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.
Nody wrote: » Can you spot the difference?
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.
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.
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.
Nody wrote: » BLM protest: White Sunday Warriors for Trump protest: Can you spot the difference?
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.
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?
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?
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.
seamus wrote: » This is going to get ugly. With citizens off the street, it will turn violent.
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?
Tpcl20 wrote: » Police let protestors in.https://twitter.com/anastasiakeeley/status/1346934751018541057?s=20
listermint wrote: » Extremely poor video. The police there were surrounded left and right behind them so backed off. Look at the entire video...
SouthWesterly wrote: » Just watching CBS news. The DC Mayor has just announced that the 6pm curfew will be enforced. Congress has said its going back into session at another location. I wonder will the objectors still object after this.
irishrover99 wrote: » The policing has been unbelievably slow today. Really reminds you of the chaos on 9/11(obviously without all the deaths) but serious review will be needed after this.