Social media and smart phones provide the kind of quantum leap in the technology of history that the written word once did. I hope these videos make it into the national archive.
It says something that people are so afraid of the direction a country is going that they are willing to forgive an attempt to overthrow an election. It would be wise for us to try to figure out what is really going on there, because I expect it to get worse before it gets better.
what is still a big puzzle is why police didn't draw weapons during such a violent attack. Usually police, the DC one including, would draw weapons and shoot at the smallest perception of even smallest disobedience like say even when a pregnant woman just wouldn't follow their commands, yet during Capitol attack the police behaved completely different. From various videos it seems that the police didn't perceive any threat there at the time.
When you're outnumbered and draw a gun there is a very high chance of it being taken from you. I think they made the correct decision to retreat in the face of mostly non-violent but overwhelming numbers of rioters. There was obviously one infamous use of force during the whole thing though (Ashli Babbitt) but the police were in a much difference situation than the situation Office Eugene Goodman was in.
Doesn't seem that puzzling. The world was watching how America transferred power; they didn't want to look like the ones escalating, particularly not when vastly outnumbered by a mob that had arms of their own.
While I’m sure there were people who carried illegally present, I don’t recall seeing anything about people being arrested or cited for carrying - or for that matter, anyone who claimed to have carried after the fact.
> In the wake of the Jan. 6 insurrection at the U.S. Capitol, a popular narrative has emerged: that because rioters did not fire guns that day, they were not really "armed."
> But a review of the federal charges against the alleged rioters shows that they did come armed, and with a variety of weapons: stun guns, pepper spray, baseball bats and flagpoles wielded as clubs. An additional suspect also allegedly planted pipe bombs by the headquarters of the Democratic and Republican parties the night before the riot and remains at large.
The pipe bombs were unbelievably fake looking and could have easily been a false flag, the whole story around that is so suspicious. The law enforcement sources declined to even confirm that they were real
Because the people they were facing believed too much in the spirit of their second amendment rights and would happily mob and send the cops back to their maker. The people with ARs are not inner city kids who can be easily bullied and abused.
Just watched. Typical crowd control in the style police use when the crowd perceived as peaceful and non-threatening. No any indication that the police perceived situation as threatening. If you see any sign that the police, right there at the time, perceived situation as threatening, please point to such a sign(s).
I asked for specific signs/indications showing that these officers perceived a threat. When police officers are battered (as perceived by an outsiders like you or me), and the officers don't indicate perception of threat in any way it means only one thing - they perceive that just as a friendly tussle.
That demonstrated absence of perception of threat (despite what you today perceive as "them being battered") is pretty puzzling.
> U.S. Capitol Police officer Harry Dunn says that while it’s been two years since rioters attacked the building on Jan. 6, his memories of that day remain fresh and painful. Dunn was outside on the west side of the Capitol, trying to hold the line with other officers, when the sheer number of right-wing rioters began to overwhelm them. Then it was a battle, all day long. “It was a horrific experience, one of the worst days of my life,” Dunn said in an interview with WTOP. “A lot of times, throughout the day, our thoughts were just on survival.”
It seems foolish to interpret motives and attitudes based on old footage rather than listening to officers who were actually there. A drowning person doesn't flail around dramatically like you see in the movies.
For that matter, did any of the present officers go on to say that there was no perception of threat? The overwhelming consensus from officer interviews seems to be "we got fucked."
it is after the fact rationalization indistinguishable from fiction
> drowning person doesn't flail around dramatically like you see in the movies.
yep. They just disappear and don't appear back for the next 5, 10, 15, ... minutes. That is hard evidence that they drowned.
The police did let the Jan 6 protesters into Capitol where the lawmakers were at the time without as much as shooting even just a rubber bullet. That is hard evidence that the police didn't perceive the protesters as a threat. Or do you think they let them in that way while perceiving them as a threat? It was their sworn duty to protect those lawmakers, and the only way their behavior can be explained without that sworn duty being broken is through the absence of perception of threat. (Compare to the Security Service who perceived a threat and shot real guns.)
>did any of the present officers go on to say that there was no perception of threat?
why would they do that, at least in the past 4 years? Let see what they say in the next 4 years. Btw, even in the last 4 years the police didn't say that they perceived threat to the lawmakers - and i think they really didn't perceived such threat, otherwise i think they would shoot like the Security Service did.
Is it a puzzle? It seems like how it should go, and be an example for more violent responses to learn from. You shouldn't escalate a situation unnecessarily.
most likely because the police that let them in were complicit? do you not remember someone getting killed when they tried to breach the inner chambers?
what's the point that you're circling here? that these people were there to take a tour of the capitol and the gallows, weapons, and IEDs they brought and chants of "hang mike pence" were just jokes? based on the fact that outnumbered police didn't open fire on the crowd? just come out and say it.
so, outnumbered police didn't open fire on the crowd and let that crowd into the Capitol (where lawmakers and Mike Pence were present) despite the crowd having weapons and IEDs and chanting "hang mike pence". That doesn't compute. If the police had any suspicion of weapons and IEDs or were perceiving the chant as anything but a joke or were perceiving any threat to other people in the Capitol i'm sure they would have opened fire.
If what you said is true, they should have known about the threat once the cop was killed. So they know the threat. They just did not use force because of the race of the people and the fact that they are the president's supporters. Very simple
> what is still a big puzzle is why police didn't draw weapons during such a violent attack. Usually police, the DC one including, would draw weapons and shoot at the smallest perception of even smallest disobedience
There’s video evidence that police were the first to fire, specifically teargas into a reasonably obedient crowd.
It’s after this happened things started escalating.
You can't expect the police to shoot their own. Capitol security are the ones that opened the gates to let people in. Biden said it best, if the majority of these people were black there wouldn't any talk of pardons or calling it a peaceful protest.
Just want to nitpick that some capitol security opened some gates to let some people in. Other barriers were overrun relatively violently. This IMO lead to quite a lot of confusion/obfuscation over whether this was a riot or a "peaceful tour of the capitol"
This is going to be a very entertaining thread—it's always interesting to see how people think about these sorts of things years later, and whether or not they've reevaluated how they thought about things at the time.
> A reminder: if you are ever caught in a mob be wary of taking on a mob mentality
That explains a few things in IT:
* Windows (in all its incarnations)
* Node.js: Mass delusion of ever there was
* .NET Why was that exactly? Nobody explained
* C++ since 1997. What you can do to a fabulous language by making it more fabulous, and more fabulous, and more fabulous, and more fabulous, and more fabulous.....
* Computers in general. What actual good have they ever done.....
I think this is a very important point. The political wind have shifted to the right. Polymarket is already showing strong likelihood of Trump pardoning those involved in Jan 6.
I'm not really sure its helpful to discuss this polarized issue on HN however. If anything, whatever HN thinks has very little bearing on influencing US political scene, same reason Reddit was completely taken by surprise after creating an echo chamber to hear what they wanted to hear. I feel that similar political chambers are created on HN and its not useful.
What makes you say that “whatever HN thinks” does not have any bearing on what the President-elect will or will not do—yet whatever Polymarket “is already showing” does? Unless there's something significant that I'm missing, the two seem to be roughly equivalent in terms of having any sort of direct insight into or influence on the future actions of our President-elect.
CHyea no arrests just randomly kidnapping protesters in unmarked vans without charges [0]
Speaking to NPR's All Things Considered on Friday, Homeland Security Acting Deputy Secretary Ken Cuccinelli acknowledged that federal agents had used unmarked vehicles to pick up people in Portland but said it was done to keep officers safe and away from crowds and to move detainees to a "safe location for questioning."
We simply watched different live streams. The BLM rioters may have faced little legal consequences but they were confronted by riot police, rubber bullets and tear gas over and over. The reason the capitol protest looked so peaceful is the security forces did nothing to resist them.
* were triggered by a horrifying, highly visible racial crime
* were not centrally coordinated
* were not instigated by the sitting president
* did not try to overthrow the lawfully elected government
In other words, two completely different events in terms of cause, scope, and effect. Or are you under the impression that the BLM protests were some sort of Democratic Party operation?
They were idolizing a serial criminal and was abusing drugs. He had fentanyl in his mouth from video evidence. This doesn't detract against racial crimes perpetrated by law enforcement but a movement pushing for that messaging should not rally behind a hardcore criminal.
There are also additional evidence that show BLM received funding from central sources and the leaders of that movement were all convicted of financial misconduct and fraud.
The BLM movement was used to start defund the police movement calling them pigs and letting crime run rampant.
This is the updated consensus from those in the center who have been watching both sides of the spectrum argue and try to detract facts from conjecture.
For the sake of justice, it is our duty to defend even the worst of us. A subdued man was brutally and gleefully executed in public, on camera, in spite of horrified pleading from bystanders. Maybe you should watch the video again before condemning the movement too harshly.
> This is the updated consensus from those in the center who have been watching both sides of the spectrum argue and try to detract facts from conjecture.
Oh? Did the Center Party finally come to a consensus? Where can I read more about this?
A full autopsy report on George Floyd, the man who died after being restrained by Minneapolis police last month, reveals that he was positive for SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19.
The 20-page report also indicates that Floyd had fentanyl and methamphetamine in his system at the time of his death, although the drugs are not listed as the cause.
"The 46-year-old suffered a cardiac arrest while being restrained by Minneapolis police, the report found.
It listed Mr Floyd's cause of death as 'cardiopulmonary arrest complicating law enforcement subdual, restraint, and neck compression'."
As for the perpetrator:
"In early 2021, Chauvin was put on trial for unintentional second-degree murder, third-degree murder, and second-degree manslaughter of Floyd before a jury in the Minnesota Fourth Judicial District Court. On April 20, he was convicted on all of the charges."
In other words, you are wrong. And based on your other comments, it seems that you've fallen victim to the right-wing propaganda machine. I suggest that you seek other, more factual sources of news.
"many Black Lives Matter protesters did face consequences. Estimates vary, but news outlets reported thousands of protesters were arrested in the months following Floyd’s death in May 2020.
A June 22, 2020, article from The Washington Post tallied over 14,000 arrests made since May 27. The Hill reported over 17,000 arrests had been made in the first two weeks of protests."[0]
reply