The only person that died a non-natural cause death on that day was the unarmed woman shot by Capitol Police.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/trump-rio...
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/brian-sicknick-capitol-riot-die...
Although technically Rosanne Boyland died of non-natural causes too.
https://news-block.com/the-police-killed-her-three-more-eyew...
Don't gaslight people by just calling her "unarmed" especially when QAnon is turning her into a martyr for their movement. It's fundamentally dishonest.
Babbitt was at the head of a mob breaking through a barricade preventing them from access to members and staff of Congress, against whom the mob was threatening violence, and whom had only seconds before cleared the lobby (and who therefore were in imminent danger of being overtaken by the mob had the mob not been stopped at the barricade.) There were insufficient officers present to control the mob even with deadly force were they not stopped at the barrier.
> If I break the law and an officer shoots me in cold blood, it was my actions, not my beliefs which led to my death. Does that mean I deserved it?
If you break the law in a way which poses an imminent serious threat to other people’s lives, and no other means are available that are likely to stop you, then an officer is certainly justified in using deadly force. (Whether you deserve it is a question of the morality of your act, not the officer’s, which is not germane to the shooting. Maybe your threatening act is under some kind of external compulsion or internal mental disorder that would make you not fully culpable and thus not deserving of the consequences of the justified response to your action. That you don't, in that case, deserve death doesn't make the justified action which proximately causes your death unjustified, though.)
In lots of circumstances, other clear and undisputed facts make it so that “unarmed” added to them implies “no imminent threat”, but “unarmed” is not, otherwise, decisive.
And you agree that if it was brown people, it would have been called a coup and there would people on trial for treason.
That's seriously it.
https://www.insider.com/all-the-us-capitol-pro-trump-riot-ar...
Just on the first of 86 pages there are several worse than what you site.
Many have been charged with theft, disorderly conduct, assault, and obstruction of an official proceeding: https://www.insider.com/all-the-us-capitol-pro-trump-riot-ar...
Most are understandably still pending.
That's false. For one example (Zachary Jordan Alam), the charges are:
Assaulting, Resisting, or Impeding Certain Officers; Assaulting, Resisting, or Impeding Certain Officers Using a Dangerous Weapon; Civil Disorder and Aiding and Abetting; Destruction of Government Property Exceeding $1,000; Obstruction of an Official Proceeding and Aiding and Abetting; 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; Disorderly Conduct in a Capitol Building; Act of Physical Violence in the Capitol Building; Parading, Demonstrating, or Picketing in Capitol
There are lots more like that: https://www.justice.gov/usao-dc/capitol-breach-cases
I do recognize there's plenty of room to argue whether it was an insurrection or not. I'd personally call it a riot.
In contrast to the 'mostly peaceful' BLM protests leading up the elections of 2020?
No. First, whether the charges are overcharged or not is irrelevant; the matter in debate was specifically the claim that the most serious charges alleged were illegal parading.
Second your post relies on treating “the commenters” as a unitary entity; unless the specific commenters involved tended to argue that DoJ systematically overcharges, there would be no inconsistency even if the charges were offered to support the dangerousness of the insurgents rather than to rebut a false claim about the charges.
Third nice demonstration of sealioning and gish galloping.
When people gather outside the Capitol, shouting that they have to stop the Congress from enacting the will of the people -- and construct gallows while they're at it -- that's not attempted insurrection, that's free speech. When they force their way into the Capitol, that's not attempted insurrection, that's trespassing. When they fail to obey the commands of the LEOs charged with protecting the Capitol and the people working inside, when they beat up some of those LEOs, that's not attempted insurrection, either.
To me, it sounds like the goalposts keep moving. At what point do you call it attempted insurrection?