I wonder what the chain of command was who told these cops to essentially do nothing today. Who does the buck stop with?
The fact that a large mob of people like this - many of them armed, and some of them planting explosives - breaking into the Capitol, taking things and causing a bunch of damage, results in only a small handful of arrests is pretty crazy, too.
It's crystal clear that the police have no trouble deescalating violent situations when they want to.
A mob literally broke into the Capitol Building
If you've followed the history of protest in this country, you'll find it difficult to believe any of these things. From suffragist, to labour, to the civil rights movement, unarmed left-wing protests are routinely brutalized by police. Armed right-wing protests are not.
When someone is brutalized by another human because they don't have a gun, of course that's because people are being evil! How dare you say they made themselves a victim?
And trying to do self defense with a gun is a terrible idea in most circumstances.
(Though trying to fight government abuse with a gun is also a terrible idea.)
Deciding not to carry around a gun is very different from deciding not to defend yourself. It's not victim mentality.
>And trying to do self defense with a gun is a terrible idea in most circumstances.
statistics say otherwise also statistics cant even capture the self defenses that weren't needed because someone had a gun and could have used it if needed.
>(Though trying to fight government abuse with a gun is also a terrible idea.)
trying to fighting against anyone isn't self defense. no where did I say anything the like you just made that up.
>Deciding not to carry around a gun is very different from deciding not to defend yourself. It's not victim mentality. You are seem unable to completely read and understand my post. You cant just pick one part and ignore the rest. I clear said that if you cant defend yourself its not the same as if you voluntary dont want to. There are many valid reasons why you would not carry a gun and so if you dont have one you obliviously cant us it. Not the same as if you want to have guns removed from anyone so people no longer have a choice.
I'm not sure what the 'no' refers to?
Your original post said "the gov or literally anyone". Your second post only talked about the gov part, so I reminded you about the "literally anyone" part. Where's the misinterpretation?
> trying to fighting against anyone isn't self defense. no where did I say anything the like you just made that up.
Let me rephrase. Self defense against the government with a gun is a terrible idea.
> You are seem unable to completely read and understand my post. You cant just pick one part and ignore the rest. I clear said that if you cant defend yourself its not the same as if you voluntary dont want to.
You did say that. You also equated choosing not to carry a gun with choosing not to defend yourself, with the phrases "Who would have thought that people with guns are less likely to be brutalized by the gov or literally anyone." and "their own actions or inactions makes them the victim"
Are you telling me you didn't mean to equate those? If so then your original post was written misleadingly, and I don't even know who you're even accusing of victim mentality anymore.
If you did mean to equate those, then I still think your opinion is hot garbage.
Even without comparing to BLM, the actions of the people that raided the Capitol should be condemned on their own. There is no need to bring in BLM as a crutch to make the case. It just makes it less weaker than it is.
This is an assault on democracy. We don't need to explicitly cite double standards to make our case. Stop comparing what's going on on the Capitol with BLM protests.
Turns out the violence had nothing to do with it, which was obvious all along of course. But it’s good to know for sure.
We can discuss that in the context of police use/force - not in the context of taking down democracy.
In Bellevue, the police did neither, and instead, talked with the protesters, and there was no looting anywhere near the protest areas.
If you actually cared about minimizing looting, you should probably not attack peaceful protestors on public streets. The chaos that starts is what gives looters cover to operate.
Also as you imply, why would being treated poorly by a public servant (the police) justify the looting of an unrelated private party? It doesn’t. One is not a justified cause for the other.
And this killing sure looks like it was part of CHOP: https://abc3340.com/news/nation-world/murder-charges-filed-a...
No transcript yet, but here's the slug:
https://www.npr.org/2021/01/06/954115945/former-defense-secr...
https://twitter.com/cevansavenger/status/1346920924310867968
Those people are being let past a barrier to where a lot of other people already are. So it doesn't look like they are getting let in to a restricted area.
Maybe we're just seeing the police manage crowd flow.
Without some context I don't see that this shows anything bad happening here.
It's a bit amazing this video is being peddled around HN as evidence of anything; there is so little context.
(Not knowing the area/layout/etc. as I said) I just see the latter, with it implied they're about to rush up the steps, but where they go (there or otherwise) unshown.
Unless by the "right word" you meant "how they should be called". But then it becomes a highly subjective question.
Obviously the executive branch police forces were held back. There’s a reason why they are pulling in the New Jersey State Police.
What is amazing is that everything has been filmed and yet people still disagree with what is being seen .
2. The SPD, for a reason they still can't explain, and against the orders of both Mayor Durkan, and Police Chief Best, chose to leave the East Precinct, and then, in a petty manner, stopped responding to calls in the entire Capitol Hill area.
3. The CHAZ occupied a public park, and the streets of the surrounding block. It did not stop the operation of businesses, legislatures, or government. It did not prevent the police from accessing the area.
What we're seeing here, is a failed coup - an attempt to prevent the peaceful, democratic transfer of power by force, at the behest of a politician. I can't believe that you can't tell the difference between a coup, and a protest. One is treason and insurrection, which carries the death penalty, while the other is a constitutionally protected right.
"police say violent crowd prevented access to victims"
I'll believe it when its a citation from an impartial third party - a paramedic, a bystander, etc.
The fact is, the police retained access to both the East Precinct, and to CHAZ, through the latter's existence. They would show up in small groups of two or three, and were allowed in.
Play stupid games, win stupid prizes and all that...
I do give a small amount of consideration to the sacredness of the capitol, and the additional damage that images of blood spilled on the steps of our capitol would do.
I understand the rationale could still stand, but wanted to point out that their lack of enforcement did not prevent bloodshed entirely.