Appropriate response to rioting

[ergative]

I believe he did exactly that.

From Biden's campaign website, his statement on BLM violence begins: "The deadly violence we saw overnight in Portland is unacceptable. Shooting in the streets of a great American city is unacceptable. I condemn this violence unequivocally. I condemn violence of every kind by any one, whether on the left or the right."

Here's the USA Today factcheck on this issue, with more links. https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/09/17/fact-check-joe-biden-has-condemned-violence-protests-all-summer/5706355002/.

NB: this was not hard to find.  Search term on Google: Biden criticism of BLM. Set the dates to between 1 June and 30 September, and the USA today fact check was the second hit.

[marshwiggle]

I believe he did exactly that.

From Biden's campaign website, his statement on BLM violence begins: "The deadly violence we saw overnight in Portland is unacceptable. Shooting in the streets of a great American city is unacceptable. I condemn this violence unequivocally. I condemn violence of every kind by any one, whether on the left or the right."

Here's the USA Today factcheck on this issue, with more links. https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/09/17/fact-check-joe-biden-has-condemned-violence-protests-all-summer/5706355002/.

NB: this was not hard to find.  Search term on Google: Biden criticism of BLM. Set the dates to between 1 June and 30 September, and the USA today fact check was the second hit.

From the article linked, the first time he mentioned prosecution seems to be July 28.

"I've said from the outset of the recent protests that there is no place for violence or the destruction of property," Biden said July 28, according to the Post. "Peaceful protesters should be protected — but arsonists and anarchists should be prosecuted — and local law enforcement can do that.

[mahagonny]

I hope Biden turns out to be a voice from the middle, and I hope he stays healthy for the next four years, now that he doesn't have to beat the bushes for votes. He is not that vulnerable to pressure from the right, but the pressure from the far left is going to be substantial. If he listens to the kind of people who want a government department of anti-racism and a tax on being white I fear for our safety in the future. I mean all of us. The thing he needs to remember is he campaigned saying 'this should be a time for coming together and healing.'

[mamselle]

The local clergy association is discussing the possibility of going to stand around the State House next week.

M.

[spork]

More response to rioting: it's starting to look like at least some of what happened at the Capitol was an inside job. Three Capitol Police officers suspended with another seventeen under investigation so far, and reportedly some Republican members of Congress gave pre-riot tours of the Capitol Building to groups engaged in "reconnaissance." 

[lightning]

The local clergy association is discussing the possibility of going to stand around the State House next week.

M.

Noble. I hope they don't get arrested, like the approximately 70 Catholic clergy and supporters, who were arrested in 2019 at the Capitol, for protesting Trump's immigration policies--the Capitol Police were sure efficient about arresting them back then.

Actually, maybe it would be good for them to get arrested for their own safety, because MAGA would probably tear gas them or beat them to death.

Hey, all you whataboutism-ers, it's your turn, now.

[marshwiggle]

The local clergy association is discussing the possibility of going to stand around the State House next week.

M.

Noble. I hope they don't get arrested, like the approximately 70 Catholic clergy and supporters, who were arrested in 2019 at the Capitol, for protesting Trump's immigration policies--the Capitol Police were sure efficient about arresting them back then.

Actually, maybe it would be good for them to get arrested for their own safety, because MAGA would probably tear gas them or beat them to death.

Hey, all you whataboutism-ers, it's your turn, now.

Here's what I can find:

WASHINGTON - Hundreds of Catholics gathered in the nation's capital to protest the federal government's treatment of migrants, and about 70 sisters, clergy and parishioners were arrested.

The Washington Post reports protesters armed with photos of migrant children who died in federal custody recited The Lord's Prayer as they demonstrated in the Russell Senate Office Building on Thursday. The children's names rang out as some protesters laid on the floor in the shape of a cross.

This is the second time this week people of faith protested in the District and called for the dissolution of Immigration and Customs Enforcement and an end to crowded detainment centres at the U.S.-Mexico border. Dozens of protesters blocked access to the ICE headquarters Tuesday and 10 were arrested on charges of unlawful entry.

In the first case, I'm guessing they were arrested for trespassing. Is that correct? If so, what's the legal definition? In the second case, if they were blocking the doors to a building, then that probably is illegal. The "unlawful entry" charges must relate to how they entered the building or where they went inside.

If the charges are within the definitons of the law, and people did not resist arrest, then as long as law enforcement people didn't engage in any violence, then there's no problem.

• If none of their actions fit the legal definitons of trespass, (or whatever), then their arrests are a problem.
• If they resisted arrest, and force was employed, then it may or may not have been justified to make the arrests.
• If they didn't resist, but excessive force was used, such as the protesters gassed for Trump's photo-op, then that's a problem.

[apl68]

The local clergy association is discussing the possibility of going to stand around the State House next week.

M.

Noble. I hope they don't get arrested, like the approximately 70 Catholic clergy and supporters, who were arrested in 2019 at the Capitol, for protesting Trump's immigration policies--the Capitol Police were sure efficient about arresting them back then.

Actually, maybe it would be good for them to get arrested for their own safety, because MAGA would probably tear gas them or beat them to death.

Hey, all you whataboutism-ers, it's your turn, now.

Here's what I can find:

WASHINGTON - Hundreds of Catholics gathered in the nation's capital to protest the federal government's treatment of migrants, and about 70 sisters, clergy and parishioners were arrested.

The Washington Post reports protesters armed with photos of migrant children who died in federal custody recited The Lord's Prayer as they demonstrated in the Russell Senate Office Building on Thursday. The children's names rang out as some protesters laid on the floor in the shape of a cross.

This is the second time this week people of faith protested in the District and called for the dissolution of Immigration and Customs Enforcement and an end to crowded detainment centres at the U.S.-Mexico border. Dozens of protesters blocked access to the ICE headquarters Tuesday and 10 were arrested on charges of unlawful entry.

In the first case, I'm guessing they were arrested for trespassing. Is that correct? If so, what's the legal definition? In the second case, if they were blocking the doors to a building, then that probably is illegal. The "unlawful entry" charges must relate to how they entered the building or where they went inside.

If the charges are within the definitons of the law, and people did not resist arrest, then as long as law enforcement people didn't engage in any violence, then there's no problem.

• If none of their actions fit the legal definitons of trespass, (or whatever), then their arrests are a problem.
• If they resisted arrest, and force was employed, then it may or may not have been justified to make the arrests.
• If they didn't resist, but excessive force was used, such as the protesters gassed for Trump's photo-op, then that's a problem.

That's true.  Peaceful protestors often get legally and peacefully arrested for trespassing.  They sometimes get themselves arrested deliberately to draw attention to their causes.  Law enforcement's reaction in such situations is not a cause for scandal, unless there was excessive force involved.

Again, most BLM protestors are peaceful, most MAGA protestors are peaceful, and most law officers covering protests don't engage in excessive force.  When discussing these things we've got to bear that in mind, and stop tarring everybody with the same brush.  Again and again and again on this thread I've seen this attitude of "our side has more right to be outraged because their side acts more outrageous!  Our side at most has a tiny handful of bad apples that of course we don't approve of, but their side is guilty of cheering on the mobs even if they don't participate!" 

I just don't see that.  It seems to me that the great majority of Americans still want peace.  If they didn't, the violence would have become far worse already.  Let's stop assuming that millions of people on "the other side" want to see violence.  It usually takes two to have violence.  It always takes two to make peace.

[marshwiggle]

It seems to me that the great majority of Americans still want peace.  If they didn't, the violence would have become far worse already.  Let's stop assuming that millions of people on "the other side" want to see violence.  It usually takes two to have violence.  It always takes two to make peace.

I agree. I imagine the vast majority of people are appalled by rioting and other unlawful behaviour, whichever side it comes from, but that doesn't get talked about since it takes wind out of the "outrage sails" of everyone promoting a cause, and every news organization which can get an audience by dwelling on it.

Imagine the headline:
"On the news this evening; civial and productive discussions continue regarding <whatever issue>!"

[spork]

Two Virginia police officers arrested, presumably by the FBI.

[marshwiggle]

An interesting video, including reference to the American revolution, and the question of when anti-government action may be justified.

The Capitol Insurrection and BLM riots comparison

[mahagonny]

An interesting video, including reference to the American revolution, and the question of when anti-government action may be justified.

The Capitol Insurrection and BLM riots comparison

Both sides, the militant right insurrectionists and the anti-racist crowd want to claim the other is 'un-American.' If you can make that charge stick, apparently, you've got it made. Whereas, the far left may have a logical failure. If as they claim white against black racism is an essential American trait, then anti-racism can be said to be an insurrection, an anti-America uprising. Which would make last week's attack on the government function a prevention of an insurrection.
Both sides need to tone it down some.
There's a guest speaker coming to our campus next week, an anti-racism movement mover and shaker, and i'm pretty sure he's going to declare the USA morally illegitimate.
Don't ask me!

[dismalist]

This person, who was present claims that agents provocateurs were responsible:

https://thefederalist.com/2021/01/14/i-saw-provocateurs-at-the-capitol-riot-on-jan-6/

[jimbogumbo]

This person, who was present claims that agents provocateurs were responsible:

https://thefederalist.com/2021/01/14/i-saw-provocateurs-at-the-capitol-riot-on-jan-6/

This is a joke, right? He presumes anyone in a MAGA cap on backwards is actually Antifa.

Jesus H Christ.

[jimbogumbo]

White supremacists were in abundance at the Capitol:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/terror-watchlist-capitol-riot-fbi/2021/01/14/07412814-55f7-11eb-a931-5b162d0d033d_story.html