Insurrectionists’ social media presence gives feds an easy way to ID them

This is not historical. Regular police are usually marginalized pretty quickly in favour of paramilitary goons, while still having to deal with the people, and then having to enforce very unpopular laws in the communities they're from. If you think being po-po in China, Russia, Iran, or Belarus is a high-status or job filled with perks, I have a bridge to sell you.

I doubt that the FBI is going to have any sympathy for the insurrectionists.

The moment that the incoming party mounts a legal case against an exiting president, they ensure that the other team will do the same to them.

Also, all other members of congress would become targets. So many of them are enriching themselves through their office that it's best for everyone to just look the other way and move on for the sake of "bringing the nation together."

Edit to add: Imagine the indecisiveness that would be brought to the topic of war. Values are constantly changing. What if in 20 years, your extremely popular decision to invade a country for "democracy" is seen as being built on lies? Many of the wars we enter are unpopular when viewed years on.

Some might consider this a feature, as it may reduce war. But what about that critical moment when you believe war is necessary and justified because a dictator is taking over half a continent? I despise violence, but wouldn't want a leader afraid to step up before a situation is potentially too late for fear of doing time.

And God willing there will be investigations (see Karen Bass’, Claire Mckaskill’ tweets), but shouldn’t we wait for those before we proclaim the police guilty here? By all accounts they were woefully outnumbered at the barriers, the chief resigned under pressure already for the clusterfuck he oversaw and so let’s hope more heads roll if they did wrong, but let’s not say people are spreading lies when we don’t have the full picture. Doesn’t make “us” any better than the obviously-lacking-the-full-picture rioters and insurrectionists when we do that.

They did edit their response to post a video, here:

https://mobile.twitter.com/justinjm1/status/1347174957613199...

as evidence that the police let them in. But I don't think that that video supports his contention that police just let these people into the capitol building. Do you?

You should have started and ended here. The officer who died to protect the Congress was still clinging to life when you accused him and his colleagues of treason.

We will find out soon enough if the Capitol Police Chief took part in any real or imagined conspiracies. That has no bearing on the demonstrated actions and loyalty to the Constitution of the vast majority of DC police officers.

If there's going to be arrests based on cellphone tower or mobile app data I would expect them to happen by the end of next week.

1. There are laws in every U.S. state regarding what grounds the police have to detain someone. In most states, it boils down to reasonable articulable suspicion that someone has committed, is about to or is in the process of committing a crime. Suspicion alone isn't enough. The police don't need to tell you what their reasonable suspicion is during a detainment, but if the matter ends up in court, they will.

2. There are "stop and I.D." states. If you are in one of these states, you are required to identify yourself if detained. If you're not in one of these states, such as California, you are not required by law to identify yourself when detained. That being said, if you are lawfully detained and subsequently arrested you'll be jailed until you do identify yourself no matter which state you're in.

More info here. [0]

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_and_identify_statutes

If there's evidence that you broke into a building anywhere in Washington, like, your face or outfit matching 100% the one of someone that was seen on national TV desecrating the building, the Metro police has cause to arrest you anywhere in Washington. There's so much precedent to this it's completely mind-blowing they didn't do anything. If it was so easy to get away with storming the Capitol we would already have a hippie commune in there. The Capitol Police is a joke.

It was a trespassing group of chanting protestors that "breached" the lobby of a federal office building and refused to leave. They were arrested because their mob was only a few dozen people.

Technically, interfering with a federal employee's ability to work is a felony. If the letter of the law were followed, that congress woman should be in prison. I think that law is unconscionable.

https://prosportsextra.com/minneapolis-rioters-take-over-pol...

The President actually has the power to simply write "I Pardon Every US citizen of all crime for all time," and it would work.

Go read on some previous large group pardons. There is no limit on what can be done, as the Constitution gives none. There is only question about if the President can pardon himself, which may be tested soon.

Armed people stormed the US Capitol, after being incited to do so by the current US President, in order to overturn a legal election result. People died as well.

You can't "blow this out of proportion" the same way you can't blow something like Chernobyl out of proportion - it was huge, it has huge ramifications, it impacts a lot of people. There are zero positive aspects and there's nothing redeeming in the whole story.

I'd have no concerns had that selfie pic been taken outside at the original rally, but once that group had broken into the Capitol building everyone there was present illegally. That is not the time to pose for pictures, even if the situation or orders are such that you're not able to make arrests or expel them.

During the protests, the police had no issue shoving people to the ground [1], but at the capitol it looked very different [2].

[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2PAVTZIM5ks

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0bX7j3xUB3A

[2] https://twitter.com/alafairburke/status/1346940066812276738

You must be blind.

Now you are aware.

I also don't recall BLM protesters threatening the leaders of our government in a real and material way.

https://twitter.com/wsvn/status/1347033011880140801?s=21

Either way, my point is that it is that there isn’t evidence to support conspiracy theories that the capitol police were somehow in on it, which are circulating.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gretchen_Whitmer_kidnapping_pl...

There is video of the rally prior where Trump, his son, Rudy Giuliani and others were inciting the mob to violence.

I said nothing of the sort and I don't know how you would interpret my words that way.

From the poster I responded to:

> The other kind of insurrectionists seem to also have little to fear from the law

My response was about the notion that protesters and rioters this summer were "insurrectionists", they were not. At least not as a general rule. Some of them, maybe, probably always are in political protests. But most of them were there to either create havoc (rioters) or protest for change to the way policing is conducted in the US (the protestors).

The people who went into the US Capitol Building on 6 January, 2021 were intending to prevent the carrying out of a legal process to certify the results of a democratic election and, in their minds, prevent the succession of the presidency. That makes them insurrectionists, not just protestors anymore, at least as regards the US Constitution and democratic process.

Besides, protestors and rioters in 2020 were prosecuted. And it's moronic or ignorant to say they weren't.

No, they were threatening and intimidating lawmakers that were in session to try to manipulate the election. This is an enormous difference.

Also pipe bombs shouldn't be ok. Not sure why this is being ignored.

That would be a novel and very welcome thing in America.

I was commenting on your use of the term insurrection to describe what were, mostly, protests against police brutality (which were often met with acts of police brutality) and trying to establish that those actions were not the same as literally storming the Congress to prevent/delay the presidential election process (a much clearer act of insurrection, even if it was completely moronic and doomed from the start)>

That's of course ignoring the fact that Republicans actually gained seats in the house, that Trump would have to overturn the results in multiple states, that said states have Republican leadership overseeing the election.

But here we are.

Fact is, at some point (now) your claims of "dispute" are no longer worth entertaining.

Literally have not had a single victory in court (but over 60 losses). These cases are being thrown out by Republican judges, judges appointed by Trump even. What is your standard of evidence?

There were all audits requested as done by law, some states had multiple recounts done, all with the same result. At some point asking for more and more recounts when you don't like the original several becomes ridiculous. These audits were done in many cases by lifetime Republicans.

Trump had 60+ opportunities to present fraud in court. He did not provide actual fraud in any single case, this he lost them all. He presented nonsense and no evidence and hearsay and handwaving, which is why every judge, even Trump appointed judges told him so. In PA, Trump appointed federal judge even dismissed the case with prejudice it was so ridiculous, and now in multiple states the lawyers presenting those cases without evidence are facing legal consequences.

And, no matter how or what happened, there is also a legal time window to resolve it in. That window is over. There is zero legal method to do so now - consider the statute of limitation has passed.

At some point you become an adult and realize this is the law. Claiming to be the law and order party should give you some respect for the law, but apparently it does not.

So - do you now want to no longer follow the law when it doesn't suit you?

>The crowd is intensely stupid (as a vote on lockdown would certainly reveal)

Oh, thanks for admitting that lockdowns are undemocratic.