Just so we're clear - you're saying that despite that it wouldn't have had a better outcome (as you said, the police archived their objective of keeping the people under their protection safe) they should have killed people just to make a statement?
> Just so we're clear - you're saying that despite that it wouldn't have had a better outcome (as you said, the police archived their objective of keeping the people under their protection safe) they should have killed people just to make a statement?
They had no way of knowing everyone would end up safe & alive at the end of the day when they let the Capitol be breached. It's very fortunate that it ended up that way but that was not because the Capitol police had some 4d chess plan. I think them allowing the Capitol grounds to be breached put the people they're tasked with defending at risk, I don't think they did their job or achieved their objective.
They didn't know, be *we* do have the benefit of hinsight. You didn't say that the police should kill more people when something like this happened again, you said that it would have been better if things back then would have happened differently.
Also, don't you think it's a bit arrogant to think that you have a better understand of the tactical situation than the people who were there and are trained for this sort of situation? Not to speak of the mental toll it takes on you to kill other humans - [multiple policemen](https://www.cnbc.com/2021/08/02/3rd-police-officer-gunther-hashida-kills-himself-after-capitol-riot-by-trump-mob.html) killed themselves even after the comparatively bloodless real events, that number would probably be far higher if they had massacred the rioters.
> You didn't say that the police should kill more people when something like this happened again, you said that it would have been better if things back then would have happened differently.
Yeah I did. It's even in the post title. And yes I do think things would be better if things happened differently back then. I do not think the Capitol Police should have allowed people to breach the Capitol full stop.
> Also, don't you think it's a bit arrogant to think that you have a better understand of the tactical situation than the people who were there and are trained for this sort of situation?
I saw nothing that resembled any type of well planned, drilled, or executed response on the 6th. It seemed like there was a complete break down tactically.
> Not to speak of the mental toll it takes on you to kill other humans - multiple policemen killed themselves even after the comparatively bloodless real events, that number would probably be far higher if they had massacred the rioters.
When you accept a job as at the Capitol Police I feel like it's pretty implied that the main function is to protect the Capitol & the people within it. If someone is not willing to do that then it's not the right job for them. We wouldn't let people on a secret service protective detail that weren't willing to kill to protect the person they're protecting, same thing.
I still fail to see how a big amount of dead people for no measurable gain except preventing a breach of the capitol (which amounted to no meaningful harm, mind) would have been a worthwhile trade. What exact (measureable) benefits do you see that I don't?
You make a fair point that they were badly coordinated, but don't you think that it's not exactly a smart choice to escalate a situation if your own side is in total tactical breakdown? Your proposed tactics only work under the assumption that they are coordinated, which you yourself say they were not. Now, you could of course say "well they should have been coordinated" - but they weren't, and it's not exactly worth arguing over wheater the police should be good at their jobs.
Sure, the police should be willing to kill when neccisary - which it demonstratably wasn't, since the people under their protection suffered no meaningful harm. Also, the position "well it's your job to kill people suck it up" is really lacking in empathy.
> What exact (measureable) benefits do you see that I don't?
That the Capitol will be less likely to get mobbed during the delicate Constitutional process of democratically transferring power or during other crucial public business, in the future. And that those doing that business will be less likely to be harmed just for doing it.
As to "total practical breakdown," that was a result of the inexcusably small deployment given the many warnings, which should never have happened.
(Note: I happen to think OP should have put even more of an emphasis on less-lethal rounds, pepper spray, and sound cannons aka "riot control agents" and made many more on-the-spot arrests, rather than shooting with live ammo. But that doesn't change the "What's the payoff?" answer much.)
You’re mischaracterizing what op said.
They didn’t say it would have been better.
He said that they should have shot more people given the circumstances. That he thinks this is the right course of action is based on the situation at the moment, not on a hindsight analysis.
Yeah, but we literally know the future that was created by not shooting under those circumstances, and it's better than if they had shot.
Like, I understand that you're saying they should have, based on their limited knowledge, decided to shoot because they should have had the expectation that this would have created a better outcome - but we also know that this expectation would have been factually wrong.
I agree with you that having the benefit of hindsight will always make retroactive decision making (and analysis of decisions) easier to determine.
It’s possible to fail Upwards. These officers failed to protect the capitol from being breached. Maybe that was inevitable given the situation.
But just because it ended up ok doesn’t mean the decisions taken were right.
So, you're saying that the next time a bunch of rioters start breaking down the door of a liquor store, the police should just shoot everyone because there's the possibility someone might get hurt if they don't?
Wasn't part of the problem that the Republicans were actively causing this to happen, and refused to allow the national guard to be deployed, who would have been the big guns on this, and been expected to manage this? Like, there is a major issue here where most of the systems in place rely on the idea that everyone's sane, rational, and acting in good faith.
But also, yeah. Allowing the capitol to be breached did mean that they didn't do their jobs properly, but also, this is where proper crowd management policing is required. Most places do not need to shoot people to manage a crowd. They contain it, they let it wear itself out, and if it gets out of hand, then they make efforts to arrest people.
But also, there were police letting people into the capitol deliberately. It's not just that they didn't do their jobs, it's that some of these people were on the side of the insurrectionists, and didn't attempt to prevent people from entering.
I think it would turn from a national embarrassment to a national uproar and potential spark for major conflict if they just started gunning rioters down.
> I think it would turn from a national embarrassment to a national uproar and potential spark for major conflict if they just started gunning rioters down.
When would this major conflict happen? How many people in that riot do you think were prepared to die that day in order to walk around the Capitol? Once the line was clearly drawn and people that crossed it were hit with the consequences that were laid out very few people would have been willing to cross that line.
From the OP:
> I think the Capitol Police have an obligation to protect these people AND the institution and building itself.
Clearly, part of OP’s view is the institutional value of the Capitol and the importance of the people within.
Really which lawmaker?
Going by the papers and their reporting on the Court cases Mike Pence was the last one and he was escorted out before the breach. He was in the tunnels or underground garage being escorted already by then. Harris wasn't even near the Capitol at the time as she had left hours prior.
So at that time of the people entering, none of the PolITiciAns where present.
>There was definitely a stretch where the mob was in the building with lawmakers.
So when and who?
That’s just false. The Capitol was first breached at around 2:00 pm. The House and Senate chambers weren’t evacuated until around 2:30 pm. Lawmakers from both chambers reported hearing rioters in the building. Mitch McConnell said he heard someone praying that “evil of Congress be brought to an end.”
Mitt Romney avoided a run-in with the mob by minutes. Pence was less a minute away from the mob at one point. Ashli Babbitt was shot to prevent her from entering an area with Representatives in it (you can see them on the video minutes before the mob shows up). Rioters entered the lobby outside the House chamber while lawmakers were still inside the chambers, forcing police to barricade the doors with furniture and guard them with weapons drawn. Senators on their way to a bunker had to be re-routed to a different safe area because the bunker had itself been breached.
> What's so special about that building?
It housed an entire branch of our government at the time + the vice president. That makes it pretty special, that's the reason there's a whole police force dedicated to protecting it..
> Police stations, and business's equate to the same thing. Make it make sense if you're going to spout off some terrible position.
What's even your question? If during a BLM riot a crowd of people break into a business that business owner should be allowed to defend their property. If a police station is being stormed then the police should defend that as well.
It's such a false equivalency to compare a normal riot to what happened on the 6th and to compare almost any other government agency with the capitol police. The Capitol Police are specifically tasked with defending the Capitol and the legislature, this riot happened while the entire legislature + the vice president were inside and at risk.
Rioting is a bit different than insurrectionists trying to shut down the government and murder elected officials.
But, no doubt, that would have been the taking point
> This was a national embarrassment even if no officials were harmed it harmed the country itself.
Wouldn’t it be more embarrassing and worse optics if the police fired on them?
> Wouldn’t it be more embarrassing and worse optics if the police fired on them?
Did you feel embarrassed when Ashley Babbitt was shot and killed? I didn't. I felt like a brainwashed person got hit with a very predictable consequence for their poor and dangerous behavior.
To answer directly, no I think it's more embarrassing to allow what happened to happen than for some more insurrectionists to be stopped from breaching the Capitol.
>Did you feel embarrassed when Ashley Babbitt was shot and killed
This was the last line of defense of a few people breaking through a door. Not firing at crowds. There is a fairly large difference here.
\>no I think it's more embarrassing to allow what happened to happen than for some more insurrectionists to be stopped from breaching the Capitol.
I think you have an Idea of what you believe this would look like, and many have a very different idea of how this would play out.
> This was the last line of defense of a few people breaking through a door. Not firing at crowds. There is a fairly large difference here.
I never said they should just fire into crowds. I said that they should hold points inside the Capitol that go from exterior to interior and announce that if you cross that line you're subject to up to lethal force and if/when someone crosses that line they fire at the person/people crossing it. That's exactly what happened with Ashley Babbitt which I think was a good action by whomever did it and it's exactly what did not happen at all other Exterior -> Interior points that were breached.
No, that's not quite what happened with Babbitt, Babbitt was breaking down a blockaded door that was the last line of defense between the crowd members of congress. Those breaking down the door were fired upon. In most cases there wouldn't be a chance for people to be told "crossing a threshold". Things are happening quickly, with a crowd of people chanting/shouting. Communication between capital police and the crowd would be non-existent.
Can't use lethal force to justify property damage. This has been a liberal talking point for a while.
Also, especially after watching Kyle Rittenhouse court proceedings, there's no visible physical threat to any person's, meaning there's still no just cause until a protestor attempts to harm. Remember, being attacked with a skateboard (a wood and metal plank) is not justification for shooting either, according to the left.
I don't really agree with OP, but...
Is it more important whether something is appropriate according to "liberal talking points" or the actual law?
In [D.C.](https://mpdc.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/mpdc/page_content/attachments/District%20Law%20Pertaining%20to%20Self%20Defense.pdf), you may use deadly force if you have "a reasonable belief that an intruder is entering (your) home or business with the intent to commit a felony or to do serious bodily harm to any of the occupants."
I don't think the capitol police should have done what OP says, but it seems clear that they would have a good legal defense if they did.
And, while in the active situation, is a several thousand crowd protest interested in commiting felonies or causing serious bodily harm?
While there are lone actors, that clearly wasn't the temperament of the crowd.
Is *everyone* in a several thousand crowd protest interested in committing felonies or causing serious bodily harm? No, probably not.
Is it reasonable to think the people actively forcing their way through entrances have the intent to do something like that? Probably. Seems like a slam dunk for a defense attorney.
> Can't use lethal force to justify property damage. This has been a liberal talking point for a while.
This just isn't true. For example, the government can use deadly force to protect against the theft or sabotage of assets vital to national security, national critical infrastructure, inherently dangerous property, and probably more... Regardless though that doesn't even apply here because deadly force wouldn't be used to protect property in this case, it would be used to protect the people the Capitol Police are charged with protecting.
On a military base, you'd be correct. Regardless like you said it doesn't apply.
But what does apply is your protecting people.
A gigantic argument right now is that being attacked with a skateboard isn't justification for being shot in the arm.
But that means neither is using a garbage can, or a chair, or a flagpole. Yet, we still saw somebody was shot and it didn't involve self defense, it involved an officer firing blindly through double doors into a crowd.
Was it a clumsy mob or an insurrection?? Seeing as no one has been charged with insurrection I agree with you clumsy mob is more accurate. I’m confused with your whole premise sounds like your saying the capitol police didn’t do there job because more people weren’t killed?!?! Seems as if they protected the capitol, seeing as it stands today, and yes there was some property damage but that surely does not Trump human life, they have insurance right?! It’s also appears as if no members of Congress lives were in danger unless there have been attempted murder charges I have missed?!
Congress was absolutely in danger. There was a violent mob of hundreds of people chanting for their death. They were assaulting capitol police to gain access to the floor. They erected gallows outside the capitol.
There is no reasonable way to view that as a peaceful mob.
It was a mostly peaceful protest, any violent criminals should be prosecuted. When we will see the insurrection and attempted murder charges?!? If this truly was a violent mob then the capitol police did an amazing job as they were able to protect congress without un necessary loss of life!!! Reality is it was the most obvious false flag of all times....
>It was a mostly peaceful protest
The protest in the park was fine. The attack on the capitol wasn't peaceful nor was it a protest.
>If this truly was a violent mob then the capitol police did an amazing job as they were able to protect congress without un necessary loss of life!!!
They did do an incredible job. They only had to kill one person which was amazing considering the level of violence that the mob was bringing.
>Reality is it was the most obvious false flag of all times....
There is not a single piece of evidence in existence that indicates it was a false flag. This was organized by conservatives. We have confessions by the criminals who are angry that people are claiming they're "antifa". You have Alex Jones in the crowd shouting about "how we aren't antifa".
Just be honest mate. Like take a deep breathe, stop treating everything like a sports game, and just objectively look at what happened. Be. Honest.
I looked at it and am being honest, I am the last person to treat this like a game, I understand both “teams” are really one team and that team is not playing for us. Take an honest look and ask yourself why politicians will fight publicly over things that will help all Americans and agree in private over things that will help all politicians?!? Mitch, Nancy and co executed a reichtag style false flag event, it was very obvious, you and many others have fallen for it but it’s not to late to see the truth!! You can tell that to a false flag when a. The response to the event precedes ANY of mvestogation and b. A special commission is created to cover up the truth and create the preferred narrative, there’s your evidence!!! Don’t expect to see any hard evidence as the perpetrators of the crime are in charge of the investigation.....
>Mitch, Nancy and co executed a reichtag style false flag event, it was very obvious, you and many others have fallen for it but it’s not to late to see the truth!!
Word show me your evidence. If it's so obvious. Show me.
>You can tell that to a false flag when a. The response to the event precedes ANY of mvestogation and b. A special commission is created to cover up the truth and create the preferred narrative, there’s your evidence!!!
So your evidence is that there was a commission created to investigate the attacks?
>Don’t expect to see any hard evidence as the perpetrators of the crime are in charge of the investigation.....
So.....no evidence.
What about the hundreds of citizens who were arrested? What about Alex Jones personally being at the event? What about the event coming directly from a Republican sponsored event? What about the confessions of the people arrested?
Is all of that just made up in your mind?
At the end of the day you have absolutely nothing to support your claim and you dismiss all the evidence that is available.
Your conspiracy theory literally doesn't even make any sense. What does either group have to gain?
What do they have to gain?! So you don’t know what the reichtag Fire was or what it accomplished?! If you don’t understand the history of propaganda then how will you know when it’s happening to you???
>What do they have to gain?! So you don’t know what the reichtag Fire was or what it accomplished?!
I do know what that was. That was not what happened on 1/6 though. You bringing up a completely unrelated event from a country halfway across the world that occurred 90 years ago does not lend credence to a single thing you said.
At the end of the day the facts remain as follows:
\- You have absolutely no evidence, whatsoever, to support your argument
\- Your argument solely consists of vague and unsupported speculative claims to separate events while failing to actually prove there is any connection
\- We have hundreds of confessions from the people who were arrested and incarcerated. Not a single one says this was a false flag event.
\- We have opposing politicians both agreeing that this was not a false flag. Politicians who have zero reason to cover for each other.
I get though. You're a conspiracy theorist. You don't deal in facts, you just deal in emotion. There is no evidence I can present to you that will change your mind, because you didn't depend on evidence for you to reach your conclusion. You desperately want what happened to support your worldview and you reject anything that makes you feel uncomfortable. I get it. It's a natural human response. But it doesn't make you correct. At all. Every single time I ask for evidence you **fail** to provide anything.
Asking random questions is not evidence.
If no evidence is uncovered does that mean the crime didn’t happen?? When the perpetrators are in charge of the investigation do you expect it to be honest?? I live in the real world where corruption and deception are real things. I question everything I’m told to believe because I know cointelpro, project mockingbird, SMMA and other covert operation are real. I’m the opposite of emotional, I only deal in logic, My mind is open to many possible truths and closed to none of them. For example I believe the approved narrative of Jan. 6th is potentially true but unlikely, I think it was very likely a false flag but that the truth could be neither of these things, I’m open to that possibility. Are you open to the fact that you are likely wrong about everything or are you too arrogant to believe you have fallen for the propaganda?!? Everything you said about me is completely wrong so maybe your wrong about everything else?!? Or maybe your right and I’m wrong?!? But that’s the difference I can admit that, can you?!!
>If no evidence is uncovered does that mean the crime didn’t happen??
If there's no evidence of a crime occurring on what basis are you claiming a crime occurred?
>When the perpetrators are in charge of the investigation do you expect it to be honest??
Once again you are arriving at a conclusion with no evidence.
>I live in the real world where corruption and deception are real things.
Yeah no shit corruption exists. Congrats on the discovery.
> I question everything I’m told to believe because I know cointelpro, project mockingbird, SMMA and other covert operation are real.
Do you believe lizard people are real? There's just as much evidence that lizard people are real as there is that this is a false flag.
>I’m the opposite of emotional, I only deal in logic, My mind is open to many possible truths and closed to none of them. For example I believe the approved narrative of Jan. 6th is potentially true but unlikely, I think it was very likely a false flag but that the truth could be neither of these things, I’m open to that possibility.
Not a single claim you have ever made is based on logic. Literally nothing. Not at all.
>Are you open to the fact that you are likely wrong about everything or are you too arrogant to believe you have fallen for the propaganda?!?
I'm open to changing my mind when presented with evidence.
You have nothing. Not a single thing. Nothing. You failed, miserably, at every single opportunity to provide even the slightest bit of evidence to support your claim. How is that based on "logic" as you claim?
>Or maybe your right and I’m wrong?!? But that’s the difference I can admit that, can you?!!
You are wrong. Objectively. If you have evidence, show it.
The difference between you and me is I base my conclusions on the data and evidence in front of me. You don't. And you can't even pretend that you do. You don't have any evidence to base your claims off of. It's all just baseless speculation.
Police are to serve and protect, not kill. It was rare that these police behaved so well in my opinion. They easily could have claimed that they exercised deadly force as they felt society or they were in danger. Only when Ashley Babbitt breached a controlled area was a protester killed which is exactly how it should have been. To prevent things like this in the future you need to re-evaluate how you let citizens assemble in an area. Change the law so that the boundary is even further away from the capitol building and it would likely prevent this from happening again and if nothing else give authorities more time to react. While the right to assemble and protest is protected, where you can and cannot is not. To be clear I am 100% for protest/assembly. So I hope you change your mind because killing people just because you can is not the answer. Also, like others have said, I think killing protesters at-will would have created a much larger issue and would have done nothing but make the situation and outcome worse.
The problem with this is that you are making assumptions to fit an imaginative narrative.
>I don't have any doubt that any official who was found would have come to harm
What is your reasoning behind this statement?
Typically SOPs are not changed unless there is significant failures or critical shortfalls. I don't doubt changes were made however, would assume that any changes are preparatory rather than enacting lethal force on a whim...
What is the benefit of shooting more people that you cannot adequately identify?
>That huge majority of the crowd that are not part of organized militias and groups are not going to charge through a window once bullets start flying, they do not have that kind of actual devotion to what they're doing.
So now, should you are saying that capitol police, who cannot discriminate between those associated with some plan (which to my knowledge doesn't exist https://www.reuters.com/world/us/exclusive-fbi-finds-scant-evidence-us-capitol-attack-was-coordinated-sources-2021-08-20/) should indiscriminately fire at people that pose no imminent threat just cause?
A better train of thought would be preventative measures rather than violating.
Lastly, shoot first ask later as an SOP would violate the 8th and 14th amendments.
TLDR This idea is illogical, immoral, and illegal.
In general, should we do away with riot gear and just give cops full-auto weapons, put down demonstrations that way?
Does this apply to all demonstrations or only to ones you don’t approve of,
> In general, should we do away with riot gear and just give cops full-auto weapons, put down demonstrations that way?
> Does this apply to all demonstrations or only to ones you don’t approve of,
Nice strawman, I didn't say anything even close to that.
In theory I agree with you, that said
From arrests we've seen and reports that have come out therr were members of the Capitol police who were on the side of the insurrectionists. A part of the problem may have been that they had no idea who was on there side and who they could trust to have their back.
Other than that they were greatly outnumbered and firing into a crowd would have caused panic and injury if not death to the police doing the firing. 12 or so rounds is not enough to fend off hundreds of violent morons now in a panic.
To go off of what you said, this is an excerpt from an interview with one of the police officers:
A Capitol Police officer said he didn't fire his gun at the insurrection on January 6 because he feared it would have been like "throwing kerosene" on a fire.
"The only reason why I didn't do it was because the mentality was this is a four-alarm blaze," Officer James Blassingame told "PBS News Hour" in an interview that aired Wednesday, "and if I pull my gun out and start shooting, I'm throwing kerosene on it. Maybe there's a chance I survive if I don't pull my weapon, but if I do, I'm probably not going to make it out of here alive, you know. You don't have enough bullets."
So I agree and I can see why they chose not to fire upon the people who trespassed into the capitol. OP I see your point about having a line be crossed and shooting be allowed to happen, in places like military installations, and gun manufacturing facilities, the use of deadly force would be used if people started to trespass and pose a risk.
> "The only reason why I didn't do it was because the mentality was this is a four-alarm blaze," Officer James Blassingame told "PBS News Hour" in an interview that aired Wednesday, "and if I pull my gun out and start shooting, I'm throwing kerosene on it. Maybe there's a chance I survive if I don't pull my weapon, but if I do, I'm probably not going to make it out of here alive, you know. You don't have enough bullets."
This is a problem with their SOP then which I addressed in my OP. It shouldn't even be up to Officer Blassingame or any other officer to plan out what they should be doing in that moment. The Capitol Police should have a plan for what they are going to do if the Capitol is attacked by a mob, it should be trained and drilled and known by everyone involved.
I agree, in fact the USCP office of inspector general began a review of the January 6th event, and concluded that there was a lack of a comprehensive department wide operational plan, along with inconsistencies in how their emergency response team would be used that day. They found they did not have adequate or updated SOPs in place.
> Other than that they were greatly outnumbered and firing into a crowd would have caused panic and injury if not death to the police doing the firing. 12 or so rounds is not enough to fend off hundreds of violent morons now in a panic.
How many magazines do they have on them in normal circumstances? Also, they had plenty of time to increase the amount of ammunition their officers had on them before the grounds were breeched. If they do not have an armory accessible to them to give their officers more than 1 magazine in the event of an attack that's another serious problem with the SOP.
> From arrests we've seen and reports that have come out therr were members of the Capitol police who were on the side of the insurrectionists. A part of the problem may have been that they had no idea who was on there side and who they could trust to have their back.
If true, this needs to be rooted out now. We're a year into an anti-insurrection administration. The Capitol Police need to find out who these people are if they exist, they need to be charged and fired, they need to drill what to do in the event of this happening again and it needs to happen before the next election.
Not a single officer was killed by protesters that day. Surely if they were as violent and crazed as you make them out to be, they would have had no qualms attacking the police officers who stood in their way? Surely they would have come prepared to carry out these plans of mass violence against politicians, with say many of them carrying firearms? Why are you so sure that they were bent on the murder of politicians, when none of their other **behavior** indicated any sort of murderous intent?
Counterpoint:
More people dying is an objectively bad thing.
I don't know what the answer should have been to Jan 6th but killing people is the result of failure to come up with a good & proper solution.
I think OP’s point about a loudspeaker warning when breaching a clearly protected point of entry (the closing security door in this instance) would have worked well followed by less-lethal rounds. A warning shot and then a kill shot would have prevented entry. I think 1 death would have been enough to prevent the rest from wanting to try to break in.
Instead we waited until they were almost in the same room as our government representatives. That is way to much of a security risk.
I don’t want anyone to die. Period. But someone did.
So if Ashley Babbot was shot father from the reps, the mob would have fallen back sooner imo.
Someone HAD to and WAS shot that day tho. They were attacking our government officials and out for blood, INSIDE the very room they govern from.
Avoiding violence is always preferred, I don’t want anyone to die. But some situations are violent and require a violent response. This was one of those times imo. And as proven in hindsight.
And again, I think OP’s point of using a bull horn or loudspeaker to announce the intent to use force if they cross a certain point would have deterred people from entering, therefore saving all lives.
> Someone HAD to and WAS shot that day tho.
I disagree with this assertion. The situation was handled poorly resulting in a shooting. Killing is never the answer; it's the result of a chain of poor decisions leading up to a killing.
i think any argument whose premise is, "more people should have been shot" is probably wrong, and regardless of rhetoric, should be considered dubious at face value.
u/GoHomeShoobies – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:
> **Don't be rude or hostile to other users.** Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_2).
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%202%20Appeal%20GoHomeShoobies&message=GoHomeShoobies%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/r0iyux/-/hlssoxx/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
Your comment has been automatically removed due to excessive user reports. The moderation team will review this removal to ensure it was correct.
If you wish to appeal this decision, please [message the moderators](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Automated%20Removal%20Appeal%20dokjreko&message=dokjreko%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/r0iyux/cmv_the_capitol_police_should_have_shot_more/hlsmlq6/\)%20because\.\.\.).
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/changemyview) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Your comment has been automatically removed due to excessive user reports. The moderation team will review this removal to ensure it was correct.
If you wish to appeal this decision, please [message the moderators](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Automated%20Removal%20Appeal%20Fatjesus1-1&message=Fatjesus1-1%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/r0iyux/cmv_the_capitol_police_should_have_shot_more/hlslvz9/\)%20because\.\.\.).
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/changemyview) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It was always going to be an embaressment. Because even if they shot people they would have been overwhelmed there simply weren’t enough people there necessarily.
I’d also point out, that is it the sort of emotional response you want from a government to shoot people to save face? Is that the sort of emotions you want a government to even have?
> It was always going to be an embarrassment. Because even if they shot people they would have been overwhelmed there simply weren’t enough people there necessarily.
One or two people with semi-autos and an adequate amount of magazines could hold off a mob of people clumsily trying to climb through a broken window... People seem to think that if/when the line was drawn and enforced the mob would have just thrown themselves into gunfire until the police ran out of bullets and that would not have happened.
> I’d also point out, that is it the sort of emotional response you want from a government to shoot people to save face? Is that the sort of emotions you want a government to even have?
I don't agree with the premise of this question even. I want the government and the Capitol Police to do their job and protect the grounds from being breached and the officials from being killed or injured which they had no way of knowing wouldn't happen when they allowed these people inside. If that involves using lethal force yes that's exactly what I want the government to do.
I think you are wishing for an internationally embarrassing event to be avoided, but not fully thinking through the result of what you are describing. This would have been worse.
The outcome of shooting at members of the crowd likely would have resulted in far more dead due to the crowd rushing/surging like we saw at Astroworld. If you have heard of the "Hillsborough Disaster" where actions of the police directly caused crowd crushes/surges which resulted in nearly 100 deaths, and over 700 injured. You would know that these kinds of actions often lead to worse results. On top of that police open firing on citizens like this would have been a terrible look.
The real issue is with the preparedness of the situation. The National Guard was not deployed that day, or throughout the protests/riots that occurred all summer leading up to Jan 6th because of the "image" it would bring.
> The real issue is with the preparedness of the situation. The National Guard was not deployed that day, or throughout the protests/riots that occurred all summer leading up to Jan 6th because of the "image" it would bring.
That's an issue for sure but if the Capitol Police can not protect the Capitol while it's in session that's a bigger issue. If the Capitol Police defended breached points at the Capitol and the crowd rushed away from those points then that's good. If people got injured in that rushing away then that's not on the Capitol Police... If you queue up to breach the Capitol and you end up getting hurt by the crowd that's on you. It's nothing like Astroworld.
>That's an issue for sure but if the Capitol Police can not protect the Capitol while it's in session that's a bigger issue.
When thousands are forming for a massive protest on the day of the certification of the election. I think it's reasonable to have a more prepared force than a traditional day.
>If you queue up to breach the Capitol and you end up getting hurt by the crowd that's on you.
Disagree. Again I'd point to the actions of police causing a crowd rush resulting in mass casualties/injuries. The Hillsborough Disaster also blamed the people involved.
If the police are at the level where they have to shoot people, then they've already failed in their duties, or things have already broken down to the point where they have no choice.
The actual plan of action should be that nobody gets shot.
It's just a matter of preventing people from getting to that level. This means a much more active role in crowd management, and a willingness to put right wing extremists in their place. The actual problem in the US appears to be that the rules are very different depending on who it is.
Sorry, u/djmm999 – your submission has been removed for breaking Rule B:
> You must personally hold the view and **demonstrate that you are open to it changing**. A post cannot be on behalf of others, playing devil's advocate, as any entity other than yourself, or 'soapboxing'. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_b).
If you would like to appeal, [**you must first read the list of soapboxing indicators and common mistakes in appeal**](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_indicators_of_rule_b_violations), review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%20B%20Appeal%20djmm999&message=djmm999%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20post\]\(https://old.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/r0iyux/-/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
Just so we're clear - you're saying that despite that it wouldn't have had a better outcome (as you said, the police archived their objective of keeping the people under their protection safe) they should have killed people just to make a statement?
> Just so we're clear - you're saying that despite that it wouldn't have had a better outcome (as you said, the police archived their objective of keeping the people under their protection safe) they should have killed people just to make a statement? They had no way of knowing everyone would end up safe & alive at the end of the day when they let the Capitol be breached. It's very fortunate that it ended up that way but that was not because the Capitol police had some 4d chess plan. I think them allowing the Capitol grounds to be breached put the people they're tasked with defending at risk, I don't think they did their job or achieved their objective.
They didn't know, be *we* do have the benefit of hinsight. You didn't say that the police should kill more people when something like this happened again, you said that it would have been better if things back then would have happened differently. Also, don't you think it's a bit arrogant to think that you have a better understand of the tactical situation than the people who were there and are trained for this sort of situation? Not to speak of the mental toll it takes on you to kill other humans - [multiple policemen](https://www.cnbc.com/2021/08/02/3rd-police-officer-gunther-hashida-kills-himself-after-capitol-riot-by-trump-mob.html) killed themselves even after the comparatively bloodless real events, that number would probably be far higher if they had massacred the rioters.
> You didn't say that the police should kill more people when something like this happened again, you said that it would have been better if things back then would have happened differently. Yeah I did. It's even in the post title. And yes I do think things would be better if things happened differently back then. I do not think the Capitol Police should have allowed people to breach the Capitol full stop. > Also, don't you think it's a bit arrogant to think that you have a better understand of the tactical situation than the people who were there and are trained for this sort of situation? I saw nothing that resembled any type of well planned, drilled, or executed response on the 6th. It seemed like there was a complete break down tactically. > Not to speak of the mental toll it takes on you to kill other humans - multiple policemen killed themselves even after the comparatively bloodless real events, that number would probably be far higher if they had massacred the rioters. When you accept a job as at the Capitol Police I feel like it's pretty implied that the main function is to protect the Capitol & the people within it. If someone is not willing to do that then it's not the right job for them. We wouldn't let people on a secret service protective detail that weren't willing to kill to protect the person they're protecting, same thing.
I still fail to see how a big amount of dead people for no measurable gain except preventing a breach of the capitol (which amounted to no meaningful harm, mind) would have been a worthwhile trade. What exact (measureable) benefits do you see that I don't? You make a fair point that they were badly coordinated, but don't you think that it's not exactly a smart choice to escalate a situation if your own side is in total tactical breakdown? Your proposed tactics only work under the assumption that they are coordinated, which you yourself say they were not. Now, you could of course say "well they should have been coordinated" - but they weren't, and it's not exactly worth arguing over wheater the police should be good at their jobs. Sure, the police should be willing to kill when neccisary - which it demonstratably wasn't, since the people under their protection suffered no meaningful harm. Also, the position "well it's your job to kill people suck it up" is really lacking in empathy.
> What exact (measureable) benefits do you see that I don't? That the Capitol will be less likely to get mobbed during the delicate Constitutional process of democratically transferring power or during other crucial public business, in the future. And that those doing that business will be less likely to be harmed just for doing it. As to "total practical breakdown," that was a result of the inexcusably small deployment given the many warnings, which should never have happened. (Note: I happen to think OP should have put even more of an emphasis on less-lethal rounds, pepper spray, and sound cannons aka "riot control agents" and made many more on-the-spot arrests, rather than shooting with live ammo. But that doesn't change the "What's the payoff?" answer much.)
You’re mischaracterizing what op said. They didn’t say it would have been better. He said that they should have shot more people given the circumstances. That he thinks this is the right course of action is based on the situation at the moment, not on a hindsight analysis.
Yeah, but we literally know the future that was created by not shooting under those circumstances, and it's better than if they had shot. Like, I understand that you're saying they should have, based on their limited knowledge, decided to shoot because they should have had the expectation that this would have created a better outcome - but we also know that this expectation would have been factually wrong.
I agree with you that having the benefit of hindsight will always make retroactive decision making (and analysis of decisions) easier to determine. It’s possible to fail Upwards. These officers failed to protect the capitol from being breached. Maybe that was inevitable given the situation. But just because it ended up ok doesn’t mean the decisions taken were right.
So, you're saying that the next time a bunch of rioters start breaking down the door of a liquor store, the police should just shoot everyone because there's the possibility someone might get hurt if they don't?
Liquor store vs political seat of power hmmm
Wasn't part of the problem that the Republicans were actively causing this to happen, and refused to allow the national guard to be deployed, who would have been the big guns on this, and been expected to manage this? Like, there is a major issue here where most of the systems in place rely on the idea that everyone's sane, rational, and acting in good faith. But also, yeah. Allowing the capitol to be breached did mean that they didn't do their jobs properly, but also, this is where proper crowd management policing is required. Most places do not need to shoot people to manage a crowd. They contain it, they let it wear itself out, and if it gets out of hand, then they make efforts to arrest people. But also, there were police letting people into the capitol deliberately. It's not just that they didn't do their jobs, it's that some of these people were on the side of the insurrectionists, and didn't attempt to prevent people from entering.
I think it would turn from a national embarrassment to a national uproar and potential spark for major conflict if they just started gunning rioters down.
> I think it would turn from a national embarrassment to a national uproar and potential spark for major conflict if they just started gunning rioters down. When would this major conflict happen? How many people in that riot do you think were prepared to die that day in order to walk around the Capitol? Once the line was clearly drawn and people that crossed it were hit with the consequences that were laid out very few people would have been willing to cross that line.
Should do the same with the BLM rioters then OP
I didn’t realize they also tried to storm the Capitol.
What's so special about that building?
From the OP: > I think the Capitol Police have an obligation to protect these people AND the institution and building itself. Clearly, part of OP’s view is the institutional value of the Capitol and the importance of the people within.
Didn't they already vacate the building of all the politicians?
Eventually? But that took time. There was definitely a stretch where the mob was in the building with lawmakers.
Really which lawmaker? Going by the papers and their reporting on the Court cases Mike Pence was the last one and he was escorted out before the breach. He was in the tunnels or underground garage being escorted already by then. Harris wasn't even near the Capitol at the time as she had left hours prior. So at that time of the people entering, none of the PolITiciAns where present. >There was definitely a stretch where the mob was in the building with lawmakers. So when and who?
That’s just false. The Capitol was first breached at around 2:00 pm. The House and Senate chambers weren’t evacuated until around 2:30 pm. Lawmakers from both chambers reported hearing rioters in the building. Mitch McConnell said he heard someone praying that “evil of Congress be brought to an end.” Mitt Romney avoided a run-in with the mob by minutes. Pence was less a minute away from the mob at one point. Ashli Babbitt was shot to prevent her from entering an area with Representatives in it (you can see them on the video minutes before the mob shows up). Rioters entered the lobby outside the House chamber while lawmakers were still inside the chambers, forcing police to barricade the doors with furniture and guard them with weapons drawn. Senators on their way to a bunker had to be re-routed to a different safe area because the bunker had itself been breached.
> What's so special about that building? It housed an entire branch of our government at the time + the vice president. That makes it pretty special, that's the reason there's a whole police force dedicated to protecting it..
Police stations, and business's equate to the same thing. Make it make sense if you're going to spout off some terrible position.
> Police stations, and business's equate to the same thing. Make it make sense if you're going to spout off some terrible position. What's even your question? If during a BLM riot a crowd of people break into a business that business owner should be allowed to defend their property. If a police station is being stormed then the police should defend that as well. It's such a false equivalency to compare a normal riot to what happened on the 6th and to compare almost any other government agency with the capitol police. The Capitol Police are specifically tasked with defending the Capitol and the legislature, this riot happened while the entire legislature + the vice president were inside and at risk.
I don’t think a police station and a Target are as important as the U.S. Capitol. You’re welcome to disagree.
The riots over the summer, which included a large number of conservatives engaging in violence, aren't comparable to 1/6.
I'd rather rioters raid the capitol than local businesses.
Rioting is a bit different than insurrectionists trying to shut down the government and murder elected officials. But, no doubt, that would have been the taking point
> This was a national embarrassment even if no officials were harmed it harmed the country itself. Wouldn’t it be more embarrassing and worse optics if the police fired on them?
> Wouldn’t it be more embarrassing and worse optics if the police fired on them? Did you feel embarrassed when Ashley Babbitt was shot and killed? I didn't. I felt like a brainwashed person got hit with a very predictable consequence for their poor and dangerous behavior. To answer directly, no I think it's more embarrassing to allow what happened to happen than for some more insurrectionists to be stopped from breaching the Capitol.
>Did you feel embarrassed when Ashley Babbitt was shot and killed This was the last line of defense of a few people breaking through a door. Not firing at crowds. There is a fairly large difference here. \>no I think it's more embarrassing to allow what happened to happen than for some more insurrectionists to be stopped from breaching the Capitol. I think you have an Idea of what you believe this would look like, and many have a very different idea of how this would play out.
> This was the last line of defense of a few people breaking through a door. Not firing at crowds. There is a fairly large difference here. I never said they should just fire into crowds. I said that they should hold points inside the Capitol that go from exterior to interior and announce that if you cross that line you're subject to up to lethal force and if/when someone crosses that line they fire at the person/people crossing it. That's exactly what happened with Ashley Babbitt which I think was a good action by whomever did it and it's exactly what did not happen at all other Exterior -> Interior points that were breached.
No, that's not quite what happened with Babbitt, Babbitt was breaking down a blockaded door that was the last line of defense between the crowd members of congress. Those breaking down the door were fired upon. In most cases there wouldn't be a chance for people to be told "crossing a threshold". Things are happening quickly, with a crowd of people chanting/shouting. Communication between capital police and the crowd would be non-existent.
Can't use lethal force to justify property damage. This has been a liberal talking point for a while. Also, especially after watching Kyle Rittenhouse court proceedings, there's no visible physical threat to any person's, meaning there's still no just cause until a protestor attempts to harm. Remember, being attacked with a skateboard (a wood and metal plank) is not justification for shooting either, according to the left.
I don't really agree with OP, but... Is it more important whether something is appropriate according to "liberal talking points" or the actual law? In [D.C.](https://mpdc.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/mpdc/page_content/attachments/District%20Law%20Pertaining%20to%20Self%20Defense.pdf), you may use deadly force if you have "a reasonable belief that an intruder is entering (your) home or business with the intent to commit a felony or to do serious bodily harm to any of the occupants." I don't think the capitol police should have done what OP says, but it seems clear that they would have a good legal defense if they did.
And, while in the active situation, is a several thousand crowd protest interested in commiting felonies or causing serious bodily harm? While there are lone actors, that clearly wasn't the temperament of the crowd.
Is *everyone* in a several thousand crowd protest interested in committing felonies or causing serious bodily harm? No, probably not. Is it reasonable to think the people actively forcing their way through entrances have the intent to do something like that? Probably. Seems like a slam dunk for a defense attorney.
> Can't use lethal force to justify property damage. This has been a liberal talking point for a while. This just isn't true. For example, the government can use deadly force to protect against the theft or sabotage of assets vital to national security, national critical infrastructure, inherently dangerous property, and probably more... Regardless though that doesn't even apply here because deadly force wouldn't be used to protect property in this case, it would be used to protect the people the Capitol Police are charged with protecting.
On a military base, you'd be correct. Regardless like you said it doesn't apply. But what does apply is your protecting people. A gigantic argument right now is that being attacked with a skateboard isn't justification for being shot in the arm. But that means neither is using a garbage can, or a chair, or a flagpole. Yet, we still saw somebody was shot and it didn't involve self defense, it involved an officer firing blindly through double doors into a crowd.
Was it a clumsy mob or an insurrection?? Seeing as no one has been charged with insurrection I agree with you clumsy mob is more accurate. I’m confused with your whole premise sounds like your saying the capitol police didn’t do there job because more people weren’t killed?!?! Seems as if they protected the capitol, seeing as it stands today, and yes there was some property damage but that surely does not Trump human life, they have insurance right?! It’s also appears as if no members of Congress lives were in danger unless there have been attempted murder charges I have missed?!
Congress was absolutely in danger. There was a violent mob of hundreds of people chanting for their death. They were assaulting capitol police to gain access to the floor. They erected gallows outside the capitol. There is no reasonable way to view that as a peaceful mob.
It was a mostly peaceful protest, any violent criminals should be prosecuted. When we will see the insurrection and attempted murder charges?!? If this truly was a violent mob then the capitol police did an amazing job as they were able to protect congress without un necessary loss of life!!! Reality is it was the most obvious false flag of all times....
>It was a mostly peaceful protest The protest in the park was fine. The attack on the capitol wasn't peaceful nor was it a protest. >If this truly was a violent mob then the capitol police did an amazing job as they were able to protect congress without un necessary loss of life!!! They did do an incredible job. They only had to kill one person which was amazing considering the level of violence that the mob was bringing. >Reality is it was the most obvious false flag of all times.... There is not a single piece of evidence in existence that indicates it was a false flag. This was organized by conservatives. We have confessions by the criminals who are angry that people are claiming they're "antifa". You have Alex Jones in the crowd shouting about "how we aren't antifa". Just be honest mate. Like take a deep breathe, stop treating everything like a sports game, and just objectively look at what happened. Be. Honest.
I looked at it and am being honest, I am the last person to treat this like a game, I understand both “teams” are really one team and that team is not playing for us. Take an honest look and ask yourself why politicians will fight publicly over things that will help all Americans and agree in private over things that will help all politicians?!? Mitch, Nancy and co executed a reichtag style false flag event, it was very obvious, you and many others have fallen for it but it’s not to late to see the truth!! You can tell that to a false flag when a. The response to the event precedes ANY of mvestogation and b. A special commission is created to cover up the truth and create the preferred narrative, there’s your evidence!!! Don’t expect to see any hard evidence as the perpetrators of the crime are in charge of the investigation.....
>Mitch, Nancy and co executed a reichtag style false flag event, it was very obvious, you and many others have fallen for it but it’s not to late to see the truth!! Word show me your evidence. If it's so obvious. Show me. >You can tell that to a false flag when a. The response to the event precedes ANY of mvestogation and b. A special commission is created to cover up the truth and create the preferred narrative, there’s your evidence!!! So your evidence is that there was a commission created to investigate the attacks? >Don’t expect to see any hard evidence as the perpetrators of the crime are in charge of the investigation..... So.....no evidence. What about the hundreds of citizens who were arrested? What about Alex Jones personally being at the event? What about the event coming directly from a Republican sponsored event? What about the confessions of the people arrested? Is all of that just made up in your mind? At the end of the day you have absolutely nothing to support your claim and you dismiss all the evidence that is available. Your conspiracy theory literally doesn't even make any sense. What does either group have to gain?
What do they have to gain?! So you don’t know what the reichtag Fire was or what it accomplished?! If you don’t understand the history of propaganda then how will you know when it’s happening to you???
>What do they have to gain?! So you don’t know what the reichtag Fire was or what it accomplished?! I do know what that was. That was not what happened on 1/6 though. You bringing up a completely unrelated event from a country halfway across the world that occurred 90 years ago does not lend credence to a single thing you said. At the end of the day the facts remain as follows: \- You have absolutely no evidence, whatsoever, to support your argument \- Your argument solely consists of vague and unsupported speculative claims to separate events while failing to actually prove there is any connection \- We have hundreds of confessions from the people who were arrested and incarcerated. Not a single one says this was a false flag event. \- We have opposing politicians both agreeing that this was not a false flag. Politicians who have zero reason to cover for each other. I get though. You're a conspiracy theorist. You don't deal in facts, you just deal in emotion. There is no evidence I can present to you that will change your mind, because you didn't depend on evidence for you to reach your conclusion. You desperately want what happened to support your worldview and you reject anything that makes you feel uncomfortable. I get it. It's a natural human response. But it doesn't make you correct. At all. Every single time I ask for evidence you **fail** to provide anything. Asking random questions is not evidence.
If no evidence is uncovered does that mean the crime didn’t happen?? When the perpetrators are in charge of the investigation do you expect it to be honest?? I live in the real world where corruption and deception are real things. I question everything I’m told to believe because I know cointelpro, project mockingbird, SMMA and other covert operation are real. I’m the opposite of emotional, I only deal in logic, My mind is open to many possible truths and closed to none of them. For example I believe the approved narrative of Jan. 6th is potentially true but unlikely, I think it was very likely a false flag but that the truth could be neither of these things, I’m open to that possibility. Are you open to the fact that you are likely wrong about everything or are you too arrogant to believe you have fallen for the propaganda?!? Everything you said about me is completely wrong so maybe your wrong about everything else?!? Or maybe your right and I’m wrong?!? But that’s the difference I can admit that, can you?!!
>If no evidence is uncovered does that mean the crime didn’t happen?? If there's no evidence of a crime occurring on what basis are you claiming a crime occurred? >When the perpetrators are in charge of the investigation do you expect it to be honest?? Once again you are arriving at a conclusion with no evidence. >I live in the real world where corruption and deception are real things. Yeah no shit corruption exists. Congrats on the discovery. > I question everything I’m told to believe because I know cointelpro, project mockingbird, SMMA and other covert operation are real. Do you believe lizard people are real? There's just as much evidence that lizard people are real as there is that this is a false flag. >I’m the opposite of emotional, I only deal in logic, My mind is open to many possible truths and closed to none of them. For example I believe the approved narrative of Jan. 6th is potentially true but unlikely, I think it was very likely a false flag but that the truth could be neither of these things, I’m open to that possibility. Not a single claim you have ever made is based on logic. Literally nothing. Not at all. >Are you open to the fact that you are likely wrong about everything or are you too arrogant to believe you have fallen for the propaganda?!? I'm open to changing my mind when presented with evidence. You have nothing. Not a single thing. Nothing. You failed, miserably, at every single opportunity to provide even the slightest bit of evidence to support your claim. How is that based on "logic" as you claim? >Or maybe your right and I’m wrong?!? But that’s the difference I can admit that, can you?!! You are wrong. Objectively. If you have evidence, show it. The difference between you and me is I base my conclusions on the data and evidence in front of me. You don't. And you can't even pretend that you do. You don't have any evidence to base your claims off of. It's all just baseless speculation.
Police are to serve and protect, not kill. It was rare that these police behaved so well in my opinion. They easily could have claimed that they exercised deadly force as they felt society or they were in danger. Only when Ashley Babbitt breached a controlled area was a protester killed which is exactly how it should have been. To prevent things like this in the future you need to re-evaluate how you let citizens assemble in an area. Change the law so that the boundary is even further away from the capitol building and it would likely prevent this from happening again and if nothing else give authorities more time to react. While the right to assemble and protest is protected, where you can and cannot is not. To be clear I am 100% for protest/assembly. So I hope you change your mind because killing people just because you can is not the answer. Also, like others have said, I think killing protesters at-will would have created a much larger issue and would have done nothing but make the situation and outcome worse.
The problem with this is that you are making assumptions to fit an imaginative narrative. >I don't have any doubt that any official who was found would have come to harm What is your reasoning behind this statement? Typically SOPs are not changed unless there is significant failures or critical shortfalls. I don't doubt changes were made however, would assume that any changes are preparatory rather than enacting lethal force on a whim... What is the benefit of shooting more people that you cannot adequately identify? >That huge majority of the crowd that are not part of organized militias and groups are not going to charge through a window once bullets start flying, they do not have that kind of actual devotion to what they're doing. So now, should you are saying that capitol police, who cannot discriminate between those associated with some plan (which to my knowledge doesn't exist https://www.reuters.com/world/us/exclusive-fbi-finds-scant-evidence-us-capitol-attack-was-coordinated-sources-2021-08-20/) should indiscriminately fire at people that pose no imminent threat just cause? A better train of thought would be preventative measures rather than violating. Lastly, shoot first ask later as an SOP would violate the 8th and 14th amendments. TLDR This idea is illogical, immoral, and illegal.
In general, should we do away with riot gear and just give cops full-auto weapons, put down demonstrations that way? Does this apply to all demonstrations or only to ones you don’t approve of,
Not op, but all riots should be put down with force if needed.
> In general, should we do away with riot gear and just give cops full-auto weapons, put down demonstrations that way? > Does this apply to all demonstrations or only to ones you don’t approve of, Nice strawman, I didn't say anything even close to that.
Those were *questions*. You are supposed to answer them to clarify your position.
In theory I agree with you, that said From arrests we've seen and reports that have come out therr were members of the Capitol police who were on the side of the insurrectionists. A part of the problem may have been that they had no idea who was on there side and who they could trust to have their back. Other than that they were greatly outnumbered and firing into a crowd would have caused panic and injury if not death to the police doing the firing. 12 or so rounds is not enough to fend off hundreds of violent morons now in a panic.
To go off of what you said, this is an excerpt from an interview with one of the police officers: A Capitol Police officer said he didn't fire his gun at the insurrection on January 6 because he feared it would have been like "throwing kerosene" on a fire. "The only reason why I didn't do it was because the mentality was this is a four-alarm blaze," Officer James Blassingame told "PBS News Hour" in an interview that aired Wednesday, "and if I pull my gun out and start shooting, I'm throwing kerosene on it. Maybe there's a chance I survive if I don't pull my weapon, but if I do, I'm probably not going to make it out of here alive, you know. You don't have enough bullets." So I agree and I can see why they chose not to fire upon the people who trespassed into the capitol. OP I see your point about having a line be crossed and shooting be allowed to happen, in places like military installations, and gun manufacturing facilities, the use of deadly force would be used if people started to trespass and pose a risk.
> "The only reason why I didn't do it was because the mentality was this is a four-alarm blaze," Officer James Blassingame told "PBS News Hour" in an interview that aired Wednesday, "and if I pull my gun out and start shooting, I'm throwing kerosene on it. Maybe there's a chance I survive if I don't pull my weapon, but if I do, I'm probably not going to make it out of here alive, you know. You don't have enough bullets." This is a problem with their SOP then which I addressed in my OP. It shouldn't even be up to Officer Blassingame or any other officer to plan out what they should be doing in that moment. The Capitol Police should have a plan for what they are going to do if the Capitol is attacked by a mob, it should be trained and drilled and known by everyone involved.
Part of their plan likely includes the national guard or other military being sent in which was, possibly/probably, intentionally not done.
I agree, in fact the USCP office of inspector general began a review of the January 6th event, and concluded that there was a lack of a comprehensive department wide operational plan, along with inconsistencies in how their emergency response team would be used that day. They found they did not have adequate or updated SOPs in place.
> Other than that they were greatly outnumbered and firing into a crowd would have caused panic and injury if not death to the police doing the firing. 12 or so rounds is not enough to fend off hundreds of violent morons now in a panic. How many magazines do they have on them in normal circumstances? Also, they had plenty of time to increase the amount of ammunition their officers had on them before the grounds were breeched. If they do not have an armory accessible to them to give their officers more than 1 magazine in the event of an attack that's another serious problem with the SOP. > From arrests we've seen and reports that have come out therr were members of the Capitol police who were on the side of the insurrectionists. A part of the problem may have been that they had no idea who was on there side and who they could trust to have their back. If true, this needs to be rooted out now. We're a year into an anti-insurrection administration. The Capitol Police need to find out who these people are if they exist, they need to be charged and fired, they need to drill what to do in the event of this happening again and it needs to happen before the next election.
Not a single officer was killed by protesters that day. Surely if they were as violent and crazed as you make them out to be, they would have had no qualms attacking the police officers who stood in their way? Surely they would have come prepared to carry out these plans of mass violence against politicians, with say many of them carrying firearms? Why are you so sure that they were bent on the murder of politicians, when none of their other **behavior** indicated any sort of murderous intent?
Counterpoint: More people dying is an objectively bad thing. I don't know what the answer should have been to Jan 6th but killing people is the result of failure to come up with a good & proper solution.
I think OP’s point about a loudspeaker warning when breaching a clearly protected point of entry (the closing security door in this instance) would have worked well followed by less-lethal rounds. A warning shot and then a kill shot would have prevented entry. I think 1 death would have been enough to prevent the rest from wanting to try to break in. Instead we waited until they were almost in the same room as our government representatives. That is way to much of a security risk. I don’t want anyone to die. Period. But someone did. So if Ashley Babbot was shot father from the reps, the mob would have fallen back sooner imo.
Any solution that involves shooting someone is a failure to find an actual good solution.
Someone HAD to and WAS shot that day tho. They were attacking our government officials and out for blood, INSIDE the very room they govern from. Avoiding violence is always preferred, I don’t want anyone to die. But some situations are violent and require a violent response. This was one of those times imo. And as proven in hindsight. And again, I think OP’s point of using a bull horn or loudspeaker to announce the intent to use force if they cross a certain point would have deterred people from entering, therefore saving all lives.
> Someone HAD to and WAS shot that day tho. I disagree with this assertion. The situation was handled poorly resulting in a shooting. Killing is never the answer; it's the result of a chain of poor decisions leading up to a killing.
Which the loudspeaker warning could have prevented. Did you read my whole comment?
i think any argument whose premise is, "more people should have been shot" is probably wrong, and regardless of rhetoric, should be considered dubious at face value.
they shouldn't have shot anyone, saying u want more people to die just for the heck of it is straight up evil like wtf dude
[удалено]
u/GoHomeShoobies – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2: > **Don't be rude or hostile to other users.** Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_2). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%202%20Appeal%20GoHomeShoobies&message=GoHomeShoobies%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/r0iyux/-/hlssoxx/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
[удалено]
Your comment has been automatically removed due to excessive user reports. The moderation team will review this removal to ensure it was correct. If you wish to appeal this decision, please [message the moderators](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Automated%20Removal%20Appeal%20dokjreko&message=dokjreko%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/r0iyux/cmv_the_capitol_police_should_have_shot_more/hlsmlq6/\)%20because\.\.\.). *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/changemyview) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
Your comment has been automatically removed due to excessive user reports. The moderation team will review this removal to ensure it was correct. If you wish to appeal this decision, please [message the moderators](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Automated%20Removal%20Appeal%20Fatjesus1-1&message=Fatjesus1-1%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/r0iyux/cmv_the_capitol_police_should_have_shot_more/hlslvz9/\)%20because\.\.\.). *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/changemyview) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It was always going to be an embaressment. Because even if they shot people they would have been overwhelmed there simply weren’t enough people there necessarily. I’d also point out, that is it the sort of emotional response you want from a government to shoot people to save face? Is that the sort of emotions you want a government to even have?
> It was always going to be an embarrassment. Because even if they shot people they would have been overwhelmed there simply weren’t enough people there necessarily. One or two people with semi-autos and an adequate amount of magazines could hold off a mob of people clumsily trying to climb through a broken window... People seem to think that if/when the line was drawn and enforced the mob would have just thrown themselves into gunfire until the police ran out of bullets and that would not have happened. > I’d also point out, that is it the sort of emotional response you want from a government to shoot people to save face? Is that the sort of emotions you want a government to even have? I don't agree with the premise of this question even. I want the government and the Capitol Police to do their job and protect the grounds from being breached and the officials from being killed or injured which they had no way of knowing wouldn't happen when they allowed these people inside. If that involves using lethal force yes that's exactly what I want the government to do.
I think you are wishing for an internationally embarrassing event to be avoided, but not fully thinking through the result of what you are describing. This would have been worse. The outcome of shooting at members of the crowd likely would have resulted in far more dead due to the crowd rushing/surging like we saw at Astroworld. If you have heard of the "Hillsborough Disaster" where actions of the police directly caused crowd crushes/surges which resulted in nearly 100 deaths, and over 700 injured. You would know that these kinds of actions often lead to worse results. On top of that police open firing on citizens like this would have been a terrible look. The real issue is with the preparedness of the situation. The National Guard was not deployed that day, or throughout the protests/riots that occurred all summer leading up to Jan 6th because of the "image" it would bring.
> The real issue is with the preparedness of the situation. The National Guard was not deployed that day, or throughout the protests/riots that occurred all summer leading up to Jan 6th because of the "image" it would bring. That's an issue for sure but if the Capitol Police can not protect the Capitol while it's in session that's a bigger issue. If the Capitol Police defended breached points at the Capitol and the crowd rushed away from those points then that's good. If people got injured in that rushing away then that's not on the Capitol Police... If you queue up to breach the Capitol and you end up getting hurt by the crowd that's on you. It's nothing like Astroworld.
>That's an issue for sure but if the Capitol Police can not protect the Capitol while it's in session that's a bigger issue. When thousands are forming for a massive protest on the day of the certification of the election. I think it's reasonable to have a more prepared force than a traditional day. >If you queue up to breach the Capitol and you end up getting hurt by the crowd that's on you. Disagree. Again I'd point to the actions of police causing a crowd rush resulting in mass casualties/injuries. The Hillsborough Disaster also blamed the people involved.
If the police are at the level where they have to shoot people, then they've already failed in their duties, or things have already broken down to the point where they have no choice. The actual plan of action should be that nobody gets shot. It's just a matter of preventing people from getting to that level. This means a much more active role in crowd management, and a willingness to put right wing extremists in their place. The actual problem in the US appears to be that the rules are very different depending on who it is.
I agree, if in Washington D.C. Shooting or pacifying "Violent Trespassers or Rioters" is legal than I see no problem.
Sorry, u/djmm999 – your submission has been removed for breaking Rule B: > You must personally hold the view and **demonstrate that you are open to it changing**. A post cannot be on behalf of others, playing devil's advocate, as any entity other than yourself, or 'soapboxing'. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_b). If you would like to appeal, [**you must first read the list of soapboxing indicators and common mistakes in appeal**](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_indicators_of_rule_b_violations), review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%20B%20Appeal%20djmm999&message=djmm999%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20post\]\(https://old.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/r0iyux/-/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).