Just to be clear, the January 6 defendants:

- were a group of at least 1000 people

- who, among other things, erected a noose on the capitol grounds, brought zip ties and weapons

- forcefully overran several capital police barricades intended to deter their entrance

- used any weapon available including poles etc to violently attack any police in their way

Granted they did not explicitly shoot any federal agents with a firearm, but in the J6 case, I’d say I’d lay blame for the subsequent deaths of the police officers who did die at the hands of the rioters.

To be clear I do not condone violence in either case.

However those 1000+ individuals on January 6 were ultimately pardoned for their actions. The family of one was in fact paid $5 million in taxpayer money because she was shot in a vain attempt to repel the crowd.

Why then should these defendants be treated completely differently? One gets the law, the other has their convictions overturned completely and history rewritten in their favor.

Btw I do not believe the individual who was charged in the article shot the federal agent or was part of the “concealed position” etc. So bringing that up is just an appeal to brush that individual with the actions of others.

▲

dmurray 31 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

> Why then should these defendants be treated completely differently? One gets the law, the other has their convictions overturned completely and history rewritten in their favor.

The Jan 6 rioters did "get the law". They got sentenced collectively to thousands of years in prison, and many of them served 3 years of that.

Then they "got the law" again when someone sympathetic to their aims was democratically elected to the one position that can grant federal pardons. That power has a history of being used for political allies long before Trump. Perhaps that will happen to some of the ICE protestors too.

▲

paisawalla 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I'm sorry to disagree with a venerable python shell like this, but even if I accept your entire characterization here, these two situations look nothing alike.

> - were a group of at least 1000 people

> Granted they did not explicitly shoot any federal agents with a firearm, but in the J6 case, I’d say I’d lay blame for the subsequent deaths of the police officers who did die at the hands of the rioters.

Oh ok, so you grant we're talking about completely different scales of intention, personal responsibility, and outcomes, but you want to keep making this comparison? Because you think it's nuanced and informative?

▲

ipython an hour ago | parent | next [-]

So you’re telling me the jan6 defendants had no intention to cause harm to the lawmakers? Actual people died on jan6- nobody died at prarieland afaik.

Have you seen the footage from the riots? They clobbered the shit out of the police trying to protect the lawmakers inside the capitol.

For example this guy: https://i.insider.com/6009c83521f52a0018cb9e21?width=1200&fo...

I’m sure he was just on his way to rebundle some loose cat5 cable down the hall with his zip ties.

And the person who is the subject of this article, did he personally commit all the acts you listed?

	▲	iamnothere 16 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		For clarity, only people who died on Jan 6th were protestors. The police officer who died on the 7th had a stroke. The two who died later were suicides. It’s negligent to conceal these facts. (Note for clarity, almost everybody posting in this thread on every side is doing this kind of thing. Just move on to the “years of lead” phase already.)

▲

anigbrowl 42 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The different scale of intention was to overturn the results of a federal general election, effectively a coup to seize back control over the government. I can see why you consider the incident in Texas to be terrorism, but you want to ignore the entire point of the J6 event and pretend it was just some normal event where a few participants got a little out of hand? Get real.

▲

goatlover an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

Give me a beak. The J6 rioters wanted to hang the Vice President and members of Congress. They had violent intent.

▲

cucumber3732842 an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

How many federal agitators were present in both groups?

I'm dead serious. I assume every event like this is lousy with feds egging people on.

▲

ipython an hour ago | parent | next [-]

Ugh let’s not get all conspiracy theory up in here. Show me real evidence of that and I’ll believe you.

Until then - to say at the same time - the Feds are so incompetent and also the Feds are organizing an elaborate secret network of agitators to be at all major protests and riots - let’s just say the logic doesn’t logic.

	▲	mothballed 15 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		They are incompetent at catching crime generated by other people. They're very good at catching crime they generate themselves.

▲

malcolmgreaves an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

Trump helped organize and encourage the January 6th insurrection. He was president during the insurrection. So yes, there was a lot of federal Republican help during that one.

▲

joe_mamba 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

>Granted they did not explicitly shoot any federal agents

Then you admit that makes it completely different.

>However those 1000+ individuals on January 6 were ultimately pardoned for their actions

Biden also pardoned Fauci for lying about Covid, his son, amongst other people. They're all equally crooked but somehow HN only remembers Trump's crimes.

▲

ipython an hour ago | parent [-]

No the jan6 rioters just used poles and batons and such to beat the shit out of police- some who died afterward.

https://youtu.be/DXnHIJkZZAs?si=zDKJcly9KMBY_GgJ

I mean - seriously? It’s ok to do this?

▲

joe_mamba an hour ago | parent [-]

So did anti-ICE protestors. Meaning both need to get arrested by the same yardstick. HN was ok when J6 got arrested but not OK wehn anti ICE rioters get arrested. Double standards much?

Meanwhile both political sides rob you blind but you feel the need to take sides and argue which side of corrupt pedos you think represents you when neither do.

▲

ipython an hour ago | parent [-]

Shifting the goal posts. I’m talking about the selective prosecution and you’ve tried to equate that with hn sentiment. Does it really matter what the double standard is for a bunch of keyboard warriors arguing over imaginary internet points? No! But it makes a shit ton of difference when the state, with a monopoly on violence and justice, makes a public showing over its double standard. That double standard has impacts on the freedom and lives of people.

And your nihilism is exactly how we got into this mess in the first place. “They all suck, so why not elect the clown and see how much he can shake things up”.

▲

joe_mamba an hour ago | parent [-]

> “They all suck, so why not elect the clown and see how much he can shake things up”.

I didn't say that, I just called out the overall HN hypocrisy on sniffing out only Trump crimes but ignoring identical democrat crimes.

	▲	ipython an hour ago \| parent \| next [-]
		So again the hn hypocrisy doesn’t matter. The only thing on the line for me is whether my imaginary internet points balance increases or decreases. The feds on the other hand have the power to send you to federal prison or to pardon you and literally pay you off. Given that we don’t have God himself running for president, we have to suffice with imperfect representation. And so yes I end up picking a side because that’s the system we have at the moment. As to your point about “picking sides” - why aren’t you upset about the pardons yourself in that matter? Shouldn’t they be held accountable?
	▲	anigbrowl 39 minutes ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		Your partisanship is extremely obvious, please stop insulting everyone's intelligence.
	▲	mingus88 21 minutes ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		HN is a collection of people with varying viewpoints and backgrounds posting arbitrarily throughout the day. There is no single position to be hypocritical of. The “Hypocrisy” you are experiencing here is just you having to sort through other people’s opinions and getting upset at the ones that disagree with yours.