So chanting hang the vice president doesn't count as insurrection to you....nice revisionist history. I guess to you the nazis just had "tough immigration laws".
It's a chant. Insurrection has an actual definition and legal standard. Here's some news for you, not a single person was charged with Insurrection, out of the hundreds that have been held without charges in isolation for months on end.
The capital riot was an insurrection by definition: a violent uprising against an authority or government. Which is exactly what happened. Rioters forcefully entered the capitol building and assaulted various police officers and capitol personel in the process in an effort to interfere in the counting of the balots.
-
"not a single person was charged with Insurrection" correct because in law it is significantly harder to convict someone on sedition/insurrection due to first amendment protections on hyperbole. That being said prosecutors will always go for whatever will get them a conviction so 90% of charges are going to be trespassing, disorderly conduct, or weapons charges which carry the same if not similar prison/fines charges as a sedition. Why would a prosecutor levy charges against someone for a crime that is harder to prove due to first amendment restrictions over a guaranteed conviction in one of the above listed charges that yield the same punishments in the end.
If it was an uprising we wouldn't be arguing about why no one was charged with insurrection. You charge people with what they're suspected of doing.
And FYI, there's a huge difference between shitting on Pelosi's desk after be waved in by the police, and actually trying to destroy the government.
Nevermind that we still aren't told why the people who just wondered the halls after being waved in by Police are being held at all, let alone denied their civil and criminal rights to this day.
Yes this is why Al Capone was charged with criminal conspiracy, smuggling, murder, assault, etc. instead of tax fraud. Because you never charge people on lesser crimes that you are more certain will get a conviction. Never ever.
You realize that means, legally speaking, that Scarface was innocent of conspiracy, smuggling, murder, assault, and everything else if he never confessed or was convicted in a court of law?
Innocent until proven guilty is the primary facet of US judicial system. So if you aren't convicted of a crime then yes you're automatically innocent. That is the right afforded to all peoples within the US proper. The adverse of this would be guilty until proven innocent (obviously) which at the time of the founding of the US was the most prevalent form of judicial practice in England. Whether they committed an illegal act is irrelevant if it cannot be proven in court that the unlawful act occurred. This is where double jeopardy comes in and the thread above. (Cont.)
Insurrection charges are significantly harder to land as compared to say treason. Treason comes from the use and/or perpetuation of a foreign governments wishes in a way to overthrow the US government. If someone is convicted of treason it means there would need to be evidence of direct foreign interference.
-
Sedition on the other hand is a rebellion against the government or authorities without foreign interference. The issue with obtaining a conviction is proving motive. If the accused is not on recording of saying something along the lines of "hang Mike Pence" then you cannot prove motivation therefore you cannot claim sedition in the courts. The only other option you have is trespassing and weapons charges which they undeniably were doing.
Trespassing, yeah. Not insurrection is my sticking point.
I'm curious about the weapon charges though. I heard the FBI said there were none. Did something turn up since then?
Don't get me wrong, the law should be applied duly and fairly. Hence why I'll sometimes bring up the race riots and the other cases of insurrection in Portland.
But rights need to be respected as well, or the whole case is dirty. By keeping them without respect for their rights, they're the victims now.
I mean the whole point of the rally was "stop the steal". Which was in direct contention with the widely accepted election results. Having set the tone for the rally those who entered under that ideology were making a move to stop the final compiling of the states' election results. This is inherently political and against the common practices of the US political system. The people who entered the capitol building that day interrupted the proceedings used by the government to ensure the continuation of the transfer of power from one president to another.
As far as weapons charges go I found thay 40 out of 643 had some form of weapon referenced in their initial charges so if something has changed since then I'm unaware of it. As far as I've read most amount to blunt force weapons such as brass knuckles, chair legs or things of the like obtained from the building, or chemical weapons such as mace or peppers pray. Most of these are charges are in conjunction with charges of assault on police officers.
We are in agreeance that law should be enforced and applied concurrently amongst the US the issue is these are 1. Different jurisdictions and 2. The Jan 6 incident was on federal property whereas say Portland was an incident on State property therefore the state of Washington not charging the rioters for their attacking of judicial buildings is solely on the state itself.
Federal buildings and officers were targeted, too. In Portland.
Aside from that, the FBI said there were no weapons weeks after the fact, so I'll assume that's the most current information.
And really, the entire election was irregular. They were seeking to delay the certification for audit, I thought.
I should point out innocent in regards to law doesnt mean you didnt do something, it means it cant be proven by the standards of the court that you did it, hence my example
If you shot a guy and everyone knew but nobody could prove it, then it was a frame-up, a case of mistaken identity, or maybe you really just spit on the guy but everyone really wanted to act like it was something way worse than it was.
No ones disagreeing with you @xdmaniac. Doing something and being convicted of something are two different things. I believe OJ killed his wife but the prosecutors couldn't prove that he did so he was found innocent. It doesn't matter what I think happened because I won't act upon it. What matters is what the court thinks happens because they have the ability to act upon it.
nah famous is disagreeing but that OJ example is perfect. As well as the Al Capone example I already gave where he definitely committed heaps of crimes. Whether you think its insurrection or not, famous your original point about prosecution is irrelevant. Guilty people go free all the time. Ya know, like cosby.
-
"not a single person was charged with Insurrection" correct because in law it is significantly harder to convict someone on sedition/insurrection due to first amendment protections on hyperbole. That being said prosecutors will always go for whatever will get them a conviction so 90% of charges are going to be trespassing, disorderly conduct, or weapons charges which carry the same if not similar prison/fines charges as a sedition. Why would a prosecutor levy charges against someone for a crime that is harder to prove due to first amendment restrictions over a guaranteed conviction in one of the above listed charges that yield the same punishments in the end.
And FYI, there's a huge difference between shitting on Pelosi's desk after be waved in by the police, and actually trying to destroy the government.
Nevermind that we still aren't told why the people who just wondered the halls after being waved in by Police are being held at all, let alone denied their civil and criminal rights to this day.
-
Sedition on the other hand is a rebellion against the government or authorities without foreign interference. The issue with obtaining a conviction is proving motive. If the accused is not on recording of saying something along the lines of "hang Mike Pence" then you cannot prove motivation therefore you cannot claim sedition in the courts. The only other option you have is trespassing and weapons charges which they undeniably were doing.
I'm curious about the weapon charges though. I heard the FBI said there were none. Did something turn up since then?
Don't get me wrong, the law should be applied duly and fairly. Hence why I'll sometimes bring up the race riots and the other cases of insurrection in Portland.
But rights need to be respected as well, or the whole case is dirty. By keeping them without respect for their rights, they're the victims now.
Aside from that, the FBI said there were no weapons weeks after the fact, so I'll assume that's the most current information.
And really, the entire election was irregular. They were seeking to delay the certification for audit, I thought.