Capitol Riot arrests (1 Viewer)

[Bigdaddysaints]

Figured we should start a separate thread on the arrests and those involved in the storming of the Capitol. I know it has been talked about in the other thread a lot, but for the ones who just want to follow the ones arrested and/or charged, this will be an easier way to see updates on the investigations.

Link below is everyone who has been arrested. But we know there will be more.

Capitol Breach Cases

www.justice.gov

The website seems to be updated with new information daily.

The ones who are getting the most air time:

Notable Arrests After the Riot at the Capitol (Published 2021)

Dozens have been charged since a mob of Trump supporters stormed the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6.

www.nytimes.com

Jake Angeli

Adam Johnson

Richard Barnett

Kevin Seefried

Eric Gavelek Munchel

Larry R. Brock
Lisa Eisenhart
Robert Keith Packer
Klete Keller
Aaron Mostofsky
Anthime Joseph Gionet
Peter Francis Stager
Christine Priola

 

[Bigdaddysaints]

Yeah.. right. Which law, precisely, gives the right to use deadly force in that situation ? If they where truly worried about the safety of congressmen (and aides etc), then fair enough. But is that actually the case, and was it appropriate to 'shoot-to-kill' through a glass door ?


When someone is killed, it is reasonable to ask why ?


Weeeell..that seems a TRIFLE nit-picking. It was a pretty sturdy fence ?

is it funny in these pictures of the "walls", there isn't one of the 26k NG troops "manning" them?

 

[superchuck500]

Pretty large and sturdy 'temporary fence' isn't it ? Ah well, I won't argue your point. AS for the Air Force vet who was shot in the throat.. well... I'll look at the footage again. I tried it with headphones and I couldn't hear ANY warnings from the Agent who shot her, but then it WAS very noisy. Question is.. if there WAS a warning, could SHE have heard it ?

And was it necessary to 'shoot to kill' ?

I guess there is an ongoing investigation about this, and the truth will out !

Law enforcement officers have authority to use lawful force in situations where they have jurisdiction. Unless express in a statute (uncommon) what force is lawful is established by legal standards that evolve through judicial interpretation. The modern use of lethal force standard is based on a whether an objectively reasonable officer confronted with the same situation and information would reasonably believe that the person against whom force is used posed an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury to the officer or others.

I don’t know if there’s a specific authority to use force within certain zones of the capital building but presume there isn’t, the Babbitt case then turns on whether the officer that shot her reasonably believed that if she got through the opening, she posed a risk of imminent death or serious bodily harm to the officers there or those they protected. It’s highly contextual and I don’t think it’s something that anyone can say with conviction without hearing testimony.

It’s basically the same standard for all applications so I expect that her estate will sue the officer (for violating her constitutional rights) and the United States for wrongful death. These questions will be adjudicated.

 

[SFIDC3]

Looks to me like that part of 3rd St. that the building goes over - is that Labor? I know that area because the federal district courthouse is at the top of the block at Constitution.

Yep....200 Constitution Ave.....you used to be able to enter the building before that point but some years ago they closed it as an entrance, you could still exit the building from there though....

 

[DaveXA]

Law enforcement officers have authority to use lawful force in situations where they have jurisdiction. Unless express in a statute (uncommon) what force is lawful is established by legal standards that evolve through judicial interpretation. The modern use of lethal force standard is based on a whether an objectively reasonable officer confronted with the same situation and information would reasonably believe that the person against whom force is used posed an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury to the officer or others.

I don’t know if there’s a specific authority to use force within certain zones of the capital building but presume there isn’t, the Babbitt case then turns on whether the officer that shot her reasonably believed that if she got through the opening, she posed a risk of imminent death or serious bodily harm to the officers there or those they protected. It’s highly contextual and I don’t think it’s something that anyone can say with conviction without hearing testimony.

It’s basically the same standard for all applications so I expect that her estate will sue the officer (for violating her constitutional rights) and the United States for wrongful death. These questions will be adjudicated.

Did we ever get clarification on which agency the officer worked for? I could have sworn I read somewhere he was Secret Service. I want to say there were SS agents with VP Pence. But I'm not 100% sure. I would think the SS agents have different rules of engagement in protecting the VP. Idk tho.

 

[superchuck500]

Did we ever get clarification on which agency the officer worked for? I could have sworn I read somewhere he was Secret Service. I want to say there were SS agents with VP Pence. But I'm not 100% sure. I would think the SS agents have different rules of engagement in protecting the VP. Idk tho.

I don’t think it matters, it’s the contours of the suspect’s rights, not who the officers are.

 

[DaveXA]

I don’t think it matters, it’s the contours of the suspect’s rights, not who the officers are.

Yeah, but I would think SS agents have a different mission (defending the VP) as opposed to USCP (protect the Capitol and individuals in it).

That said, it's going to be interesting to see how the courts or authorities view the shooting.

 

[SaintForLife]

You mean like this guy?

Prosecutors say the two wore tactical and bulletproof vests in the Capitol and Munchel carried a stun gun. Munchel also recorded their storming of the Capitol, and prosecutors say that video shows the pair stashed weapons in a bag before entering the building.

Oh, he took them from an officer after he entered, that makes it different. I guess the stun gun isn't considered a weapon. And since when does armed only mean guns?

There isn't any evidence that he brought the zip ties in with him which is what reported for a while. My point is strictly about the innacuracies that was reported in the media. I'm not defending the people who stormed the Capitol or committed any violence. This should be a discussion based in facts especially when some on the left are calling for a domestic terrorism law which is totally unnecessary.

Opinion | Biden backs new domestic terror law in predictably misguided response

Even if aimed at white supremacists, new legal powers will inevitably be used in the same way existing ones are: against Black and brown people.

www.nbcnews.com

 

[SaintForLife]

Where he got them is irrelevant. He had them on his person, and it's not a leap at all to think he was intent on using them.

It's not irrelevant in the context that some of the media narratives about the Capital turned out not to be true. There was still danger either way.

 

[SaintForLife]

No, he supported a peaceful insurrection. Wishful thinking on his part, but, he did hope Pence would refuse to certify the election results.

Can you define peaceful insurrection? I thought insurrections usually included violence.

 

[SaintForLife]

You’re not being very consistent here. Classifying a group as “domestic terrorists” is okay, but passing a law about domestic terrorism is not okay? Come on.

How does a “ringing, bipartisan clamor” in Congress for a domestic terrorism law translate into “the democrats”? Honestly you’re just all over the place.

And saying that protests over racial inequality equals the insurrection is just bending reality until it breaks. I‘m not saying you believe their exact bull, but the equivalence you are drawing is really no better rooted in reality than their stuff, IMO.

We already have laws that cover domestic terrorism. Why do we need more?

 

[SaintForLife]

I brought you to the water
Your inability to drink is not my fault

But you never realized you were drinking from the toliet.

 

[DaveXA]

Can you define peaceful insurrection? I thought insurrections usually included violence.

What is an effort to overturn legitimate election results?

 

[SaintForLife]

What is an effort to overturn legitimate election results?

Is that your own personal definition? If not where did you get it from? Can you cite an examples of peaceful insurrections?

 

[DaveXA]

Is that your own personal definition? If not where did you get it from? Can you cite an examples of peaceful insurrections?

No, I'm asking you what's an attempt to overturn a legitimate election result. It's either a coup or an insurrection right? What else would you call it?

 

[SaintForLife]

No, I'm asking you what's an attempt to overturn a legitimate election result. It's either a coup or an insurrection right? What else would you call it?

You were the one that brought up the word peaceful insurrection when I was saying there's a difference between the people who attended the rally(like your friend) and the people who stormed Capital.

Are you saying that people who attended the rally and didn't storm the Capitol attempted to overturn the election?

 

[DaveXA]

You were the one that brought up the word peaceful insurrection when I was saying there's a difference between the people who attended the rally(like your friend) and the people who stormed Capital.

Are you saying that people who attended the rally and didn't storm the Capitol attempted to overturn the election?

No, I'm saying they were hoping Pence would refuse to certify the election. They went there believing Trump could somehow still win. They were basically supporting an insurrection even if it wasn't resorting to violence.

 

[Bigdaddysaints]

There isn't any evidence that he brought the zip ties in with him which is what reported for a while. My point is strictly about the innacuracies that was reported in the media. I'm not defending the people who stormed the Capitol or committed any violence. This should be a discussion based in facts especially when some on the left are calling for a domestic terrorism law which is totally unnecessary.

Opinion | Biden backs new domestic terror law in predictably misguided response

Even if aimed at white supremacists, new legal powers will inevitably be used in the same way existing ones are: against Black and brown people.

www.nbcnews.com

is there evidence he didn't bring them in other than his word? he also thinks he did nothing wrong, so...

 

[Bigdaddysaints]

also, did or did he not bring weapons with him to the rally while dressed in tactical gear? was it legal for him to have the weapons in DC?