4 ms·

Why are you being downvoted. You are correct. The New York Times retracted its story on officer sicknick. They agreed with the autopsy. He died of natural caus

Why are you being downvoted. You are correct. The New York Times retracted its story on officer sicknick. They agreed with the autopsy. He died of natural causes. The capitol is broken into quite often, for example, during Kavanaugh's confirmation.

mullingitover 5y ago
Because the poster is doing a textbook strawman argument, probably. Original point: even in the darkest hours of the civil war, the enemies of the Constitution never managed to sack the US capitol. Response (paraphrased): So?, only one person died violently, [various unrelated distraction arguments attacking claims not made] This poster also advances the controversial (I'd call it a howler) claim that 'the former was allowed to enter its target' as if the Capitol Police intended for a sack of the Capitol to happen. Most people find these arguments downright offensive.
- iammisc 5y ago
  > as if the Capitol Police intended for a sack of the Capitol to happen For the past year, I've been hearing about how police often times help right-wing protestors. Now I'm being told they never do and such a suggestion is offensive. Which is it? Anyway, if this is about sacking the Capitol, then why bring up the Civil War. In that case, Jan 6 would be the worst thing since the War of 1812, not the Civil War. Since apparently simply protesting in unauthorized areas of capitol buildings (like has happened countless times before Jan 6 since 2016 and before[1]) is basically equivalent to sacking DC. This is why I think there's hyperbole. [1] and there have been several bombings as well, orchestrated by people who are now well-accepted as political pundits in the mainstream, such as Bill Ayers and Susan Rosenberg. In fact, the current DA of San Francisco is the adopted son of Bill Ayers and the bio son of a convicted terrorist and doesn't believe his bio dad did anything wrong. We accept such terrorism as completely mainstream. Any attempt to question is met with accusations of racism or hyperbole. This is ridiculous. It seems as if only one capitol riot is ever seen as meriting such strong condemnation, despite the constant barrage of attacks on the capitol for many years that have occured with impunity [2] [3]. [2] https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/kavanaugh-protests-escalate-120-arrested-capitol-hill/story?id=58048599 https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/kavanaugh-protests-escalate-... -- unlawfully entered the capitol rotunda. Entered the office of a senator without permission. [3] https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/arrests-violence-flares-parts-capital-inauguration-day/story?id=44925970 https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/arrests-violence-flares-part... -- definitely people storming the area around the capitol in an attempt to apparently overthrow an election. They just weren't very good at it I guess
- TMWNN 5y ago
  >Original point: even in the darkest hours of the civil war, the enemies of the Constitution never managed to sack the US capitol. I was unaware that the Capitol had been torched after being emptied of its treasures and nubile women, as opposed to being invaded by morons who were more focused on taking selfies than sacking. >Response (paraphrased): So?, only one person died violently, [various unrelated distraction arguments attacking claims not made] You and I both know that the media has done a very good job of convincing the public that multiple police officers were killed during the "sack", when (as I said) the only person who died violently was an unarmed rioter. >This poster also advances the controversial (I'd call it a howler) claim that 'the former was allowed to enter its target' as if the Capitol Police intended for a sack of the Capitol to happen. Most people find these arguments downright offensive. What else would you call a fully armed force not using armed force to prevent rioters (all but a handful unarmed) from entering a prohibited area? Remember, said rioter who died was killed after force was finally used (better late than never). If the Capitol Police had chosen/been allowed to do so, no rioter would have ever entered the building. Let me repeat: The only difference between what happened at the Capitol and what almost happened at the White House the preceding June is that the rioters did not get inside in the latter case.
  - mullingitover 5y ago
    > What else would you call a fully armed force not using armed force to prevent rioters (all but a handful unarmed) from entering a prohibited area? I've seen no evidence for that 'all but a handful unarmed' claim. I have seen interviews with Capitol Police saying they were afraid to use their firearms because they believed they were massively outgunned and would be killed if a serious gunfight broke out. Even allowing for that hypothetical though, the allegedly unarmed mob a massive tactical advantage[1]: > “We weren’t battling 50 or 60 rioters in this tunnel,” he said in the first public account from D.C. police officers who fought to protect the Capitol during last week’s siege. “We were battling 15,000 people. It looked like a medieval battle scene.” > Rioters swarmed, battering the officers with metal pipes peeled from scaffolding and a pole with an American flag attached, police said. Both were struck with stun guns. Fanone suffered a mild heart attack and drifted in and out of consciousness. > All the while, the mob was chanting “U.S.A.” over and over and over again. > “We got one! We got one!” Fanone said he heard rioters shout. “Kill him with his own gun!” [1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2021/01/14/dc-police-capitol-riot/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2021/01/14/dc-police...

mullingitover 5y ago

Because the poster is doing a textbook strawman argument, probably. Original point: even in the darkest hours of the civil war, the enemies of the Constitution never managed to sack the US capitol. Response (paraphrased): So?, only one person died violently, [various unrelated distraction arguments attacking claims not made] This poster also advances the controversial (I'd call it a howler) claim that 'the former was allowed to enter its target' as if the Capitol Police intended for a sack of the Capitol to happen. Most people find these arguments downright offensive.

iammisc 5y ago
> as if the Capitol Police intended for a sack of the Capitol to happen For the past year, I've been hearing about how police often times help right-wing protestors. Now I'm being told they never do and such a suggestion is offensive. Which is it? Anyway, if this is about sacking the Capitol, then why bring up the Civil War. In that case, Jan 6 would be the worst thing since the War of 1812, not the Civil War. Since apparently simply protesting in unauthorized areas of capitol buildings (like has happened countless times before Jan 6 since 2016 and before[1]) is basically equivalent to sacking DC. This is why I think there's hyperbole. [1] and there have been several bombings as well, orchestrated by people who are now well-accepted as political pundits in the mainstream, such as Bill Ayers and Susan Rosenberg. In fact, the current DA of San Francisco is the adopted son of Bill Ayers and the bio son of a convicted terrorist and doesn't believe his bio dad did anything wrong. We accept such terrorism as completely mainstream. Any attempt to question is met with accusations of racism or hyperbole. This is ridiculous. It seems as if only one capitol riot is ever seen as meriting such strong condemnation, despite the constant barrage of attacks on the capitol for many years that have occured with impunity [2] [3]. [2] https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/kavanaugh-protests-escalate-120-arrested-capitol-hill/story?id=58048599 https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/kavanaugh-protests-escalate-... -- unlawfully entered the capitol rotunda. Entered the office of a senator without permission. [3] https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/arrests-violence-flares-parts-capital-inauguration-day/story?id=44925970 https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/arrests-violence-flares-part... -- definitely people storming the area around the capitol in an attempt to apparently overthrow an election. They just weren't very good at it I guess
TMWNN 5y ago
>Original point: even in the darkest hours of the civil war, the enemies of the Constitution never managed to sack the US capitol. I was unaware that the Capitol had been torched after being emptied of its treasures and nubile women, as opposed to being invaded by morons who were more focused on taking selfies than sacking. >Response (paraphrased): So?, only one person died violently, [various unrelated distraction arguments attacking claims not made] You and I both know that the media has done a very good job of convincing the public that multiple police officers were killed during the "sack", when (as I said) the only person who died violently was an unarmed rioter. >This poster also advances the controversial (I'd call it a howler) claim that 'the former was allowed to enter its target' as if the Capitol Police intended for a sack of the Capitol to happen. Most people find these arguments downright offensive. What else would you call a fully armed force not using armed force to prevent rioters (all but a handful unarmed) from entering a prohibited area? Remember, said rioter who died was killed after force was finally used (better late than never). If the Capitol Police had chosen/been allowed to do so, no rioter would have ever entered the building. Let me repeat: The only difference between what happened at the Capitol and what almost happened at the White House the preceding June is that the rioters did not get inside in the latter case.
- mullingitover 5y ago
  > What else would you call a fully armed force not using armed force to prevent rioters (all but a handful unarmed) from entering a prohibited area? I've seen no evidence for that 'all but a handful unarmed' claim. I have seen interviews with Capitol Police saying they were afraid to use their firearms because they believed they were massively outgunned and would be killed if a serious gunfight broke out. Even allowing for that hypothetical though, the allegedly unarmed mob a massive tactical advantage[1]: > “We weren’t battling 50 or 60 rioters in this tunnel,” he said in the first public account from D.C. police officers who fought to protect the Capitol during last week’s siege. “We were battling 15,000 people. It looked like a medieval battle scene.” > Rioters swarmed, battering the officers with metal pipes peeled from scaffolding and a pole with an American flag attached, police said. Both were struck with stun guns. Fanone suffered a mild heart attack and drifted in and out of consciousness. > All the while, the mob was chanting “U.S.A.” over and over and over again. > “We got one! We got one!” Fanone said he heard rioters shout. “Kill him with his own gun!” [1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2021/01/14/dc-police-capitol-riot/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2021/01/14/dc-police...