The Jan. 6 Investigation

[Ziggurat]

I'm pretty sure they started with preliminary charges to get the case rolling and get search warrants.

We're more than 6 months into this. The feds don't need to get the ball rolling at this point. We're well past that, and still not a single attempted murder charge.

For a lot of those criminals it really was only criminal trespass and trying to hinder the Congress from certifying the vote. For others there is evidence they planned the attack. And for still others murder charges are warranted. The guy who bashed the window in that Babbitt climbed through before she was shot, for example, is guilty of murder because he was involved in a crime that lead to her death.

Yeah, I understand the doctrine of felony murder. It's still quite distinct from attempted murder or murder (most notably on the matter of intent). But as your source points out, only certain felony crimes can trigger felony murder, not just any felony will suffice. And again, nobody is being charged with felony murder.

Not sure where these cases will end up. If you attack someone who shortly after dies from a heart attack or stroke, I'm not sure what the law says about that.
CNN: Two men arrested and charged for assaulting Capitol Police Officer Brian Sicknick

That story is from back before Sicknick's cause of death was released. The fact that it took so long to release is itself rather telling. And in case you haven't been following, he didn't die from any injuries. He died of a stroke.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/brian-sicknick-capitol-riot-died-natural-causes/
"In the interview with the Post, Diaz said the autopsy found no evidence of internal or external injuries, or of an allergic reaction to the chemical substance — but did say "all that transpired played a role in his condition." "

Good luck charging someone for that.

 

[Ziggurat]

You would probably be a lot less confused if you actually watched any of the testimony talked about in this thread, any news source other than FOX, NesMaxx, or OANN that showed video, or read any unbiased article about Jan 6th.

This testimony has addressed why the DOJ is refusing to prosecute attempted murderers for attempted murder?

Yeah, I don't really think that's a good take.

 

[wareyin]

This testimony has addressed why the DOJ is refusing to prosecute attempted murderers for attempted murder?

Yeah, I don't really think that's a good take.

You're correct that this isn't a good take. The testimony has addressed the words and actions of the crowd, their stated intent and what they did to accomplish that. You know, all the stuff you said you were confused by.

 

[Stacyhs]

I guess our resident right-wingers don't like impact statements, either.

The same thought came to my mind. I wonder if these "they were so emotional!" critics say the same thing about victim impact statements in court.

 

[acbytesla]

Two More Conservative posters: "They're being emotional!"

Two more points towards my hypothesis: "It's only wrong when a Liberal/Democrat/commie/progressive does it."

It's like a NAZI saying "what are they complaining about?" "It was just a shower."

 

[Ziggurat]

You're correct that this isn't a good take. The testimony has addressed the words and actions of the crowd, their stated intent and what they did to accomplish that. You know, all the stuff you said you were confused by.

Yeah, no. That isn't what I'm confused by. I'm confused by the mismatch between the claims being made here (attempted murder) and the actions of the prosecutors. The only explanation given so far (only charging easier to prove crimes) doesn't withstand scrutiny. Everything else has basically been avoiding that question or trying to change the subject.

And you claimed that the protesters' own words demonstrated attempted murder. I asked you which words, you haven't responded. Obviously by definition testimony of other people isn't actually "their own words".

 

[Stacyhs]

It's an old trick: if the witness is emotional, say they're clearly too emotional to be trusted about the facts. If the witness is not emotional, say that they're clearly lying because any normal person would be emotional when recalling such things if they truly happened.

This reminds me of the A. Knox pro-guilt posters. They criticized her and called her 'cold blooded' and 'heartless' for not showing enough emotion and then, when she was emotional, they accused her of 'shedding crocodile tears'.

 

[plague311]

LoL this red herring of "attempted murder" is so ******* dumb. I can't believe it's been going on for 2 pages now.

Also, if you're only line of defense is to say, "at least they didn't attempt to murder anyone!" I'd say you've already lost the argument. Why feed into it? It's a stupid distraction and certainly not a moral bar of any kind.

 

[wareyin]

Yeah, no. That isn't what I'm confused by. I'm confused by the mismatch between the claims being made here (attempted murder) and the actions of the prosecutors. The only explanation given so far (only charging easier to prove crimes) doesn't withstand scrutiny. Everything else has basically been avoiding that question or trying to change the subject.

And you claimed that the protesters' own words demonstrated attempted murder. I asked you which words, you haven't responded. Obviously by definition testimony of other people isn't actually "their own words".

See, this is why I told you that you'd be less confused if you had gotten any information from an unbiased source. The testimony included video. The newspapers showed pictures of the signs people made, or the gallows. The television programs showed video of the crowd chanting a desire to kill members of Congress before assaulting the building Congress was in. But to those stuck in their conservative media bubble, none of this has ever occurred.

 

[wareyin]

LoL this red herring of "attempted murder" is so ******* dumb. I can't believe it's been going on for 2 pages now.

Also, if you're only line of defense is to say, "at least they didn't attempt to murder anyone!" I'd say you've already lost the argument. Why feed into it? It's a stupid distraction and certainly not a moral bar of any kind.

Well, I'm not sure how DC's laws are on felony murder, so I'm not trying to argue that. In plenty of other places, if you commit a felony and someone dies, even if that person was your accomplice, you can be charged with murder. We have a death, we have felonies being committed, but folks like Zig haven't heard about them and anyway me telling him makes it like hearsay so he can throw it out anyway and hey, look, over there, is that a squirrel?

 

[Stacyhs]

Yeah, no. That isn't what I'm confused by. I'm confused by the mismatch between the claims being made here (attempted murder) and the actions of the prosecutors. The only explanation given so far (only charging easier to prove crimes) doesn't withstand scrutiny. Everything else has basically been avoiding that question or trying to change the subject.

And you claimed that the protesters' own words demonstrated attempted murder. I asked you which words, you haven't responded. Obviously by definition testimony of other people isn't actually "their own words".

The insurrectionists were screaming 'hang Mike Pence' and trying to hunt down Pelosi to kill her.

Donald Trump's impeachment trial has been shown never before seen footage of the US Capitol riots as the mob searched for then Vice-President Mike Pence and Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

The trial heard how the pair were the "target" for the insurrectionists, with court documents suggesting rioters planned to kill Mr Pence and put a bullet through the skull of Speaker Pelosi.
ITV News US Correspondent Emma Murphy said: “We had presented to the court today some legally-sworn documents from those in detention who had been part of the riot, they were very chilling.

“One of them said that if they managed to get their hands on Mike Pence, the former vice president, they would have killed him. “Another said that they were looking for Nancy Pelosi, the leader of the House, in the hope of putting a bullet in her head.”

https://www.itv.com/news/2021-02-10...rough-nancy-pelosis-skull-legal-documents-say

Newly unsealed court documents show rioters at the US Capitol said they would have killed Vice President Mike Pence and that they were looking for Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi to shoot her.

https://www.news10.com/news/documents-rioters-wanted-to-kill-vp-pence-speaker-pelosi/

Plaskett said Pelosi was rushed to a secure offsite location by Capitol police because some of the rioters publicly declared their intent to harm or kill Pelosi.

“We know from the rioters themselves that if they had found Speaker Pelosi, they would’ve killed her,” Plaskett said.

https://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2...ker-pelosi-after-her-evacuation-from-capitol/

The reason no one has been charged with attempted murder is because the rioters failed to find either of them thanks to the Capitol Police whom you criticize for being too 'emotional'.

 

[Ziggurat]

See, this is why I told you that you'd be less confused if you had gotten any information from an unbiased source. The testimony included video. The newspapers showed pictures of the signs people made, or the gallows. The television programs showed video of the crowd chanting a desire to kill members of Congress before assaulting the building Congress was in. But to those stuck in their conservative media bubble, none of this has ever occurred.

You've got no idea what media I pay attention to. Nor does this actually address my question.

 

[Paul2]

Got it, I still spoke my piece.

I'm glad you did.

 

[plague311]

Well, I'm not sure how DC's laws are on felony murder, so I'm not trying to argue that. In plenty of other places, if you commit a felony and someone dies, even if that person was your accomplice, you can be charged with murder. We have a death, we have felonies being committed, but folks like Zig haven't heard about them and anyway me telling him makes it like hearsay so he can throw it out anyway and hey, look, over there, is that a squirrel?

From what I can understand, I don't even see a statute for attempted murder in DC. It's mostly built around just straight up murder.

That being said, they wouldn't charge these idiots with attempted murder anyway, because everything (I assume) would be "heat of the moment". There was no intent previous to kill any one single person.

My guess is that's the reason none of them have been charged. The assault on a police officer will carry as much weight as needed I would guess.

 

[wareyin]

You've got no idea what media I pay attention to.

riiiiiiiight! suuuuuure! Complete mystery!

Nor does this actually address my question.

Which question? The one about how do we know what the crowd was saying?

 

[Belz...]

You've got no idea what media I pay attention to.

We have some idea.

 

[SteveAitch]

This may be a silly question, but can't they just add "Conspiracy to commit (felony?) murder" to all the charges made so far?

 

[Paul2]

The insurrectionists were screaming 'hang Mike Pence' and trying to hunt down Pelosi to kill her.


https://www.itv.com/news/2021-02-10...rough-nancy-pelosis-skull-legal-documents-say


https://www.news10.com/news/documents-rioters-wanted-to-kill-vp-pence-speaker-pelosi/


https://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2...ker-pelosi-after-her-evacuation-from-capitol/

The reason no one has been charged with attempted murder is because the rioters failed to find either of them thanks to the Capitol Police whom you criticize for being too 'emotional'.

Two (all three?) of those links mention court documents in which the rioters admit to wanting to kill Pence and Pelosi, but none of your links contain links to those court documents, and a quick internet search came up empty for me, too. Do you have any links to those court documents?

The other piece of evidence along those lines, other than a news article saying that the court documents exist, was a tweet from a photographer who overheard several rioters saying they want to kill P & P. That's a first-hand witness, but I'd love to see those court docs.

 

[plague311]

This may be a silly question, but can't they just add "Conspiracy to commit (felony?) murder" to all the charges made so far?

The evidence to support it would have to show that these individuals beating the cops took time to plan it out, locate a target, and work in unison to try and murder the specific officers.

 

[Ziggurat]

https://www.itv.com/news/2021-02-10...rough-nancy-pelosis-skull-legal-documents-say

I spent a bit of time poking around on this one. So the quote about shooting Pelosi is attributed to one Dawn Bancroft. She is listed on that page I linked to earlier of DOJ prosecutions. You can find two charging documents for her:
one
two
The second is the more useful of the two, and is where the quote comes from.

So what is Dawn Bancroft being charges with?

Entering and Remaining in a Restricted Building or Grounds; Disorderly and Disruptive Conduct in a Restricted Building or Grounds; Disorderly Conduct in a Capitol Building; Parading, Demonstrating, or Picketing in a Capitol Building​

Why isn't she being charged with attempted murder, or something more serious?

Well, read the charging documents. There's no evidence she actually did anything more serious than that. There's no evidence she actually looked for anyone. There's no evidence she ever even had a weapon of any kind to carry through on her boast. The FBI determined that she entered the building through a previously broken window, and then shortly after (as in around 1 minute later) left. The FBI does not contend that she had a weapon. The FBI does not contend that she was searching for anyone. The FBI does not contend that she intended to do anyone any harm.

That's it. That's your attempted murderer. An idiot who brags about being an even bigger idiot than she actually was.

So why is her statement about Pelosi included in the charging document, if they didn't think she was serious? Again, let's go to the charging document itself (hilight mine):

Your affiant submits there is also probably cause to believe that BANCROFT and SANTOS-SMITH violated 40 U.S.C. §5104(e)(2)(D) and (G), which makes it a crime to willfully and knowingly (D) utter loud, threatening, or abusive language, or engage in disruptive conduct, at any place in the Grounds or in any of the Capitol Buildings with the intent to impede, disrupt, or disturb the orderly conduct in that building of a hearing...​

In other words, that quote is relevant to prove that she said something threatening, which is a crime. SAID something threatening. Not that she actually was a threat, or tried to carry through with it. The FBI doesn't seem to think she actually was. They aren't treating her as if she was. They aren't charging her with anything very serious, and she's out on her own recognizance.

So color me unimpressed.