It was a protest turned aggressive, it was in no way an insurrection, no evidence has been presented that was the intent of the group what so ever.

Also why would you even bother doing it that way? You could use far fewer people who are coordinated and go after the politicians at their homes where there is much less security.

Plenty of videos of people in the crowd caught saying that they were seeking the chamber and congressional members to stop the certification. Admitting you’re trying to stop the process is an act of resistance against the government.

>> It was a protest turned aggressive, it was in no way an insurrection, no evidence has been presented that was the intent of the group what so ever.

>[...] Admitting you’re trying to stop the process is an act of resistance against the government.

So you're saying resisting the government = insurrection? Is picketing outside of government offices (ie. the kind where you block people/cars from entering/leaving a building) an "insurrection"? Or does it only apply to capitols? Suppose you got a bunch of picketers to surround your state capitol, and representatives couldn't enter, would that be an insurrection?

There's a pretty clear dividing line in the fact that violence was involved or attempted.

So, yes, you can picket government buildings all you want, but the moment you start killing security and seeking to kill representatives, you've insurrected or are a party to an insurrection.

> Insurrection - a violent uprising against an authority or government.

>There's a pretty clear dividing line in the fact that violence was involved or attempted.

BLM protests can get pretty violent. Are they insurrections?

No, they are riots, because they are missing the second half of the insurrection requirement.

> a violent uprising against an authority or government.

2 elements needed to be insurrection, Violence, and against authority or government.

BLM riots are violent, but not targeted at the government.

The Jan 6 insurrection was both violent and against the government. They disrupted government operations to try and change the results of an election. Can you find a definition of insurrection that wouldn't include the Jan 6 riots?

Can you name a BLM riot which was targeted at the government?

What about this one? "Portland protest declared a riot Sunday as federal building is breached" https://nypost.com/2020/07/26/portland-protest-declared-a-ri...

In fact, wouldn't all of the BLM movements accurately be described as targeted at the government because they were explicitly aimed at enacting change in government institutions like the police?

In another post you say that "until a BLM protest attempts to use force to overthrow a city, state, or federal government, it's a riot at best when violence is involved." But how do you classify the CHAZ in Seattle, where force was used to overthrow city and state governments and establish an "autonomous" zone where guns and violence were the only recognized power by the occupiers?

> So you're saying resisting the government = insurrection?

It’s literally the definition: https://www.dictionary.com/browse/insurrection

Regardless of what the dictionary.com definition is, something tells me that most people wouldn't label a bunch of BLM activists that refuse to disperse as "insurrectionists".

Refusing to disperse isn't a violent attack on the government. At best, when BLM protests do become violent, they are riots. Until a BLM protest attempts to use force to overthrow a city, state, or federal government, it's a riot at best when violence is involved.

I've not seen anyone having a problem calling BLM riots riots when they happen. I've seen a lot of people struggle to call Jan 6 a riot or insurrection.

Because the entire point of it was to pressure Congress into forcing the election of Trump by interfering with the counting of electoral votes which had already taken place. After exhausting all their legel remedies, the last thing they thought they could do was scare Congress and Pence.

This isn't some new information.

> It was a protest turned aggressive

We call that a riot.

They only got that far because they were deemed (correctly) to be not a real threat and allowed in. The police could have mowed them down but they (rightly) decided it was better to just let it go and be embarrassed than to slaughter rioters in front of the capitol. Same goes for BLM rioters. I'd rather be in a country that allows a bit of chaos rather than using the full, deadly force of the state.

The insurrectionists at the Capitol killed and injured Capitol police officers. If Mike Pence had been complicit with their wishes not to certify the election, we'd be living in a dictatorship. It was a very serious and pivotal moment for the country.

The insurrectionists at the Capitol assaulted several police officers but didn't kill any.

https://apnews.com/article/politics-government-and-politics-...

If Mike Pence had been complicit, they wouldn't have needed the rioters. I agree that "it" was serious, but the "it" was Trump's attempt to not certify the results of the election, not so much the protest/demonstration/riot/incursion into the Capitol.

Mike Pence did what he was supposed to, under severe pressure to do otherwise. The country (especially the left) owes him a huge debt of gratitude.

Yes it was a riot. No evidence any cops were killed

Sorry, but that's ridiculous. There's no scenario where a bunch of cops with pistols would have opened fire on a crowd that large. They would have been instantly overwhelmed.

1. Cops in the US have a lot more than pistols. Assault rifles, flash bangs, tear gas, not quite tanks, f'ing helicopter gunships.

2. Live fire was way more than these guys bargained for. If they heard gunshots, even just pistol fire, and saw bodies dropping they would have scattered.

I think if it were a real coup, they would have brought weapons.

it was a dry run. if you look at the column of ex army rangers proceeding single file up the steps, you see a very well trained militia. they didn't bring guns because the invasion of the capitol was a propaganda / psychological operation. to show marginal and sympathetic right wingers that this was all real, and happening, and to elicit a response from the government.

guns would have upped the ante on the core organizers and resulted in their decimation at the hands of local federal forces. This was just the beginning. from the angry anti government comments in this thread, their effort looks to be succeeding.

These people worship trump. If they thought what they did could work why would they show their hand in purposefully ineffectual manner? Any evidence it was planned just as a way to demonstrate what they are capable of. I’ve seen zero reporting on your theory.

I can find records of a single ex ranger, but not a whole column. Can you help me find that documentation?

I believe they are referencing this: https://extremism.gwu.edu/sites/g/files/zaxdzs2191/f/Jason%2...

Page 12.

A key point that many people seem to miss. A band of unhinged, bloodthirsty right wingers, staged a preempted coup, targeting politicians, and did not bring the guns that they're famous for amassing? Clearly this was not what it's being made out to be. Never let a crisis go to waste I suppose...

But did enter the Capitol building with hand held weapons, body armor, zip ties to subdue people, and were heard talking about locating members of Congress. Enough with the disingenuousness.

But no guns. Why would they plan a violent insurrection/coup without guns? Moreover, the "handheld weapons" consisted largely of sticks and flagpoles, with some bearspray...you know, things you'd bring to a riot? And zipties were found on one or two participants.

The only disingenuousness here is the attempt to manufacture an insurrection out of a riot.

> Why would they plan a violent insurrection/coup without guns?

To minimize the chances they got shot at by police (only 1 person was). They wanted to overturn the election, not die.

But just in case they needed it, this group had an armed backup force waiting at a hotel in VA:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/legal-issues/quick-reac...

Several of the insurrectionists did have guns. The protest began peacefully, and turned violent following Trump's speech, where he urged the crowd to "fight like hell". These people aren't normal like you and I. They are extremely impressionable and subject to radicalization. Listen to the Channel 5 interview with the QAnon Shaman on YouTube. Does that strike you as someone that is capable of functioning in civil society?

The zip ties were dropped by cops accidentally. They weren’t brought in. Please don’t comment if you are ignorant of the facts.

You mean how they got as far as prison?