4 ms·
A single gun shot was enough to stop an entire group of unarmed rioters, but they still posed the greatest risk of political violence in 150 years? If the capi
by dmix 4y ago
A single gun shot was enough to stop an entire group of unarmed rioters, but they still posed the greatest risk of political violence in 150 years?
If the capitol police had properly prepared for the event as if it was a normal DC protest instead of a speaking event then none of it would have happened. The thin line of cops was obviously insufficient. The police response just took some time to organize but it was never under any serious threat of being overwhelmed.
- woodruffw 4y agoYes. The fact that it was ultimately impotent doesn't change that fact. Characterizing the riot as being ended by a "single gunshot" is misleading, at best: there is no evidence that the majority of rioters were aware that someone had been shot, much less killed, until hours or days after the Capitol had been cleared. "Insufficient" means a little bit of scuffling outside of our nation's legislature. It doesn't mean breaking into the windows and doors, rifling through the offices of legislators and stealing documents, and forcing an emergency evacuation of both chambers.
- s1artibartfast 4y ago>Characterizing the riot as being ended by a "single gunshot" is misleading, at best: there is no evidence that the majority of rioters were aware that someone had been shot, much less killed, until hours or days after the Capitol had been cleared. That makes it even less dangerous if most of them were disbursed with even less intense measures.