Regardless of your opinion of BLM, there's a huge difference between rioting in the streets, and rioting in the fucking Capitol building while Congress is in session.
The latter seems to wander dangerously close to treason, depending on their goals.
The latter seems to wander dangerously close to treason, depending on their goals.
Just for clarity: People standing peacefully nearby whose worst law-break is a curfew violation? I don't think they should face any consequences, which I realize makes the curfew on its own fairly toothless, but that's already the case now. But when you pick up a rock or bottle and throw it at police, that's AB-DW on police in my book. (Same thing with criminal trespass and malicious destruction of property for the events yesterday.)
Basically, if you're acting like a lawless idiot, I don't care what your shirt says or what sign you're carrying while you do it.
I don't care if they're arrested right now (as the violence has ended), but I care greatly that they are eventually charged and that those facts are transparently shared with the public.
In interviews on C-SPAN last night, the DC Attorney General (an elected official by the city) made clear that many of yesterday's actions fall under his jurisdiction, but that (because DC is a federal district directly controlled by the executive branch) he is only able to operate under the guidance of the US Attorney for the District of Columbia, a Trump appointee named Michael Sherwin [0]
There's one absolutely huge difference here, and that is that the streets are designated for public access, while the seat of government and the offices of elected representatives are not.
Just because something is publicly owned does not make it legal to access, protest in, or damage. Consider some other publicly-owned properties: nuclear missile sites, courtrooms, the President's bedroom, police evidence rooms.
This is such an obvious distinction I am puzzled why it apparently needs pointing out.
And, the police killed an unarmed woman -- no outrage for that?
At some point, an element of “what did they think would or should happen?” has to be considered.
It seems that usually when those things happen, however, that itself is cause for riots.
Can we ditch the "treason" talk? It is just technically inaccurate. I wouldn't even say "insurrection". This was basically a low-grade riot at a symbolically significant location. Everyone should be prosecuted, including perhaps the people responsible for the atrocious police preparation and response. Even if the mob had managed to physically control the building there was no way that would have resulted in any actual change in the proceedings.
I'm not going to defend Trump on this either, but it is a mistake to think that Trump is the source of the discontent. He has taken advantage of the discontent but he isn't the source.