2 ms·

My belief is that despite some initial reporting, no police officers were killed by the crowd. From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Brian_Sicknick htt

by vanusa 5y ago

My belief is that despite some initial reporting, no police officers were killed by the crowd. From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Brian_Sicknick https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Brian_Sicknick Within hours of his death, the Capitol Police released a statement that the death was "due to injuries sustained while on-duty", when he was "physically engaging with protesters" at the Capitol.[10] The next day, the U.S. Justice Department attributed the death "to the injuries he suffered defending the U.S. Capitol, against the violent mob who stormed it".[11] It is true that the Medical Examiner initially said the death was due to "natural causes"; but then he later said that "all that transpired played a role in his condition." So it would appear he was mincing his words, to say the least (more like blatantly contradicting himself). In addition, 4 officers died by suicide in the months following the attack. Is your belief that multiple police officers were intentionally killed by rioters? It is beyond dispute the rioters intentionally acted in a way that placed the lives of the the capitol officers at extreme risk. Whether the 5 subsequent deaths meet the legal definition or premeditated homicide is of lesser importance. And practically speaking, splitting hairs.

nkurz 5y ago
I appreciate your response, and also that you posted the article in the first place. I think civil discussion is a good thing, especially among parties who disagree. It is beyond dispute the rioters intentionally acted in a way that placed the lives of the the capitol officers at extreme risk. Yes, I think this is a reasonable summary, and a good start to reaching common understanding. It's not murder, but it's very wrong, and should be punished. Police officers were murdered. This, though, is both inflammatory and false. It's the sort of thing you'd say if your intent is to provoke a civil war, rather than prevent one. I'd rather prevent one. I hope that's your goal as well?
- vanusa 5y ago
  I hope that's your goal as well? Absolutely, and I appreciate you civility as well. As to this statement, which wasn't mine: Police officers were murdered. I would agree that it is inflammatory; but "false" -- only as a technicality. It was an emotional reaction to an orchestrated act of mass violence (that some people, in this very thread, was saying wasn't violent at all). As a result of which, between 1 and 5 people on the defending side (depending how you count the suicides) lost their lives -- unjustly. Furthermore: those who incited this attack (or delayed a more vigorous response to it) are, in part, responsible for these deaths -- and should be held accountable. That's what I see as important. That some people hyperbolize a bit, and use the phrase "murder" -- I just don't see as very important. Especially when they were responding to someone who was basically gaslighting, and attempting to deny that there was anything especially unruly about the "group" of people who visited the capital that day -- with their "cameras and water bottles". That kind of feigned ignorance I do consider to be much more inflammatory.

by vanusa 5y ago

nkurz 5y ago

I appreciate your response, and also that you posted the article in the first place. I think civil discussion is a good thing, especially among parties who disagree. It is beyond dispute the rioters intentionally acted in a way that placed the lives of the the capitol officers at extreme risk. Yes, I think this is a reasonable summary, and a good start to reaching common understanding. It's not murder, but it's very wrong, and should be punished. Police officers were murdered. This, though, is both inflammatory and false. It's the sort of thing you'd say if your intent is to provoke a civil war, rather than prevent one. I'd rather prevent one. I hope that's your goal as well?

vanusa 5y ago
I hope that's your goal as well? Absolutely, and I appreciate you civility as well. As to this statement, which wasn't mine: Police officers were murdered. I would agree that it is inflammatory; but "false" -- only as a technicality. It was an emotional reaction to an orchestrated act of mass violence (that some people, in this very thread, was saying wasn't violent at all). As a result of which, between 1 and 5 people on the defending side (depending how you count the suicides) lost their lives -- unjustly. Furthermore: those who incited this attack (or delayed a more vigorous response to it) are, in part, responsible for these deaths -- and should be held accountable. That's what I see as important. That some people hyperbolize a bit, and use the phrase "murder" -- I just don't see as very important. Especially when they were responding to someone who was basically gaslighting, and attempting to deny that there was anything especially unruly about the "group" of people who visited the capital that day -- with their "cameras and water bottles". That kind of feigned ignorance I do consider to be much more inflammatory.