"In a statement, Mr. Rukstales said he regretted his participation, saying he exercised “extremely poor judgement” in following others into the Capitol..."
I agree. Honestly I don't grasp the value in such stories except the typical clickbaiting via emotional content.
Putting statements like the one in the article out there as fast as possible can be classified mostly as self preservation, that in itself is natural.
While I do believe that there are people among them that actually finally got a wakeup call and regret their actions, I do not think there is any reason to accept the signaling of regret of an individual person that participated in this as genuine.
> I agree. Honestly I don't grasp the value in such stories except the typical clickbaiting via emotional content.
I'm not sure exactly what you mean, but this story has some value in disrupting the stereotypes many people probably have about the mob members (e.g. low education/rural people).
It's a trespassing charge (on "public" property), not embezzlement or insider trading or any sort of crime that directly benefitted him.
I'm as cynical as it gets but even I can see how easy it is to get swept up in mob mentality.
You too can see it play out in venues as innocuous as Sunday church. Nobody ever knows which hymns to stand up for, but everybody else goes along with it when the first person stands.
>You too can see it play out in venues as innocuous as Sunday church. Nobody ever knows which hymns to stand up for, but everybody else goes along with it when the first person stands.
I see people using such damage-reduction parallels on Twitter and Reddit, but it's strange to see it on HN.
Is this the best comparison you came up with? Trespassing on private property with an armed mob :: standing up for the wrong hymn at a church?
I dont think it is meant as an absolvement of his actions but rather a sensible explanation how certain people cooperated with the crowd without obvious benefit.
That still doesn't hold water. A closer parallel would be breaking into the church with a group of armed people with the intention of disrupting the proceedings.
Standing up for the wrong hymn doesn't necessitate a lawyer-approved 'statement' to the press.
Yeah I mean the key difference is if you get caught up in the actions of a mob of armed insurrectionists, that means you were in a crowd of armed insurrectionists in the first place.
I'm not denying that they have committed a crime. They did. But a coup requires manpower, military power and very intelligent people behind. They didn't have any of that.
Just because they're incompetent doesn't change the fact that they were illegally invading the capitol, with the hopes of overturning the election (thereby installing their leader into power for 4 more years).
If you look at it that way, yes. But I don't think it was a coup as it wasn't even planned. Maybe some of them actually wanted to get in but I still don't see it as a coup but as insurrection.
Try looking at histories of successful and unsuccessful coup attempts. They require several orders of degree better planning, coordination and execution.
That was just hooligans, not different from hundreds of other riots happened in the US last year.
I'm reminded of a case my civics teacher mentioned. A lady was convicted of felony theft. She walked into a store grabbed a mink coat and tried to run out with it. Not realizing it was chained to a pole.
Appeals court ruled that just because it wasn't possible doesn't mean it's not a crime to attempt.
These guys tried to prevent congress from transferring the presidency from Trump to Biden. That's a coup attempt. Being an idiot isn't an excuse.
If some drunken man threw a TV out of the windows and shouted let's overthrow the government, that is technically a coup, and a good reason to write about it again and again in social networks and MSM.
Technically you are right. But it would be misleading at best.
Whats the difference between a group of people tresspassing the capitol versus a group of people attempting to overthrow the government? Can your explanation be falsifiable?
Given that it was done as part of a protest against the election results, and at the perceived direction of somebody trying to keep their office, I think a jury could make a reasonable interpretation.
What exactly do you think would have happened to the Congresspeople had they this mob encountered them? The mob sure looked prepared to take some of them into "custody." And some of them clearly had no qualms with beating that Capitol Police officer to death.
Clearly Congresspeople, regardless of party affiliation, were not interested in finding out.
When it was immediately preceded by a rally in which an ousted president ranted about how the election was stolen and they should march on the Capitol and prevent the election results from being certified.
Putting statements like the one in the article out there as fast as possible can be classified mostly as self preservation, that in itself is natural.
While I do believe that there are people among them that actually finally got a wakeup call and regret their actions, I do not think there is any reason to accept the signaling of regret of an individual person that participated in this as genuine.