4 ms·

The fire extinguisher attack turned out to be BS. https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/capitol-police-officers-death-remains-mired-in-conflicting-reports-and-of

The fire extinguisher attack turned out to be BS. https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/capitol-police-officers-death-remains-mired-in-conflicting-reports-and-official-silence-234807846.html https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/capitol-police-officers-...

katmannthree 6y ago
Does that meet the standard for being an unverified conspiracy theory? It seems that the story came from a source they were keeping anonymous (fairly conventional in journalism, especially when reporting things in real time) and was promptly updated as more news came in. It's worth noting that there is fairly extensive video of an unhelmeted officer getting hit in the head with a fire extinguisher thrown during a brawl. I don't know if that officer has been identified as Sicknick or not, but that particular event (an officer getting hit in the head with a fire extinguisher) did happen. Separately, we know Sicknick did physically engage with the rioters, as the official US Capitol Police statement cited in the article you linked said "Officer Brian D. Sicknick passed away due to injuries sustained while on-duty." So, _a_ fire extinguisher attack did happen (among many other attacks on officers during the riot). An officer did die as a result of injuries sustained during the riot. An anonymous source linked those two events, a link which now appears to have been incorrect. News sites which covered the events in question have effectively released retractions and calls to wait for more evidence. What more would you want them to do? They can only report on the facts as known at the time, and release updates if those later change. Both of those things were done. This is an entirely different situation from Fox and OANN alleging massive conspiracies and voter fraud and continuing to hold that position for political reasons despite a lack of evidence.
- opwieurposiu 6y ago
  There is plenty of evidence of voting irregularities. An irregularity only becomes fraud when it was done with criminal intent. The overarching issue with normalization of censorship is that it becomes difficult to tell when evidence does not exist and when it does exist but was censored. https://hereistheevidence.com/ https://hereistheevidence.com/
  - bqe 6y ago
    That website is not a quality source of information. Media Bias/Fact Check rates it as questionable, low quality, and far to the right: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/here-is-the-evidence/ https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/here-is-the-evidence/
    - opwieurposiu 6y ago
      Mediabiasfactcheck.com Claims that hereistheevidence.com is "low quality", because it links to "low quality" sources. But Mediabiasfactcheck has links to those same sources, so by it's own argument Mediabiasfactcheck is "low quality". Please don't take the above argument too seriously, my point is that so many of the fact check orgs are riddled with logical fallacies. In this case we have guilt by association, ad hominem, argument from authority, and appeal to motive. I think a fact check system that did not rely on logical fallacy would be quite useful, however I have yet to find one.
  - ntsplnkv2 6y ago
    All of the "evidence" here is from sources like the Washington Examiner and "The RF angle" Are you kidding me? If you want real evidence of "irregularities" look elsewhere, its certainly not here.
    - AuryGlenz 6y ago
      You’ll be hard pressed to find a media organization that actually bothered to investigate things instead of immediately claiming Trump’s allegations were false. Personally, I think that’s the primary reason the riot happened.
      - ntsplnkv2 6y ago
        There's plenty of evidence/public court rulings which thoroughly debunk these claims. Why should I believe anything that supports trump. He said "we have the virus under control." Yea, let's believe his cronies. Give me a break.
- adolph 6y ago
  The update clearly shows that a “fact” was not reported and what was reported was a rumor that could not be verified because it was in no way ever true. I’d expect sober reporting to stick to assertions with real documentation or multiple unrelated attestations of direct knowledge. I’d also expect that a news outlet would treat assertions made by police or any organization as objectively often false and always self-interested. As it stands it is all click-bait manure and the retractions are just legal CYA.
FireBeyond 6y ago
That's a long conclusion to make. The statement that it had not been determined that blunt force trauma specifically caused Officer Sicknick's death doesn't make the attack BS - there's video footage of him being hit with one. And dying within 24 hours from a hemorrhagic stroke is definitely not enough to rule out the proximal impact of fire extinguishers and other implements used to beat him.
- nyczomg 6y ago
  "there's video footage of him being hit with one." You should forward that video footage to law enforcement right away, because they don't even have it. I'll even cite CNN, because I assume you believe they are trustworthy. https://www.cnn.com/2021/02/02/politics/brian-sicknick-charges/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2021/02/02/politics/brian-sicknick-charg... "Investigators are struggling to build a federal murder case regarding fallen US Capitol Police officer Brian Sicknick, vexed by a lack of evidence that could prove someone caused his death as he defended the Capitol during last month's insurrection. Authorities have reviewed video and photographs that show Sicknick engaging with rioters amid the siege but have yet to identify a moment in which he suffered his fatal injuries, law enforcement officials familiar with the matter said. " "According to one law enforcement official, medical examiners did not find signs that the officer sustained any blunt force trauma, so investigators believe that early reports that he was fatally struck by a fire extinguisher are not true."
  - FireBeyond 6y ago
    Oh, comprehension. > evidence that could prove someone caused his death > have yet to identify a moment in which he suffered his fatal injuries Neither of these things say "he did not die as a result of injuries sustained in the riots". > "According to one law enforcement official, medical examiners did not find signs that the officer sustained any blunt force trauma, so investigators believe that early reports that he was fatally struck by a fire extinguisher are not true." No, the ME, who is yet to release finalized verdict, stated that the officer did not die "from blunt force trauma". > that he was fatally struck by a fire extinguisher Well no. He wasn't. He died the next day in hospital. From a hemorrhagic stroke. Which could have been caused or exacerbated by non-lethal beating.

katmannthree 6y ago

Does that meet the standard for being an unverified conspiracy theory? It seems that the story came from a source they were keeping anonymous (fairly conventional in journalism, especially when reporting things in real time) and was promptly updated as more news came in. It's worth noting that there is fairly extensive video of an unhelmeted officer getting hit in the head with a fire extinguisher thrown during a brawl. I don't know if that officer has been identified as Sicknick or not, but that particular event (an officer getting hit in the head with a fire extinguisher) did happen. Separately, we know Sicknick did physically engage with the rioters, as the official US Capitol Police statement cited in the article you linked said "Officer Brian D. Sicknick passed away due to injuries sustained while on-duty." So, _a_ fire extinguisher attack did happen (among many other attacks on officers during the riot). An officer did die as a result of injuries sustained during the riot. An anonymous source linked those two events, a link which now appears to have been incorrect. News sites which covered the events in question have effectively released retractions and calls to wait for more evidence. What more would you want them to do? They can only report on the facts as known at the time, and release updates if those later change. Both of those things were done. This is an entirely different situation from Fox and OANN alleging massive conspiracies and voter fraud and continuing to hold that position for political reasons despite a lack of evidence.

opwieurposiu 6y ago
There is plenty of evidence of voting irregularities. An irregularity only becomes fraud when it was done with criminal intent. The overarching issue with normalization of censorship is that it becomes difficult to tell when evidence does not exist and when it does exist but was censored. https://hereistheevidence.com/ https://hereistheevidence.com/
- bqe 6y ago
  That website is not a quality source of information. Media Bias/Fact Check rates it as questionable, low quality, and far to the right: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/here-is-the-evidence/ https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/here-is-the-evidence/
  - opwieurposiu 6y ago
    Mediabiasfactcheck.com Claims that hereistheevidence.com is "low quality", because it links to "low quality" sources. But Mediabiasfactcheck has links to those same sources, so by it's own argument Mediabiasfactcheck is "low quality". Please don't take the above argument too seriously, my point is that so many of the fact check orgs are riddled with logical fallacies. In this case we have guilt by association, ad hominem, argument from authority, and appeal to motive. I think a fact check system that did not rely on logical fallacy would be quite useful, however I have yet to find one.
- ntsplnkv2 6y ago
  All of the "evidence" here is from sources like the Washington Examiner and "The RF angle" Are you kidding me? If you want real evidence of "irregularities" look elsewhere, its certainly not here.
  - AuryGlenz 6y ago
    You’ll be hard pressed to find a media organization that actually bothered to investigate things instead of immediately claiming Trump’s allegations were false. Personally, I think that’s the primary reason the riot happened.
    - ntsplnkv2 6y ago
      There's plenty of evidence/public court rulings which thoroughly debunk these claims. Why should I believe anything that supports trump. He said "we have the virus under control." Yea, let's believe his cronies. Give me a break.
adolph 6y ago
The update clearly shows that a “fact” was not reported and what was reported was a rumor that could not be verified because it was in no way ever true. I’d expect sober reporting to stick to assertions with real documentation or multiple unrelated attestations of direct knowledge. I’d also expect that a news outlet would treat assertions made by police or any organization as objectively often false and always self-interested. As it stands it is all click-bait manure and the retractions are just legal CYA.

FireBeyond 6y ago

That's a long conclusion to make. The statement that it had not been determined that blunt force trauma specifically caused Officer Sicknick's death doesn't make the attack BS - there's video footage of him being hit with one. And dying within 24 hours from a hemorrhagic stroke is definitely not enough to rule out the proximal impact of fire extinguishers and other implements used to beat him.

nyczomg 6y ago
"there's video footage of him being hit with one." You should forward that video footage to law enforcement right away, because they don't even have it. I'll even cite CNN, because I assume you believe they are trustworthy. https://www.cnn.com/2021/02/02/politics/brian-sicknick-charges/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2021/02/02/politics/brian-sicknick-charg... "Investigators are struggling to build a federal murder case regarding fallen US Capitol Police officer Brian Sicknick, vexed by a lack of evidence that could prove someone caused his death as he defended the Capitol during last month's insurrection. Authorities have reviewed video and photographs that show Sicknick engaging with rioters amid the siege but have yet to identify a moment in which he suffered his fatal injuries, law enforcement officials familiar with the matter said. " "According to one law enforcement official, medical examiners did not find signs that the officer sustained any blunt force trauma, so investigators believe that early reports that he was fatally struck by a fire extinguisher are not true."
- FireBeyond 6y ago
  Oh, comprehension. > evidence that could prove someone caused his death > have yet to identify a moment in which he suffered his fatal injuries Neither of these things say "he did not die as a result of injuries sustained in the riots". > "According to one law enforcement official, medical examiners did not find signs that the officer sustained any blunt force trauma, so investigators believe that early reports that he was fatally struck by a fire extinguisher are not true." No, the ME, who is yet to release finalized verdict, stated that the officer did not die "from blunt force trauma". > that he was fatally struck by a fire extinguisher Well no. He wasn't. He died the next day in hospital. From a hemorrhagic stroke. Which could have been caused or exacerbated by non-lethal beating.