Jump to content

Talk:Criminal proceedings in the January 6 United States Capitol attack

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Looks good to me

[edit]

This looks like it's ready for articlespace whenever you're okay with moving it. Clearly needed article. Feoffer (talk) 00:15, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Convert to list

[edit]

What about renaming this article to List of criminal charges brought in the 2021 United States Capitol attack, and this article will consist of a bulleted list of the broad type of charge, followed by how many people were charged/arrested/prosecuted, without names per WP:BLPCRIME, and that's about it. We don't have to go into extended drama about each manhunt and post on Gab or MySpace or whatever. Elizium23 (talk) 18:55, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

First sentencing

[edit]

"Indiana Woman Is The First Capitol Defendant Sentenced" [1]. Should we add an entry in the Specific arrests and charges timeline? — Chrisahn (talk) 20:05, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

'Most' are felonies? Or only some?

[edit]

The 4th paragraph of the lede needs to be updated. It appears to date from January–March and today it is already October.

I'm noticing the sentence that begins: "Acting U.S. Attorney Sherwin said 'almost all' of the cases charged in federal court have involved "significant federal felonies" with sentences between five and twenty years."[1] The citation is from March.

Lower down in the article, we have this: "Most defendants face 'two class-B misdemeanor counts for demonstrating in the Capitol and disorderly conduct, and two class-A misdemeanor counts for being in a restricted building and disruptive activity,' according to BuzzFeed, and therefore most plea deals address those misdemeanors. Some defendants have been additionally charged with felonies."[2] The citation is from October.

These claims may need to be reconciled. That could be done simply by clarifying the "as of" date when the statement was true, as it is possible that in March authorities were pursuing the higher-level offenders and that they've moved on to pursuing lower-level offenders. But I am hypothesizing. Does anyone know the answer? - Tuckerlieberman (talk) 19:15, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Hymes, Clare; McDonald, Cassidy; Watson, Eleanor (March 18, 2021). "Over 300 charged from more than 40 states: What we know about the "unprecedented" Capitol riot arrests". CBS News.
  2. ^ Tillman, Zoe (13 October 2021). "Reading Between The Lines Of Plea Deals In The Capitol Riot Cases". BuzzFeed News. Retrieved 2021-10-13.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)

Table?

[edit]

This is my first visit to this article. I feel like a table might be a good way to organize this information. Columns could be things like name, charges, result (plea, acquitted, convicted), sentence, references, notes, etc. –Novem Linguae (talk) 05:15, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Novem Linguae: Got any thoughts on this? Obvious things: dates are missing, WP:LPNAME (?), how to keep it up to date ... — Alalch Emis (talk) 18:54, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The draft table is bigger than I expected. It's taking up a bit too much space vertically. At least for me since I view Wikipedia at 1080p with 150% zoom. We should give some thought as to how to deal with that issue. Could let the table overflow the screen, could give the table a smaller font, could reduce the amount of text in or delete the "charges" column which is currently what is causing the most text density. Screenshot. –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:09, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Smaller font for some but not all columns perhaps? — Alalch Emis (talk) 21:10, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also, everything in the table should probably be cited for WP:NOSTATS and WP:BLPNAME reasons. That might be a separate conversation... should we be trying to list everyone charged, or only the most high profile folks? There's potential WP:BLPNAME issues. –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:15, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I mean it was your idea... :P I'll have to give it a big think, I'm not decided on anything. There's a NPR citation. — Alalch Emis (talk) 21:17, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
True, my idea. Was hoping to talk it out a little bit first though. Was implemented fairly quickly by someone. I am also not fully decided. –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:19, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We can immediately remove "DC: Unlawful Entry (Public Property)" people and say X number was charged with that. By immediately I mean it's a bit of a pain, but yeah. ... These are the unique charges entries, we need to abstract them somehow; there's fewer in actuality as there are obvious synonyms and some are combinations, with a comma
Extended content
(DC): Theft II
Assaulting, Resisting, or Impeding Certain Officers and Aiding and Abetting
Civil Disorder
Entering and Remaining in a Restricted Building
Entering and Remaining in a Restricted Building or Grounds
Obstruction of an Official Proceeding
Obstruction of Official Proceedings
Act of Physical Violence against Person on Restricted Grounds
Act of Physical Violence against Property on Restricted Grounds with a Dangerous Weapon
Act of Physical Violence in a Capitol Building
Act of Physical Violence in the Capitol Building
Act of Physical Violence in the Capitol Grounds
Act of Physical Violence in the Capitol Grounds or Building
Act of Physical Violence in the Capitol Grounds or Buildings
Act of Physical Violence in the Capitol Grounds or Buildings (Federal)
Act of Physical Violence in the Capitol Grounds or Buildings and Aiding and Abetting
Act of Physical Violence in the Capitol Grounds or Buildings.
Act of Physical Violence in the Grounds
Act of Physical Violence on Grounds
Act of Physical Violence on the Capitol Grounds
Act of Physical Violence within the Capitol Grounds or Buildings
Act of Violence on the U.S. Capitol Grounds
Acts during Civil Disorder
Aiding and Abetting
Aiding and Abetting the Commission of These Offenses Against the United States
Aiding and Abetting the Theft of Property—$1,000 or Less
and other counts.
Assault on a Federal Officer
Assault on a Federal Officer with a Dangerous Weapon and Aiding and Abetting
Assault, Resisting, or Impeding Certain Officers
Assaulting a Law Enforcement Officer (DC)
Assaulting, Resisting Certain Officers or Employees
Assaulting, Resisting or Impeding Certain Officers
Assaulting, Resisting or Impeding Certain Officers or Employees
Assaulting, Resisting or Impeding Certain Officers Using a Dangerous Weapon
Assaulting, Resisting or Impeding Certain Officers using a Dangerous Weapon or Inflicting Bodily Injury
Assaulting, Resisting or Impeding Certain Officers Using a Dangerous Weapon, Inflicting Bodily Injury
assaulting, resisting or impeding certain officers with a dangerous weapon
Assaulting, Resisting, or Impeding Certain Officers
Assaulting, Resisting, or Impeding Certain Officers and Aiding and Abetting
Assaulting, Resisting, or Impeding Certain Officers and Inflicting Bodily Injury and Aiding and Abetting
Assaulting, Resisting, or Impeding Certain Officers and Physical Contact
Assaulting, Resisting, or Impeding Certain Officers Inflicting Bodily Injury and Aiding and Abetting
Assaulting, Resisting, or Impeding Certain Officers or Employee of the United States in the Performance of their Official Duties
Assaulting, Resisting, or Impeding Certain Officers or Employees
Assaulting, Resisting, or Impeding Certain Officers Using a Dangerous Weapon
Assaulting, Resisting, or Impeding Certain Officers Using a Dangerous Weapon (pole-like object, baton)
Assaulting, Resisting, or Impeding Certain Officers Using a Dangerous Weapon and Aiding and Abetting
Assaulting, Resisting, or Impeding Certain Officers Using a Dangerous Weapon and Inflicting Bodily Injury
Assaulting, Resisting, or Impeding Certain Officers Using a Dangerous Weapon and Inflicting Bodily Injury on Certain Officers
Assaulting, Resisting, or Impeding Certain Officers Using a Dangerous Weapon or Inflicting Bodily Injury
Assaulting, Resisting, or Impeding Certain Officers Using a Dangerous Weapon, Inflicting Bodily Injury
Assaulting, Resisting, or Impeding Certain Officers Using a Dangerous Weapon, Inflicting Bodily Injury, and Aiding and Abetting
Assaulting, Resisting, or Impeding Certain Officers Using a Deadly or Dangerous Weapon
Assaulting, Resisting, or Impeding Certain Officers, Aiding and Abetting
Carrying a Pistol Without a License (outside home or place of business) [9mm Smith & Wesson handgun, .22 caliber North American arms revolver, 9mm Hi-Point handgun]
Carrying a Pistol Without a License Outside Home or Place of Business
Carrying a Rifle or Shotgun (Outside Home or Place of Business) [Windham Weaponry rifle, Hatfield Gun Company SAS shotgun]
Civil Disorder
Civil Disorder and Aiding and Abetting
Civil disorder Obstruction of an Official Proceeding
Commit or Attempt any act to Obstruct, Impede or Interfere with Law Enforcement in Performance of his Official Duties
Committed or Attempted to Commit any Act to Obstruct, Impede, or Interfere with Law Enforcement Officer Lawfully Engaged in the Lawful Performance of his Official Duties Incident to and during the Commission of a Civil Disorder which in any Way or Degree Obstructs, Delays, or Adversely Affects Commerce or the Movement of any Article or Commodity in Commerce or the Conduct or Performance of any Federally Protected Function
Conspiracy
Conspiracy to Commit Obstruction
Conspiracy to Impede or Injure an Officer
Conspiracy to Obstruct an Official Proceeding
Corruptly Alter, Destroy, Mutilate, and Conceal a Record, Document, and other Object, and Attempted to do so, with the Intent to Impair its Integrity and Availability for Use in an Official Proceeding
Corruptly Altering, Destroying, Mutilating, or Concealing a Record, Document, or Other Object
DC: Possession of a Prohibited Weapon (metal knuckles)
DC: Unlawful Entry (Public Property)
Destruction of Government Property
Destruction of Government Property and Aiding and Abetting
Destruction of Government Property Exceeding $1,000
Destruction of Property in Special Maritime and Territorial Jurisdiction and Aiding and Abetting
Destruction of Property in the Territorial Jurisdiction
Destruction or Injury to Buildings or Property in Special Maritime and Territorial Jurisdiction
Disordelry and Disruptive Conduct in a Restricted Building or Grounds
Disordelry Conduct in a Capitol Building
Disorderlly Conduct in a Capitol Building
Disorderly and Disruptive Conduct in a Capitol Building and Ground
Disorderly and Disruptive Conduct in a Capitol Building and Grounds
Disorderly and Disruptive Conduct in a Capitol Building or Grounds
Disorderly and Disruptive Conduct in a Restricted Building
Disorderly and Disruptive Conduct in a Restricted Building and Grounds
Disorderly and Disruptive Conduct in a Restricted Building and Grounds with a Dangerous or Deadly Weapon
Disorderly and Disruptive Conduct in a Restricted Building for Grounds with a Deadly or Dangerous Weapon
Disorderly and Disruptive Conduct in a Restricted Building or Ground with a Deadly or Dangerous Weapon
Disorderly and Disruptive Conduct in a Restricted Building or Grounds
Disorderly and Disruptive Conduct in a Restricted Building or Grounds with a Dangerous Weapon
Disorderly and Disruptive Conduct in a Restricted Building or Grounds with a Deadly or Dangerous Weapon
Disorderly and Disruptive Conduct in a Restricted Building or Grounds with a Deadly or Dangerous Weapon and Causing Significant Bodily Injury
Disorderly and Disruptive Conduct in a Restricted Building or Grounds, Using and Carrying a Dangerous Weapon, Resulting in Significant Bodily Injury
Disorderly and Disruptive Conduct in a Restricted Building with a Deadly or Dangerous Weapon
Disorderly and Disruptive Conduct in a Restricted Building.
Disorderly and Disruptive Conduct in a Restricted Grounds
Disorderly and Disruptive Conduct in a Restricted Grounds Using and Carrying a Deadly or Dangerous Weapon
Disorderly and Disruptive Conduct in any Restricted Building or Grounds Without Lawful Authority
Disorderly and Disruptive Conduct in Restricted Building or Grounds
Disorderly Conduct
Disorderly Conduct at the Grounds and in a Capitol Building
Disorderly Conduct in a Capitol Building
Disorderly Conduct in a Capitol Building and Grounds
Disorderly Conduct in a Capitol Building or Grounds
Disorderly Conduct in a Capitol Building: Parading, Demonstrating, or Picketing in a Capitol Building
Disorderly Conduct in a Captiol Building
Disorderly Conduct in a Restricted Building or Grounds
Disorderly Conduct in a Restricted Building or Grounds and Aiding and Abetting
Disorderly Conduct in Capitol Building
Disorderly Conduct in Capitol Building or Grounds
Disorderly Conduct in Capitol Grounds
Disorderly Conduct in Capitol Grounds or Buildings
Disorderly Conduct in Restricted Building or Grounds
Disorderly Conduct in the Capitol Grounds or Building
Disorderly Conduct in the Capitol Grounds or Buildings
Disorderly Conduct in the Capitol Grounds or BuildingsAct of Physical Violence in the Capitol Building or Grounds
Disorderly Conduct on Capitol Grounds
Disorderly Conduct on Grounds or in a Capitol Building
Disorderly Conduct on Restricted Grounds
Disorderly Conduct which Impedes the Conduct of Government Business
Disorderly Conduct Within the Capitol Grounds or Buildings
Disorderly or Disruptive Conduct in a Restricted Building or Grounds
Disorderly or Disruptive Conduct in any Restricted Building or Grounds
Disorderly or Disruptive Conduct, at any place in the Grounds or in any of the Capitol Buildings
Disrupting the Orderly Conduct of Government Business
Disruption of Official Business
Disruptive and Disorderly Conduct on Capitol Grounds
Disruptive Conduct in the Capitol Building
Disruptive Conduct in the Capitol Buildings
Engage in an Act of Physical Violence in a Capitol Building
Engage in Disorderly or Disruptive Conduct in any Restricted Building or Grounds
Engaging in an Act of Physical Violence in the Grounds or Any of the Capitol Buildings
Engaging in Disorderly or Disruptive Conduct on Capitol Buildings or Grounds
Engaging in Disorderly or Disruptive Conduct on the Capitol Buildings or Grounds
Engaging in Physical Violence in a Restricted Building or Grounds
Engaging in Physical Violence in a Restricted Building or Grounds Using a Deadly or Dangerous Weapon
Engaging in Physical Violence in a Restricted Building or Grounds with a Deadly or Dangerous Weapon
Engaging in Physical Violence in a Restricted Building or Grounds with a Deadly or Dangerous Weapon and Aiding and Abetting
Engaging in Physical Violence in a Restricted Building or Grounds with a Deadly or Dangerous Weapon and Causing Significant Bodily Injury: Act of Physical Violence in the Capitol Grounds or Buildings
Engaging in Physical Violence in a Restricted Building or Grounds with a Deadly or Dangerous Weapon and Resulting in Significant Bodily Injury
Engaging in Physical Violence in a Restricted Building or Grounds with a Deadly or Dangerous Weapon, Resulting in Significant Bodily Injury, and Aiding and Abetting
Engaging in Physical Violence in a Restricted Building or Grounds with a Deadly or Dangerous Weapons, Resulting in Significant Bodily Injury and Aiding and Abetting
Engaging in Physical Violence in a Restricted Building or Grounds, Using and Carrying a Dangerous Weapon, Resulting in Significant Bodily Injury
Engaging in Physical Violence in a Restricted Building with a Deadly or Dangerous Weapon
Engaging in Physical Violence in a Restricted Buildings or Grounds
Engaging in Physical Violence in any Restricted Building or Grounds
Engaging in physical Violence in Restricted Building or on Restricted Grounds
Engaging in Physical Violence in the Ground or Capitol Building
Engaging in Physical Violence on Capitol Grounds
Entering and Remaining
Entering and Remaining in a Restriced Building or Grounds
Entering and Remaining in a Restricted Building
Entering and Remaining in a Restricted Building and Grounds
Entering and Remaining in a Restricted Building or Grounds
Entering and Remaining in a Restricted Building or Grounds and Carrying a Deadly or Dangerous Weapon
Entering and Remaining in a Restricted Building or Grounds and Carrying a Deadly or Dangerous Weapon (with 1752(b)(1)(A) enhancement)
Entering and Remaining in a Restricted Building or Grounds with a Deadly or Dangerous Weapon
Entering and Remaining in a Restricted Building or Grounds with a Deadly or Dangerous Weapon and Causing Significant Bodily Injury
Entering and Remaining in a Restricted Building or Grounds with Physical Violence Against Property
Entering and Remaining in a Restricted Building or Grounds Without Lawful Authority
Entering and Remaining in a Restricted Building with a Dangerous Weapon
Entering and Remaining in a Restricted Building with a Deadly or Dangerous Weapon
Entering and Remaining in a Restricted Grounds Using and Carrying a Deadly or Dangerous Weapon
Entering and Remaining in a Room Designated for the Use of a Member of Congress
Entering and Remaining in any Restricted Building or Grounds
Entering and Remaining in Certain Rooms in the Capitol Building
Entering and Remaining in Restricted Building or Grounds
Entering and Remaining in Restricted Grounds
Entering and Remaining in the Gallery of Congress
Entering and Remaining on Restricted Grounds with a Dangerous Weapon
Entering and Remaining on the Floor of Congress
Entering and Remaining on the Floor of Either House of Congress
Entering or Remaining in a Restricted Building or Grounds
Entering or Remaining in any Restricted Building or Grounds
Entering or Remaining in any Restricted Building or Grounds Without Lawful Authority
Entering or Remaining in Restricted Building or Grounds
False Statement to Federal Agent
False Statements
False Statements and Representations
Federal and DC: Assaulting, Resisting, or Impeding Certain Officers Using a Dangerous Weapon
Federal and DC: Interstate Communication of Threats
Firearms and Dangerous Weapons on Capitol Grounds
Forcible Assault, Resist, Oppose, Impede, Intimidate, or Interfere with Law Enforcement
Forcibly Assaulted, Resisted, Opposed, Impeded, Intimidated, or Interfered with any Officer or Employee of the United States or of any Agency in any Branch of the United States Government (Including any Member of the Uniformed Services) While Engaged in or on Account of the Performance of Official Duties
Impeding Ingress and Egress in a Restricted Building or Grounds
Impeding Ingress and Egress in a Restricted Building or Grounds and Aiding and Abetting
Impeding Ingress and Egress in a Restricted Building or Grounds with a Deadly or Dangerous Weapon
Impeding Ingress and Egress in a Restricted Building or Grounds with a Deadly or Dangerous Weapon and Aiding and Abetting
Impeding Passage Through the Capitol Grounds or Buildings
Impeding Passage Through the Capitol Grounds or Buildings and Aiding and Abetting
Inflicting Bodily Injury on Certain Officers
Injuries to Property
Interstate Threats
Interstate Threats to Injure or Kidnap
Knowingly Committing an Act of Physical Violence in any Restricted Building or Grounds
Knowingly Engage in any act of Physical Violence Against any Person or Property in a Restricted Building
Knowingly Engages in an Act of Physical Violence Against Any Person or Property in any Restricted Building or Grounds
Knowingly Engaging in Disorderly or Disruptive Conduct in any Restricted Building or Grounds
Knowingly Engaging in Disorderly or Disruptive Conduct in any Restricted Buildings or Grounds
Knowingly Engaging in Disorderly or Disruptive Conduct in Restricted Building or Grounds
Knowingly Enter or Remain in any Restricted Building or Grounds without Lawful Authority to do
Knowingly Entering or Remaining in a Physical Violence Against any Person or Property in any Restricted Building or Grounds
Knowingly Entering or Remaining in any Restricted Building or Grounds
Knowingly Entering or Remaining in any Restricted Building or Grounds Without Lawful Authority
Knowingly Entering or Remaining in any Restricted Building or Grounds Without Lawful Authority and Impeding or Disrupting Official Functions
Knowingly Entering or Remaining in any Restricted Building or Grounds Without Lawful Authority and Knowingly Engages in any Act of Physical Violence Against any Person or Property in any Restricted Building or Grounds or Attempts or Conspires to do so
Knowingly Entering or Remaining in any Restricted Building or grounds without Lawful Entry
Knowingly Entering or Remaining in any Restricted Buildings or Grounds Without Lawful Authority
Knowingly, and with Intent to Impede or Disrupt the Orderly Conduct of Government Business or Official Functions
Knowingly, and with Intent to Impede or Disrupt the Orderly Conduct of Government Business or Official Functions, Engage in Disorderly or Disruptive Conduct in, or within such Proximity to, any Restricted Building or Grounds when, or so that, such Conduct, in fact, Impedes or Disrupts the Orderly Conduct of Government Business or Official Functions
Knowingly, With Intent to Impede Government Business or Official Functions, Engaging in Disorderly Conduct on Capitol Grounds
Obstruct and Impede Passage Through or Within Capitol Grounds
Obstruct, Impede, or Interfere with Law Enforcement Officer (Aiding and Abetting)
Obstruct, Influence or Impede any Official Proceeding or Attempt to do so, or to Aid, Abet, Counsel, Command, or Induce or Procure the Commission of that Offense.
Obstruct, influence, Impede an Official Proceeding by Entering and Remaining in the United States Capitol without Authority
Obstruct, or Impede Passage, and Engage in Physical Violence on Capitol Grounds
Obstructing an Official Proceeding
Obstructing an Official Proceeding and Aiding and Abetting
Obstructing of an Official Proceeding and Aiding and Abetting
Obstructing or Impeding Any Official Proceeding and Aiding and Abetting
Obstructing or Impeding Certain Officers
Obstructing or Impeding Law Enforcement Officer During Civil Disorder and Obstructing Federally Protected Functions
Obstructing or Impeding Official Proceeding
Obstructing, or Impeding Passage Through or Within, the Grounds or Any of the Capitol Buildings
Obstruction of an Official Proceeding
Obstruction of an Official Proceeding and Aiding & Abetting
Obstruction of an Official Proceeding and Aiding and Abetting
Obstruction of Congress and Aiding and Abetting
Obstruction of Justice – Hindering Communication Through Physical Force or Threat of Physical Force
Obstruction of Justice/Congress
Obstruction of Law Enforcement during a Civil Disorder and Aiding and Abetting
Obstruction of Law Enforcement During Civil Disorder
Obstruction of Law Enforcement During Civil Disorder and Aiding and Abetting
Obstruction of Proceedings
Obstruction of Proceedings, Aid and Abet
Parade or Picket in any of the Capitol Buildings
Parade, Demonstrate or Picket in any of the Capitol Buildings
Parade, Demonstrate, or Picket in a Capitol Building
Parade, Demonstrate, or Picket in any of the Capitol Buildings
Parade, Demonstrate, or Picket in the Capitol Grounds or Buildings
Parading Demonstrating or Picketing in a Capitol Building
Parading Demonstrating, or Picketing in a Capitol Building
Parading or Demonstrating in Capitol Building
Parading, Demonstrating or Picketing in a Capitol
Parading, Demonstrating or Picketing in a Capitol Building
Parading, Demonstrating or Picketing in the Capitol Buildings
Parading, Demonstrating, and Picketing in a Capitol Building
Parading, Demonstrating, or Picketing a Capitol Building
Parading, Demonstrating, or Picketing in a Capitol Building
Parading, Demonstrating, or Picketing in a Capitol Building.
Parading, Demonstrating, or Picketing in any of the Capitol Buildings
Parading, Demonstrating, or Picketing in Capitol
Parading, Demonstrating, or Picketing in Capitol Building
Parading, Demonstrating, or Picketing in Capitol Buildings
Parading, Demonstrating, or Picketing in the Capitol Buildings
Physical Violence in Restricted Grounds
Physical Violence in Restricted Grounds Using and Carrying a Deadly or Dangerous Weapon
Physical Violence on Capitol Grounds
Possession of a Large Capacity Ammunition Feeding Device
Possession of an Unregistered Firearm [11 Molotov cocktails]
Possession of Large Capacity Ammunition Feeding Devices
Possession of Unregistered Ammunition
Possession of Unregistered Firearms
Restricted Building or Grounds
Robbery
Robbery (baton, fence, shield from 3 different MPD officers)
Robbery and Aiding and Abetting (baton)
Robbery of Personal Property of the United States
Simple Assault within the Territorial Jurisdiction
Steal, Sell, Convey or Dispose of Anything of Value of the United States
Stepping, Climbing, Removing, or Injuring Property on the Capitol Grounds
Striking, Beating or Wounding of Another Person within the Territorial Jurisdiction
Striking, Beating, or Wounding of Another Person within the Territorial Jurisdiction
Tampering with a Witness by Threat
Tampering with Documents or Proceedings
Theft of Government Property
Theft of Government Property (an envelope which has a value of less than $1,000)
Theft of Government Property (less than $1,000) [a sign]
Theft of Government Property (under $1,000) [a United States flag and government documents from the floor of the Senate chamber]
Theft of Government Property and Aiding and Abetting
Theft of Government Property: Entering and Remaining in a Restricted Building or Grounds
Theft of Personal Property Within Special Maritime and Territorial Jurisdiction
Threatening a Federal Officer
Threats in Interstate Communications - Contained a threat to kidnap and injure law enforcement officers using a social media service and a threat to kidnap and injure politicians and executives in the technology industry
Two counts of Entering and Remaining in a Restricted Building and Grounds
Two counts of Entering and Remaining in a Restricted Building and Grounds and Carrying a Deadly or Dangerous Weapon
Unlawful Activities on Capitol Grounds
Unlawful Activities on Capitol Grounds, Parades, Assemblages and Display of Flags
Unlawful Entry in a Restricted Building or Grounds
Unlawful Entry on Restricted Buildings or Grounds
Unlawful Entry on Restricted Grounds
Unlawful Entry to Restricted Building or Grounds
Unlawful Possession of a Dangerous Weapon on Capitol Grounds or Buildings
Unlawful Possession of a Firearm on Capitol Grounds or Buildings
Unlawful Possession of Ammunition [.22 caliber rounds, 9mm rounds, 5.56 x 45mm rounds, .223 caliber rounds, shotgun shells]
Unlawfully and Knowingly Enter Restricted Building or Grounds
Utter Loud, Threatening, or Abusive Language, or Engage in Disorderly or 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 of a Session of Congress or either House of Congress
Violent Entry and Disorderly Conduct
Violent Entry and Disorderly Conduct and Parading, Demonstrating, or Picketing in a Capitol Building
Violent Entry and Disorderly Conduct at the Grounds and in a Capitol Building
Violent Entry and Disorderly Conduct in a Capitol Building
Violent Entry and Disorderly Conduct in a Capitol Building or Grounds
Violent Entry and Disorderly Conduct in Capitol Building
Violent Entry and Disorderly Conduct in Capitol Buildings
Violent Entry and Disorderly Conduct in Defendant in a Capitol Building
Violent Entry and Disorderly Conduct on Capitol Grounds
Violent Entry and Disorderly Conduct on in a Capitol Building
Violent Entry or Disorderly Conduct
Violent Entry with Intent to Disrupt the Orderly Conduct of Official Business and Disorderly Conduct on Capitol Grounds
Willfully and Knowingly Engage in an act of Physical Violence in the Grounds of the Capitol Building
— Alalch Emis (talk) 21:42, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This duplicate the information in the two section below, do we need this information twice?Slatersteven (talk) 19:30, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We don't need it twice, only once in one or another format. We need to see if the table is viable. — Alalch Emis (talk) 19:52, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Slatersteven: What's your view of the situation after recent edits? Sentences section was fully merged into the table. — Alalch Emis (talk) 21:09, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The charges should be as well, as it is (more or less) duplicating the same date as the table.Slatersteven (talk) 11:27, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not guilty

[edit]

If they are not guilty why do we mention them? This seems to me to violates the spirit of wp:crime. Anyone found not guilty should not be named, in any part of the article.Slatersteven (talk) 13:13, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

They pleaded not guilty, their case is ongoing. — Alalch Emis (talk) 13:30, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OK, misunderstood.Slatersteven (talk) 13:32, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Any who have died should be removed, as they never will go to trial. As in fact should anyone who has had all charges dropped.Slatersteven (talk) 13:32, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Maybe note somewhere (maybe even invisible text for the time being) number of cases with charges dropped / defendant died. — Alalch Emis (talk) 13:40, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A note at the bottom "something like "and in 5 cases were dropped, or the defended dies before trial") would be OK, just no names.Slatersteven (talk) 13:46, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. However, how would we update this score without individual case overview (not implying this is a reason to keep these names, just a technical matter)? — Alalch Emis (talk) 13:48, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Then we leave it out until its all over and we know the final score.Slatersteven (talk) 13:52, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Might as well ditch the table altogether because it will be terribly out of date compared to the NPR article for example, which is updated probably by a few people working on it couple of hours a week. This article has a low view count, and doesn't attract enough input. The table could stay in the history as a proof of concept of what it could look like when the biggest part is over, like in a year or two. Edit: Until we think it through, I'll be working on integrating arrests prose with the table. — Alalch Emis (talk) 13:57, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Cmt: After integrating a part of the bulleted prose with the table (maybe 30% done), the table seems good on desktop. Probably terrible on mobile. There are a lot of good things about the added precision, regarding cases already covered, which is maybe a more responsible way to treat some of the subject matter. While working on it, I was able to identify one case listed as an arrest, but it wasn't an arrest, for example. — Alalch Emis (talk) 15:32, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well now the table has made this page the fifth longest on the wiki. Blubabluba9990 (talk) (contribs) 18:42, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Working on it... — Alalch Emis (talk) 18:55, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes with effort were can make it number one, but jokes aside, the table is very very long.Slatersteven (talk) 11:26, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done! *idiot cackle* — Alalch Emis (talk) 12:37, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think all the detailing needs collapsing to make it more readable. Such as the charges or notes.Slatersteven (talk) 13:08, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Novem Linguae: What do you think now? — Alalch Emis (talk) 13:14, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the ping. Still doesn't look good to me at 150% (my normal zoom), but looks decent at 100% zoom, so that's probably good enough. I'd suggest converting the first column's dates to a sortable format, e.g. 2021-01-07. And I'd think about removing the charges column, since the pleadings column mentions what they're found guilty of, and the litany of not guilty charges adds a lot of noise / WP:NOTSTATS to the table. Yes, I know I originally suggested adding the charges column, my bad. Seems like snipping it would be the best way to keep an encyclopedic summary style. I imagine you're several hours of work into this, thanks for your work on this. –Novem Linguae (talk) 17:30, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome, and thanks for an essentially needed idea (a way to integrate our unfocused content based on media coverage in it's different phases, each about a separate stage in the procedure). I'll see about how to remove charges, it will be difficult now, as I manually edited the charges-related content out of the previous prose when adapting it for the Notes column. Removing it altogether *right now* would mean no or very little info about charges on individuals who plead not guilty. Edit: collapsed charges. — Alalch Emis (talk) 17:42, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think collapsing is a good compromise. Table is looking as good as it's gonna get I think. 😎 –Novem Linguae (talk) 18:39, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge columns

[edit]

There's a lot wrong here, but a start would be to merge the Charges, Pleas, and Judgement columns into one integrated column. Date of arrest is relatively unimportant and could be merged to the either Notes or the new column just described. EEng 19:35, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@EEng: Beside the Notes column (not sure ATM if I'd agree that it's important or not, or if that's the basis on which we should separate it or not), why should these others columns be merged together? Don't take this as me disputing you, I think there's a very high likelihood that you're right. I'm willing to implement changes to the table, just need a little more convincing. Regards. — Alalch Emis (talk) 21:24, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The formatting as it is fragments the data in such a way that some columns have large amounts of white space, whereas others are overstuffed. At the same time, it's unclear how the separation of stuff into all these various columns helps the reader -- why is the date of arrest so important that a whole column should be allocated to it? Same with Pleas -- these are almost always "Not guilty -- all charges", so how helpful is it to waste a column on that? Merging most of the data into a single integrated presentation would be far better, and look better as well. EEng 22:11, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Joseph Rodriguez

[edit]

What about Daniel J. Rodriguez from SoCal who is charged for tasing Officer Mike Fanone with an electroshock weapon in the neck and other alleged crimes? He should be included into the list, see https://www.huffpost.com/entry/daniel-j-rodriguez-capitol-attack_n_604be085c5b6cf72d0963f8e --Einar Moses Wohltun (talk) 08:14, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Proud Boys charged with seditious conspiracy in Capitol riot"

[edit]

---Another Believer (Talk) 22:52, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate for governor

[edit]

One of those charged is a candidate for governor of Michigan: Michigan candidate for governor, Ryan Kelley, charged for Jan. 6 involvement -- Beland (talk) 23:49, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

article text is hidden in invisible comment tags

[edit]

why are a gazillion entries hidden with invisible comment tags? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:16, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

text to consider importing

[edit]

This was copied from Timeline of violent incidents at the United States Capitol.... it would be good to harmonize these articles and to transclude some into the other so it only has to be maintained in one place.

At least 862 people have been charged in the Capitol Riot so far. This searchable table shows them all.], Insider (last updated June 9, 2022).</ref> which saw the largest criminal investigation in U.S. history.[1] The FBI classified the attack as domestic terrorism.[1] Although some of the defendants had previously expressed support for fringe views or right-wing extremist groups, such as the Proud Boys, Oath Keepers, and Three Percenters, .<ref, in America, you are innocent until proven guilty. name=BiggestCriminal/> The U.S. Attorney in the District of Columbia said that "The investigation and prosecution of the Capitol Attack will likely be one of the largest in American history, both in terms of the number of defendants prosecuted and the nature and volume of the evidence".[2][3]
At least 862 people were criminally charged for their roles in the January 6 Capitol Riot.[4] At least 213 defendants were charged with crimes of violence against police or others; at least 58 defendants were charged with criminal conspiracy.[1] The most serious charges, seditious conspiracy, were brought against Oath Keepers leader Elmer Stewart Rhodes and 10 of his associates, who were indicted on the charge in January 2022.[4] Many others were charged with theft or illegally breaching the building.[1] By June 2022, at least 303 defendants had pleaded guilty to one or more crimes; of those, 186 defendants were sentenced, of whom 44% were given prison sentences.[1] As of June 2022, five trials had been completed, resulting in four defendants being convicted.[1]

References

  1. ^ a b c d e f The Capitol siege: The cases behind the biggest criminal investigation in U.S. history, NPR, All Things Considered (updated June 9, 2022).
  2. ^ Hsu, Spencer S. (March 12, 2021). "Justice Dept. calls Jan. 6 'Capitol Attack' probe one of largest in U.S. history, expects at least 400 to be charged". Washington Post. Retrieved March 15, 2021.
  3. ^ Pulver, Dinah Voyles (March 8, 2021). "Two months and nearly 300 Capitol riot arrests later, FBI is hunting hundreds more". USA Today. Retrieved March 8, 2021.
  4. ^ a b Madison Hall, Skye Gould, Rebecca Harrington, Jacob Shamsian, Azmi Haroun, Taylor Ardrey, and Erin Snodgrass, At least 862 people have been charged in the Capitol insurrection so far. This searchable table shows them all., Insider (last updated June 9, 2022).

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:16, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As I am unsure the arrests have finsished it might be best to wait. Slatersteven (talk) 10:37, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well I'm occupied now anyway. That said, there is no reason for anyone to wait... just use Template:As of and use the optional parameter to pop up a flag calling for updating every so many days... 30? 60? 90? .... NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:59, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:2021 United States Capitol attack which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 20:49, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Timothy Hale-Cusanelli here

[edit]

Could someone merge Timothy Hale-Cusanelli with this page. I've not been following this page so unsure how you are keeping it flowing. That page has been a settled since July 2022 to merge instead of being deleted. He's in the news again after being the subject in a Trump rally and that page might be subject of new edits. I think his sentencing is coming up, too, later in September. P37307 (talk) 03:14, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

He shouldn't be included under "Notable sentences" until he is sentenced. That goes for all the other people who have been plonked there but who haven't yet been sentenced.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:02, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notable sentences

[edit]

This section should be reserved for those sentenced, not those who might be sentenced. The fact that the maximum sentence they could get is 20 years or more does not mean they will be sentenced to anything like that. Jack Upland (talk) 04:04, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, obviously—putting the maximum possible sentence of someone yet to be sentenced under "Notable sentences" is well beneath the standards of even the worst encyclopedia. If there's a need to include these, they should be done separately, under "Longest potential sentences" or something that's at least accurate. But this is a cautionary tale and perfect example of WP:NOTNEWS. Will remove now. Thanks for pointing this out! ElleTheBelle 20:21, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To this date the longest have been one ten year sentence and I believe 3 in the 7 to 7.5 year range. Rmhermen (talk) 02:11, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really think there's a need for this section. It seems to largely duplicate what occurs below.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:50, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Criminal proceedings *in*

[edit]

The "in" in the title sounds wrong. Why not "related to" or "following"? Jack Upland (talk) 07:07, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

unwieldy

[edit]

only a law geek cares about that huge table of people. There should be a line at the top saying: Charged X; Trials Y; Convictions Z. Currently Y=Z AFAICT. I couldn't find the statistics. 108.51.169.236 (talk) 23:16, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I came here looking for more of a statistical overview. The volume of information would be ok if clear overviews came first, but mixing trivia in with the big picture makes this page less useful. It seems like it would be much easier to keep a page like this useful if the data was kept in a more structured format, and statistics, tables, etc. could be auto-generated from that. Are there examples of other pages that use, e.g. Wikidata (https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Main_Page) to store the raw info, and then auto-generate summaries & tables? DKEdwards (talk) 18:23, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. I say we nix the table. Bkatcher (talk) 18:53, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Needs cleanup, possibly split article?

[edit]

The current article needs cleanup and reorganization. Some defendants are under "notable sentences" but aren't in the table. Some are under "additional notes". Maybe it would be a good idea to separate defendants by category of seriousness, for example:

  • Ringleaders like Stewart Rhodes and Kelly Meggs,
  • Those charged/convicted of assaulting officers like Scott Kevin Fairlamb
  • Those charged/convicted of simply being in the capitol or lesser related crimes, like Tim Gionet

Possibly, you could create a list article as well as this article, the list article having all of the defendants already in this article, and this one being restricted to procedure, the general overview and only the most notable leaders and defendants. Also, I'm surprised that Donald Trump himself isn't listed as a defendant, since he is charged with "obstruction of an official proceeding", the same crime other defendants in this article are charged with.MarkiPoli (talk) 08:34, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone charged should be in the table.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:41, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There are over 900 defendants, this isn't possible MarkiPoli (talk) 11:54, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure all of them are particularly notable or carry enough weight for DUE. DN (talk) 21:19, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking this, yeah. Everyone with an active wikipedia page should be included I think, as well as those charged with seditious conspiracy and the other ringleaders (even if they don't have one). Other than that, maybe active duty (at the time) military and police, politicians, relatives of notable people perhaps. And then a general statistical overview of the rest. MarkiPoli (talk) 15:14, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What does the current table represent?--Jack Upland (talk) 04:19, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Kind of a bit of a hodgepodge. I think part of the problem is the table was started back when there wasn't as many defendants and most hadn't been convicted yet. Also (as others said before earlier in the talk page) I really don't think the "arrest date" and "plea" columns are necessary. Especially as its common for defendants to plead guilty to some charges and not others, or change their plea at a certain date. MarkiPoli (talk) 07:39, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Missing information and needs references

[edit]

several statements in the page are opinion and not factual. One in particular should be accompanied by a reference of when the materials were made available to the press or the defendants because it is misleading since many defendants were convicted prior to the information being made available for their defense as it should have been under the Brady rule... The wording of the article in places probably ought to be modified so it reads more like an unbiased reporting of factual information, it lacks that in its present form on 12/30/23. I made edits to a section that clarified, elucidated, and used proper terminology more apropos to a scholarly account but they were removed and further redacted almost immediately reducing the value and educational value of the page since the information removed is nowhere in the article and is directly related to understanding the charges used to prosecte, and the importance of the Supreme Court weighing in on the interpretation of the Obstruction charges. The section currently reads more like a readers digest condensed account taken from select sources that intentionally did not report specific factual elements in order to present a biased view than it did with the additional information suggested here:

In March 2022, U.S. District Judge Carl Nichols ruled that the charge of obstruction of an official proceeding (18 U.S.C. § 1512(c)) must be limited to alleged tampering with documents.[1] However, in April 2023, an appellate court reversed this decision, so documents need not have been part of an alleged crime for a defendant to be charged with obstruction.[2] In a surprise announcement the last week of December 2023, the Supreme Court granted a writ of certiorari based on filings of at least 3 defendants who challenged the finding of the appellate court and petitioned the highest court in the land for expedited review of the appellate court ruling; the high court ordered the appeals court to send up the record of the case for review. (By that point, over 150 Capitol rioters had been convicted of this charge or had pleaded guilty to it.) It is expected that the Supreme Court will hear arguments in the spring of 2024 and decide in the summer of 2024.[3]. Many legal experts agree the obstruction charge the Department of Justice is citing for the prosecution of the protesters goes far beyond its intended use by lawmakers who wrote 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c) to remove a specific loophole that precluded prosecution of certain actions that interfered with the effective administration of Justice on the perpetrators responsible for destruction of documents proving the elements of a financial crime that mistakenly allowed the perpetrators of the crime to avoid prosecution. The interpretation by the high court of the US code is of immense importance as it could block felony prosecution or reverse the felony convictions of the bulk of those involved with the January 6 protest.


As the obstruction charge is one of the four charges against Donald Trump in the federal prosecution related to the 2020 election, a Supreme Court case about the validity of the obstruction charge could delay Trump's trial even if it is fast tracked by the Supreme Court; President Trump's trial involving the obstruction charges is currently scheduled for March 4, 2024.[3] Rationalreporter (talk) 14:46, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do any sources say it was a surprise? Also this is still ongoing, so we do not know what the outcomes will be. Slatersteven (talk) 14:50, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The additional information is useful for critical thinking related the criminal prosecutions and omitting it serves no purpose other than to limit the usefulness of the wiki entry to readers interested in the criminal.prosecutions and their basis in law. Rationalreporter (talk) 15:00, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree, it confuses the matter as (at this time) they have been convicted (and until those convictions are overturned remain so). Slatersteven (talk) 15:02, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The article is about the proceedings: the edit adds context and information useful to understanding the proceedings, the basis of the charges, and how past and future proceedings may be affected. Leaving it out is not helpful and is misleading. For the SCOTUS to take it up now after refusing to and expedited review of the issue in the trial of the ex-president just days ago on the exact same issue has the effect of granting the expedited review requested by the prosecution in Trump's trial. It should be included. Rationalreporter (talk) 15:13, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

i Have had my say, time for others to chip in. Slatersteven (talk) 15:16, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Hsu, Spencer S.; Jackman, Tom; Weiner, Rachel (8 March 2022). "U.S. judge dismisses lead federal charge against Jan. 6 Capitol riot defendant". Washington Post. Archived from the original on March 31, 2023. Retrieved 7 April 2023.
  2. ^ "USA v Fischer" (PDF). storage.courtlistener.com. U.S. Court of Appeals. 7 April 2023. Archived (PDF) from the original on April 7, 2023. Retrieved 7 April 2023.
  3. ^ a b Sherman, Mark (2023-12-13). "Supreme Court will hear a case that could undo Capitol riot charge against hundreds, including Trump". AP News. Retrieved 2023-12-13.

Convictions: List vs Table

[edit]

Many of the list entries are duplicated in the table. Let's vote for one way or another. Here are a few pros and cons to each, I'm sure others can think of more:

List:

  • PRO: Occupies less space
  • CON: can't show all charges, it would be cumbersome to read through all them for each defendant and leaving them out seems unbalanced

Table:

  • PRO: Sortable! By date of arrest, sentencing, alphabetical, etc.
  • PRO: can toggle show/hide charges
  • CON: occupies a lot of space (and probably much more with new entries added all the time)

I vote: checkY for Table ♦ WikiUser70176 ♦(My talk page) 21:30, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"January 6 hostage crisis" listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

The redirect January 6 hostage crisis has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 February 4 § January 6 hostage crisis until a consensus is reached. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:31, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question

[edit]

Would a list of all those arrested/wanted related to January 6th be something that is possible? Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 20:25, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Guess I should go for it.Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 19:29, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Illegal to step into the capitol building but not illegal to take down and move fences?

[edit]

Can this article be clearer in what was legal and illegal on Jan 6th? It seems that the only people who were charged with crimes were the people who actually stepped into the capitol building. None of the people who actually took down the fences and pushed back on the capitol police and assaulted the capitol police outside the capitol building were charged with a crime for their actions outside the capitol building. Why is this? 50.103.237.13 (talk) 22:09, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes they were. DN (talk) 23:09, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Criminal_proceedings_in_the_January_6_United_States_Capitol_attack&oldid=1252330611"