I have seen so many people (including folks on #lawtwitter) comparing what happened at the Capitol yesterday with the violence and property damage that happened in some cities during protests last summer.

Let me explain what is wrong with that analogy . . . . .

To clarify -- my disagreement is not with those who are pointing out that law enforcement didn't respond with the same level of force and arrests at the capitol as it did during BLM protests.

That comparison deserves to be drawn and it raises some very important questions.
My disagreement is with those who are saying that what happened at the Capitol yesterday is so similar to what happened during protests this summer, that people's reactions ought to be similar--a suggestion that those reacting more strongly now are hypocritical.
Here's one example of someone (a law professor) making the argument. But I've seen it plastered across the site all day, it keeps cropping up in my mentions, and so I want to respond. https://t.co/Cwc0hCXQ7u
There are a number of things that distinguish what happened at the Capitol from what happened during BLM protests. The most obvious is the reason that people protested---some protested about factually false claims about election fraud; others about real police shootings.
It should go without saying, but the reasons that people act are incredibly important in judging their actions. People who do bad things for bad reasons deserve more condemnation than people who do things for good reasons.

This is a pretty basic social and legal concept.
There is another, more important difference between the reasons for action.

The people at BLM protests were trying to get changes made to policing practices.

The people at the Capitol were trying to stop Congress from certifying an election.
Changing policing practices so that fewer civilians get shot is a totally legitimate aim. If we were to accomplish it through a court decision or legislation, I don't think people would object. In fact, most Americans would likely welcome it.
In contrast, stopping the certification of an election is not a legitimate aim. It would be a major problem if it were accomplished via a court decision. And it's even worse to try and do it via force or intimidation.
But the reasons for the actions we saw is not the only important difference.

There is also a huge difference in how those actions came about--specifically the role that public officials played in the turmoil and protests that led to the storming of the Capitol.
The anger towards and distrust of police in Black communities didn't come from public officials. It came from people in those communities. In fact, much of the anger was directed at the public officials in those cities. Folks blame Democratic mayors for police violence.
And while some officials in Democratic cities expressed solidarity with the protestors, the mayors were not encouraging people to take to the streets and protest. The opposite in fact. They wanted people to stay home.
Contrast that with how Pres Trump and many other members of the GOP have reacted to the 2020 election:

They have been leading the charge to challenge the result.

They have been engaging in rhetoric that talks about violence and unrest.

They fanned these flames.
The President himself held a rally in which he literally encouraged people to march to the Capitol. He told them that the Republicans in Congress were being weak, and they needed to show them to be bold.

He told them to march to the Capitol, and he repeated it multiple times.
Did Joe Biden, Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, or any one of a similar stature tell people to take to the streets this summer?

Did they give the protestors a fist pump like Josh Hawley did, as he was heading in to try and overturn the election using frivolous legal arguments?
The answers to those questions is obviously "no"

Contributing to a bail fund or saying that you understand why people are angry--things that folks on the right criticized Dem officials for--is obviously not the same thing as encouraging people to take to the streets.
So were there protests this summer at which some people broke the law?

Yes.

But what we saw at the Capitol yesterday and what happened over the summer obviously aren't analogous.

And to pretend otherwise seems like it is minimizing yesterday's attack on democracy.

More from Legal

Last night TPD arrested and charged two known organizers, @DailyTacoma and our own @ohdamn_jam.

So many people acted quickly, and we were able to make sure they both made bail.


You can read @ohdamn_jam's account of what happened here


If you remember, back in August we were made aware that Pierce County diverted COVID funds to monitor us. We know for sure they monitored and reported on this account and anyone associated with it, such as @DailyTacoma

Side note: They were not read their rights until munch later.
THREAD: Okay. I'm about to get SUPER space beans tin foil hat on you, so stop reading if you're not into that. Based on what we're learning from public reporting, the pentagon curtailed the response to the trump coup. 1/

We also know from video and public reporting that there were two groups that stormed the capitol. 1) weird-ass bystanders and 2) possibly armed ex-military members with tactical gear and flex cuffs 2/


We also know there was a failed coup attempt in Venezuela orchestrated by Giuliani and former members of Blackwater, an Erik Prince joint. 3/

We also know that Giuliani met with Brian Benczkowski and Bill Barr to lobby for for help to go easy on his Venezuelan pal. Benczkowski is a former Alfa Bank rep. 4/

Further, we know that Erik Prince is the brother of Betsy DeVos (who JUST resigned) and the former head of Blackwater. We also know that the day before the insurrection, a memo was sent out to knee-cap the federal police in DC. 5/
Transferring power back to you, the ppl
https://t.co/26N2YYXycn


Heart attacks can be dangerous

Changing of the Old Guard
Best of the Best

Battle of the Bulge
https://t.co/MpYwQFkhmy


Thunder indicates a storm is


Silent Run'g ..... Can u hear him
GP State Department diplomats work for Pompeo, not the other way around. They should shut their yaps or quit.

Also, it's telling how much the horrible, illegal attacks on the Capitol have made establishment DC and its permanent bureaucracy quake in their boots.


GP The bureaucrats have always assumed they were untouchable, unassailable, protected. They assumed things would never change and that people in the hinterlands could safely be ignored forever because they're backwards hick Jesus-loving gun clingers and too dumb to listen to.

GP Government's overall disregard for ordinary Americans from treating us like bottomless wallets to trying to force us to believe as they do to ignoring basic legal and constitutional restraints on their actions built resentment over time and DC was blind to it.

GP When the hicks from the sticks got Trump elected, DC fought back against Trump and by extension them with everything at its disposal. Media pushed made up crap to hamstring Trump. Biden and Obama secretly used government to torment and assail an incoming administration.
More severe police injuries and deaths on that one day of rampaging Trumpers than in five years of Anti-Police protests.


You can tell a lot about the stance of a angry crowd by whether they come with shields or pitchforks.

If people protesting police brutality for years had wanted to use their large numbers to attack, maim and kill police, they damn well could have.

But they came to resist police.

Which is completely different.

Why did the police suffer more at the hands of those who claimed to support them and waved their flags than at the hands of those who think they should be defunded or abolished?

Because one group is literally arguing for human dignity and the other glorifies violence.

The people who uncritically support police brutality are those who believe that instrumental violence should be a standard tool in response to those standing opposed to you.

Once you accept that... WHO is standing opposed to you doesn't matter much.

You May Also Like

🌿𝑻𝒉𝒆 𝒔𝒕𝒐𝒓𝒚 𝒐𝒇 𝒂 𝑺𝒕𝒂𝒓 : 𝑫𝒉𝒓𝒖𝒗𝒂 & 𝑽𝒊𝒔𝒉𝒏𝒖

Once upon a time there was a Raja named Uttānapāda born of Svayambhuva Manu,1st man on earth.He had 2 beautiful wives - Suniti & Suruchi & two sons were born of them Dhruva & Uttama respectively.
#talesofkrishna https://t.co/E85MTPkF9W


Now Suniti was the daughter of a tribal chief while Suruchi was the daughter of a rich king. Hence Suruchi was always favored the most by Raja while Suniti was ignored. But while Suniti was gentle & kind hearted by nature Suruchi was venomous inside.
#KrishnaLeela


The story is of a time when ideally the eldest son of the king becomes the heir to the throne. Hence the sinhasan of the Raja belonged to Dhruva.This is why Suruchi who was the 2nd wife nourished poison in her heart for Dhruva as she knew her son will never get the throne.


One day when Dhruva was just 5 years old he went on to sit on his father's lap. Suruchi, the jealous queen, got enraged and shoved him away from Raja as she never wanted Raja to shower Dhruva with his fatherly affection.


Dhruva protested questioning his step mother "why can't i sit on my own father's lap?" A furious Suruchi berated him saying "only God can allow him that privilege. Go ask him"