The J6 tapes finally released

One problem is Jan 6 is presented as two sides.

But most Trump supporters who have offered an opinion acknowledge illegal activity and riotous behavior on the part of those "storming" the Capitol. They just believe those instances were Democrat plants.

In the end there is enough material to spin anything from an insurrection (it wasn't) to oppressive police state villains trapping and killing innocent patriots (not exactly true either).

Innocent people were injured and jailed for political reasons.

But each political side only wants their "facts" discussed or shown.

Technically no innocent person entered the Capitol (that would be like an illegal alien entering the US illegally but innocent of a crime).

And police officers were beaten by some rioters.


That is always an issue with protests. Bad actors in all sides inspire bad acts. But the majority on both sides are normally innocent. Most protestors were there to protest. Most Capitol police officers were there to protect the Capitol and Congress members.


As is typical, however, the winner controls the narrative. Truth isn't in the best interest of either side, so innocent people are persecuted for their political views and bad actors are downplayed.

 

I don't think those protesters knew what they were protesting as a whole. They were just frustrated.

I don't know that it was a rebellion at all.

I believe that if a police officer is beaten by a mob then the situation is escalated to a dangerous level. Several were beaten. So I don't know what was going through the officer's mind who shot the woman. It could be to defend Congress. It could be to defend himself or other officers. He could have been concerned that she had a weapon as those people did not go through the security required to enter the Capitol. He could have just woke up that morning wanting to kill somebody.

I wonder if we'd feel differently if those were muslims protesting our involvement with Israel, storming the Capitol, unchecked for weapons, with Congress in session and a few saying to get certain government leaders.

The situation would be the same. The only difference would be the topic of protest and the race of people.

 

If the woman was shot at an entrance into the House Chambers then it was justified. That is not the point where an officer should have to guess a trespassers intentions. That is the point where an officer's first priority becomes protecting government officials.

 

Suppose it happened earlier. AOC gave a rally and the crowd beat down officers and illegally entered the White House chanting "Stop Trump!".

One thing I'm sure of is the Democrats wouldn't call it an insurrection.

But I wonder how many Republicans would complain if the police stopped those rioters?


Justice does not mean rooting for one team over another. It involves looking at the actions regardless of who committed the offense.

I suspect there is a lot hypocrisy floating around on all sides.

 

I absolutely agree.

If the officer thought people were trying to get into the chamber he should have shot the person that he thought was trying to get into the chamber.

I don't care if it was a pro-Trump, anti- Trump, or Islamic terrorist. Shoot the person trying to get into the Congressional Chamber. Especially if they bypassed the security check!!


Same with the WH. I don't care if it is a pro-Trumper, a never-Trumper, a tree hugger, or an Islamic terrorist. If they are where they are not supposed to be and trying to get into the Oval Office while the President is there, then it's at the officers discretion.

Stupid people putting themselves in harms way rarely ends well. I mean, at a minimum they could have read all of the signs about having to go through the metal detectors, having purses checked, no liquids, etc.

But just firing into a crowd isn't good. If they do that then they could miss the people all together and hit another officer.

 

The evidence for this is she had her hand on the backpack of guy in front of her as he pounded the window (the assumption being she was trying to get him to stop).

The evidence against this is at the time she was shot (later, as the guy with the backpack had move on to the left door) as she was elevated on the window stepping through with her left leg (her left foot and leg are on the other side of the window).

She was shot while literally entering the area (having already partially entered the area) and when shot fell backwards from the window (which looks to be about 3 feet off the floor).


This shows why one cannot trust people with an agenda. The videos are out there, and from the start there was no question she was entering. BUT one group only wants to show her putting a hand on somebody's backpack claiming she was trying to get them to stop.

If you watch the video (it is a shooting, but not graphic) you can easily see her stepping through the window (in the pic below her left leg is in, her knee shown well above the door handle. Her right foot is on the actual base of the window).






So an officer shot a woman who was entering (had partially entered) the chamber while not shooting the people busting glass and not entering. She was shot in the left shoulder area and died en route to the hospital.

That is NOT shooting into the crowd. She was the only one who was entering (and had partially entered).

Here is another clip. You can see her climbing up and trying to enter.

Video shows fatal shooting of Ashli Babbitt in the Capitol

 

In a public place, I'd tend to agree with you.

But where she entered was a more secure area.

I could not blame security if they said "shoot anybody that enters that door" as it was the Senate lounge and the Senators were there.

Had he allowed her to continue through that window then what would follow? That is the question we have to ask without ever knowing the answer.

I think it was a good call to keep the mob away from the Senators.

 

I don't know. Looks like they are not armed. Guess they were standing there thinking "Hey, why are we not armed?!!".

I actually don't know what role they had and to be fair they were not directly at her. I guess they were content to allow idiots to bash windows.


If you climb the fence at the road where I work you will likely be shot. You might be pulled away and survive, but you might be shot as well.

I can't say the officer overreacted because the Senators were in that area and their primary job was to protect those Senators.

He could have picked up one of those chairs and bashed her knee. But in the end the officer had a job to do and given the situation I can't say what was running through his mind.


My main concern is she has become another George Floyd. I hate propaganda and lies.

You watched the video. How can anybody say that she was not entering but was trying to prevent people from entering???

I mean, how can we be Monday morning quarterbacks if we haven't watched the game????

 

Bottom line is the criminal isn't a hero for a decision made that might have been made better.

We saw this with George Floyd. I believe the officers acted with neglect on that one, but had they rendered aid and Floyd died anyway then the officers wouldn't be at fault for holding him down.

Same here. She was a criminal because she illegally entered the area. She was a criminal for climbing through that window. Apparently the guy who was initially in front listened to the "stop or I'll shoot" warnings, but only seconds later she claimed on through the window.

I wish she wasn't shot. But I can't fault the officer for shooting her. At that point the officer has to use his best judgment, and in such a situation (thugs breaking the window directly beside you, a window already gone and a man tried to enter but backed down at the warning) we can't be too harsh on law enforcement.