So he walked inside the capitol building, a building that protesters have walked into without repercussions many times in the past, and got fired for it. Does he have a history of violence, or was he in the wrong place at the wrong time? Cogensia sounds like the kind of company that cares more about skewed-optics than about the truth of the matter. I didn't see news articles about rioting looters getting fired for their participation in "mostly peaceful" protests.
Not an American, so perhaps I'm missing some nuance, but as an outsider looking in I find this comment perplexing.
Am I correct in assuming the rioting looters and mostly peaceful protests comment refers to the BLM protests earlier this year?
If so, am I understanding correctly that you feel these two protests were similar in their nature? It feels to me that protesting decades of racial injustice is vastly different than protesting because you didn't agree with the outcome of an election?
Again, I am Canadian so I am likely missing some local understanding, but I just don't understand this comparison.
Now that I've thought about this further, another thing to add. If memory serves from the BLM protests, while there was rioting and looting, that was denounced by the majority of the protestors and not the core intent. From what I saw on Wednesday, the rioting and destruction seemed more central to the protest, and I haven't seen anything about the majority of the protestors denouncing the violence and destruction of the capital. It's possible I did miss this, and if it has been denounced by the majority I do apologize.
Individuals don't have to treat these things "the same." But the First Amendment requires our government to be "content neutral" in the way it regulates and limits expressive conduct.
Similar lawful, expressive conduct should be treated the same, regardless of content. Similar unlawful expressive conduct should be punished the same, regardless of content. (And illegal conduct should be punished the same, regardless of party or contact with the government -- which is why Americans complain about crony pardons).
Many people will say the Capitol building is a special symbol of American democracy, and it is. But the White House and the (Portland) Federal courthouse are also symbols of the democracy. And they were targeted this summer for weeks with fires, some explosives, and physical destruction. They were egged on by groups who say American capital is "fascist," and the New York Times, which published articles characterizing American democracy as really being a slaveocracy founded in the 1600s -- a theme roughly as defensible as American democracy falling to election fraud.
And in response, left-wing politicians and groups opposed the use of federal troops to arrest "their" protestors, claiming a usurpation of local authority, and an overreaction by "facists." The Biden campaign paid bail for some protestors "wrongly" arrested.
So, yes, the nuance is that Americans are sensitive to whether our politicians treat similar expression and misconduct the same, without regard to content or partisanship. Neither the incoming group or the outgoing group is upholding this bedrock principle very well.
>you didn't agree with the outcome of an election?
There were numerous attempts to have the government look into possible cases of voter fraud. Most court cases were thrown out due to issues of standing and not because presented evidence was rejected. There are real irregularities which are either ignored or given the "nothing to see here" response by the people who should be investigated.
The people charged with felonious conduct during the summer riots may or may not have been fired. The absence of coverage in whatever preferred news bubble(s) you have doesn't mean it didn't happen.
> was charged Thursday “with knowingly entering or remaining in any restricted building or grounds without lawful authority; or knowingly, with intent to impede government business or official functions, engaging in disorderly conduct on Capitol grounds; and violent entry and disorderly conduct on Capitol grounds.”
That, though not yet criminally proven, sounds like a lot more than innocently walked into a building where he thought he was welcome. Employment actions do not need “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard of proof generally.
Either they are too stupid to know you can't attack people and break into buildings, or they did it on purpose. Either way they can't be effective as CEO after that.
People were indeed arrested and fired for looting in protests earlier in 2020.
