"Fairly close" to me would likely involve more of the rioters being shot. The fact that so few were shot indicates that the state was largely keeping their gloves on, which they would not if there was any risk of a senator actually being killed.

Supposing they instead entered the room, it is probable to me that they would have been immediately shot. I doubt the rioters could have taken the room but who knows. In any case

* I think the rioters would have killed some democratic leaders if given the opportunity

* I think more gunshots would have occurred if the rioters went a different direction by chance

* I think this is way, way too far already in terms of what is remotely ok.

Why shouldn't any of them been shot?

Both were confirmations to the highest level of office in their respective branch of government and both were staged by political opponents protesting and admittedly attempting to block an "unjust" transfer of power.

If "peaceful protest" vs "riotous coup" can hinge on the fact that your ideological allies could only have been there to "righteously have their voices heard" but ideological opponents must be there as "murderous usurpers", then your sympathetic reasoning might be better described as paranoid delusional projections.

Let's remember that it was Eric Holder and Bill Clinton who pardoned a woman who literally bombed the capital building.

Another one of those groups broke into the capitol building, stole things, destroyed things, fought with guards, smeared poop on the walls, audibly shouting about looking for specific senators. and at least one person has been found guilty of carrying a gun. Multiple people found to have discussed killing the senators.

Your final reference (I'm assuming to the weathermen) is a much more apt comparison than the other protest you're discussing.

If that happened, I think the most likely outcome is that there'd be more Ashli Babbits

Protecting the president. The secret service does not protect senators

> and who got the lawmakers out of there before the rioters came.

Capitol Hill police I believe.

> Maybe Democracy would have been closer to dying

I’m pretty sure I explicitly said that wasn’t on the table.

My point was that the rioters got very close. That is, one door away, then lured to other areas by a clever guard. I think it is fully plausible that they would have assassinated democratic political leaders if given the chance. Not ALL of the rioters, but certainly some.

Unless they managed to get the Army, or the Nuclear Codes, or something greater than just controlling a building, they would have needed to kill the President, the Vice President, and every single House and Senate member (including those not in the building) and then get control of the Army or Popular Support or something massive to have a shot. I don't think they were anywhere close with that.

Personally I think a mob massacre of political leaders is bad on its own. Ymmv.

Nice to see 1984's birth in action. As someone who escaped a socialist autocracy, this is chilling to US descending into the same thing.

What leads you to call that probable?

I don't think it's impossible, after all it's only been a few years since that Bernie supporter shot at all those Republican congressmen, and Scalise almost did die. But that guy was actually armed and went with that purpose, these goofs appear to have been unarmed protesters who turned into a mob.

I know you don't need a gun to kill someone, I just find your assessment that it was probable she would be killed a stretch.

Because people with guns who said they wanted to kill her entered the capitol with their guns and started looking for her.

E.g., from one charging document: "Thinking about heading over to Pelosi CUNT’s speech and putting a bullet in her noggin on Live TV [purple devil emoji]."

Charges: Possession of Unregistered Firearms, Possession of Unregistered Ammunition, Possession of Large Capacity Ammunition Feeding Devices.

So... he had a gun, said he wanted to kill pelosi, and then broke into a federal building and started looking for her.

He was probably just trolling and this is all a big over-reaction, right? /s

> unarmed

https://www.justice.gov/usao-dc/capitol-breach-cases

> that Bernie supporter...

the main different here is that I don't recall there being a systemic effort to defend him and explain that it's really no big deal.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but nobody entered the Capitol with guns. I'm aware that sounds like downplaying the incident, which is not my intention. I just think accuracy matters.

The guy you're referring to (who was thankfully charged), did not enter the Capitol with a gun, according to the charging document. What gave you the idea that he entered the Capitol with a gun, the charging document is pretty clear?

>the main different here is that I don't recall there being a systemic effort to defend him and explain that it's really no big deal.

The effort was just to blame Trump's rhetoric for that guys actions. Which, Trump's rhetoric was less than helpful to say the least, but that was a poor excuse for trying to murder a bunch of congresspeople.

Alas, this is the problem with demanding accuracy. If someone says something false about a bad person or incident, we are unable to ask for accuracy unless we are willing to be seen as defending it.

So there were really two groups of people who showed up on Jan 6. The first large group were Trump supporters there to protest. These people are being charged with misdemeanor trespassing; and if they attacked police, they are being charged with felony assault as well.

The second, smaller group were militia who came there equipped and with a plan. Lower-level members of this group have been charged with conspiracy to disrupt Congress, a felony. Higher-level members have just been charged with seditious conspiracy, which carries a 20 year max sentence.

This later group of individuals were mostly ex-military and law enforcement. They were aware that bringing guns on Jan 6 would have resulted in a commiserate response by Capitol Police, and they would have been outmatched. However, according to yesterday's indictment, they did bring plenty of equipment (including guns) and stashed them in hotels across the Potomac river, with plans to bring them across in a boat in case the need arose. We are still learning more about this plan.

> The effort was just to blame Trump's rhetoric for that guys actions. Which, Trump's rhetoric was less than helpful to say the least, but that was a poor excuse for trying to murder a bunch of congresspeople.

At this point the cause and effect is pretty well established.

- The only reason anyone was even near the Capitol on Jan 6 was because Trump summoned them there.

- Trump then told the assembled mob where to go and what to do: "we’re going to the Capitol" to "stop the steal".

- Trump directed the mob to the Capitol.

- The mob arrived at the capitol and violently disrupted the ongoing proceedings.

- Trump witnessed this on live TV and instead of doing anything for 3 hours, he mused himself by rewinding the live footage of people brutally attacking police.

- When arrested, the individual comprising the mob tell police they did what they did at the behest of the Trump.

I think we're way past the point of saying this was just one big misunderstanding. The individuals who invaded the Capitol did so because they thought Trump wanted them to, and he actually did want them to, because if he didn't, he would have attempted to stop it much sooner.

[0]https://www.ourquadcities.com/news/national-news/capitol-mob...