back
4 comments
I'm confused by this video, what evidence is there that this is "allow[ing] the terrorists into the building"? All I see is law enforcement opening a gate. The Twitter account appears to be a random unverified person, so I can't rely on that either.

Not saying the police response has been perfect, but this video doesn't say much about that.

The biggest problem to me is twofold: - there were very very few law enforcement there beforehand. Compare to BLM where there were thousands of storm troopers, tanks, etc camped out before the similarly obviously publicized protests occurred. Here is a comparison photo of what they had in front of the monument before the LEGAL BLM protest this summer [1]

- the 'resistance' was very weak at least at first. The videos of the 'storming' didn't show much resistance, no gas, no rubber bullets, no attempt to hold the line. here is a 'selfie' [2] which to be fair doesn't show cop actively participating, but does show him just standing there. There are some photos of guns drawn trying to protect the floor, obviously out numbered once they secured Members I understand completely retreating. But the main uniformed officers at the entrances didn't act.

It's a stark difference. My story is that here in Denver I was gassed, before curfew, before an unlawful assembly was declared, during a peaceful protest this summer. They shot more than a few eyes out of their sockets with rubber bullets. A judge had to restrain the Denver police for their violence.

Compare to today it took a LONG time for them to deploy these same weapons, and it doesn't even look like they used tear gas/irritants at least in the first videos, just smoke; unlike what they gassed us with and those in Lafayette Park and across the country.

1 https://s.abcnews.com/images/US/national-guard-lincoln-memor... 2 https://twitter.com/bubbaprog/status/1346920198461419520

this is old thread and I can't edit, but now that more info has come out for the record part #1 I don't believe anymore. The videos are shocking and disgusting.

This was 1000% a failure from the top, there are lots of videos of these poor uniformed officers on the outer lines outnumbered 1000 / 1 with no gear, no tear gas or other riot weapons, fighting back but just getting trampled, shot with tear gas, hit with bat things, etc. It looks like instead of refusing to respond they didn't have the equipment to.

While the many were brave, there are definitely still some sympathizers and participants for instance WaPo has quotes that there were off duty officers of the law flashing their badges to get in.

i think good chance we'll see the evidence it was intentional negligence denying support/materials/gear and intentionally delaying a response on the part of Trump's DOJ etc.

Send out the subpoenas, and interview this weekend -> vote Monday.

these and so many more, but this focuses on the outer 'rings' https://twitter.com/ElijahSchaffer/status/134696651499014963... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cJOgGsC0G9U

> All I see is law enforcement opening a gate.

That is literally letting them in. They didn't stand their position. They literally walked backwards and let the crowd in.

"Allow[ing] the terrorists into the building" doesn't follow from a single shot of opening a gate. For all I know, law enforcement is funneling people away from a position that they recently decided should be cleared. I have no idea (and as far as I can tell, neither does anyone else here).
That shot is right in front of the building basically. The police opened barricades to let people even closer to the building. Unless the police has some sort of amazing 4D plan they are not letting us in on, which is not likely given the events of today, there is no strategic reason to clear that area. They're just letting the protestors in.
The last few seconds very clearly shows more people already "let in" on the other side of the gate. More context is needed.
Or perhaps they were more focused on getting the people inside to safety than they were about the actual physical building.
The point stands: the summer BLM protests in DC were marching in the closed-off streets around the White House and were met with even stronger resistance from the police.
https://twitter.com/bubbaprog/status/1346920198461419520?s=0...

And, you know, taking selfies with them.

Why would capital police escort armed rioters into the Senate building for "safety" if their job is to ensure the safety of the Senate building, Senators, and staff?

This is a backwards argument. The police didn't do their jobs. They were even seen taking selfies with the trespassers: https://twitter.com/bubbaprog/status/1346920198461419520

Wow, that's unbelievable. What possible explanation could there be for this?
A handful of cops and hundreds of people in an angry mob? Is it really a mystery why they didn't fight too hard to keep the barriers shut?
It’s the US capitol, it’s incredibly surprising. It’s outrageous. There’s no lack of adjectives.
Police, like everyone else, are not perfect automatons... there is always the possibility of any, physically possible, behaviour occurring in any place and in any time.

Of course it is always possible to modulate people’s behaviour through incentives and so on, to achieve a very high probability that they will behave in certain ways.

In this case it seems that the balance was in favor of the protestors.

Yes, how convenient this time, in comparison to the BLM protests which were met with militarized police against peaceful protestors.
I think the definition they used of "peaceful" (given context) was different.
It's a pretty straight-forward explanation, just one that people don't like to think about:

Pigs can't be trusted. They like to pretend they're protecting people and doing the right thing. But they're just bullies in uniform. Never trust any of them. Ever. "My dad is a cop though and..." no. If there was a single good cop, they would have stopped this. Fucking pigs. Your dad is a pig. Get over it.

Maybe if cops had better training, they would stop something like this and focus on protecting us. But they don't, and they didn't. They're pigs. Don't be another person who buys into the pigs' lies.

This is not an unacceptable attitude towards any group of people.

It's also the kind of rhetoric that has driven so many in law enforcement into Trumpism.

84% of police are Trump voters. That's the explanation.
It's quite unfair to call them terrorists when they've harmed no one and destroyed nothing. Remember, riots are the voice of the unheard!
> It's quite unfair to call them terrorists when they've harmed no one and destroyed nothing.

People were harmed and property was destroyed. There's plenty of videos of fights breaking out and capitol windows being broken.

https://twitter.com/search?q=washingtondc%20windows%20until%...

I thought “people over property”? This seemed like a “mostly peaceful” protest. Or have the rules changed now that it’s the other side doing it?
Four people are dead. The building was ransacked. Bombs were placed. There were people obviously planning kidnapping (kidnapping at the least, most likely the plan included murder). This was not a peaceful protest.
Please don’t report rumors as facts.

The only dead person was one of the protestors.

If you check the news I think you'll see my information was correct. Please don't allege rumormongering when you may just be missing facts.
> they've harmed no one

Besides the democratic process

> destroyed nothing

Besides the capitol

> the voice of the unheard!

I've been hearing about them weekly for the last 4 years and I'm not even in the US

> It’s quite unfair to call them terrorists when they’ve harmed no one and destroyed nothing.

There have been quite a number of injuries and property damage, deployment of chemical irritants by the mob against law enforcement, and several explosive devices identified and defused in the attempt to use violence and threats of further violence to overturn the results of the recent election.

> There have been quite a number of injuries and property damage, deployment of chemical irritants by the mob against law enforcement, and several explosive devices identified and defused

You're right, I've revised my view of the incident. I now see this constitutes sedition, an attack on our very republic.

For consistency, I've also reconsidered my view of the BLM riots. In light of the billions in property damage; the tens of direct deaths and thousands of ensuing murders; the violent mob attacks on law enforcement, replete with "chemical irritants" and Molotov cocktails; all on a scale 1e3 to 1e5 larger than what's happening in DC; I have to conclude they were a grave act of terrorism.

They are disrupting political process via force in the name of ideology. They're domestic terrorists.
The standard was set last summer. Leftists spent three months torching police stations, attacking courthouses, looting businesses, and confronting politicians in their homes. I continue to be assiduously reminded that none of this constituted terrorism. Don't see why this should be treated any differently.
Show me the politician inciting the Summer's arsonists to destruction.

There are always people taking advantage of or inciting chaos to do reckless things. They need to be tried and, if found guilty, punished. Even if they're the president.

Show me the politician inciting the Summer's arsonists to destruction.

"People over property" is probably the most direct encouragement of property destruction.

Both you and the folks replying to you are painting with a broad brush.

Only some small portion of these protests are likely to be violent bad actors, and the proper protesters should not be disrupted by law enforcement

Sure, but they didn't interfere in the election of the President. Open your eyes.
At least one person has been shot. https://twitter.com/AP/status/1346918654076723202
It's true. "terrorism" is a bad word and we should not use it. The definition prohibits an objective meaning.

And I would rather see this police response for BLM, than that response for these people.

Say the dead comment I can't reply to:

> Thats probably because you hate black people more than you respect Democracy.

this is extra funny to me because it is also mathematically bogus. I'm saying I very much don't want the cops harassing BLM protests, even if it the price is letting these protests vandalize the Capitol building.

Maybe poster meant "That's probably because you like black people more than you respect Democracy". To which I answer, "...you call the Senate Democracy?"

I saw a video on twitter of a window getting destroyed.
There is a photo going around of a man carrying off a dais across the Rotunda. The British web site I saw it on made a joke about Antiques Roadshow.
They broke into the Capitol building. Smashed windows. They've attempted to break into the House and Senate chambers.
This was an act of political intimidation intended to derail a legislative body's constitutional duties.

It absolutely fits the definition of terrorism.

All I read on HN is how terrorism isn't a big deal, doesn't kill many people.

So this might be terrorism, but no big deal right?