2020 Capitol Mob - Revision history

Rasmusen p1vaim at 22:19, 9 January 2021

2021-01-09T22:19:30Z

Rasmusen p1vaim at 16:55, 9 January 2021

2021-01-09T16:55:34Z

Rasmusen p1vaim at 16:54, 9 January 2021

2021-01-09T16:54:23Z

Rasmusen p1vaim at 16:36, 9 January 2021

2021-01-09T16:36:38Z

Rasmusen p1vaim at 16:14, 9 January 2021

2021-01-09T16:14:32Z

Rasmusen p1vaim: Created page with "Here’s How the Capitol Mob Violated Federal Criminal Law By Bryce Klehm, Alan Z. Rozenshtein, Jacob Schulz Thursday, January 7, 2021, https://www.lawfareblog.com/heres-how-c..."

2021-01-09T16:12:52Z

Created page with "Here’s How the Capitol Mob Violated Federal Criminal Law By Bryce Klehm, Alan Z. Rozenshtein, Jacob Schulz Thursday, January 7, 2021, https://www.lawfareblog.com/heres-how-c..."

New page

Here’s How the Capitol Mob Violated Federal Criminal Law
By Bryce Klehm, Alan Z. Rozenshtein, Jacob Schulz
Thursday, January 7, 2021, https://www.lawfareblog.com/heres-how-capitol-mob-violated-federal-criminal-law. This is a useful article, though its title is completely misleading. It lists statutes that might apply, but it has close to zero on how the mob violated federal criminal law, because it doesn't link what they did to the statutes. For example, any of them who were carrying guns in the Capitol violated a federal statute (and, I bet, local DC criminal statutes), but were any of them carrying guns? Maybe, but I haven't seen even any rumors of that.

Let's think of what people in the mob did that are common-sense illegal, because there are no doubt statutes that apply, though perhaps only DC local criminal statutes: 
1. Disobeying police orders to stop pushing barricades. 
2. Pushing away barricades. 
3. Knocking down or punching policemen. 
4. Breaking windows. 
5. Picking up government property such as podiums or police shields with possible intent to steal them (this probably requires actually taking them home, not just moving them). The man who took a letter from Nancy Pelosi's office did this, though unless it was an important letter this is de minimis. (De minimis lex non curat.)

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:19, 9 January 2021
Line 22:		Line 22:

	The collection of documents at Lawfare charging people with crimes, both federal and local, is essential readings. See https://www.lawfareblog.com/compiling-criminal-charges-following-capitol-riot .		The collection of documents at Lawfare charging people with crimes, both federal and local, is essential readings. See https://www.lawfareblog.com/compiling-criminal-charges-following-capitol-riot .
		+
		+	See https://apnews.com/article/capitol-police-reject-federal-help-9c39a4ddef0ab60a48828a07e4d03380 for a story on the failure of the Capitol Police, including their rejection of help offered from the Defense Dept and their lack of contingency planning.

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:55, 9 January 2021
Line 21:		Line 21:
	And, indeed, though I've just glanced at the criminal complaints, it looks like the people being arrested on probably cause are those against whom the police have good evidence, such as a policeman reporting he was punched by the arrested man, or people who were still in the Capitol five hours later at 7:15 pm when there were loud announcements broadcast in the Capitol that it was closed --https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/20446138/yevgemya-et-al-affidavit.pdf(which implies to me that there were not such broadcosts earlier in the day).		And, indeed, though I've just glanced at the criminal complaints, it looks like the people being arrested on probably cause are those against whom the police have good evidence, such as a policeman reporting he was punched by the arrested man, or people who were still in the Capitol five hours later at 7:15 pm when there were loud announcements broadcast in the Capitol that it was closed --https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/20446138/yevgemya-et-al-affidavit.pdf(which implies to me that there were not such broadcosts earlier in the day).

−	The collection of documents at Lawfare charging people with crimes, both federal and local, is essential readings. See https://~~assets~~.~~documentcloud~~.~~org~~/~~documents/20446138/yevgemya~~-et-al-~~affidavit.pdf~~.	+	The collection of documents at Lawfare charging people with crimes, both federal and local, is essential readings. See https://www.lawfareblog.com/compiling-criminal-charges-following-capitol-riot .

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:54, 9 January 2021
Line 18:		Line 18:

	In the case of the Capitol, whoever pushed aside the barricades or broke a window knew they were trespassing. But what about the people who followed who didn't even see that there was a barricade or that the doors were closed? There is video of people entering the capitol peacefully through an open door with police standing there watching and making no sign of disapproval. Those people were not trespassing--- and if you think they were, remember it has to be beyond a reasonable doubt to convict them. Now consider someone against whom the only evidence is a video of them inside the Capitol looking at the ceiling or wandering the hallway. There is evidence that the police let some people in. There is no evidence that these particular people entered illegally, much less evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. Most of them are innocent, and even those few who were guilty will mostly have to go free for lack of evidence.		In the case of the Capitol, whoever pushed aside the barricades or broke a window knew they were trespassing. But what about the people who followed who didn't even see that there was a barricade or that the doors were closed? There is video of people entering the capitol peacefully through an open door with police standing there watching and making no sign of disapproval. Those people were not trespassing--- and if you think they were, remember it has to be beyond a reasonable doubt to convict them. Now consider someone against whom the only evidence is a video of them inside the Capitol looking at the ceiling or wandering the hallway. There is evidence that the police let some people in. There is no evidence that these particular people entered illegally, much less evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. Most of them are innocent, and even those few who were guilty will mostly have to go free for lack of evidence.
		+
		+	And, indeed, though I've just glanced at the criminal complaints, it looks like the people being arrested on probably cause are those against whom the police have good evidence, such as a policeman reporting he was punched by the arrested man, or people who were still in the Capitol five hours later at 7:15 pm when there were loud announcements broadcast in the Capitol that it was closed --https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/20446138/yevgemya-et-al-affidavit.pdf(which implies to me that there were not such broadcosts earlier in the day).
		+
		+	The collection of documents at Lawfare charging people with crimes, both federal and local, is essential readings. See https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/20446138/yevgemya-et-al-affidavit.pdf.

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 Here’s How the Capitol Mob Violated Federal Criminal Law
 By Bryce Klehm, Alan Z. Rozenshtein, Jacob Schulz
-Thursday, January 7, 2021, https://www.lawfareblog.com/heres-how-capitol-mob-violated-federal-criminal-law.  This is a useful article, though its title is completely misleading. It lists statutes that might apply, but it has close to zero on how the mob violated federal criminal law, because it doesn't link what they did to the statutes. For example, any of them who were carrying guns in the Capitol violated a federal statute (and, I bet, local DC criminal statutes), but were any of them carrying guns?  Maybe, but I haven't seen even any rumors of that.
+Thursday, January 7, 2021, https://www.lawfareblog.com/heres-how-capitol-mob-violated-federal-criminal-law.  This is a useful article, though its title is completely misleading. It lists statutes that might apply, but it has close to zero on how the  crowd violated federal criminal law, because it doesn't link what they did to the statutes. For example, any of them who were carrying guns in the Capitol violated a federal statute (and, I bet, local DC criminal statutes), but were any of them carrying guns?  Maybe, but I haven't seen even any rumors of that.
-Let's think of what people in the mob did that are common-sense illegal, because there are no doubt statutes that apply, though perhaps only DC local criminal statutes: <br>
+I question calling it a "mob" too. There were mobs, to be sure-- a crowd of people pushing down barricades is a mob. But people wandering around the Capitol or standing in line behind velvet guard cords aren't a mob.
 . Disobeying police orders to stop pushing barricades. <br>
 . Pushing away barricades.<br>
@@ Line 9: / Line 13: @@
 . Breaking windows.<br>
 . Picking up government property such as podiums or police shields with possible intent to steal them (this probably requires actually taking them home, not just moving them). The man who took a letter from Nancy Pelosi's office  did this, though unless it was an important letter this is de minimis. (De minimis lex non curat.)
-. Entering a "restricted area" or simple trespassing. Trespassing is the easier one.
+. Entering a "restricted area" or simple trespassing. Trespassing is the easier one.  The "restricted area" federal statute only applies to buildings occupied by the President or VP or someone else protected by the Secret Service. Pence was there, and Harris, so maybe it  does apply. But trespassing is simpler.
-   Proof may be difficult, because
+In the case of the Capitol, whoever pushed aside the barricades or broke a window knew they were trespassing. But what about the people who followed who didn't even see that there was a barricade or that the doors were closed?  There is video of people entering the capitol peacefully through an open door with police standing there watching and making no sign of disapproval. Those people were not trespassing--- and if you think they were, remember it has to be beyond a reasonable doubt to convict them. Now consider someone against whom the only evidence is a video of them inside the Capitol looking at the ceiling or wandering the hallway.  There is evidence that the police let some people in. There is no evidence that these particular people entered illegally, much less evidence beyond a reasonable doubt.  Most of them are innocent, and even those few who were guilty will mostly have to go free for lack of evidence.

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:14, 9 January 2021
Line 9:		Line 9:
	4. Breaking windows.<br>		4. Breaking windows.<br>
	5. Picking up government property such as podiums or police shields with possible intent to steal them (this probably requires actually taking them home, not just moving them). The man who took a letter from Nancy Pelosi's office did this, though unless it was an important letter this is de minimis. (De minimis lex non curat.)		5. Picking up government property such as podiums or police shields with possible intent to steal them (this probably requires actually taking them home, not just moving them). The man who took a letter from Nancy Pelosi's office did this, though unless it was an important letter this is de minimis. (De minimis lex non curat.)
		+	6. Entering a "restricted area" or simple trespassing. Trespassing is the easier one.
		+
		+	Proof may be difficult, because