I watched it live and then dug through the videos, selfies, etc after and inside the Capitol, I found one guy who might have had a gun. The other weapons appear to have been convenient - a fire extinguisher, flags, etc. It looks less and less like an "insurrection" and more like jackasses doing jackass things.
This article quotes the police chief saying as much:
https://www.kvue.com/article/news/local/protests/march-for-t...
I would also expect anyone coming from the rally had been through some security screening.
- Open Carry is always illegal in DC.
- DC does issue concealed carry permits but doesn't honor them from other states (called reciprocity).
- This was talked about far and wide in advance on Twitter, Facebook, and elsewhere framed as "don't bring guns to DC! You will go to jail!" and supported by flyers posted throughout DC. (You can still find pictures of them online.)
Remind me not to get in your way when you're jaywalking.
Premeditating a felony firearms offense is one thing. I think the majority who entered the Capitol were probably thinking that most of the rhetoric they were hearing beforehand was hyperbole and were probably expecting to just protest outside the capital, and then got swept up in the moment and committed misdemeanor/felony breaking-and-entering.
I once met somebody who wears a lightning link as a pedant around their neck. Probably it wouldn't be compatible with their rifle's receiver, but who knows.
Then again, just because it's not smart doesn't mean people don't do it.
They didn't bring guns because their goal wasn't to overthrow the government.
There's a subtle but extremely important difference. Perhaps they are entirely equivalent to you, but they were not at all to the rioters/attackers.
What they did was crime, not war.
https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/a35214244/cap...
If they didn't go into the Capitol, we're clearly talking about different groups. The unasked questions are: Why not? What were they there to do?
I did work in law enforcement in DC. One of the first things you learn is how to separate facts from conjecture from imagination. Mixing up the three isn't helpful to anyone and often taints you as an investigator.
Or protect themselves from counter-protesters? Are you saying anyone with a gun at the event had the mens rea for murder? There are probably more guns at the average baseball game.
And I think you should probably read more about what actually happened. The initial photos were of idiots in horns and face paint and that has colored the public perception of what happened, but the clownshow gave cover to a smaller number of organized militia types compromised of former and active duty military and law enforcement. Those people were armed, came prepared, had intelligence about the layout of the building, and received updates on the location of MOC. They were there to kill and take hostages, and they came within minutes of achieving that goal.
Nothing about this was laughable, and the concern is not overblown.
I don't think it is reasonable to think that everyone on the Capitol grounds had that same ill intent. More likely that the organized minority instigated the crowd and used them as cover for their shameful and ridiculous efforts.
Needless to say, the predominent narrative seems to be that anyone in the crowd was an "insurrectionist". That goes too far IMHO.
I haven't seen anything about this. Can you share a link - especially pictures or video? I'd love to learn more. Thanks.
BIG red flag from this article: No weapons charges. If they were armed, they were not armed lawfully either in DC as a whole or in the Capitol specifically. Therefore, we have to ask: were they armed?
Regardless, this line is scary at first glance: "All members are in the tunnels under capital seal them in. Turn on gas." but I've been trying to figure out what it means.
I worked on the Hill for years and used some of the tunnels frequently. If they mean the "tunnels" in general, they're huge and expansive so it'd take a huge amount of effort across numerous entry points in almost a dozen buildings to "seal them in."
Alternatively, if they mean one of the secure areas (think: bunkers), they're designed to be buttoned up but "turn on gas" still doesn't make sense.
Regardless, thanks for the link. It will be interesting to see how the trials play out.
Not saying that is good either, just that there were many things going on that day that aren't necessary related via any sort of coordinated operation.
It's not like there weren't homemade explosives found on the site:
> Coffman, 70, told police he had mason jars filled with "melted Styrofoam and gasoline." Federal investigators believe that combination, if exploded, would have the effect of napalm "insofar as it causes the flammable liquid to better stick to objects that it hits upon detonation," according to the court record. [0]
[0] https://edition.cnn.com/2021/01/08/politics/us-capitol-riots...
I used "explosive" because that was how it appeared in the court filings. Without knowing the precise mixture, it could result as either something to cause a conflagration, or a detonation.
Calling it misinformation is somewhat disingenuous when not all the information is publicly available.
Calling this "misinformation" is an accurate characterization. You are not responsible for what CNN reports but it should lead you to question the credibility of that news source.
How else are we going to get bi-partisan support for the Domestic Terrorism Prevention Act of 2021
I just want to point out the two problems with the rhetoric that mass-media and you are using to describe this event:
1. These words confer explosions, gunfire, and mass loss of life. In using these words, you are conjuring extremely violent images within the minds of your listeners. When your listeners discover the truth of the event, that the images you've associated with the event do not match what actually happened, your listeners feel manipulated, they feel you're trying to deceive them, and you lose credibility.
2. If enough people keep parroting these particular words to describe this event, the meanings of these words become diluted. For example, prior to this event at the capitol, if you said "terrorist attack", my mind would imagine men wearing balaclavas, wielding AK's, beheading people on video, gassing villages filled with innocent families, scattering them as refugees across the globe. But now, if we accept this event at the capitol as a "terrorist attack", now I don't know if you're talking about a guy smiling and waving as he holds a podium, or if you mean a Wahabbi extremist raping a Yazidi woman after putting a bullet in her son's head.
Imagine this woman recounting her rape and the murder of her family, "I experienced a horrific terrorist attack." And then there's you, in referring to some guy taking a selfie at a politician's desk, "I witnessed a horrific terrorist attack."
Please, choose more precise, more honest words.
“Insurrection” is a violent attack on a government.
“Assassination” is murdering a prominent person for political reasons.
> In charging papers, the FBI said that during the Capitol riot, Caldwell received Facebook messages from unspecified senders updating him of the location of lawmakers. When he posted a one-word message, “Inside,” he received exhortations and directions describing tunnels, doors and hallways, the FBI said. Some messages, according to the FBI, included, “Tom all legislators are down in the Tunnels 3floors down,” and “Go through back house chamber doors facing N left down hallway down steps.” Another message read: “All members are in the tunnels under capital seal them in. Turn on gas,” the FBI added.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/legal-issues/conspiracy...
There were pipe bombs found. A guy had a car full of molotov cocktails. People were carrying guns and wearing body armor. Five people died. Its pretty surprising it didn't go much worse
The fact that some were found, and basically none were used (none of the deaths were a result of people being shot by the rioters) indicates the level of seriousness we're dealing with here.
This is not to say that they shouldn't face consequences: they should; what they did is seriously illegal and, more generally, bad and wrong.
But it's terribly important to remember that what happened here was crime, not war.
As a complete aside, I was amused that that photo even existed (he looks so happy with Nancy Pelosi's podium) and also completely unsurprised that he got arrested two days later.
https://www.washingtonian.com/2021/01/11/guns-brass-knuckles...
There were bombs planted at both Democratic and Republican party headquarters. One man was arrested with a pickup truck full of napalm.
At least some subset of the Capitol rioters absolutely intended to cause "explosions, gunfire, and mass loss of life". I think you're being dishonest pretending this was only a bunch of goons posing for instagram.
This is similar to the way people remember Columbine as a school shooting, but the two murderers actually built a large number of IEDs including propane tank bombs. If they hadn't been such incompetent bomb-builders, hundreds would have died and the event would be remembered as a bombing akin to Oklahoma City instead of mere mass-shooting.
Agreed, though the hyperbole and shifting definitions seems intentional and effective in many cases, you see with this with terms "hate", "racism", "white supremacy", etc as well.
When I was younger these had much more specific groups and frightening meanings! Makes me feel many using these terms so loosely today may have never run in to actual people these used to describe.
(No this is not a defense of hatred/racism/white supremacy or other bad behavior).
It seems like a massive overreaction. If we're truly interested in democracy and the rule of law, we'd do well to not shred our standard democratic and legal procedures (such as the presumption of innocence, and the fourth amendment's prohibition on searches without probable cause) the instant a few thousand angry, unarmed yahoos show up with pitchforks and banners and achieve precisely nothing.
We shouldn't even do that if a few thousand armed, trained people show up, with the express intent of doing battle, taking control, and holding territory (which, again, to be clear, is not what happened). We absolutely should not do it when a bunch of idiot yahoos break windows and set off fire extinguishers and steal shit.
Even had the building burned to the ground, universal surveillance such as this would not be a proportionate reaction.
Huh?
Don't get me wrong, I actually agree with you on overreach. But this action is completely reasonable because it's standard operating procedure for many law enforcement departments around the nation. Most of us simply do not reside in the neighborhoods where these tactics are employed. None of what we are discussing today is even Patriot Act type stuff. It's just standard law enforcement investigative technique. Worse, our law enforcement infrastructure already took the exact same actions during the BLM riots. None of the people complaining now, uttered a peep at the time.
I said all of that to say this, as a privacy activist, I learned decades ago that the best method of protecting my rights is to protect the rights of others. The issue today, is that most who complain are called out as hypocritical. With good reason. We can't go back now. Law enforcement would be accused of racism. Whatever tactics we used on others, we have to use now. And law enforcement gets to use them because people were not forward thinking enough to protest these methods when they were designed and employed during the latest stages of the drug war. Or even just a few scant weeks ago during the BLM riots.
I'd just encourage everyone to be more forward thinking on these issues. Sometimes complaining only when the issue affects you creates more problems than it solves. It makes it more difficult to get legislative changes made because certain key organizations, and people, whose cooperation we need have to double down on their positions so as not be called out as hypocritical themselves. AS a consequence, we come into headwinds trying to get the changes necessary to outlaw these practices.
Is it just too scary of a slope to stand on or something?
To me it seems to fit under 'reasonable' for the government to issue a warrant for presence information in the locality of the capitol. Given the 3rd party doctrine that probably isn't what happened, but the objection there would be more procedural than about control over data stored on servers.
https://www.justsecurity.org/10318/video-clip-director-nsa-c...
https://www.nybooks.com/daily/2014/05/10/we-kill-people-base...
The state collecting this information is a public hazard, especially considering the relatively recent development of the assassination of US citizens without trial.
Now, addressing the actual proposition (short of an argument): Where was the "actual insurrection" and where is the evidence for "attempted assassinations" and "theft/sale of national secrets". I'm not a lawyer and certainly not in your jurisdiction, but it is apparent that you possess evidence of these three things. Hence, I urge you to contact the appropriate law enforcement and share your findings.