5 ms·

It clearly does. In some videos, rioters and terrorists can be seen damaging the barricade and police officers scuffling with them and preventing them from gett

It clearly does. In some videos, rioters and terrorists can be seen damaging the barricade and police officers scuffling with them and preventing them from getting inside. But there is at-least one video, that I have seen, no such thing takes place. They just allow the terrorists inside. Stop spreading lies. Edit : The video. https://mobile.twitter.com/justinjm1/status/1347174957613199360 https://mobile.twitter.com/justinjm1/status/1347174957613199...

Lewton 6y ago
https://mobile.twitter.com/justinjm1/status/1347174957613199360 https://mobile.twitter.com/justinjm1/status/1347174957613199...
jonnycomputer 6y ago
"Stop spreading lies": I insist that you retract that. I am giving my observations from the footage I've seen. "at least one video" I will take you at your word (more than you seem to have done for me). As it turns out, police officers are individuals, who make individual decisions. The question that is important here is whether they were following orders in doing so, and what the intent of those orders were. Leaping to conclusions seems premature.
- kumarvvr 6y ago
  Police officers maybe individuals. But in a uniform, they are supposed to follow orders. If they are ordered to put up a barricade, it obviously is for keeping people out. Not make "individual" decisions and allow them in, considering the context.
  - harmmonica 6y ago
    I’m sorry I am extremely concerned that you’re right, that the police did let them in, but how do you know they were not instructed to fall back? There is at least one account, from a journalist, linked in this thread, that suggests they were about to be overwhelmed and therefore were tactically abandoning the post. And God willing there will be investigations (see Karen Bass’, Claire Mckaskill’ tweets), but shouldn’t we wait for those before we proclaim the police guilty here? By all accounts they were woefully outnumbered at the barriers, the chief resigned under pressure already for the clusterfuck he oversaw and so let’s hope more heads roll if they did wrong, but let’s not say people are spreading lies when we don’t have the full picture. Doesn’t make “us” any better than the obviously-lacking-the-full-picture rioters and insurrectionists when we do that.
    - kumarvvr 6y ago
      You are right. It is entirely possible that they were instructed to fall back and re-group at a location where they can control the crowd better. But, that needs an investigation. However, emotions are high because there is an obvious difference between treatment of BLM protesters and those who rioted yesterday. Is it because of orders or individual decisions? The original poster tried to shift the blame from the police as an entity / institution, to individuals taking decisions. That is an obvious tactic of trying to cover-up the complicity of the institution. Happens always. edit : Another video showing a police officer guiding rioters into the areas. https://v.redd.it/tl6j5jo2lz961 https://v.redd.it/tl6j5jo2lz961
      - jonnycomputer 6y ago
        First, the video you post does not "clearly show" that the police were letting protesters in. Second, even if in some instances police were letting protesters through, why they were letting them through is a question that must be answered. The most pressing question, from the perspective of the interested public, is whether there were standing orders to let them do so or that there was some kind of conspiracy among the officers to disobey orders in order to do so. So, do you see the disconnect? you have some (dubious) evidence that some group of police officers let people approach the capitol building, and on the other you have an accusation that the Capitol Police Department took the side of Trump and made a decision to endanger the lives of Congress. This is not covering up the complicity of an institution. Neither is it shifting blame, because blame hasn't yet been assigned. It is simply a requirement that accusations be backed up by evidence. I think it is fairly obvious that wrt BLM, the police officers responded the way they did because they the protests were directed at them. BLM threatens police legitimacy, police power, and demanded that those same police be held accountable for the wrongs they commit. Explanation is not justification.
      - jonnycomputer 6y ago
        A second point. Here you acknowledge that an alternative explanation for the evidence you have seen is plausible, and recognize the need for investigation, but that is not what you said to me. Why not?
- drenvuk 6y ago
  You state authoritatively that the video footage supports your statement when you haven't seen all of the video footage. He shouldn't retract anything. You are the one who should retract your statement. Regardless of if they were following orders or not taking actions that benefit the rioters actions is supporting them.
  - jonnycomputer 6y ago
    The person called me a liar. I think it is fair to demand a retraction. They did edit their response to post a video, here: https://mobile.twitter.com/justinjm1/status/1347174957613199360 https://mobile.twitter.com/justinjm1/status/1347174957613199... as evidence that the police let them in. But I don't think that that video supports his contention that police just let these people into the capitol building. Do you?
    - Lewton 6y ago
      > But I don't think that that video supports his contention that police just let these people into the capitol building. Especially since it's a tweet with a quote from the guy who shot the video explaining that it's not a video of the police "just letting them in"
    - cultus 6y ago
      You are a liar and a fascist. How about that?
kumarvvr 6y ago
Edit 2 : Another video showing a police officer encouraging rioters to enter. https://v.redd.it/tl6j5jo2lz961 https://v.redd.it/tl6j5jo2lz961 Couple this with upcoming news that DC police guard were severely restricted from acting or keeping a presence around the capitol, its really concerning. https://www.businessinsider.in/international/news/some-among-americas-military-allies-believe-trump-deliberately-attempted-a-coup-and-may-have-had-help-from-federal-law-enforcement-officials/articleshow/80156143.cms https://www.businessinsider.in/international/news/some-among... What caught me off-guard was how few officers were present, considering months of rhetoric and weeks of rioters gathering into DC. It makes sense that key positions in the Pentagon were shuffled just a few weeks prior. All this could be avoided if the president is made powerless to make such drastic decisions and the period of "lame duck" presidency is reduced.
packetlost 6y ago
In that video, you can clearly see that the police lines had already been breached. Continuing to hold that particular line would have been both pointless, and potentially dangerous. Also read the thread. The person who took the video refutes your point.

Lewton 6y ago

https://mobile.twitter.com/justinjm1/status/1347174957613199360 https://mobile.twitter.com/justinjm1/status/1347174957613199...

jonnycomputer 6y ago

"Stop spreading lies": I insist that you retract that. I am giving my observations from the footage I've seen. "at least one video" I will take you at your word (more than you seem to have done for me). As it turns out, police officers are individuals, who make individual decisions. The question that is important here is whether they were following orders in doing so, and what the intent of those orders were. Leaping to conclusions seems premature.

kumarvvr 6y ago
Police officers maybe individuals. But in a uniform, they are supposed to follow orders. If they are ordered to put up a barricade, it obviously is for keeping people out. Not make "individual" decisions and allow them in, considering the context.
- harmmonica 6y ago
  I’m sorry I am extremely concerned that you’re right, that the police did let them in, but how do you know they were not instructed to fall back? There is at least one account, from a journalist, linked in this thread, that suggests they were about to be overwhelmed and therefore were tactically abandoning the post. And God willing there will be investigations (see Karen Bass’, Claire Mckaskill’ tweets), but shouldn’t we wait for those before we proclaim the police guilty here? By all accounts they were woefully outnumbered at the barriers, the chief resigned under pressure already for the clusterfuck he oversaw and so let’s hope more heads roll if they did wrong, but let’s not say people are spreading lies when we don’t have the full picture. Doesn’t make “us” any better than the obviously-lacking-the-full-picture rioters and insurrectionists when we do that.
  - kumarvvr 6y ago
    You are right. It is entirely possible that they were instructed to fall back and re-group at a location where they can control the crowd better. But, that needs an investigation. However, emotions are high because there is an obvious difference between treatment of BLM protesters and those who rioted yesterday. Is it because of orders or individual decisions? The original poster tried to shift the blame from the police as an entity / institution, to individuals taking decisions. That is an obvious tactic of trying to cover-up the complicity of the institution. Happens always. edit : Another video showing a police officer guiding rioters into the areas. https://v.redd.it/tl6j5jo2lz961 https://v.redd.it/tl6j5jo2lz961
    - jonnycomputer 6y ago
      First, the video you post does not "clearly show" that the police were letting protesters in. Second, even if in some instances police were letting protesters through, why they were letting them through is a question that must be answered. The most pressing question, from the perspective of the interested public, is whether there were standing orders to let them do so or that there was some kind of conspiracy among the officers to disobey orders in order to do so. So, do you see the disconnect? you have some (dubious) evidence that some group of police officers let people approach the capitol building, and on the other you have an accusation that the Capitol Police Department took the side of Trump and made a decision to endanger the lives of Congress. This is not covering up the complicity of an institution. Neither is it shifting blame, because blame hasn't yet been assigned. It is simply a requirement that accusations be backed up by evidence. I think it is fairly obvious that wrt BLM, the police officers responded the way they did because they the protests were directed at them. BLM threatens police legitimacy, police power, and demanded that those same police be held accountable for the wrongs they commit. Explanation is not justification.
    - jonnycomputer 6y ago
      A second point. Here you acknowledge that an alternative explanation for the evidence you have seen is plausible, and recognize the need for investigation, but that is not what you said to me. Why not?
drenvuk 6y ago
You state authoritatively that the video footage supports your statement when you haven't seen all of the video footage. He shouldn't retract anything. You are the one who should retract your statement. Regardless of if they were following orders or not taking actions that benefit the rioters actions is supporting them.
- jonnycomputer 6y ago
  The person called me a liar. I think it is fair to demand a retraction. They did edit their response to post a video, here: https://mobile.twitter.com/justinjm1/status/1347174957613199360 https://mobile.twitter.com/justinjm1/status/1347174957613199... as evidence that the police let them in. But I don't think that that video supports his contention that police just let these people into the capitol building. Do you?
  - Lewton 6y ago
    > But I don't think that that video supports his contention that police just let these people into the capitol building. Especially since it's a tweet with a quote from the guy who shot the video explaining that it's not a video of the police "just letting them in"
  - cultus 6y ago
    You are a liar and a fascist. How about that?

kumarvvr 6y ago

Edit 2 : Another video showing a police officer encouraging rioters to enter. https://v.redd.it/tl6j5jo2lz961 https://v.redd.it/tl6j5jo2lz961 Couple this with upcoming news that DC police guard were severely restricted from acting or keeping a presence around the capitol, its really concerning. https://www.businessinsider.in/international/news/some-among-americas-military-allies-believe-trump-deliberately-attempted-a-coup-and-may-have-had-help-from-federal-law-enforcement-officials/articleshow/80156143.cms https://www.businessinsider.in/international/news/some-among... What caught me off-guard was how few officers were present, considering months of rhetoric and weeks of rioters gathering into DC. It makes sense that key positions in the Pentagon were shuffled just a few weeks prior. All this could be avoided if the president is made powerless to make such drastic decisions and the period of "lame duck" presidency is reduced.

packetlost 6y ago

In that video, you can clearly see that the police lines had already been breached. Continuing to hold that particular line would have been both pointless, and potentially dangerous. Also read the thread. The person who took the video refutes your point.