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.

I'm not sure I see the same huge difference you describe. The streets are a shared publicly owned resource just as the Capitol is. People who could be identified acting lawlessly in either situation should be prosecuted to the full extent with an eye towards stopping lawless idiocy.

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.

> The streets are a shared publicly owned resource just as the Capitol is.

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.

Right but in this case BLM got arrested so much people were put in holding buses in this case nothing happened

If fewer than 100 people are charged as a result of yesterday's events, I agree that's a grave miscarriage of justice.

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.

Yes, my confusion is that mass arrests happened during BLM protests and after them. In this case during the protests there were no similar actions and that’s what people are pointing out as disproportionate.

To be perfectly honest, I hope they’re arrested on/after Jan 21, so they can’t be pardoned by 45.

Last I saw 52 people had been arrested.

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]

[0] https://www.justice.gov/usao-dc/meet-us-attorney

I think you place too much emphasis on the symbolism of the capitol building. There was far less damage done to the Capitol (fortunately) than was done in the streets during BLM riots.

And, the police killed an unarmed woman -- no outrage for that?

From what I understand (and I realize that more will come out over time), she was shot while actively trying to breach into a room that she knew she was not authorized to enter and which was secured and defended by armed police.

At some point, an element of “what did they think would or should happen?” has to be considered.

I agree -- and the same thought should occur to someone punching a police officer during an arrest, or grabbing the officer's gun, running away, etc., right?

It seems that usually when those things happen, however, that itself is cause for riots.

Yes with an asterisk. I put punching a police officer or grabbing for their gun into a very different category than running away. In my worldview, the first two, standing alone, subject you to lawful use of force, including deadly force if necessary. The last subjects you to being chased but not to the lawful use of deadly force merely as a result of running away.

You don't think that the US government should be able to defend itself? That's an interesting opinion.

The difference is that we could have prevented the wildfire by putting out the small fires in the first place instead of viewing them as legitimate activities.

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.

The BLM riots resulted in a lot of arrests actually that’s why so many orgs were doing bail fund drives.

That storming the capital doesn’t result in a similar slew of arrests is weird to me

There are actually dozens of arrests and plenty of evidence, self incriminating evidence floating around the social media. It remains to be seen what the outcome of these arrests will be. If they're arrested and let go it would be indeed weird and inviting for more of this in the future.

Luckily the difference in response is absolutely not emblematic of any serious structural issues in American policing, and we can all move on from this with no real reforms.

Were the BLM protests trying to violently overturn the election and install their preferred candidate?

There can be no equivocation between a protest sparked by continued police brutality against citizens; and a protest sparked by massive lies from a leader with fascistic tendencies trying to overturn his democratic loss.

One is a net social good, even if it had deplorable bouts of violence; the other is strictly a social evil.

More accurately, and interesting:

One group perceives widespread (their word 'systemic') racism -- the reality is that is isn't widespread, at all. Yet, they riot.

Another group perceives widespread election fraud -- the reality is that is wasn't widespread, at all. Yet, they riot.

It's all freedom of speech, except for the violence and destruction, right?

This is also your perception that the racism isn't whitespread. Step into the shoes of a dark skinned person and we'll see what your perception is then.

Racism must affect all skin colors equally before you will call it widespread? Interesting.