djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,135
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on May 8, 2021 22:13:49 GMT -5
Here is Jefferson's letter to Madison regarding the second amendment in 1788:
I conceive there may be difficulty in finding general modification of these suited to the habits of all the states. But if such cannot be found then it is better to establish trials by jury, the right of Habeas corpus, freedom of the press and freedom of religion in all cases, and to abolish standing armies in time of peace, and Monopolies, in all cases, than not to do it in any.
if you carefully walk through the bill of rights, you can find most of that stuff in there, and in some cases, in the order mentioned. the underlined portion is WHY Jefferson wanted the second amendment.
if you are wondering WHY Jefferson didn't want armies in times of peace, his reasoning was threefold:
1) standing armies are expensive. 2) standing armies engender a tendency to solve problems militarily, rather than diplomatically. 3) standing armies are often turned against citizens in times of peace.
we are lucky that #3 has not happened more often and worse than it has. but the other two are slowly dissolving our standing financially and morally in the World.
|
|
Mardi Gras Audrey
Senior Member
So well rounded, I'm pointless...
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:49:31 GMT -5
Posts: 2,082
|
Post by Mardi Gras Audrey on May 8, 2021 23:10:40 GMT -5
How do you determine the intent of "one unarmed woman" How are you determining what events lead to why she was "squeezing through a window" and how are you determining that it was safe for a police officer to get to a distance that "would allow taser use" ?? No need, unarmed. No need, unarmed. Woman unarmed, no one else coming through window. Stand in same spot as cop was shown in video, taser instead of shooting gun as she climbs through opening. How do the police know she is unarmed? She was in a mob of people who were armed, no law enforcement has searched her and she is not obeying police commands, while in a crowd of people breaking into a building. They have no clue if she is or isn’t armed. The police need to presume she is and protect themselves and the staff/congress in the capital. I back the blue and they had every right to shot her. They have to presume she is a threat because she is one. Just because she is a woman, doesn’t mean she is unarmed or unable to kill people
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,135
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on May 9, 2021 0:18:39 GMT -5
still waiting for an answer as to what you would do if an angry mob was invading your house and you had a gun. guessing there won't be an answer for that one.
|
|
thyme4change
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 13:54:08 GMT -5
Posts: 40,412
|
Post by thyme4change on May 9, 2021 1:10:22 GMT -5
So, I asked this question earlier, and I didn't see an answer. I dont know much about tasers. If you have one taser and hit one person with it, how many minutes until you can hit a second person. Can you release the leads and load a new cartridge in a moment? Also, how long is the recovery period from getting hit with a taser? Do you lay on the ground for 5 minutes or 5 hours? When could you get yourself mobile again on your own? Try Google for taser details. I have tried. I am still confused. However, I did run across a law enforcement website that said tasers should not be used in crowd control situations, as they are ineffective at controlling multiple people. Even if there were only 5 people, it seems like tasers would be a poor choice. Maybe that guy should have had rubber bullets - but I suspect that isn't a standard thing they carry. If they had prepared better, a lot of things would have been different.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,479
|
Post by billisonboard on May 9, 2021 2:16:43 GMT -5
How do the police know she is unarmed? She was in a mob of people who were armed, no law enforcement has searched her and she is not obeying police commands, while in a crowd of people breaking into a building. They have no clue if she is or isn’t armed. The police need to presume she is and protect themselves and the staff/congress in the capital. I back the blue and they had every right to shot her. They have to presume she is a threat because she is one. Yes, they had every right to shoot her. She also was just one woman trying to climb through a window. Why would police 'need' to presume a protestor is armed ? No one from the mob was shooting, they were armed with selfie sticks and flags. The mob was also behind closed, barricaded doors and not being successful in knocking them down. Tase first, if not effective your gun is still there. She was a member of large group who had violently invaded the US Capital Building who were armed with more than selfish sticks and flags.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,479
|
Post by billisonboard on May 9, 2021 2:21:35 GMT -5
Try Google for taser details. I have tried. I am still confused. However, I did run across a law enforcement website that said tasers should not be used in crowd control situations, as they are ineffective at controlling multiple people. Even if there were only 5 people, it seems like tasers would be a poor choice. Maybe that guy should have had rubber bullets - but I suspect that isn't a standard thing they carry. If they had prepared better, a lot of things would have been different. There were hundreds more than 5 people. That small number apparently comes from what was seen on a video of the area around the shooting. The police would have been aware via radio of the larger happenings, including violent acts against other police officers.
|
|
pulmonarymd
Junior Associate
Joined: Feb 12, 2020 17:40:54 GMT -5
Posts: 7,388
|
Post by pulmonarymd on May 9, 2021 6:21:09 GMT -5
I have tried. I am still confused. However, I did run across a law enforcement website that said tasers should not be used in crowd control situations, as they are ineffective at controlling multiple people. Even if there were only 5 people, it seems like tasers would be a poor choice. Maybe that guy should have had rubber bullets - but I suspect that isn't a standard thing they carry. If they had prepared better, a lot of things would have been different. There were hundreds more than 5 people. That small number apparently comes from what was seen on a video of the area around the shooting. The police would have been aware via radio of the larger happenings, including violent acts against other police officers. Don’t bother. He is not interested in facts. Otherwise he would not be posit his nonsense. He is willfully ignoring what went on throughout the building, focusing on one small part of a video in one small area. Doing nothing but purposely arguing to be a cynic, in direct opposition to the facts
|
|
Opti
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 10:45:38 GMT -5
Posts: 39,719
Location: New Jersey
Mini-Profile Name Color: c28523
Mini-Profile Text Color: 990033
|
Post by Opti on May 9, 2021 6:41:36 GMT -5
I have tried. I am still confused. However, I did run across a law enforcement website that said tasers should not be used in crowd control situations, as they are ineffective at controlling multiple people. Even if there were only 5 people, it seems like tasers would be a poor choice. Maybe that guy should have had rubber bullets - but I suspect that isn't a standard thing they carry. If they had prepared better, a lot of things would have been different. There were hundreds more than 5 people. That small number apparently comes from what was seen on a video of the area around the shooting. The police would have been aware via radio of the larger happenings, including violent acts against other police officers. Over 400 have been charged and I think they are still working on the identities of more of them. I liked the paragraphs below, which would apply to Ashli if she were alive. www.buzzfeednews.com/article/zoetillman/trump-january-6-incitement-defense-courtsIn case after case, judges aren’t buying the argument that a person charged with joining the riots is less of a danger to society now because they were simply following the president's orders at the time. In some cases, the defense completely backfired, with judges essentially asking: If you can’t make good decisions for yourself, why shouldn’t you wait in jail until your trial?
“If defendant truly believes that the only reason he participated in an assault on the U.S. Capitol was to comply with President Trump’s orders, this shows defendant's inability (or refusal) to exercise his independent judgment and conform his behavior to the law,” US District Judge Royce Lamberth wrote in a March 8 decision denying Chansley’s request to go home. “These are not the qualities of a person who can be trusted on conditional release.”
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,479
|
Post by billisonboard on May 9, 2021 7:51:14 GMT -5
I have tried. I am still confused. However, I did run across a law enforcement website that said tasers should not be used in crowd control situations, as they are ineffective at controlling multiple people. Even if there were only 5 people, it seems like tasers would be a poor choice. Maybe that guy should have had rubber bullets - but I suspect that isn't a standard thing they carry. If they had prepared better, a lot of things would have been different. I did read several articles on DC's police upper management not being prepared for possible rioting. Bad situation, people getting shot, fighting, damage to buildings. People looking for trouble and finding it. Wouldn't ever catch me in a situation like that. I would be heading in the other direction. I've now have seen the unedited video of her getting shot. The cops gun was maybe 5 feet from the woman. She falls over twitching slightly after hitting the floor. I carry a gun every day and I wouldn't of shot at that point. Possibly a shot into the floor as a warning in the loud raucous environment as I've done with dangerous animals in packs, or use a taser while firearm at ready. Just my opinion on that immediate situation. Can you provide a link to the unedited video?
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,479
|
Post by billisonboard on May 9, 2021 7:56:09 GMT -5
There were hundreds more than 5 people. That small number apparently comes from what was seen on a video of the area around the shooting. The police would have been aware via radio of the larger happenings, including violent acts against other police officers. Don’t bother. He is not interested in facts. Otherwise he would not be posit his nonsense. He is willfully ignoring what went on throughout the building, focusing on one small part of a video in one small area. Doing nothing but purposely arguing to be a cynic, in direct opposition to the facts It isn't a bother to me. I operate on the assumption that there are people who read but don't comment on what is posted here. In this type of situation, I am posting so spun information isn't left uncountered.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,479
|
Post by billisonboard on May 9, 2021 8:02:53 GMT -5
Can you provide a link to the unedited video? Do your own searching/proving, I wasn't quoting you. Okay. Just thought I would ask. FWIW, I read the board as one conversation of which we are all a part.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,479
|
Post by billisonboard on May 9, 2021 8:36:13 GMT -5
Okay. Just thought I would ask. FWIW, I read the board as one conversation of which we are all a part. It was the same video as you posted with out being edited. It was not zoomed in to cut out the cop with gun in hand, nor does it stop when the shot is fired and she falls to the ground. Paints a far different picture. You can take that any way you want. It comes with all kinds of 'graphic video' warnings, and I'm not posting it here. I found it easily with google. Appreciate your concern for our sensibilities but posting a link does give each the option of clicking and viewing or not.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,479
|
Post by billisonboard on May 9, 2021 9:16:10 GMT -5
I have tried. I am still confused. However, I did run across a law enforcement website that said tasers should not be used in crowd control situations, as they are ineffective at controlling multiple people. Even if there were only 5 people, it seems like tasers would be a poor choice. Maybe that guy should have had rubber bullets - but I suspect that isn't a standard thing they carry. If they had prepared better, a lot of things would have been different. I did read several articles on DC's police upper management not being prepared for possible rioting. Bad situation, people getting shot, fighting, damage to buildings. People looking for trouble and finding it. Wouldn't ever catch me in a situation like that. I would be heading in the other direction. I've now have seen the unedited video of her getting shot. The cops gun was maybe 5 feet from the woman. She falls over twitching slightly after hitting the floor. I carry a gun every day and I wouldn't of shot at that point. Possibly a shot into the floor as a warning in the loud raucous environment as I've done with dangerous animals in packs, or use a taser while firearm at ready. Just my opinion on that immediate situation. I would be concerned with ricochet firing a bullet into a hard floor while surrounded by people. I see that as a far different situation than dealing with animals in what I assume was an outdoor situation with few if any other human beings around. The "twitching" sentence is a nice touch. Yeah, choices have consequences.
|
|
Lizard Queen
Senior Associate
103/2024
Joined: Jan 17, 2011 22:19:13 GMT -5
Posts: 14,659
|
Post by Lizard Queen on May 9, 2021 9:59:45 GMT -5
You can only use a taser once, as far as I've read. The thug breaking in through the window had a backpack, which could have contained a bomb. That's why protecting lawmakers in the highest office in the land is different than protecting the local Target store.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,479
|
Post by billisonboard on May 9, 2021 10:22:49 GMT -5
I would be concerned with ricochet firing a bullet into a hard floor while surrounded by people. I see that as a far different situation than dealing with animals in what I assume was an outdoor situation with few if any other human beings around. The "twitching" sentence is a nice touch. Yeah, choices have consequences. Yes, big concern vs firing directly at an unarmed woman. It was a good tactical choice. The police officer fired directly at the one member of a large group of people involved in a violent invasion of the US Capital Building who was at that moment climbing through a window that had been broken to allow access to a part of the building where the doors were barricaded to prevent that from happening.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,479
|
Post by billisonboard on May 9, 2021 10:52:17 GMT -5
The police officer fired directly at the one member of a large group of people involved in a violent invasion of the US Capital Building who was at that moment climbing through a window that had been broken to allow access to a part of the building where the doors were barricaded to prevent that from happening. . Yes, as you said, it was a good tactical choice, preventing another in the large group from being struck by a ricochet and being injured, possibly killed. It's not the same as being outside. A decision had been made, either in or ex plict, to not use force generally to repel the invaders. However, this was clearly a line in the sand that had been established. Specifically targeting the individual crossing the line at that moment was appropriate use of force. There were also a group of fellow defenders in the vicinity.
|
|
chiver78
Administrator
Current Events Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:04:45 GMT -5
Posts: 38,563
|
Post by chiver78 on May 9, 2021 11:41:14 GMT -5
You can only use a taser once, as far as I've read. The thug breaking in through the window had a backpack, which could have contained a bomb. That's why protecting lawmakers in the highest office in the land is different than protecting the local Target store. Nice touch on thug. Yes, lawmakers are a superior, higher up grade of human, than mere shoppers at target. where do I sign up for my Secret Service detail, since I'm as important as the leader of the free world? 🤷♀️
|
|
|
Post by The Walk of the Penguin Mich on May 9, 2021 12:12:49 GMT -5
where do I sign up for my Secret Service detail, since I'm as important as the leader of the free world? 🤷♀️ That's one choice I wouldn't want to make. Trump wasn't present at the certification that day. He was delivering a speech cross town. However, the VP was in the Capitol.
|
|
Tiny
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 29, 2010 21:22:34 GMT -5
Posts: 13,369
|
Post by Tiny on May 9, 2021 12:44:28 GMT -5
How do you determine the intent of "one unarmed woman" How are you determining what events lead to why she was "squeezing through a window" and how are you determining that it was safe for a police officer to get to a distance that "would allow taser use" ?? No need, unarmed. No need, unarmed. Woman unarmed, no one else coming through window. Stand in same spot as cop was shown in video, taser instead of shooting gun as she climbs through opening. Hmmm. You seem to be going for an "absolute" again. Making a judgement or a statement about a situation based on limited information (which I suspect you have specifically chosen for this situation - I've lost track and don't want to read thru the whole thread again looking for the narrowing down). You seem to be taking this to a narrowed down statement that's hard to disagree with and which you can easily defend but that isn't representative of the actual situation or "moral value" call we are dancing around. Isn't that a Red Herring fallacy you are using to uphold your side of this argument? I'm done here. Have a nice rest of day.
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 20,901
|
Post by happyhoix on May 9, 2021 16:01:46 GMT -5
That's one choice I wouldn't want to make. Trump wasn't present at the certification that day. He was delivering a speech cross town. However, the VP was in the Capitol. Just past the guys with the guns were doors to the chamber where congressmen were waiting to be evacuated Plus I disagree with the idea that this woman was the only person who was going to enter through the broken window - she was the first, and no doubt someone else would have been right behind her - if she hadn’t been shot. WHich was the reason WHY those guys shot her. Discourage the terrorist attack.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,479
|
Post by billisonboard on May 9, 2021 16:21:21 GMT -5
However, the VP was in the Capitol. Just past the guys with the guns were doors to the chamber where congressmen were waiting to be evacuated Plus I disagree with the idea that this woman was the only person who was going to enter through the broken window - she was the first, and no doubt someone else would have been right behind her - if she hadn’t been shot. WHich was the reason WHY those guys shot her. Discourage the terrorist attack. I disagree with that "WHY". I think it was a strategic decision to draw a defense line, "This far and no further!" Like you say, the people who they needed to protect were just beyond that location. Shooting someone in the lobby would have been a "discourage" shot. And, while it might have some characteristics of a terrorist attack in regards to identify of Congress, I think it is more accurate to identify it as a (weak assed) insurrection.
|
|
thyme4change
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 13:54:08 GMT -5
Posts: 40,412
|
Post by thyme4change on May 9, 2021 16:28:46 GMT -5
Just past the guys with the guns were doors to the chamber where congressmen were waiting to be evacuated Plus I disagree with the idea that this woman was the only person who was going to enter through the broken window - she was the first, and no doubt someone else would have been right behind her - if she hadn’t been shot. WHich was the reason WHY those guys shot her. Discourage the terrorist attack. I disagree with that "WHY". I think it was a strategic decision to draw a defense line, "This far and no further!" Like you say, the people who they needed to protect were just beyond that location. Shooting someone in the lobby would have been a "discourage" shot. And, while it might have some characteristics of a terrorist attack in regards to identify of Congress, I think it is more accurate to identify it as a (weak assed) insurrection. Those sound like different ways to say the same thing?
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,479
|
Post by billisonboard on May 9, 2021 16:53:29 GMT -5
I disagree with that "WHY". I think it was a strategic decision to draw a defense line, "This far and no further!" Like you say, the people who they needed to protect were just beyond that location. Shooting someone in the lobby would have been a "discourage" shot. And, while it might have some characteristics of a terrorist attack in regards to identify of Congress, I think it is more accurate to identify it as a (weak assed) insurrection. Those sound like different ways to say the same thing? Doing something to discourage is to act to invoke an emotional reaction. I think she was shot to prevent her from getting into the next room and they would have continued shooting people if more had tried. It is the same basic issue as a terrorist attack. Such an attack is designed to invoke a feeling of terror. I think the violent invasion was undertaken by most involved to directly stop the certifying of the Electoral College vote. I would grant intimidation was a goal but terror?
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,479
|
Post by billisonboard on May 9, 2021 17:05:16 GMT -5
I disagree with that "WHY". I think it was a strategic decision to draw a defense line, "This far and no further!" Like you say, the people who they needed to protect were just beyond that location. Shooting someone in the lobby would have been a "discourage" shot. And, while it might have some characteristics of a terrorist attack in regards to identify of Congress, I think it is more accurate to identify it as a (weak assed) insurrection. Those sound like different ways to say the same thing? I would also say it is important from a legal standpoint. Imagine a boss randomly selecting one employee out of a group gossiping around the water cooler to fire to discourage that behavior in the others. I think that is shaky ground to be on in a future lawsuit.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,135
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on May 9, 2021 18:53:54 GMT -5
Those sound like different ways to say the same thing? Doing something to discourage is to act to invoke an emotional reaction. I think she was shot to prevent her from getting into the next room and they would have continued shooting people if more had tried. It is the same basic issue as a terrorist attack. Such an attack is designed to invoke a feeling of terror. I think the violent invasion was undertaken by most involved to directly stop the certifying of the Electoral College vote. I would grant intimidation was a goal but terror? terrorism is defined by the state department as non state actors engaging in activities which are designed to disrupt or do harm with the aim to affect political change among those that are part of the state which is targeted.
Jan 6th is textbook terrorism.
consider this: if the crowd of 10k was Al Qaida, they would simply have been gunned down on the capitol steps.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,479
|
Post by billisonboard on May 9, 2021 19:09:30 GMT -5
Doing something to discourage is to act to invoke an emotional reaction. I think she was shot to prevent her from getting into the next room and they would have continued shooting people if more had tried. It is the same basic issue as a terrorist attack. Such an attack is designed to invoke a feeling of terror. I think the violent invasion was undertaken by most involved to directly stop the certifying of the Electoral College vote. I would grant intimidation was a goal but terror? terrorism is defined by the state department as non state actors engaging in activities which are designed to disrupt or do harm with the aim to affect political change among those that are part of the state which is targeted.
Jan 6th is textbook terrorism.
consider this: if the crowd of 10k was Al Qaida, they would simply have been gunned down on the capitol steps.
Terrorism?
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 20,901
|
Post by happyhoix on May 9, 2021 20:06:45 GMT -5
Those sound like different ways to say the same thing? Doing something to discourage is to act to invoke an emotional reaction. I think she was shot to prevent her from getting into the next room and they would have continued shooting people if more had tried. It is the same basic issue as a terrorist attack. Such an attack is designed to invoke a feeling of terror. I think the violent invasion was undertaken by most involved to directly stop the certifying of the Electoral College vote. I would grant intimidation was a goal but terror? I refer to it as terrorism because I don’t like the Trumpists trying to water this act down after the fact by calling it simply a protest. These people were attempting to subvert the validation of a duly elected president from happening, and at least some of them were attempting to at least capture congress (remember the guy with the wrist restraints?) and possibly lynch Pence (someone brought the rope). It became half asses in the end, but it could have been much much worse. I call that terrorism.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 4, 2024 1:46:47 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 9, 2021 20:19:08 GMT -5
Just past the guys with the guns were doors to the chamber where congressmen were waiting to be evacuated Plus I disagree with the idea that this woman was the only person who was going to enter through the broken window - she was the first, and no doubt someone else would have been right behind her - if she hadn’t been shot. WHich was the reason WHY those guys shot her. Discourage the terrorist attack. I disagree with that "WHY". I think it was a strategic decision to draw a defense line, "This far and no further!" Like you say, the people who they needed to protect were just beyond that location. Shooting someone in the lobby would have been a "discourage" shot. And, while it might have some characteristics of a terrorist attack in regards to identify of Congress, I think it is more accurate to identify it as a (weak assed) insurrection. In the video posted earlier in the thread, at least one person in the crowd seemed to find a little common sense. He said “he (they?) have a gun!” And seemed to be trying to get people to move away from the door, but most were paying him no attention. I guess he understood that when someone feels threatened enough to aim a gun, it’s probably best to immediately stop doing whatever you’re doing to make them feel you’re a threat. I’m not a rocket surgeon, but I would say that the absolute worst thing to do is to keep moving toward them, like whats-her-name did.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,479
|
Post by billisonboard on May 9, 2021 20:25:51 GMT -5
I see this as a meaningful description of terrorism that is useful to distinguishing it from other acts. Although the term is not subject to a universally agreed definition, terrorism can be broadly understood as a method of coercion that utilizes or threatens to utilize violence in order to spread fear and thereby attain political or ideological goals. Contemporary terrorist violence is thus distinguished in law from “ordinary” violence by the classic terrorist “triangle”: A attacks B, to convince or coerce C to change its position regarding some action or policy desired by A. The attack spreads fear as the violence is directed, unexpectedly, against innocent victims, which in turn puts pressure on third parties such as governments to change their policy or position. link
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,479
|
Post by billisonboard on May 9, 2021 20:34:51 GMT -5
Doing something to discourage is to act to invoke an emotional reaction. I think she was shot to prevent her from getting into the next room and they would have continued shooting people if more had tried. It is the same basic issue as a terrorist attack. Such an attack is designed to invoke a feeling of terror. I think the violent invasion was undertaken by most involved to directly stop the certifying of the Electoral College vote. I would grant intimidation was a goal but terror? I refer to it as terrorism because I don’t like the Trumpists trying to water this act down after the fact by calling it simply a protest. These people were attempting to subvert the validation of a duly elected president from happening, and at least some of them were attempting to at least capture congress (remember the guy with the wrist restraints?) and possibly lynch Pence (someone brought the rope). It became half asses in the end, but it could have been much much worse. I call that terrorism. I am (more than) halfway there with you. A nice little protest took place down the street. Once Trump pointed and said "Pence isn't getting the job done. Go" it stopped being a protest. To me, it became an insurrection.
|
|