The year is around 1980. I, a boy about twelve years-old, quietly exit the school bus; I hope to avoid detection. Unfortunately, I do not. The bullies subsequently harass me as I walk home in quiet humiliation. Repeatedly, they shove me hard enough to lose my balance and fall to the ground. The bullies continue yard after yard. Other kids meanwhile watch in fascination as they witness the altercation but do not intervene.
Months later, I attend school like any other day. Some boys and I take a break between classes, and we start to horse-play. In one of those exchanges one boy shoved me much like those instances off the bus. This shove was different; this time another boy kneeled behind me. In this position, I failed to break my fall and land squarely on my clavicle, fracturing it. I initially believed that they merely dislocated it; my friend naively tried to pop it back in place. It hurt… a lot. With the pain persisting, I went to the school nurse, who consequently called my mom.
She took me to the doctor where he X-rays the shoulder and confirms the fracture. I wear a brace for weeks after that, it’s the only way to treat a broken clavicle.
Dissecting what happened
The bullying and the horse-playing were smokescreens; I purposefully misdirected you. Let’s focus on those two shoves. The first instances were off the bus; they occurred repeatedly, but they were meant to intimidate, not necessarily to injure. The second instance was on school grounds; with the second boy kneeling behind me, was that meant to make me fall, indeed, to injure me.
The behavior was the same; the intent was different. However, let’s reflect on another subtle point. Let’s suppose that I caught my fall in that horse-playing incident, and that I didn’t subsequently break my collarbone. That doesn’t diminish the fact that these boys tried to hurt me. In order to truly understand the intricacies about what transpired we need to consider three elements:
- The Behavior – What the person actually did. Specifically, the initial interaction between the two entities. In this case, the behaviors are similar. A shove.
- The Outcome – What was the result of the exchange? In one case it was my landing softly on the grass; on the other case, I was unable to break my fall and broke my bone.
- The Intent – What was the behavior designed to do? One shove was designed to intimidate; they could’ve done much worse. The other was designed to injure, specifically to hurt me.
Do these factors really matter?
Absolutely! Obviously, this isn’t Orwell’s 1984 where we prosecute citizens for thought crimes. We won’t prosecute you unless you have crossed the threshold and have done something; in other words, there needs to be behavior, an action. Allow me to give you some examples to clarify.
Mere conversations can be criminal: Through a series of conversations (behavior), this Texas mom plotted to have her rival cheerleader mother killed by a hitman, and they subsequently sentenced her to 15 years in prison. Even if the target was ultimately unharmed (outcome), the plan was to have her killed (intent).
Obviously, the outcome matters: You have too many drinks during dinner. You believe that you’ll make it home perfectly fine (intent) and drive home from the restaurant (behavior). The charges will depend based on the outcome. You may make it home without incident; if you don’t, the consequences (outcome) will range from a mere DUI to vehicular manslaughter. We prosecute and sentence them differently.
And the ‘why’ is also important: You pick up a loaded gun and shoot someone (behavior); they die (outcome). The consequences can vary based on the circumstances (intent). Someone breaks into your home (self-defense)? Did you get into a heated argument and shoot them (2nd degree murder)? Did you catch your spouse in an affair and shoot them or their lover (1st degree murder)? We treat them differently.
Each factor plays an instrumental part of evaluating the severity.
The BLM protests and US Capitol protests are not comparable
There are many that will defend that US Capitol attacks on January 6th and claim that they are the same; they are not. They do have some similarities. First, most protesters (over 50%) conducted themselves peacefully on both of these events; for BLM protests 93% of them were peaceful. Second, in both cases anyone who partakes in criminal activity should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Lastly, I’ll concede that much of the violent portions of the protests (behavior) were similar and both resulted in destruction of property, injuries, and deaths (outcome). However, to look at the attack on our US Capitol and dismiss it as ‘being the same’ as the BLM protests is profoundly dangerous. Why? The intent matters.
The intent behind the BLM protests
One of the hot points of the BLM protests was the CHAZ/CHOP in Seattle. Did people protest? Was some of it illegal? Absolutely. However, these were their demands:
- Cut Seattle’s $409-million police budget by 50 percent.
- Shift funding to community programs and services in historically black communities.
- Ensure that protesters would not be charged with crimes.
We may not agree with those demands but suffice it to say the aim of the protesters was to be enough of a nuisance to get the local government to listen. Two points to note about these demands and protests. First, none of these demands are classified as ‘overthrowing the government’. Second, the protesters did not try to overwhelm the government and do this by force.
Allow me to clarify. First, they did not attempt to break into the bank (or hack the account) for the Seattle police budget to remove those funds. Next, they did not subsequently attempt to appropriate those funds into the desired programs for minorities. Finally, they did not try to break other protesters out of jail or physically intimidate the police force or prosecutors into setting them free.
Were they a nuisance? Was some of their behavior criminal? Absolutely! …but they did not try to overwhelm the government nor take their demands by force.
The intent behind the US Capitol insurrection
I trust that we have enough pictures and video of this event that we won’t debate that it happened, and it wasn’t merely a tourist visit.
First, the criminal protesters inflicted violence. They then destroyed property. Finally, they killed people. This was tragic. These were also true of the BLM protests; I won’t deny it.
The difference is the intent. The aim of these violent protesters was to overturn the results of the election, to literally overthrow the government… to nullify democracy. The objective was to stop the certification of the election by force; they were literally trying to physically stop the counting of electoral votes by occupying the chamber.
This is the literal definition of treason.
I am not suggesting you criticize your own party; I am suggesting you condemn (instead of defending or rationalizing) the criminal behavior from members of your party. I’m also suggesting that you stop comparing the BLM protests and the attack on the US Capitol; that’s like comparing vehicular manslaughter with first degree murder. They are not the same, intent matters.
How do we cope with betrayal by our own?
You grew up tolerating the hideous bright orange Houston Astros home jerseys. You endured the mocking when your home stadium was Enron Field. As they won the World Series, you celebrated with them. Do you continue to defend their title even with such overwhelming evidence of their cheating?
Everyone loves a winner, and this includes the New England Patriots; there have been so many championships. Does it matter that they spy on their opposition against the rules? Or that they ordered the deflating of the balls? Maybe their star player is suspended for effectively cheating? At what point do you walk away from this loyalty?
Perhaps cycling is your sport. Initially, you watched the rise of Lance Armstrong as he battled through cancer only to win yellow jersey after yellow jersey. Not only does he set the record for most Tour de France wins but later tops his own record. You subsequently defended him as doping allegations were raised; in fact, you attacked those sources. Is he still your hero now that he has admitted to doping and furthermore tried to crush anyone who truthfully told accounts of his doping?
In the same light, what happens when members of your own party are violent, criminal insurrectionists? Do you rationalize their behavior? Do you defend or minimize it? What else needs to happen for you to distance yourself from these traitors? Perhaps it would’ve been the successful hanging of the vice president on the makeshift gallows in front of the US Capitol.