Hacker News Reader

Comment by baybal2 | Hacker News Reader

I don't understand.

What I understood is that a number of protesters came armed to the teeth, but nevertheless did not shoot a single bullet even when they were storming the house.

Why did they bring weapons then?

View on HN

It's almost as if this entire thing was way overblown by the media and there was no plan to overthrow anything.

"We didn't intend to overthrow anything. We just wanted to tour the Capitol and they happened to be certifying an election at the time, what's it to you?!?"

lol, that's basically how it looked, funnily enough.

https://www.sakafete.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/maxresde...

https://i.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/facebook/000/036/277/mee...

It was just a big LARP

I think it was obvious there was no plan but I'm not sure you can say it was overblown when people died.

Every statement that the riot caused five deaths is overblown, because four of those were either natural causes or self–inflicted: strokes, heart attack, drug overdose. The fifth was an unarmed protester who was shot by the police.

> because four of those were either natural causes or self–inflicted: strokes, heart attack, drug overdose.

Which most likely would not have occurred if the riot hadn't occurred.

> The fifth was an unarmed protester who was shot by the police.

Yea, I saw the video. While what you've said is technically correct it's borderline simplistic to a fault.

No it's not technically correct, it's just correct. If you ideologically insist on pinning the blame for these deaths on the protesters, then you'll find any logical contortion possible to keep at it, but you'd be simply wrong. Your argument that these deaths wouldn't have occurred if they hadn't shown up is also ridiculous as hell. For one ting because four of the deaths weren't even the result of the protests at at all, and for the last death, You could use the same shitty reasoning for any protest or act of resistance in which people die: "If random people of color just didn't piss off the police, they wouldn't have to get shot by them all the time." Sounds nice and reasonable used in that context too?

Nothing to do with ideology, just the simple fact that once the US Capitol was breached the protestors were committing a criminal act and could be treated as such. Now whether or not that criminal act warranted a firearm discharge is up to debate, but when a large group of people currently breaking the law (and chanting about hanging representatives) are a room or two away from said representatives it's not out of the question that multiple warnings would be acted on.

Watching the video it was clear that the plain clothes officer had his glock out for some time. It was even seen/called out by the rioters. He issued multiple verbal warnings to the rioters, which were ignored by Ashli Babbitt.

>Your argument that these deaths wouldn't have occurred if they hadn't shown up is also ridiculous as hell.

Ashli Babbitt would most likely be alive today if she wasn't in the Capitol on January 6th. That's not only technically correct, it's just correct. ;)

It's almost like there was a mob mentality leading a mob...

Many came prepared with plenty of non-lethal weapons. There's video evidence of the use of bear spray, assault of police officers, and property destruction.

Just because it could have been worse doesn't mean each person shouldn't be held to account.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com