By what standard do you define "seriously injured"? Page 8 of this report by the US government accountability office lists 114 police officers as suffering injuries on page 8.
By what standard do you define "seriously injured"? Page 8 of this report by the US government accountability office lists 114 police officers as suffering injuries on page 8.
No police officers, or government officials, were hospitalized and held overnight or returned later to the hospital for injuries sustained on 1/6. That is a fact. All of their “violent crimes” were alleged crimes of evil intent, and nobody even tried to prove their intent. They just smeared them and buried them in litigation and threats and smears.
As for your '“data,” which agency is lying, the US government accountability office and/or The Atlantic monthly with its consistent agenda?
That article was published on January 11, 2021 when reports were still coming in. The GAO report was written the following year. It would be surprising if they matched. You may not have noticed that since you didn't look at the article to see that it was from the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, not the Atlantic.
Of course, none of this makes sense of the idea that the distinguishing factor to determine whether or not the event was violent is whether or not someone was admitted as an inpatient or just treated in the emergency room.
On the topic of crimes, you can read the indictment of Enrique Tarrio and the other Proud Boys below. It details how the five defendants, along with several dozen other Proud Boys, were in a group chat well in advance of the event planning to storm the capital and cause a "revolution". I think that spending weeks planning to do something with several other people, and then doing that thing, is pretty strong evidence of intent.
One officer went to the hospital and was released that night. Nobody, was charged with insurrection. Even the TDS DOJ couldn’t sell an insurrection to hand picked hate trump judges. None of the protesters brought any deadly weapons. You are pitching a consensus argument: if all of the court cases charged the same thing, it must be true. Instead they destroyed lives and drove people to suicide for nothing. You have been lied to. The opinions of people who agree with you are not data points in a causal argument.
If your argument is specifically that nobody was hospitalized AND held overnight, sure, that's my bad for not reading more carefully. Personally, I'm unsure what that should change in terms of our evaluation. The problem with January 6th isn't that the protestors injured a bunch of people.
I don't know when deadly weapons came up? Did I say that?
I'm not pitching a consensus argument, my argument is the content of the indictment, which indicates that the protestors planned in advance to break into the capital and stop the certification of the election. Do you agree or disagree that the content of the indictment says this?
Your argument is an accusation of thought crime: planning an insurrection while not having enough evidence to change anyone with "insurrection?" There is no evidence of what the protesters planned before, because there was no official organization or organized plan.
If the election was rigged, then this peaceful protest was part of the democratic process. It was also democratic to protest if they only believed the eleciton was rigged. The fascist left never tried to prove anything was fair, they just called it "most fair election ever" and prosecuted anyone who disagreed. That is fascism.
Please prove that the police were not more violent towards the peaceful protesters than they one or two protesters who slightly injured police in self-defense. The police intended to injure protesters until a few protesters responded violently. There's a premise. Prove that premise true or false, pls.
Confused that this argument took you two weeks to come up with.
I am not sure why you said there is no evidence of protestors planning. I just told you in the indictments of the proud boys, their chat logs are detailed. These logs include them detailing plans to storm government buildings and interrupt the certification of the election. They then went on to storm government builidings and interrupt the certification of the election. That's not a thought crime, that's just a crime.
I wouldn't say that it was an insurrection because, as you say, nobody was convicted of insurrection. I would say it was an act of seditious conspiracy because several people were charged with seditious conspiracy. I do not expect you to respond to any of these arguments, because they are inconvenient to you, and you will probably just bring up an unrelated point.
I disagree that the protest was justified, on the basis that there is insufficient evidence to believe there was outcome-determinative voter fraud.
I don't understand how this last point is related to my argument. Even if the police were violent towards protestors, tha doesn't give them the right to violently storm into the capital. If the police are violent to BLM protestors, that doesn't give them the right to turn around and firebomb a Walmart.
Policemen held doors open and guided protesters into the building. Protesters are still in jail for nothing more violent than trespassing. Which protesters entered violently? Who decides they were violent, when they hurt nobody? A court of law? No. Almost none of them were prosecuted for violent crimes.
The logs detailed plotting with president trump to overthrow the government? The proud boys were full of FBI plants. How many of the alleged planning texts were government ordered texts?
So, the first amendment only protects protest when the protesters have enough evidence to prevail in a court of law? It's a shame they are cancelling any lawyers who work for Trump too.
You disagree that the protest was justified? So, what? Your opinion is noted. Nobody was even accused of insurrection in any indictment, yet that is what you are arguing for. An unarmed lady was murdered by a Capitol policeman. I don't believe that murder was justified. He is not in jail.
The rule of law has been corrupted and that is a far greater threat to democracy than any Orange man who loves his family, peace, and the first amendment.
If the police were seriously worried about the protestors entering the building, instead of opening doors for them, should they have attempted to stop them with deadly force?
What are you talking about? They shot and killed a woman. Imagine if police had opened fire, anywhere, on BLM protesters...who were actually killing people. The DNC is fascist and you support fascism.
By what standard do you define "seriously injured"? Page 8 of this report by the US government accountability office lists 114 police officers as suffering injuries on page 8.
https://www.gao.gov/assets/d22104829.pdf
This article from The Atlantic says that 60 officers were injured, and 15 were hospitalized.
https://www.ajc.com/news/breaking-2-capitol-hill-police-officers-suspended-over-riot/XHWWHNA7EZHSNF32QREJROESQI/
Where did you hear there were no serious injuries?
No police officers, or government officials, were hospitalized and held overnight or returned later to the hospital for injuries sustained on 1/6. That is a fact. All of their “violent crimes” were alleged crimes of evil intent, and nobody even tried to prove their intent. They just smeared them and buried them in litigation and threats and smears.
As for your '“data,” which agency is lying, the US government accountability office and/or The Atlantic monthly with its consistent agenda?
Rioting is violent.
Pretty Orwellian. Who labled it a "riot?"
That article was published on January 11, 2021 when reports were still coming in. The GAO report was written the following year. It would be surprising if they matched. You may not have noticed that since you didn't look at the article to see that it was from the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, not the Atlantic.
Also on January 11, 2021, the D.C. police said "that one District officer remained hospitalized," see here: https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/police-capitol-injuires-trump/2021/01/11/ca68e3e2-5438-11eb-a08b-f1381ef3d207_story.html
Of course, none of this makes sense of the idea that the distinguishing factor to determine whether or not the event was violent is whether or not someone was admitted as an inpatient or just treated in the emergency room.
From a cursory google search, at least 1 police officer was hospitalized. Do you think NBC made this guy up?
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/police-officer-injured-capitol-riot-heckled-jan-6-committee-hearing-rcna39627
On the topic of crimes, you can read the indictment of Enrique Tarrio and the other Proud Boys below. It details how the five defendants, along with several dozen other Proud Boys, were in a group chat well in advance of the event planning to storm the capital and cause a "revolution". I think that spending weeks planning to do something with several other people, and then doing that thing, is pretty strong evidence of intent.
https://www.justice.gov/usao-dc/press-release/file/1510791/dl?inline
One officer went to the hospital and was released that night. Nobody, was charged with insurrection. Even the TDS DOJ couldn’t sell an insurrection to hand picked hate trump judges. None of the protesters brought any deadly weapons. You are pitching a consensus argument: if all of the court cases charged the same thing, it must be true. Instead they destroyed lives and drove people to suicide for nothing. You have been lied to. The opinions of people who agree with you are not data points in a causal argument.
If your argument is specifically that nobody was hospitalized AND held overnight, sure, that's my bad for not reading more carefully. Personally, I'm unsure what that should change in terms of our evaluation. The problem with January 6th isn't that the protestors injured a bunch of people.
I don't know when deadly weapons came up? Did I say that?
I'm not pitching a consensus argument, my argument is the content of the indictment, which indicates that the protestors planned in advance to break into the capital and stop the certification of the election. Do you agree or disagree that the content of the indictment says this?
Your argument is an accusation of thought crime: planning an insurrection while not having enough evidence to change anyone with "insurrection?" There is no evidence of what the protesters planned before, because there was no official organization or organized plan.
If the election was rigged, then this peaceful protest was part of the democratic process. It was also democratic to protest if they only believed the eleciton was rigged. The fascist left never tried to prove anything was fair, they just called it "most fair election ever" and prosecuted anyone who disagreed. That is fascism.
Please prove that the police were not more violent towards the peaceful protesters than they one or two protesters who slightly injured police in self-defense. The police intended to injure protesters until a few protesters responded violently. There's a premise. Prove that premise true or false, pls.
Also, apology accepted.
Confused that this argument took you two weeks to come up with.
I am not sure why you said there is no evidence of protestors planning. I just told you in the indictments of the proud boys, their chat logs are detailed. These logs include them detailing plans to storm government buildings and interrupt the certification of the election. They then went on to storm government builidings and interrupt the certification of the election. That's not a thought crime, that's just a crime.
I wouldn't say that it was an insurrection because, as you say, nobody was convicted of insurrection. I would say it was an act of seditious conspiracy because several people were charged with seditious conspiracy. I do not expect you to respond to any of these arguments, because they are inconvenient to you, and you will probably just bring up an unrelated point.
I disagree that the protest was justified, on the basis that there is insufficient evidence to believe there was outcome-determinative voter fraud.
I don't understand how this last point is related to my argument. Even if the police were violent towards protestors, tha doesn't give them the right to violently storm into the capital. If the police are violent to BLM protestors, that doesn't give them the right to turn around and firebomb a Walmart.
In the indictmwent?? Well then...
Policemen held doors open and guided protesters into the building. Protesters are still in jail for nothing more violent than trespassing. Which protesters entered violently? Who decides they were violent, when they hurt nobody? A court of law? No. Almost none of them were prosecuted for violent crimes.
The logs detailed plotting with president trump to overthrow the government? The proud boys were full of FBI plants. How many of the alleged planning texts were government ordered texts?
So, the first amendment only protects protest when the protesters have enough evidence to prevail in a court of law? It's a shame they are cancelling any lawyers who work for Trump too.
You disagree that the protest was justified? So, what? Your opinion is noted. Nobody was even accused of insurrection in any indictment, yet that is what you are arguing for. An unarmed lady was murdered by a Capitol policeman. I don't believe that murder was justified. He is not in jail.
The rule of law has been corrupted and that is a far greater threat to democracy than any Orange man who loves his family, peace, and the first amendment.
If the police were seriously worried about the protestors entering the building, instead of opening doors for them, should they have attempted to stop them with deadly force?
What are you talking about? They shot and killed a woman. Imagine if police had opened fire, anywhere, on BLM protesters...who were actually killing people. The DNC is fascist and you support fascism.
Do you think the police should have used violence to stop the protestors from entering the capital? I.e. opening fire, throwing tear gas, etc?