Capitol Insurrection / rebellion thread

[Egomaniac]

I guess its time for travel bans from red states.

Vaccine passports. 2 birds. 1 stone.

[starlord]

Not so much a radicalized Homer Simpson, looks more like a Meth Head Hank Hill

hank hill loves Lbj tho.

[Ursus]

I am calling for a complete and total shutdown of Trump supporters entering Washington D.C. until we can figure out what the hell is going on.

[szechuan]

https://www.thedailybeast.com/maga-r...over-socialism

Republican Rep. Mo Brooks: "I understand the bomber, we're birds of a feather and we just hate socialism!"

Seriously, at what point does Republican politicians siding with criminals and terrorists become like...worrying?

Mo Brooks the Terrorist Sympathiser.

[Drutt]

I mean, that's definitely better at the end of the day, but like, why does anyone think they can like, get away with this shit?

His wife has apparently said he's mentally ill and recently changed his meds, so in this case it might be that he's not in his right mind and simply in dire need of help.

I'd prefer to think that, because it's better than the alternative...

[Edge-]

Good ol' Fox, eh?

TechnicallyTruth. I don't think they've given an "official" motive yet so she's not lying.

They're just choosing to ignore the existing evidence people have uncovered in this instance. You know, the opposite of what they do when say, a white cop murders a Black man and they immediately search through his criminal history and social media.

- - - Updated - - -

https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile...nd-explosives/

And charged with threatening to use a weapon of mass destruction.

Someone tell Bush Jr.! Sure there wasn't actually a WMD, but that should be familiar territory for him.

[DarkTZeratul]

https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile...nd-explosives/

And charged with threatening to use a weapon of mass destruction.

Someone tell Bush Jr.! Sure there wasn't actually a WMD, but that should be familiar territory for him.

From a legal standpoint, any explosive is considered a weapon of mass destruction.

[Edge-]

https://www.newsweek.com/infowars-ho...-riots-1621711

And they got an Infowars host. Apparently this is not his first brush with the law in the Capitol.

[PhaelixWW]

From a legal standpoint, any explosive is considered a weapon of mass destruction.

Hmm, no. They're two very different things.

Well, shit. I was wrong.

The guy was charged with both:

The defendant was charged with one count each of threatening to use a weapon of mass destruction (18 U.S.C. §2332a(a)(2)(A)) and making a threat by explosives (18 U.S.C. § 844(e)).

...but when you look into it:

18 USC § 2332a (c) (2):

the term “weapon of mass destruction” means—

• (A) any destructive device as defined in section 921 of this title;
• (B) any weapon that is designed or intended to cause death or serious bodily injury through the release, dissemination, or impact of toxic or poisonous chemicals, or their precursors;
• (C) any weapon involving a biological agent, toxin, or vector (as those terms are defined in section 178 of this title); or
• (D) any weapon that is designed to release radiation or radioactivity at a level dangerous to human life; and

...and then:

18 USC § 921 (a) (4):

The term “destructive device” means—
(A) any explosive, incendiary, or poison gas—

• (i) bomb,
• (ii) grenade,
• (iii) rocket having a propellant charge of more than four ounces,
• (iv) missile having an explosive or incendiary charge of more than one-quarter ounce,
• (v) mine, or
• (vi) device similar to any of the devices described in the preceding clauses;

...so yeah. I guess the only difference is in how it's used.

My bad. I thought @DarkTZeratul was conflating weapons of mass destruction with destructive devices. I had no idea that the definition of WMD included all DDs.

[Endus]

Hmm, no. They're two very different things.

Here's the legal definition of "Weapon of Mass Destruction", at the federal level in the USA:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2332a#c_2

"(2)the term “weapon of mass destruction” means—(A)any destructive device as defined in section 921 of this title;
(B)any weapon that is designed or intended to cause death or serious bodily injury through the release, dissemination, or impact of toxic or poisonous chemicals, or their precursors;
(C)any weapon involving a biological agent, toxin, or vector (as those terms are defined in section 178 of this title); or
(D)any weapon that is designed to release radiation or radioactivity at a level dangerous to human life; and"

Since we're talking explosives, we'll need to reference section 921 for the definition of "destructive device";
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/921

"(4)The term “destructive device” means—
(A)any explosive, incendiary, or poison gas—
(i)bomb,
(ii)grenade,
(iii)rocket having a propellant charge of more than four ounces,
(iv)missile having an explosive or incendiary charge of more than one-quarter ounce,
(v)mine, or
(vi)device similar to any of the devices described in the preceding clauses;
(B)any type of weapon (other than a shotgun or a shotgun shell which the Attorney General finds is generally recognized as particularly suitable for sporting purposes) by whatever name known which will, or which may be readily converted to, expel a projectile by the action of an explosive or other propellant, and which has any barrel with a bore of more than one-half inch in diameter; and"

That's . . . pretty damned comprehensive. Anything that falls under the above is a WMD, legally, by definition. Section iii probably covers some bigger fireworks, even; 4 ounces of propellant isn't THAT huge. And section B includes basically anything that launches any of the above (since we can assume they'd be more than a half-inch bore if they're launching explosives) to boot; a grenade launcher qualifies as a "WMD" even absent ammunition.

Edit: Aaaand, given my luck, you noticed this yourself and edited it in while I was writing this up and trying to make sure it stayed readable.

[PhaelixWW]

Aaaand, given my luck, you noticed this yourself and edited it in while I was writing this up and trying to make sure it stayed readable.

Yeah. Normally I do my due diligence and fact-check myself first.

This time, however, I posted first, because I knew that an explosive was considered a destructive device and I thought that those two terms were entirely separate. I had no idea that the definition of WMD included all DDs, though.

[Endus]

Yeah. Normally I do my due diligence and fact-check myself first.

This time, however, I posted first, because I knew that an explosive was considered a destructive device and I thought that those two terms were entirely separate. I had no idea that the definition of WMD included all DDs, though.

Yeah, I'd have made the same assumption except I went down this same rabbit hole a year or two ago in the aftermath of some right-wing domestic terror incident.

[DarkTZeratul]

Yeah, I'd have made the same assumption except I went down this same rabbit hole a year or two ago in the aftermath of some right-wing domestic terror incident.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure the reason I knew that is because of such a rabbit hole dive on this very board a couple years prior. Possibly the same one Endus is referring to. Might have been the MAGA Bomber, actually.

[Kaleredar]

The officer who shot Ashlii Babbitt as she attempted to breach the secured area has ben exonerated after an internal review.

Good. Hell, he should be given a medal for valor in the line of duty.

[Kaleredar]

I have mixed feelings since I deplore summary execution, but at the same time what would have happened if they just tased her? I’m not sure it would have stopped the assholes who pushed her through the window.

Sure, but those cops had a pretty damn good reason to suspect their lives were on the line, and not in a "a minority reached for their belt aggressively" kind of way.

[Belize]

I have mixed feelings since I deplore summary execution, but at the same time what would have happened if they just tased her? I’m not sure it would have stopped the assholes who pushed her through the window.

In a scenario of "Violent mobs storms U.S. Capitol building" I'm honestly surprised they didn't start shooting earlier.

[postman1782]

I have mixed feelings since I deplore summary execution, but at the same time what would have happened if they just tased her? I’m not sure it would have stopped the assholes who pushed her through the window.

I doubt the cop, in plain clothes had a taser on himself at the time. So, either his only option was the bullet with as many warnings as she got.

[Bodakane]

In a scenario of "Violent mobs storms U.S. Capitol building" I'm honestly surprised they didn't start shooting earlier.

Well, the insurrectionists were white, so......

[Ursus]

The officer who shot Ashlii Babbitt as she attempted to breach the secured area has ben exonerated after an internal review.

As he should have been. It was a good shoot.

[Endus]

I have mixed feelings since I deplore summary execution, but at the same time what would have happened if they just tased her? I’m not sure it would have stopped the assholes who pushed her through the window.

Less-than-lethal methods are for less-than-lethal circumstances.

There was an armed mob of hostiles with openly expressed murderous intent towards those the Capitol police were protecting. They'd be entirely justified in using lethal force in those circumstances.

This wasn't an "execution"; it was a defensive action while under an immediate lethal threat; executions are pretty much definitively not in circumstances where there's any threat to the executioner.

I am by no means a pro-police guy when it comes to questionable shootings, but this one was about as "obviously legitimate" as you can possibly get.