Capitol Attack. What happens next time ?

[mistermack]

Considering how gun-happy Americans are, I was amazed how few shots were fired by the 'defenders' of the Capitol. This event seems to have been something that was never considered as possible, because nobody knew what to do when it was happening. 

But now it's happened, what do you think would happen next time? What should happen? 

You can bet your life that there is now already a plan in place for any repeat ocurrence. But what is it? If the plan is to start shooting, once somebody crosses the boundaries, then you would think that the public should be warned. So that if someone gets shot next time, at least you can say that they were warned. 

Maybe the authorities don't want to up the ante, and risk people coming armed next time. But I think that that would happen anyway. If people want to try again, they WILL be tooled up. 

If I was in charge, I would announce that people will get shot, if they join any attack on the Capitol or White House. Make it common knowledge. Mind you, if I had been in charge, they would have been plenty of shooting last time. An attack like that is an attack on the country. It can't possibly be a grey area of protest/attack. Not any more anyway. 

[StringJunky]

If it had been black or Hispanics doing it, kicking off there with a Capitol incursion in the same way, about Floyd say,  it would have probably  been a bloodbath.

[J.C.MacSwell]

15 minutes ago, mistermack said:

It can't possibly be a grey area of protest/attack. Not any more anyway. 

To some degree I think they may have been emboldened by the the degree some of the Black Lives Matters protests were allowed to become violent, with much of that violence overlooked, condoned, and even sometimes encouraged by the media and some politicians. Some of the violence was as bad or worse, less threatening only because it was not an assault on the capitol.

I agree there should be some signal that enough is enough, with better stated boundaries as to what is an acceptable act in a protest.

[MigL]

I find it funny ( not the incident itself ) that the most gun-happy society in the world was so restrained in their response, when in most other countries ( even European ) it would have been seen as an attack and armed troops brought in to quell the insurrection.

I can see National Guard troops on stand-by, for any such major functions, like certifying elections, in the future.

[mistermack]

They would probably need to pass a special law to cope with future attacks. Otherwise, the courts would have a field day working out what was legal, and what not. 

The police have to demonstrate why they pulled the trigger in day to day shootings, and it revolves around a percieved realistic threat to life. If it stays that way, it will be difficult to plan an effective defence against a similar mob in the future. When does a protest become a threat to life? It would be unfair to just leave it to the boots on the ground to decide. They are just there to provide muscle, not to make political decisions of that nature. 

If they don't draft a law protecting the defenders, it's a cop out, buck-passing by the politicians. 

They might dodge the issue by putting up more effective crowd barriers. 

[CharonY]

4 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

To some degree I think they may have been emboldened by the the degree some of the Black Lives Matters protests were allowed to become violent, with much of that violence overlooked, condoned, and even sometimes encouraged by the media and some politicians.

I have my doubts on that. Most reports indicate that despite the large scale of BLM protests (compared to Jan 6 for example), there were comparatively few acts of violence, with more violence directed at protesters than instigated by them. Reporters and bystanders getting shot by rubberized metal rounds by the police, were given as an example, which clearly shows that police faced with violence were far less aggressive during January 6th. In part it was because they were likely understaffed, apparently by design.

 Data from researchers (Chenoweth is widely cited) collected data from over 7,305 protests involving millions of participants (estimates are about 15-26 million). In about 1% of those police officers were harmed and one was killed (by  a far right bugaloo member in California). Deaths were isolated events including Kenosha (where Rittenhouse shot three and killed one). Another killing was conducted by an anti-fascist protester who was in turn killed by the police. In about 4% of the protests some sort of property damage were reported. 

Considering the overall scope of BLM protests and the incredibly low level of violence (in Germany, soccer season often sparked more violence on a per person level) it seems to me that drawing an equivalence is only possible if one ignores the scope of the  respective events. 

 

 

[mistermack]

I think in any case, an attack on the Capitol or White House or Pentagon, or maybe other national institutions is in a totally different catagory to any other demonstration or protest. Crossing the perimeter should be regarded as an attack on the whole country, otherwise it's going to get more popular with time.

There was a report on tv an hour ago, from outside the Capitol, and there was a lot of scaffolding around it, with high sheeting, so that you couldn't see what was being done. Maybe they are putting in some much more effective defensive infrastructure. I'm just speculating. 

[TheVat]

4 hours ago, StringJunky said:

If it had been black or Hispanics doing it, kicking off there with a Capitol incursion in the same way, about Floyd say,  it would have probably  been a bloodbath.

This was pointed out also in Michigan when an angry COVID restrictions protest in Spring of 2020 , a crowd with many men carrying rifles, filed into the State Capitol there and entered legislative chambers.  If you look at the crowd shots, it's pretty clear why they were not seen as a threat.

 

[J.C.MacSwell]

38 minutes ago, CharonY said:

I have my doubts on that. Most reports indicate that despite the large scale of BLM protests (compared to Jan 6 for example), there were comparatively few acts of violence, with more violence directed at protesters than instigated by them. Reporters and bystanders getting shot by rubberized metal rounds by the police, were given as an example, which clearly shows that police faced with violence were far less aggressive during January 6th. In part it was because they were likely understaffed, apparently by design.

 Data from researchers (Chenoweth is widely cited) collected data from over 7,305 protests involving millions of participants (estimates are about 15-26 million). In about 1% of those police officers were harmed and one was killed (by  a far right bugaloo member in California). Deaths were isolated events including Kenosha (where Rittenhouse shot three and killed one). Another killing was conducted by an anti-fascist protester who was in turn killed by the police. In about 4% of the protests some sort of property damage were reported. 

Considering the overall scope of BLM protests and the incredibly low level of violence (in Germany, soccer season often sparked more violence on a per person level) it seems to me that drawing an equivalence is only possible if one ignores the scope of the  respective events. 

 

 

So you believe they were not emboldened? Your explanation sounds more like they shouldn't have been emboldened...and of course I would agree with that.

No amount of, violence however intended, Media and Politicians behaving badly, and mostly peaceful protesters holding up "defund the Police" signs, justifies attacking the capitol...but of course I didn't claim it did.

[Peterkin]

5 hours ago, mistermack said:

But now it's happened, what do you think would happen next time?

Something different. The authorities would be too well prepared, get the barricades up, choke street traffic to observable single file, install metal detectors, etc. Plus, the insurgents'  Glorious Leader isn't in the White House to cheer them on and retard the defence efforts. (Remember Trump started organizing that mess back in March.)

If he is in the White House, they won't need to attack the Capitol; it'll be their officially designated rest room. 

The next battle will be somewhere else, probably one of the state legislatures, or more probably staged as spontaneous against a demonstration in support of the civil rights of some group they're trying to disenfranchise.

 

[iNow]

5 hours ago, MigL said:

I find it funny ( not the incident itself ) that the most gun-happy society in the world was so restrained in their response, when in most other countries ( even European ) it would have been seen as an attack and armed troops brought in to quell the insurrection.

I can see National Guard troops on stand-by, for any such major functions, like certifying elections, in the future.

The commander in chief who provides the highest ranking orders for those troops is the one who caused and supported the attack.

There’s a reason it took them so long to get there. Orders to deploy, especially on domestic soil, have to come from someone high up. Those orders didn’t come. 

[CharonY]

7 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

So you believe they were not emboldened? Your explanation sounds more like they shouldn't have been emboldened...and of course I would agree with that.

No amount of, violence however intended, Media and Politicians behaving badly, and mostly peaceful protesters holding up "defund the Police" signs, justifies attacking the capitol...but of course I didn't claim it did.

Of course they were emboldened, by Trump and the GOP that made them believe that they were in right.  Heck the BLM might have emboldened them, as they thought that the aggressive tactics against protesters and antifa showed that the police were on their side (and they were not far wrong, a lot of law enforcement were very pro-Trump).

But it was not because of violence during BLM protests. In fact they believed themselves to better and therefore clearly did not see themselves in a similar position as BLM folks.

[J.C.MacSwell]

6 hours ago, CharonY said:

Of course they were emboldened, by Trump and the GOP that made them believe that they were in right.  Heck the BLM might have emboldened them, as they thought that the aggressive tactics against protesters and antifa showed that the police were on their side (and they were not far wrong, a lot of law enforcement were very pro-Trump).

But it was not because of violence during BLM protests. In fact they believed themselves to better and therefore clearly did not see themselves in a similar position as BLM folks.

Right. Emboldened by everything else...but not that. Quite the perspective.

[TheVat]

The important barricades will be around state and county election officials and workers.   The "ginger mints" affair was just the beginning.  The people who process and certify votes are where the ramparts of democracy are most threatened.  

[swansont]

20 hours ago, mistermack said:

what do you think would happen next time?

The GOP will have put legislation in place, and people in key positions loyal to the party rather than the country, such that violence need not be part of the plan.

[Peterkin]

1 hour ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Emboldened by everything else...but not that.

Not everything else... but partly also that. The same groups who staged the attack on the Capitol were responsible for much or most of the violence at BLM protests and other confrontations, like the ones in Charlottsville, and Michigan, and suffered very few consequences. https://www.propublica.org/article/sense-of-entitlement-rioters-faced-no-consequences-invading-state-capitols-no-wonder-they-turned-to-the-u-s-capitol-next

As for the Capitol siege, they were expressly invited by Their President. How much more emboldenment do they need?

Edited July 23, 2022 by Peterkin

[J.C.MacSwell]

10 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

Not everything else... but partly also that. The same groups who staged the attack on the Capitol were responsible for much or most of the violence at BLM protests and other confrontations, like the ones in Charlottsville, and Michigan, and suffered very few consequences. https://www.propublica.org/article/sense-of-entitlement-rioters-faced-no-consequences-invading-state-capitols-no-wonder-they-turned-to-the-u-s-capitol-next

As for the Capitol siege, they were expressly invited by Their President. How much more emboldenment do they need?

That also.

15 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

So you believe they were not emboldened? Your explanation sounds more like they shouldn't have been emboldened...and of course I would agree with that.

No amount of, violence however intended, Media and Politicians behaving badly, and mostly peaceful protesters holding up "defund the Police" signs, justifies attacking the capitol...but of course I didn't claim it did.

 

Pick and choose at your peril.

[Peterkin]

21 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Black Lives Matters protests were allowed to become violent, with much of that violence overlooked, condoned, and even sometimes encouraged by the media and some politicians.

This was the part with which CharonY and I took issue, especially when followed up by:

 

15 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

No amount of, violence however intended, Media and Politicians behaving badly, and mostly peaceful protesters holding up "defund the Police" signs, justifies attacking the capitol...but of course I didn't claim it did.

It's quite the wrong way around. At each of those protests, it was they themselves, the militant right fringe, who committed violent acts and got away with it. Their violent action were never in response to "Media and Politicians behaving badly"; the bad behaviour on the part of politicians and some segments of the media was to condone the right wing violence. The justification for attacking the Capitol had nothing to do demonstrations of signs anybody held up anywhere: it was Trump telling them to seize power that was rightfully theirs, from the democratically elected government that stole it from them.

Whole different dynamic. I never claimed that you ever claimed; merely attempting to clarify which end of the stick is the handle. 

[J.C.MacSwell]

25 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

It's quite the wrong way around. At each of those protests, it was they themselves, the militant right fringe, who committed violent acts and got away with it. Their violent action were never in response to "Media and Politicians behaving badly"; the bad behaviour on the part of politicians and some segments of the media was to condone the right wing violence. The justification for attacking the Capitol had nothing to do demonstrations of signs anybody held up anywhere: it was Trump telling them to seize power that was rightfully theirs, from the democratically elected government that stole it from them.

Whole different dynamic. I never claimed that you ever claimed; merely attempting to clarify which end of the stick is the handle. 

What is "the wrong way round" about "violence however intended"? That covers all of it. All of the violence, which didn't all come from the militant right fringe. If it had, why would some from the "left" have offered to pay legal fees for some of the perpetrators?

Take off the polarised glasses.

[Peterkin]

Perhaps we've been informed by different sources.

1 hour ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

What is "the wrong way round" about "violence however intended"?

Nothing.

1 hour ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

That covers all of it.

All except using that nebulous idea as either justification or emboldnment for the January 6 insurrection, which, I repeat, had nothing at all to do with protest and was all bout overturning a legitimate election. 

[StringJunky]

35 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

Perhaps we've been informed by different sources.

Nothing.

All except using that nebulous idea as either justification or emboldnment for the January 6 insurrection, which, I repeat, had nothing at all to do with protest and was all bout overturning a legitimate election. 

I agree. From where I'm sitting, it had all the hallmarks of an attempted coup. There was too much planning involved for it not to be, as amply evidenced by the Jan 6th hearing. 

[geordief]

16 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

From where I'm sitting, it had all the hallmarks of an attempted coup. There was too much planning involved for it not to be, as amply evidenced by the Jan 6th hearing

Something was planned.Was assassination  planned or just intimidation?**

Who was the chief planner ?Trump? Was he  the evilest  one  in the pack?

 

Trump knew Pence's life was in danger it seems to me and did nothing/kept deliberately  stum.

I can't decide between reckless endangerment (on a huge wicked scale) or the deliberate (if "hopefully " deniable) pursuance of an amoral scheme to be achieved whatever the cost.

 

**I always assumed his plan might have been to play "hostage negotiator" with any of his enemies that were captured by his mob.

[StringJunky]

16 minutes ago, geordief said:

Something was planned.Was assassination  planned or just intimidation?**

Who was the chief planner ?Trump? Was he  the evilest  one  in the pack?

 

Trump knew Pence's life was in danger it seems to me and did nothing/kept deliberately  stum.

I can't decide between reckless endangerment (on a huge wicked scale) or the deliberate (if "hopefully " deniable) pursuance of an amoral scheme to be achieved whatever the cost.

 

**I always assumed his plan might have been to play "hostage negotiator" with any of his enemies that were captured by his mob.

I'm sure he had a flexible  agenda, ready to adapt at a moment's notice..

[J.C.MacSwell]

1 hour ago, Peterkin said:

 

All except using that nebulous idea as either justification or emboldnment for the January 6 insurrection, which, I repeat, had nothing at all to do with protest and was all bout overturning a legitimate election. 

Did a quick google. Apparently my "nebulous idea" was actually debated by DC judges with regard to severity of sentencing for some of those found guilty for the Jan 6 insurrection.

Most rejected any justification, as have I. (in the very part you claimed to take issue with)

19 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

No amount of, violence however intended, Media and Politicians behaving badly, and mostly peaceful protesters holding up "defund the Police" signs, justifies attacking the capitol...but of course I didn't claim it did.

Don't package my "they may have been emboldened" with any type of justification. I know you can't help yourself in your rush to polarize and judge...but don't make implications that are not true.

[iNow]

37 minutes ago, geordief said:

I can't decide between reckless endangerment (on a huge wicked scale) or the deliberate (if "hopefully " deniable) pursuance of an amoral scheme to be achieved whatever the cost.

It’s clearly the latter, but not exclusively. There was plenty of recklessness and incompetence to go around, but they’ll be better prepared next time. 
 

https://www.axios.com/2022/07/22/trump-2025-radical-plan-second-term

Edited July 23, 2022 by iNow