Consequences for Veterans and/or retirees in the 2021 DC Riots

[ABMD]

I've read a lot of Twitter, I dont use the platform I got there via a link on another site, about how the president incited the violence at the Capitol. When I read the text from his speech, he actually says the opposite, "peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard."

Here's a screenshot of his speech, I don't see where the President told anyone, or gave orders to storm the capitol.

 

[MIDNJAC]

Ok, I know that is another argument in of itself, but this may not be the best place to debate the intent of POTUS messaging. At the very minimum, this is a topic that will wholly derail this thread.

edit: if you guys want to have a libs vs MAGA shit fest, have at it. There is a reason I didn't join the warzone subform. I also think that sort of one directional yelling at one another is the main reason we are in this situation in the first place.

 

[nittany03]

Well that makes the "Summer of Love" also an insurrection and some of those BLM rioters were also armed.

Yes. It does, and it was. Whether something is or is not an insurrection is non-ideological. Ideology just makes it a left-wing or right-wing insurrection. Sadly, now we have examples of both within the past year.

And if anyone of either side is happy about that for a chance to "own" the other "side," then left or right, you're a human shitstain.

 

[DanMa1156]

What do you think the intent of the mob was? Just repeat that to yourself until you realize it doesn’t make sense.

I think it was to threaten action enough to change the mind of a majority of legislators to not certify the electoral college results until such a time Trump could continue in office past January 20th, at the least.

That's either terrorism (“the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives" defined by federal code), and/or sedition ("incitement of resistance to or insurrection against lawful authority"), and either one was an attempt to subvert the democratic process and stop or delay the peaceful transfer of power. If changing the way we are governed by the Constitution through illegal means isn't revolution, I'm curious to know how you would define it. I am not being sarcastic or mocking you - genuinely want to know.

 

[DanMa1156]

First things first, it would help everyone in America to understand that there are three branches of government... and to be able to name them all. Something less than half of Americans are able to do, apparently.

I've cringed everytime I hear someone say "the democrats/communists/socialists are about to take over all three branches of government!" Uh... no they aren't dipshit.

 

[DanMa1156]

The goal of the original protest was to force Congress or the VP o overturn the election results in a manner the protesters thought was constitutionally within Congressional or VP power. It was not to overthrow the United States government or impose their own government.

I think this actually makes my point that it was terrorism; “the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.”

 

[DanMa1156]

They should get the same punishment the rioters got last summer

 

[Treetop Flyer]

I think it was to threaten action enough to change the mind of a majority of legislators to not certify the electoral college results until such a time Trump could continue in office past January 20th, at the least.

That's either terrorism (“the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives" defined by federal code), and/or sedition ("incitement of resistance to or insurrection against lawful authority"), and either one was an attempt to subvert the democratic process and stop or delay the peaceful transfer of power. If changing the way we are governed by the Constitution through illegal means isn't revolution, I'm curious to know how you would define it. I am not being sarcastic or mocking you - genuinely want to know.

I’ve heard riot apologists say that riots are an organic expression of rage. Your definition of terrorism can be applied to what happened at the Capitol but it can also be applied to what happened over months of violence across the country, including at the White House. I honestly would define it as a protest that turned criminal. A real revolution or armed insurrection would be so obvious that there would be no reason to debate it.

I don’t doubt that some of the lunatic fringe that were there thought they were starting a revolution. I also don’t doubt there were a lot of other and often bizarre motives involved.

 

[DanMa1156]

Dude. That’s a policeman getting beat in the middle. That’s the Capitol he was defending in the background. Defined ‘armed’ and ‘insurrection’ whatever way you like. That won’t change what actually occurred.

I'm stereotyping, but I guarantee at least 15% of of the people in that crowd have some sort of "thin blue line" or have said "I stand with the police." ?

 

[MIDNJAC]

I don’t doubt that some of the lunatic fringe that were there thought they were starting a revolution. I also don’t doubt there were a lot of other and often bizarre motives involved.

I agree completely. I also agree that CHAZ/CHOP and the unlawful/illegal seizure of government property this summer was also along the lines of "insurrection". I think the question, in this thread, is whether or not the Lt Col or the SrA were part of said lunatic fringe or just there for a Capitol party (with a capital C). I believe there is growing evidence that they, or those they associated with, were likely amongst them. At a minimum, the spectacle is bad for any of us former or current service members who care about the Constitution, due process, and the rule of law.....and oh yeah, the role of veterans in our society.

Edit: sorry, you didn't call the PNW events an "insurrection", but I did. I won't put words into your mouth though

 

[DanMa1156]

I’ve heard riot apologists say that riots are an organic expression of rage. Your definition of terrorism can be applied to what happened at the Capitol but it can also be applied to what happened over months of violence across the country, including at the White House. I honestly would define it as a protest that turned criminal. A real revolution or armed insurrection would be so obvious that there would be no reason to debate it.

I don’t doubt that some of the lunatic fringe that were there thought they were starting a revolution. I also don’t doubt there were a lot of other and often bizarre motives involved.

To which I would ask, what crimes would you suggest charging them with, intent notwithstanding?

 

[Spekkio]

No hacking.

The computers became the property of a computer shop owner in Delaware after the original owner (Hunter Biden) failed to pick them up within the required timeframe. He looked at the content in them, was alarmed by what he saw, and turned them over to law enforcement. Totally legal. If Hunter Biden had picked up the laptops nothing would have happened. But, he didn’t, so the computer shop owner followed his protocols. Something about “terms and conditions” and “private businesses”...

If you were unable to find this after some google searching then I’d say it’s generally indicative of the lengths to which the media has gone to suppress this information.

Okay, Biden's poor personal security practices notwithstanding... if you brought your laptop to a computer shop and the worker decided to disclose [shady shit] to social media that hadn't been vetted through a judicial review process that considered all the facts, would you be okay with social media companies allowing that? Or perhaps maybe you'd want due process to take its course before everyone associated your name with [bad thing]? How does Twitter et al allowing tons of shares of the story affect your ability to receive a fair trial?

I just don't see how social media are the bad guys here. If anything, way too many people get chastised as guilty before proven innocent on platforms before the process plays out.

Has Hunter Biden been convicted of the crimes the Post alleges occurred?

 

[Treetop Flyer]

Okay, Biden's poor personal security practices notwithstanding... if you brought your laptop to a computer shop and the worker decided to disclose [shady shit] to social media that hadn't been vetted through a judicial review process that considered all the facts, would you be okay with social media companies allowing that? Or perhaps maybe you'd want due process to take its course before everyone associated your name with [bad thing]?

I just don't see how social media are the bad guys here. If anything, way too many people get chastised as guilty before proven innocent on platforms before the process plays out.

The social media companies claimed to be about free speech. Do you honestly think they’d hesitate if dirt on Trump or an actual conservative was available?

 

[Treetop Flyer]

To which I would ask, what crimes would you suggest charging them with, intent notwithstanding?

They should be charged with whatever they did. Assault, murder, criminal mischief, whatever. I’m not a lawyer. I just wish we held everyone to the same standard.

 

[Spekkio]

The social media companies claimed to be about free speech. Do you honestly think they’d hesitate if dirt on Trump or an actual conservative was available?

Nice diversion. I'm asking about the actual case that happened, which is apparently more nuanced than you originally claimed. You also never answered my question: if you were accused of a crime in a paper, would you want social media to advertise that? Would you want 'evidence' taken out of context and obtained outside of due process released to the public? How would you feel comfortable about your ability to get a fair trial if everyone automatically assumed you are guilty?

If anything I think social media should delete MORE posts where the facts are incomplete, such as the death of George Floyd. We have due process for a reason, and preventing the massive spread of immature, incomplete, and most likely incorrect information is probably the best thing any social media company can do. Like, I would love if every stupid meme that was proven wrong by a simple fact check was instantly deleted. Maybe we wouldn't have so many idiots thinking that the COVID-19 vaccine would make you retarded. The world wonders. Think of the possibilities.

I don't think that Facebook / Twitter / et al should be a platform for flat earthers, scientologists, or whatever other demented ideologies people may have in the name of 'free speech.' And yeah, Trump probably should have been banned two years ago along with them because he posts some off-the-wall bullshit sometimes. If people can't objectively support what they're posting with facts that have undergone judicial or scientific review, it should be deleted.

But I like how you flip this on me like I'm a bleeding heart liberal coming at me with some stupid whataboutism. My own brother is a police officer who had to be investigated for an incident. He was exonerated, but his name is still searchable on google for a 'crime' he didn't commit. How do you think that affects his life? His career opportunities?

He deleted all of his social media accounts, because he was being too harassed. It would be great if they gave a shit about him enough to delete make believe stories from the NY Post, but they don't because he's not a national politician.