"Murder" is unjust killing. Clearly there was a killing. The question is whether it was "just".

Here, the people protecting the Congressional chamber did NOT know if the people attempting to force their way in were armed or not. In fact, the very acts of breaking the windows and trying to force their way in, is (I hope I'm using the term properly...) prima facie evidence that these people are up to no good.

If someone were to come to my house, even if unarmed, but were banging on my door/windows, breaking one or more, and were trying to circumvent my locks and various deterrences, I would be well within my rights to shoot him once he broke the boundaries of my house (Castle Doctrine is in effect here in my state.)

Now, you may say: but the Capitol is our house, we paid for it, etc... If I own a house and rent it out to others... Would I be in the right to go to the property unannounced, (let's say the renters are stone drunk/drugged, and jammed/barricaded the doors because they didn't want for you or anyone to come in to find them in such a state), bang on the door, perhaps breaking the windows (maybe I thought someone was doing illegal stuff inside and am steaming-mad; and, my keys wouldn't get me thru barricaded doors), etc. By all outward accounts it would look like I was trying to break in, possibly to do the renters harm. Now, if one of them were sober enough to whip out a firearm and shot me just as I jumped thru a broken window, would he be in trouble with the law? No, because, from his point of view, someone was ready to do him and his buddies harm by breaking the windows, and breaching the boundaries. My ownership has nothing to do with it. My behavior, by any reasonable man observing the situation from inside the house, would imply that I'm up to no good. Furthermore, if the person inside warned me that they are armed and will protect themselves, my breaking in (thinking indignantly that "I'm the OWNER, DAMMIT!!") won't save me from a rain of lead.

Unless the information has changed in the last few days, DC police arrested a number of people on the Capitol grounds who were illegally carrying, and they later discovered at least one bomb in the surrounding area. Since the armed folks in the room had no prior knowledge of this, they have only the developing situation in front of them to make judgments. But these later-discovered bits of information vindicates the armed security within the chamber, since we don't know, even now, if any of those arrested on weapons charges were some of the ones who broke in to the Capitol, those within the chambers certainly don't know if one or more of the protesters outside the double-doors (some with backpacks and garb that could easily hide firearms) were armed or not.

Apologies for length.

"Murder" is unjust killing. Clearly there was a killing. The question is whether it was "just".

Here, the people protecting the Congressional chamber did NOT know if the people attempting to force their way in were armed or not. In fact, the very acts of breaking the windows and trying to force their way in, is (I hope I'm using the term properly...) prima facie evidence that these people are up to no good.

If someone were to come to my house, even if unarmed, but were banging on my door/windows, breaking one or more, and were trying to circumvent my locks and various deterrences, I would be well within my rights to shoot him once he broke the boundaries of my house (Castle Doctrine is in effect here in my state.)

Now, you may say: but the Capitol is our house, we paid for it, etc... If I own a house and rent it out to others... Would I be in the right to go to the property unannounced, (let's say the renters are stone drunk/drugged, and jammed/barricaded the doors because they didn't want for you or anyone to come in to find them in such a state), bang on the door, perhaps breaking the windows (maybe I thought someone was doing illegal stuff inside and am steaming-mad; and, my keys wouldn't get me thru barricaded doors), etc. By all outward accounts it would look like I was trying to break in, possibly to do the renters harm. Now, if one of them were sober enough to whip out a firearm and shot me just as I jumped thru a broken window, would he be in trouble with the law? No, because, from his point of view, someone was ready to do him and his buddies harm by breaking the windows, and breaching the boundaries. My ownership has nothing to do with it. My behavior, by any reasonable man observing the situation from inside the house, would imply that I'm up to no good. Furthermore, if the person inside warned me that they are armed and will protect themselves, my breaking in (thinking indignantly that "I'm the OWNER, DAMMIT!!") won't save me from a rain of lead.

Unless the information has changed in the last few days, DC police arrested a number of people on the Capitol grounds who were illegally carrying, and they later discovered at least one bomb in the surrounding area. Since the armed folks in the room had no prior knowledge of this, they have only the developing situation in front of them to make judgments. But these later-discovered bits of information vindicates the armed security within the chamber, since we don't know, even now, if any of those arrested on weapons charges were some of the ones who broke in to the Capitol, those within the chambers certainly don't know if one or more of the protesters outside the double-doors (some with backpacks and garb that could easily hide firearms) were armed or not.