Pro-Trump protesters storm the Capitol, January 6. REUTERS/Ahmed Gaber
Jeff Schogol, Task & Purpose: Here’s why Pentagon described the Capitol Hill riots as ‘First Amendment protests’
When is a riot not a riot?
The Defense Department is taking heat for describing the recent attempted insurrection on Capitol Hill as “First Amendment Protests in Washington D.C.”
On Friday, the Pentagon released a timeline of how the National Guard was activated for and responded to the Jan. 6 riots, during which a pro-Trump mob attempted to recreate the 1917 Bolshevik revolution by storming Congress.
Read more ....
WNU Editor: The Pentagon used the same language that the Washington DC mayor used in her request. And as to why the Washington DC mayor used those words. She is being consistent. That is the exact same language that she has been used to describe the riots/protests that engulfed Washington DC last year.
As to what is my take.
The riots that occurred last year were riots, and what happened this week in the Capital building was also a riot, albeit minus the destruction of statues and the fire bombings.
One more note.
The above author compares to what happened on Wednesday to an attempt by a pro-Trump mob to recreate the 1917 Bolshevik revolution by storming Congress. What an appalling lack of knowledge on Russian/Soviet history. Comparing pro-Trump supporters to Communist Bolsheviks?!?!?!?
OMG!!!!
What do they teach in American schools today?
Since we are at it. Why not compare to what happened on Wednesday to the storming of the Bastille in Paris in 1789 and the start of the French Revolution. Now that sounds more exciting.
Update: We are definitely witnessing the rewriting of history .... The Lafayette Park Protests And The Revision Of History (Jonathan Turley).
6 comments:
I watched a video, where a police officer moved a barricade out of the way. At that point is it pushing past a barricade? Is pushing past a barricade necessary and sufficient to call it a riot?
Smashing windows is riotous. Who smashed the windows? I submit to you it was ANTIFA.
If no windows had been broken and people had walked up into the capital and went into the gallery would that have been a riot?
Definitions of a riot is:
- A wild or turbulent disturbance created by a large number of people.
- A violent disturbance of the public peace by three or more persons assembled for a common purpose.
I submit that these are stupid definitions. Language fails us.
Three people could be walking down mains tree of any American city without masks and an budding fascists elected official could call the a wild disturbance or breaking the peace.
Muriel Bowser was being consistent in under-resourcing. She had 1,500 National Guard. They were to direct traffic only. She got what she wanted.
If there had been 1,500 national guardsmen with shields and/or clubs do you think anyone would have entered the capital building? With locked shield alone they could have kept the crowd from breaking thru.
John Sullivan, a Utah ANTIFA leader, was at DC and tweeted about bus loads of ANTIFA in DC. FIB director Wray said there were none.
Amazingly John Sullivan was not arrested and he does not fear arrest, but he was in the building which for other people that fact alone the Uncle Slam wants to charge them.
Does WNU know, who John Sullivan is?
We need better definitions. When 3 or more people get together and there is no property damage or physical assaults on people, it is different than when there is. If a person cannot make such a distinction, then a person must be dishonest.
What stands the people who climbed the step in bad stead is the fact that windows were broken and police were assaulted. That reminds me of the stolen car scenario. Some parents and some educators tell young teenagers that if they are riding in a stolen car, they can be charged with crimes although they do know that it was stolen. Moral of the story is that when some teenagers are joyriding and they ask you to get in, maybe you you should decline unless you know that the other teenagers have leave to actually use the car.
Yes
I know who John Sullivan is.
Anonymous, I like how your mind works. Working through problems by thinking about them rationally. As a suggestion, when talking about the definitions of a criminal act, seek out Jury instructions. Every state and the feds have put together, through judges, lawyers and legal professors, jury instructions. this is the finale say about the written law. You should be able to find these instructions with a simple search through duck duck go. I am in California. I use calcrims. For example, the definition in California of a riot for the purpose of arrest and prosecution is: [A riot occurs when two or more people, acting together and without legal authority, disturb the public peace by use of force or violence or by threat to use force or violence with the immediate ability to carry out those threats.] See how this differs from the dictionary. I hope this helps. Ron
3:56,
Thank you for your reply.
I am still linking useful website in my playstation (After google, Apple, Amazon, Microsoft and others started locking down servers, stores, websites and their devices, my computer might soon be a glorified playstation.). I have a lot of knowledge in a lot of areas, but law is definitely one I need more of. I like Conenell.edu site. It is friendly, free and useful.
Heck, in short I'll add calcrim.
I believe entering the work offices of the legislators should be treated somewhat more harshly than walking the halls, being in the gallery or perhaps the floor. IMO the gallery and halls should be misdemenors. Being the offices should hurt,
I take real offense to papers being rifled, stolen or read.
Putting shoes on the desk should be be 2 misdemeanors not one and the fine should hurt. but it is not worrisome like the documents nor is their in threat.
Being on the floor would and did disrupt the proceedings. That should be dealt harsher than the gallery or halls. But if we have equal prosecution and protection, then they should not be judged harsher than Code Pink.
Here is my $50 question. Did the Congress allow for any viewers in the gallery for the proceedings? The viewers should keep quiet. But if the legislators allowed for no audience, they have not broken a written law, but they have broken faith, a code of conduct.
Incrível seu comentário no final.
Sim eu acredito que seja mais uma revolução da maçonaria com jesuitas para nossos tempos.
estive no astral dois dias atrás e a situação de onde eu estava era de guerra.
continue postando!
Brasil. Alexandre.
haha top anon is shot, how about when entering a building where public officials are in session with zip cuffs and a law enforcement officer gets his head smashed with an american flag and a fire extinguisher.
WNU some of these shills are unbelievable xD
Post a Comment