[JumpCrisscross]

> I love the back and forth of terminology ("rioter" vs "terrorist" vs "attacker")

There was a mix of terrorists, insurrectionists, rioters, hooligans and protesters in the crowd. Those who entered the Capitol were no longer protesters. Those damaging or stealing property were more than hooligans. Those aiming to disrupt the election count were more than rioters. And those with aims on harming members of Congress were more than incompetent insurrectionists.

[ineedasername]

I think those are useful distinctions. Not everyone in that crowd was rioting. This was an important distinction I feel was lost during the BLM protests as well: Any given media narrative wanted to paint the people involved as all one thing or another.

The truth is it's all mixed. I look at this also as a failure for a movement to generate leaders with a clear strategic vision that in turn guides participants with consistent boundaries. When, instead, the feeling is simply "anger" without a specific plan for channeling it usefully, you get people doing their own thing, others following along, etc.

[j8hn]

I agree that we shouldn't paint all the people in attendance with a broad brush.

What would you call the people who entered the Capital building and stayed inside the red velvet ropes, who took selfies and made videos like they were on a tour?

[qqqwerty]

I guess it depends. Did they enter the building via the security line and get properly checked in as is normally required of visitors, or did they waltz in through one of the many broken windows and doors? If the later, they likely broke the law [1] and entered a restricted space, so maybe 'rioter' is an appropriate term for them.

Also worth mentioning, if that same person had a social media history filled with "stop the steal" rhetoric, I don't see why sedition charges couldn't be levied [2]. Even if they were relatively well behaved during the riot, their mere presence was disrupting a central function of government. So I think a well behaved rioter with a proclivity for 'revolutionary' social media discourse can probably be classified as an incompetent insurrectionist.

It will be interesting to see how hard the prosecutors go after these folks. On one hand, a large chunk of the protestors probably got a bit swept up in the moment and likely did not intend to break any laws. But on the other hand, nearly the entire presidential line of succession was in that building performing one of the more important functions of our government. A strong case can be made for showing no leniency.

[1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1752 [2] https://time.com/5928270/capitol-domestic-terrorism/

[JumpCrisscross]

> What would you call the people who entered the Capital building and stayed inside the red velvet ropes, who took selfies and made videos like they were on a tour?

Hooligans. To be criminally charged but allowed to avoid jail time. If they, I don’t know, refrain from breaking into federal property for a few years and pass a community college civics course, the record is sealed.

What they did was serious. Little different from people who jump the White House fence. But many of us on this forum can look to their youth and remember when being in a crowd doing something feloniously mischevious was something they would have gone along with. I can. We have enough of a problem with mass incarceration to not add to it.

[kombucha111]

What about the dudes with zip ties?

[JumpCrisscross]

> What about the dudes with zip ties?

That would show wilful intent to “by force...prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of [a] law of the United States” [1]. Insurrection. Jail time, up to twenty years.

[1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2384