https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2024/04/scotus-justices-why-isnt-doj-treating-dobbs-protesters-like-january-6-attackers/
“Why has no one been charged for disrupting the Supreme Court?”
This idiot glossing over the fact that the Jan 6th traitors not only attempted to capture congress to kill them and the vice president but also shit in their hands and smeared it on the capital walls?
They beat policemen to death and wiped their own feces on the walls of our Nation’s Capital.
(I am amazed how often this gets deleted by moderators on lemmy when I point this out)
I apologize. Of the officers beaten by rioters only one, Brian Sicknick, died directly from the wounds. Fifteen more were hospitalized.
Umm... And you're 100% sure that the medical examiner is lying despite natural causes also being the accepted finding by Capitol Police?
Why are you splitting hairs to defend insurrectionists?
Is it because they beat capitol police and you hate the police?
If you spread false information, even if it's in the name of a good cause, you will make it harder for people to believe you or people supporting your good cause when you talk about true information. There's enough issues with conservatives that you don't need to invent more like a conspiracy theorist.
No, it is because like I said the Supreme Court did ask some valid questions... there are plenty of laws that the people on Jan. 6 broke, but the one in particular that they are using could equally be applied to protesters that have also disrupted official proceedings. If the police have evidence that all the people that went into the capitol were there with a plan to assassinate and specifically harm members of congress, then yes I think that they should qualify under this law. But, merely going into the capitol building is not sufficient evidence in of itself. I'm just saying, be careful what you wish for and don't be surprised if suddenly climate activists and other Democrat protesters don't get charged with the same thing once you do.
Medical examiners are one step removed from cops (as in they work with cops a lot and a lot of them are ridiculously unqualified political hires) so yeah, it would be stupid to trust them in any even slightly contentious circumstances.
So what I'm hearing is, we should treat SCOTUS the same way Trump supporters treated Congress on 1/6?
Is that really the argument they want to make?
Lol.. I do like your point. However, it seems like what they are saying is that you have to prove they intended harm on those conducting official proceedings. Attacking a police officer is good evidence, but it doesn't necessarily show an intent to harm those conducting the proceeding.
They were beating officers and breaking doors and windows so they could get into the chambers and shake the hands of their elected representatives!
They brought pipe bombs, hand cuffs and zip ties as tokens of affection for their elected leaders!
So you're telling me the BLM protestors breaking windows, trying to set fires and throwing rocks at police wanted to set the whole city on fire and kill all the police? And so when it came to their charges, they just got let go? Like c'mon... Are you even going to talk about this from a legitimate perspective, cause otherwise you're just helping the Jan 6 attackers by being ficticios.
This guy is going full reddit here. Comparing BLM to the insurrection, acting like they're the same, and downplaying the insurrection.
I notice that the centrists who call everyone who doesn't worship Biden's support for genocide a Trump supporter are silent here.
This is what "both sides"ing actually looks like. This is what Trump support actually looks like. Centrists don't care in this case because they only oppose those to their left.
You are so far from reality... If you call yourself a Democrat and Democrats are supposed to be educated, then Trump will certainly win and it will be your fault and people that circle jerk the same kind of reactionary non-educated and emotionally challenged ideas you spread. I wouldn't be surprised to find out that in the end the Russian trolls aren't laughing right now at how easy it is to manipulate some American democrats by just targeting their emotions and feelings when they won't do any basic research beyond on how they feel.
No where did I try to equate the two. Laws are indifferent to your feelings of when violence and crime are justified. My point was that some BLM protesters doings something doesn't mean that they are guilty of it. In fact, my argument was in support of peaceful protesters. The only way you could be offended is if you are in fact a violent protester who is upset that violence isn't allowed when it makes you feel good.
“The only way you could be offended..” lmfao. Get off your high horse bud. And no your arguments are not about peaceful protest but you already know this.
You've got an agenda that has nothing to do with being honest and transparent. Instead resort to ad hominem attacks and hyperbole.
it seems like what they are saying is that you have to prove they intended harm on those conducting official proceedings.
Uh huh.
So I guess breaking into Congress when it was closed to the public because of COVID, on the day Congress was meeting to certify the winner of an election Trump and his supporters refused to acknowledge he lost, bringing zip tie handcuffs, building a fucking gallows out front, chanting "Hang Mike Pence!", having guns on the Capitol grounds and stashed around DC, and literally beating the officers who were there to protect Congress, doesn't mean Trump supporters were there with "intention to harm?"
Yep, sounds exactly the same as being angry about America's still-extant racism which allows Black men to be murdered by cops to me!
According to your logic, during a BLM protest where people start rioting and breaking into shops that means all the protesters in the area had an intention of committing the same crimes. Do you really want cops charging everyone in a public area with the same crime? Do you want them locking up journalists and people there peacefully cause some people in their vicinity had some lighters, cloth and alcohol bottles? The whole point of trial is to prove someones guilt and for that you need evidence of what crime they were planning to commit.
Quick question there, sparky:
How many people charged for their actions on Jan 6 never entered the Capitol?
Because the only way the logic you're defending holds up, is if that was the case.
Sparky? Really bro?
Did you even read the story that I was responding to, you know the specific crime that the Supreme Court was looking at. They weren't looking to see if trespassing was illegal, nor did I ever say they shouldn't be charged with trespassing nor of entering a government building without permission. I was talking about whether the protesters should all be treated like they were their to kill representatives certifying the votes even without evidence that was all their intentions. Sure, some may have been there for that purpose, but does that meant that everyone that entered into the capitol building was there for that exact same reason?
If so, my point was does that mean that everyone at a BLM protests... even those that were being peaceful, are in an area when someone sets a fire... should be charged with arson? Like, do we want judges saying.. oh, they were in the area or in the building when this happened and cause a few were there for a different purpose, it means they were all there for the same purpose. Or do we want courts to evaluate the evidence against each defendant and try to treat people fairly as much as possible?
The only point you seem to make is plugging your ears and talking over and around the actually contextual replies that repeatedly negate your word salad.
Knock it off.
Bro.
Many times it was found that those people breaking shop windows during BLM protests were actually right-wing agitators.
They might have been. The whole point was the article which discusses whether to charge them with a specific crime that requires a specific intent, and I said you need evidence against each defendant for that... and the fringe antifa left came out and said, no... charge them all cause everyone that entered the Capitol building was there to hang pence. Several of them claimed several officers died, and then were to ashamed to admit that all public reports including Wikipedia said no officers died.
IMO many of these commenters are just as bad as the right-wingers who don't deal in facts. They are just as gullible to misinformation and don't care about real facts or evidence.
Well, for starters, the Supreme Court protestors, as near as I can tell, aren't breaking down windows and doors trying to get in, beating people with flagpoles, carrying zip ties with which to kidnap and detain justices, setting up gallows, or chanting "Hang Clarence Thomas." (There's an uncomfortable image if I ever saw one.)
For all the people who upvoted this and clearly didn't read the article. . .let me quote the relevant part:
Alito acknowledged, “What happened on January 6 was very, very serious, and I’m not equating this with that.” But, he continued, “We need to find out what are the outer reaches of this statute under your interpretation.”
It's like 200 words into the article.
Seems like it would be pretty typical to see how wide a net prosecutors are casting with their interpretation. He's clearly not saying nor suggesting that they should be charged, only asking if they would be charged under their current interpretation.
More specifically the question is, does the statute in question apply to people preventing a government procedure from occurring? Previously the statute has been used to prosecute folks who tamper with evidence. They're quibbling over the wording and whether storming a proceeding is also covered.
It's seems fairly obvious to me that January 6th rioters wanted to stop the proceedings in a way that protestors of the supreme court do not. It also seems obvious that the government wouldn't want citizens to be able to legally prevent it's basic proceedings from occurring.
Also worth saying the defendant ran at a police line yelling "charge"
If the election goes as well as we can reasonably hope, it might be possible to fix the Supreme Court situation. The biggest obstacle is the Democrats actually taking the W and doing what people want instead of waving their arms and panicking because they've won.
If they stormed the Supreme Court and tried to hang a Republican justice I might see the parallel. I'd be silently wishing them godspeed, but I'd at least admit the justices had a fair point.
Damn, one of those protesters got shot after trying to go through the barricade setup because they got into the building like J6? The protesters literally just got signs out and were yelling in front of the building. May these illegitimate fucks die soon. Kavanaugh cant get cirrhosis fast enough.
Except even Wikipedia says that is false and that the medical examiner determined natural causes and this was accepted as the cause by Capitol Police. So were the police victims or are they in on it and covering up for Trump? If they are covering up, are the claims true that they led protestors into the building?
Fucker wants to know why peaceful protesters who just want their bodily rights aren’t being prosecuted just like hypocritical assholes who say they respect Blue Lives but aren’t averse to killing a cop or two while overthrowing the govt.
Much hilarity ensues.
Because only one of those groups were patsies led by a handful of traitors to our country in a plot to overthrow our elected government. And it wasn't the Dobbs protesters.
Some of them were and are. Sorry, but I don't think it's reasonable to claim they were all in on the real plot. That doesn't mean they weren't taking part in an insurrection, of course - ignorance is no excuse.
The punishment laid out in their convictions take into account how involved they were in the insurrection. The Supreme Court isn't taking that into account. Many are getting a simple fine for trespassing, but the ones that went with the intent of causing trouble are getting the actual real punishments.
These justices can fuck all the way off but this headline is taken out of context.
From the article: Alito acknowledged, “What happened on January 6 was very, very serious, and I’m not equating this with that.” But, he continued, “We need to find out what are the outer reaches of this statute under your interpretation.”
I love how unflattering the pic of Alito is. While he's no looker at the best of times, this one captures his personality better than most.