More J6 need to know info

No comparison. But I get the similarities.

Yes, I am a patriot. I served in the Army for 23 years. So I believe that the US is worth defending. We disagree.

And yes, I am a constitutionalist, so I believe that the U.S. Constitution should remain the rule of law for our government. We disagree.


I also disagree that Jan 6 was an insurrection. It was a riot, but it was not designed to overthrow the U.S. government. Those involved were not patriots, but they were not traitors either. Most who were charged (by their own statements) were caught up in a movement, the moment, and deceived by political rhetoric. They were sheeple doing what sheeple do.

1776 was, in fact, an insurrection (one that was successful). Like the Jan 6 rioters the patriots rejected the government that had become oppressive - but unlike the rioters there was purpose (not just a type of violent protest).

The rioters were successful in beating law enforcement officers (over 100 injured). They were successful in damaging a public building. They were successful in expressing hate for the U.S. and the U.S. Constitution.

But it was just an expression....like a child having a temper tantrum. It was no different from the George Floyd riots in substance.

The Revolution was different. It was a nation leaving another nation. Those patriots were, in fact, traitors to Britain. Having won independence they drafted the Constitution.

I also disagree that the US Constitution should be an obsolete document. It is not something that should be overthrown but something that should be enforced.



So I get you comparing the rioters to a group of traitors committing insurrection against a government. But you are wrong in that the rioters (again, by their own statements) did not have that intent.


By your comparison (1776) Trump was an insurrectionist who was defeated on Jan 6. I believe you are incorrect. BUT if you are correct then all of the insurrections should be tried as traitors as the coup failed.

 

I may have misunderstood your post. It sounds like we hold similar positions.

Most of those involved have had speedy trials, most of these were charged with misdemeanors.

I believe it is a misapplication of the FBI to hunt down people who simply trespassed on Capitol grounds. Especially when some bad players beat police officers and damaged property. That, to me, sounds more political than anything else.

If anything, the local law enforcement could ticket identified people for trespassing.


The other issue (to me) is calling the riot an insurrection. It wasn't - AND most people were protesting without breaking any laws. Most who broke a law simply trespassed.


Hunt down and prosecute to the fullest extent of the law those who beat police officers and damaged property.

Get those who went to riot (who brought pepper spray, batons, guns, riot gear). These were a minority.


The Constitution is designed to limit the federal government. That is what people don't seem to understand.

 

I agree....as long as criminal history and the severity of the crime is considered. Waiting longer than 3 months, in jail, is crazy.

 

When I say severity I mean things like a man arrested for murder, with a past conviction of robbery and assault, shouldn't be freed without bail and given a future trial date simple because a trial couldn't be set within 3 months.

There needs to be considerations. But, while 3 months may not always be sufficient, I do believe a timely trial is important. I'm just not sure of the criteria.

And, there are also considerations such as the person arrested causing a delay (like with Samsel repeatedly changing lawyers by his choice....this has to lengthen the time as each time new lawyers need to work on a suitable defense).

 

I was referring to Ryan Samsel. He was arrested for his actions Jan 6 at the Capitol. At the time of his arrest he was on parole and had an active warrant for assault (he had 9 previous convictions involving assault, to include beating his pregnant girlfriend and tossing her in a canal). He then lied to the prison doctor attempting to get transferred to a medical facility and out of prison.

I mention him because some have made him into a hero and the thread concerned Jan 6.

And yes, it is his fault...but still I think there has to be some criteria for length of time. I don't know how that'd work though.

I can't understand why a trial couldn't be had within a few months (excluding things already mentioned). And I agree, it probably needs to be law and an amendment isn't necessary.

 

I don't get the "ordered people into the Capitol" part. Was he a militia leader or something?

 

So.....basically....a business owner and former marine (who never otherwise worked for the government) showed up on Jan 6.

There is a photo of Epps speaking to Ryan Samsel.

Ryan Samsel said Epps spoke to him telling him to calm down, that the police were doing their job.

But Epps had called to go to the Capitol. He did not enter the building and he didn't beat any officers.

Fox news speculated that Epps led the riot, but there was no evidence.

There is speculation that Epps was giving instruction to Samsel (Samsel claims Epps was telling him to calm down).

Epps is suing Fox for starting or spreading the conspiracy theory as he lost his business (he and his wife ran a wedding venue) and had to move due to death threats.

Epps did insist that the election was stolen and leftists insisted he be arrested for his claims and presence on Capitol grounds.

He was charged with disorderly conduct on restricted grounds.