein a large group of people stormed the Capitol and used force with the explicit aim of trying to prevent Congress from certifying the election results, practically a slam dunk for charges of Seditious Conspiracy. We've similarly got them dead to rights on entering the floors of Congress with force/violence (40 USC 5104(e)) with intent to disrupt the orderly conduct of official business, assault on federal officers (18 USC 1114), and possession of firearms and dangerous weapons on federal facilities (18 USC 930), to name but a few examples.

More importantly, however, I think you need to take a step back and consider how/why you're coming to suggest this. This was literally a case where you found out that your initial position was ill-researched and responded to that by suggesting "well, maybe instead...", immediately pivoting to the next closest position to your initial preconception. "Oh, so we can't dismiss the charges out of hand because I misunderstood legal impossibility? Well then, maybe the blame that we can't dismiss out of hand is really not on the accused but instead the political party we share mutual enmity with!"

But let's go a bit more in-depth on that. Your argument here wasn't based in observed data, it was pure spitballing in hopes of finding some explanation - any explanation - that would exculpate the rioters seemingly out of pure tribalism; that because the rioters were 'on the right', any 'correct' answer must be one that somehow results in them being the good guys and the 'left' the bad guys. We see this in everything from how you've been religiously downplaying the storming of the Capitol as simple trespassing, to the "what ifs" you're spinning seemingly without having done any research into the facts of the case, and your subsequent attempts to paint this as either entrapment or some shade of false-flag operation based around the...let's be generous and call it a questionable assertion that Democrats somehow made security deliberately lax, and that therefore Trump's base - who, even under this premise, would have no knowledge of that - storming the Capitol must have somehow been a deliberate ploy by the Democrats and thus the latter rather than the former must be culpable for the storming of the Capitol.

You went from "it wasn't a big deal" to "well shouldn't the major crime they tried to commit be considered impossible and therefore the defendants blameless", and then to "well, the Democrats must have tricked them into doing it!", and then went back to "they couldn't have committed a crime!" That pattern is a big red flag indicating that you aren't drawing conclusions from the data, but are instead throwing shit at the wall hoping that something will stick that matches your preconceptions about the inherent morality of 'your team' and the 'other team'.

Please gorf, stop letting partisan editorials tell you what to think and start doing some independent research.
 

Bartholomew

Elite Member
Aug 8, 2021
100
43
33

Asita

Answer Hazy, Ask Again Later
Legacy
Jun 15, 2011
3,198
1,038
118
Country
USA
Gender
Male
That does not remotely imply what you claim it does. If you apply more than two seconds of thought to it and some critical reading skills, you'd notice that the actual statement is incredibly narrow, pointing to a lack of coordination and planning, not lack of intent or criminality. One does not in any way imply the other. Premeditation and competent organization is not a prerequisite for criminal actions. If it was, then the concept of a crime of passion would not exist.
 

Revnak

We must imagine Sisyphus horny
Legacy
May 25, 2020
2,944
3,099
118
Country
USA

Bartholomew

Elite Member
Aug 8, 2021
100
43
33
That does not remotely imply what you claim it does. If you apply more than two seconds of thought to it and some critical reading skills, you'd notice that the actual statement is incredibly narrow, pointing to a lack of coordination and planning, not lack of intent or criminality. One does not in any way imply the other. Premeditation and competent organization is not a prerequisite for criminal actions. If it was, then the concept of a crime of passion would not exist.
If there was no plan, no premeditation, and the trespassers didn't know what they'd do once they got inside, then I don't see how you can claim that they had any "explicit aims".

The Reuters article also says "But so far prosecutors have steered clear of more serious, politically-loaded charges that the sources said had been initially discussed by prosecutors, such as seditious conspiracy or racketeering." I think you said something about seditious conspiracy being a slam dunk?

I'm going to side with the prosecution on this one. They would know better than you or I would. If you have knowledge that they don't, you should contact them. Try not to insult them like you did me, though, or else they'll probably just ignore you.
 

BrawlMan

Lover of beat'em ups.
Legacy
Mar 10, 2016
26,690
11,192
118
Detroit, Michigan
Country
United States of America
Gender
Male
That article is full of shit and you know it. If you actually believe The Hill or some other articles that support the rioters/terrorists/Trump supporters, enables them, and tries to be "neutral", then it says a lot about you. It's pretty clear you're more than happy to cry for racists terrorists, yet not their victims. Whatever "sympathies" you do have for the victim is passive aggressive at best, and fake empathy at worst. This is not a "both sides" are the problem situation. You want to believe there was no official coordination, despite plenty of evidence, multiplied by millions.


https://www.newsweek.com/infowars-host-owen-shroyer-faces-charges-related-capitol-riots-1621711


 
  • Like
Reactions: XsjadoBlayde

Bartholomew

Elite Member
Aug 8, 2021
100
43
33
You want to believe there was no official coordination, despite plenty of evidence, multiplied by millions.
The FBI seems to disagree.

"The FBI has found little evidence at this point to suggest that the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol was largely coordinated by supporters of former President Trump or right-wing groups, according to a Reuters report. "
 

Asita

Answer Hazy, Ask Again Later
Legacy
Jun 15, 2011
3,198
1,038
118
Country
USA
Gender
Male
If there was no plan, no premeditation, and the trespassers didn't know what they'd do once they got inside, then I don't see how you can claim that they had any "explicit aims".
And what, pray tell, is it that you are positing as an alternate hypothesis for that big group that came from the Trump rally wherein he told them that they needed to fight like hell to stop Congress in general and Mike Pence specifically from certifying the election results?

The Reuters article also says "But so far prosecutors have steered clear of more serious, politically-loaded charges that the sources said had been initially discussed by prosecutors, such as seditious conspiracy or racketeering." I think you said something about seditious conspiracy being a slam dunk?

I'm going to side with the prosecution on this one. They would know better than you or I would. If you have knowledge that they don't, you should contact them. Try not to insult them like you did me, though, or else they'll probably just ignore you.
Ok, let me stop you there. You aren't "siding with the prosecution" on this. You're making a cavalcade of inferences about their case based entirely on what a news outlet said about the charges being levied. And again, that doesn't imply what you evidently want it to. For starters, it's quite common for the arrests and first charges levied against defendants to be simple and self-evident, as those can be introduced immediately, while more serious charges first have to be brought before a grand jury. As consequence, we would expect that early charges would seem relatively minor with more serious charges being put before the grand jury some time later.

More pertinently, however, the article is incomplete in ways that are somewhat misleading for the casual observer, such as the fact that some of the things to look for wouldn't appear as individual charges but instead as enhancements (Eg, U.S.S.G. §3A1.4 ). More relevant to this discussion, however, the article omits that while they haven't used charges of seditious conspiracy per se, they've charged upwards of 200 defendants with the distinctly similar charge of obstruction of an official proceeding.

But let's take off the kid gloves here and get down to brass tacks. We could continue to argue about this little game of telephone between the story the writers heard, how they wrote it, how you're reading it, and what generalized implications you're trying to make through that, or we could cut out the middle man and take a quick gander at what charges have been filed.

So let's take a quick sampling: Violent Entry, Disorderly and Disruptive Conduct, Obstruction of an Official Proceeding, Civil Disorder, Assaulting, Resisting or Impeding Certain Officers (and the same using a dangerous weapon), Obstruction of Law Enforcement During Civil Disorder, Destruction of Government Property exceeding $1000, Entering and Remaining in a Restricted Building with a Deadly or Dangerous Weapon, Engaging in Physical Violence in a Restricted Building with a Deadly or Dangerous Weapon, Act of Physical Violence in the Capitol Building, Unlawful Possession of a Firearm on Capitol Grounds or Buildings, Theft of Government Property, Destruction or Injury to Buildings or Property in Special Maritime and Territorial Jurisdiction, Acts of Physical Violence on Grounds, Violent Entry and Disorderly Conduct on Capitol Grounds, Conspiracy, Obstruction of an Official Proceeding and Aiding and Abetting, Tampering with Documents or Proceedings...
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Avnger and BrawlMan

BrawlMan

Lover of beat'em ups.
Legacy
Mar 10, 2016
26,690
11,192
118
Detroit, Michigan
Country
United States of America
Gender
Male
The FBI seems to disagree.

"The FBI has found little evidence at this point to suggest that the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol was largely coordinated by supporters of former President Trump or right-wing groups, according to a Reuters report. "
Twitter begs to differ. They coordinated through that, Facebook, and several other social media/sharing sites. The article is a load of useless bullshit. Even if it wasn't, which it was, their still racists assholes that tried to interfere with the rights and freedoms of everyone else's expense, because they're a bunch of far below pitiful, sore losers. They ain't misinformed, nor sympathetic, and knew exactly what they were doing. They came to harm and kill congressmen and women for doing their fucking job.
 

Bartholomew

Elite Member
Aug 8, 2021
100
43
33
And what, pray tell, is it that you are positing as an alternate hypothesis for that big group that came from the Trump rally wherein he told them that they needed to fight like hell to stop Congress in general and Mike Pence specifically from certifying the election results?
I didn't listen to the entire speech, but again, I defer to the prosecutors. If they aren't charging anyone with seditious conspiracy, I'm not going to jump to that conclusion. I don't have an alternate hypothesis. I'm just saying that official sources disagree with your alternate hypothesis.

while more serious charges first have to be brought before a grand jury.
If you want to speculate on the future outcomes of such an event, that's fine, I'm just saying that the publicly available facts and statements from officials don't support your speculation.

Twitter begs to differ.
Twitter is not a reputable source, certainly not a source I'd trust over the FBI. But if you have any information that the FBI doesn't, please contact them and fill them in. I'm sure they'd be delighted to hear from you.
 

Trunkage

Nascent Orca
Legacy
Jun 21, 2012
8,684
2,879
118
Brisbane
Gender
Cyborg
I hate dealing with sovcits. They just vomit out word salad and refuse to accept any judge ruling against them.
When they are talking about a dead entity on being the victim - well what are they talking about? A dead person can be a victim? Or is it sovcit speak
 
  • Like
Reactions: CM156

gorfias

Unrealistic but happy
Legacy
May 13, 2009
7,083
1,849
118
Country
USA
Snip due to errors
Need to find links about the pipe bombs. 1st I've read of it.

EDIT: Appears to be one person that was attacking both parties and could have been motivated by something totally unrelated to the Presidential election and just used 1/6 as an opportunity:

2nd Edit: Just read they were planted before 1/6. This could be completely unrelated.


But I just posted a couple of vids showing there was no conspiracy that has been found. And...


Given what you have written, I'd think some individuals did things that crossed a line. But from what I'm finding out, some people were invited in, doors open and roamed around and did nothing destructive or violent.
I haven't read much directly about anything the "Shaman" did. Yet he's been in prison without bail or trial for 8 months.

A radical over-reaction has happened here. And I'm afraid it's all partisan news these days, representing both tribes.
 
Last edited:

Hades

Elite Member
Mar 8, 2013
1,966
1,430
118
Country
The Netherlands
Given what you have written, I'd think some individuals did things that crossed a line. But from what I'm finding out, some people were invited in, doors open and roamed around and did nothing destructive or violent.
Invited in by who? Trump has no authority to give them entree into the building during the counting of the votes, and the police dispersing because they'd be murdered otherwise is hardly an open invitation either.

No one invited them. They stormed the building and those that entered after the storming had taken place still had no reason or permission to be there.
 

gorfias

Unrealistic but happy
Legacy
May 13, 2009
7,083
1,849
118
Country
USA
Invited in by who? Trump has no authority to give them entree into the building during the counting of the votes, and the police dispersing because they'd be murdered otherwise is hardly an open invitation either.

No one invited them. They stormed the building and those that entered after the storming had taken place still had no reason or permission to be there.
I am hearing cops actually did welcome some in. There are unindited co-conspirators. Were they FBI engaged in entrapment? Did some Congress people let some people in? This guy is being charged. Dunno if it will stick or not.

 

XsjadoBlayde

~it ends here~
Apr 29, 2020
3,216
3,354
118
I hate dealing with sovcits. They just vomit out word salad and refuse to accept any judge ruling against them.
Yeah, they're like a more annoying adult version of the type of kid in playgrounds who always makes up rules as they go along so they can convince themselves they're unbeatable. "You may have thought you shot me, but you did not know of my invisible bulletproof coat that can deflect bullets while turning them into explosive poison darts! Haha...I still win!"
Would be very interesting to see the look on their face as they're told in court none of it matters or makes sense, hopefully providing them with the perfect opportunity to reassess the information they believe instead of doubling down into further insanity.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BrawlMan

BrawlMan

Lover of beat'em ups.
Legacy
Mar 10, 2016
26,690
11,192
118
Detroit, Michigan
Country
United States of America
Gender
Male
Twitter is not a reputable source, certainly not a source I'd trust over the FBI. But if you have any information that the FBI doesn't, please contact them and fill them in. I'm sure they'd be delighted to hear from you.
You're one to talk. Considering the dumb bastards have been constantly filming themselves doing the crimes and how certain insiders showed them ways to infiltrate, your reason means nothing. All your doing is the same wannabe "neutral" crap/terrorists sympathizer rhetoric Houseman, tstorm, gorfias like to pull. Don't bother with anything else. I won't be listening to those that choose to be pawns for evil people who don't' care for liberty and freedom of others. Only caring for themselves and cry when they get in trouble or don't get what they want.
 
Last edited:

BrawlMan

Lover of beat'em ups.
Legacy
Mar 10, 2016
26,690
11,192
118
Detroit, Michigan
Country
United States of America
Gender
Male
The arrests just keep on coming. They will all keep each other company for a long time. So you can all rot in federal prison for the next 100 years!


Exactly! They are domestic terrorists! Thank you for doing your jobs, prosecutors and judges. The evidence always speaks for itself.


More names and more arrests.

 
  • Like
Reactions: XsjadoBlayde