Consider this thought experiment. Take a two ton car with a flat plate on front, accelerate up to say 2 mph, and hit someone.

Now try the same thing but instead of a two ton car lets use a 20 000 ton freight train.

The train takes way more energy to get up to 2 mph. At the time of collision it has 20 000 times as much kinetic energy as the car and 20 000 times as much kinetic energy.

But for the person who gets hit those collisions will be nearly the same. They get accelerated to 2 mph with pretty much the same acceleration profile in both cases. The car is slightly less than the train because the person (especially if they are American!) might be massive enough to cause a slight but noticeable decrease in the car's speed.

Anyone, the key is that the body gets accelerated over a short time to 2 mph. If the body was a rigid body that would involve a very large acceleration for a very short time.

But humans are squishy. The muscles and soft tissue compress and that spreads the time the body takes to reach 2 mph greatly reducing the acceleration, which greatly reduces the damage. The way you get injured in such low speed collisions is by getting knocked over and injured in the fall, or knocked over and run over by whatever hit you, or by being between the colliding object and some immovable object so you can't be accelerated.

Another way to look at that collision is to replace the train with something really big, such as the whole Earth, and instead of accelerating the Earth into the person we'll accelerate the person into the Earth.

That can be done by holding the person horizontally above a solid metal plate and dropping them. If we drop them from 2.69 inches above the plate they well reach 2 mph at the time of collision. You aren't getting bruised ribs from a 2.69 inch fall horizontally onto a metal plate.

You have, here, changed the subject and disregarded reality and projected what-about on me as rhetoric, and even on this comment are motte-and-bailey-ing:

> I never claimed the J6 crowd to be non-violent?

I started by introducing them as an example of a thing where failing to see that they were violent and dangerous was a sign of having a problem. You reacted explosively. You what-about-ed with Babbit. You deflected, you tried to diminish the riot, you claimed there were no firearms. You have a problem.

I maintain that your own words:

  And Facism starts with civilians who act as enforcers and intimidators, not with the police. Hitler’s brown shirts and Mussolini's black shirts elevated the Facists to power.

I could also add:

  The SS came afterwords.

> They did not systematically intimidate fellow citizens nation wide while hiding behind masks.

If you bothered to watch that video, you'd see many of them were behind masks.

If you'd bothered to watch the video of (or indeed still pictures from just before) the, to use your word, "murder", of Reese Good, you'd see she wasn't.

ICE however, do operate nationwide and do frequently wear masks. These days, anyway. They didn't used to feel the need to break their own rules. They didn't used to be the villains, according to not only "the left" but also other law enforcement.

I really should be going to bed rather than wasting the effort to write this down, but I guess the impending risk of the end of the world is weighing heavily on me.