Hacker News Reader

Comment by krastanov | Hacker News Reader

This attitude really saddens me. We should be advocating for all protestors to be treated with such gentle touch, not for all protestors to be brutalized the way BLM protestors were. Thankfully, this is the attitude I have heard from most BLM leaders.

View on HN

I agree that the comment you are responding to is saddening, but I disagree with the characterization of the Capitol protesters as being treated with a "gentle touch". One unarmed woman was shot and killed, others were maced, beaten etc. Three other protesters died from causes that I've just seen described as "medical". This hardly seems like evidence of a light touch to me.

In my estimation the Capitol Police were some combination of surprised, unprepared, under-equipped, and under-manned. The police didn't seem to have any plans or preparation. Some police are seen standing aside and letting protesters in to the Capitol (which, I agree is a light touch, but I also saw police kneeling in solidarity with BLM protesters, which is also a light touch). Other police are brawling with protesters (which, I think is probably about the right level of violence, we just needed more police to be there doing it and for all the police there to understand what they were supposed to be doing).

I don't think the police should shoot Capitol protesters or BLM protesters. I do think they should use physical force against both when they do things that are unacceptable - e.g. entering the Capitol or destroying or looting stores. I would say both groups call for a similar medium touch.

If the BLM protestors attempted to storm buildings defended by the federal police that were deployed to those protests, they'd have been mowed down with light machine guns. Had the police not rioted themselves, nothing would have happened even if BLM had come to fight because it would have been abundantly clear that escalation would not lead to rising property values in Tokyo.

The Capitol should have been much better fortified by a much larger force given that the FBI, MPD, and Capitol Police knew or should have known about this plan for months. Had the presence of several hundred officers with multiple layers of fencing and visibly-manned M249 positions not been sufficient to convince their vanguard to run away, they would have been able to escalate to spotlights, LRAD, and less-lethal projectiles before needing to go with the real deal. A suitable amount of publicity for these preparations could very well have resulted in the Q Cucks Klan deciding to find an excuse to either make it a legitimate protest or call the whole thing off.

The deaths would have been at most two or three rioters, and possibly a few who get trampled in the panicked retreat. That would have been a light touch; it accomplishes the objective using a minimum of force, and if they saw reason nobody would even have been scratched. A medium touch would just be shooting anyone who tries to breach the perimeter until they stop trying (which would have been totally legal); a heavy touch would have happened to the BLM protestors if they had escalated to violence.

Kneeling in solidarity with protesters is fine because neither the protestors or the officer are breaking the law or indeed doing anything wrong. Letting an enemy force (and that's absolutely what a crowd of people with unlawfully-possessed guns and Army of Northern Virginia battle flags is) past your position is at a minimum conspiracy to enter and remain in a federal building without authorization.

They attemtpted to storm a federal building in Portland every night for weeks without being "gunned down".

No they didn't.

Yes they have. https://deadline.com/2020/12/armed-protesters-enter-oregon-s...

There is some disconnect here. These are violent right-wing rioters storming a state capitol building. The allegation of OP was that BLM protestors were doing something like that.

Yes you are right, I posted the wrong link. Here is the correct one:

https://nypost.com/2020/07/26/portland-protest-declared-a-ri...

I agree with you on how protestors should be treated, but take issue calling the people at the Capitol "protestors". Some certainly were simply protestors, but quite a few -- those we are talking about now -- crossed the line from protesting into breaking and entering, vandalism, and in some cases violent behavior.

I think "protester" is appropriate for people who are protesting a political process in a political building - even if some of them exceeded acceptable behavior, committed crimes, were violent etc.

Using BLM as an example, is it still fair to call them protesters though they sometimes fight with police (violent behavior), graffiti or break windows (vandalism), loot (breaking and entering)?

Sure, I agree. But this thread is specifically talking about the subset of the protestors who were committing crimes. No need to call that subset "protestors".

BLM vandals stormed Oregon State Capitol. They also established autonomous zone where they had their private security shooting two black teenagers.

Are you sure about this? The link you yourself shared shows photos of people carrying "thin blue line" flags. The quotations inside the article you shared says "Just before their violent physical assaults on journalists, the right wing extremists literally tried to kick in the door of the Oregon State Capitol in Salem".

Here is the link you shared in a sibling comment: https://deadline.com/2020/12/armed-protesters-enter-oregon-s...

Thanks for noticing, you are right, i mixed the two events. The BLM rioters breached a court house in Portland [1], while the other side attacked the state capitol in Oregon.

[1] https://nypost.com/2020/07/26/portland-protest-declared-a-ri...

>We should be advocating for all protestors to be treated with such gentle touch, not for all protestors to be brutalized the way BLM protestors were.

When we do that, we still get shot by the police and nothing changes. Maybe if white people face consequences for once, things will change.