Tpcl20 wrote: » Police let protestors in.https://twitter.com/anastasiakeeley/status/1346934751018541057?s=20
Nody wrote: » That's exactly the point; if they had been standing behind the police lines protesting peacefully that's not an attempt to coerce. When they actively assault and invade a federal government facility where the current politicians are deciding on the outcome of the election forcing the politicians to have to be evacuated while armed that's coercion and intimidation. That you can't see the difference between that is on you I'm afraid and you may want to think it over the implications. Now here's a fun scenario for you; replace the Trump supporters with Muslims with long beards; how do you think that would have been called in the news if they did exactly the same thing as the Trump supporters are doing currently? Would that then be considered terrorism or would it be misguided protestors? And do you think there would be as many people hurt and killed as now?
seamus wrote: » This is going to get ugly. With citizens off the street, it will turn violent.
Christy42 wrote: » You aren't really comparing the storming of a government building to a protest outside it? It takes actually attempting to get within arms reach of elected officials while they were working. Police had to physically lock the doors to stop them getting near. We had a bomb in the rnc. We had multiple failed attempts on elected officials in Michigan and elsewhere. I said before and will say again. There inability to get at the elected officials does not stop their intent.
Manic Moran wrote: » People deliberately shooting indiscriminately from the visitor's gallery into Congress, hitting five Representatives, with the political goal of Puerto Rican independence? Someone deliberately killing three and wounding over a dozen on the parliamentary floor with the goal of Quebeqian independence? By that argument, anything scary and illegal can be coercion or intimidation. How many people does it take to change an unlawful protest in the Capitol to become a coercive storming?
Manic Moran wrote: » By that argument, anything scary and illegal can be coercion or intimidation. How many people does it take to change an unlawful protest in the Capitol to become a coercive storming?
sdanseo wrote: » What on earth is intimidation and coercion if it's not storming a parliament?
This unruly mob came that close to attacking members of congress in their work that it looks like the Capitol Police has had to shoot someone as a result. If that's not intimidation.. nothing is.
Nody wrote: » BLM protest: White Sunday Warriors for Trump protest: Can you spot the difference?
Christy42 wrote: » This is delusional. They stormed government buildings to the point where elected officials had to go into hiding for their own safety. They have been vocal at wanting to change the election result, which would be fine if they were outside. Again. Whether or not they are successful is irrelevant for their status as terrorists. They are using the threat of violence to try and change the results. That they will fail does not change the intent.
seamus wrote: » It's not like they can claim they were caught by surprise. Today of all days was the time to have a large security presence around government institutions. This was a deliberate decision to have an insufficient police force at Capitol Hill today.
Manic Moran wrote: » Refusing to respond to police instruction is not itself dangerous to human life. The police reaction to the refusal can certainly be dangerous as a legitimate reaction to a perceived threat, but perception is not in itself applied to intent. Scuffles to include broken bones are not normally considered dangerous to human life. That's why there are charges like "Aggravated assault" or "battery" which are lesser than attempted murder, recklessness and the like. Protest and coercion are not necessarily the same thing. Coercion requires the intent to force Congress not to certify under threat. Protest can be an expression of disapproval and request. We've had most of a year of the latter. That does not, of course, absolve them from the crimes of trespass, disorderly conduct, destruction of property (as applicable), or provide immunity from the actions of law enforcement to remove them and regain control.
Nody wrote: » Can you spot the difference?
Nody wrote: » A) Protestor trying to storm the senate, she was shot through the door by police/secret service after ignoring their commands to stop. It's the twitter pic earlier with drawn weapon.
This does not include the police/guards/Secret Service people who've been hurt so far and there are multiple of them reported when trying to defend the building and of course the fact they ignored police orders.
They tried to storm the senate and congress to protest the count; that would fall under armed coercion for sure. So B ticked.
Rjd2 wrote: » Not every protester was shot in the BLM protests and the vast majority were peaceful and at times police joined in with the protesters taking the knee. I don't know where this narrative came from that everyone who protested last Summer was mowed down by armies of racist cops.
Timberrrrrrrr wrote: » Trump statement on twitter ffshttps://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1346928882595885058?s=19
Manic Moran wrote: » I'll question it. The legal definition in the US (not a chargeable offense, but a description) is from the Patriot Act. It is as follows. "activities that (A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the U.S. or of any state; (B) appear to be intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and (C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S." A.... Arguable. Storming the Capitol is not in itself an act dangerous to human life. Storming the capitol and shooting people is. There is one person shot thus far, but I don't believe anyone has said who, how or why. B.... (i)I don't see it. Is anyone watching this event going to feel coerced into changing their opinion? Do the protestors expect that anyone will change their opinions or actions?(ii) Possibly. There is a difference between expressing displeasure and in attempting to coerce a change of government. (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; Seems no. C... Yes. I am not a fan of the way Americans have turned to calling any act of violence "terrorism". This conduct is reprehensible, criminal, and self-defeating, but I don't think it matches any definition of 'terrorism'.
Manic Moran wrote: » I am not a fan of the way Americans have turned to calling any act of violence "terrorism". This conduct is reprehensible, criminal, and self-defeating, but I don't think it matches any definition of 'terrorism'.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w2.vanillicon.com/v2/282101dc2976956f9dfc87f7a2ef2413.svg)
