Why did the Capital Police let the protesters inside the gates?

[Deepak]

I keep hearing over and over again from Democrat friends that if Trump had just conceded gracefully, the riot never would have happened.

Perhaps but we do not know that for sure. While we are at it we could also say if the protesters had never been born there would not have been a riot either. What is FAR more useful IMO is to say that the riot could never have happened if the capital police had not LET them get in. Many videos on the internet show the police clearly allowing them into the capital. This one from Black Voters Matter show them opening the gate for them. Opening the gate to one of the most secure buildings in the United States. See: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IYck2BhEdKY&bpctr=1610483501 (Yes you can still watch this video)

I do agree with the video there was a deliberate effort by the police to let the protesters inside the building. But my disagreement with what they showed is that I do not believe it was as due to racism as other higher probabilities seem much more likely in my mind.

Let us apply Occam's razor and ask ourselves. Did they let them in because of racism....or did they let them in because the Trump supporters were not smart enough not to take the bait? Because once inside, the Democrats had their “insurrection” and “storming of the Capitol.”

Looks more like a "set up" to me than just everyday racism. But whatever their actual motive....something very weird took place and not a lot of good explanations anywhere I have found so far to explain any of it.

Your argument seems to be that the American right is so uncontrollable that merely being in the presence of the Capitol without a security cordon is going to cause them to invade. They're incapable of controlling their actions and the only responsibility lies with external forces not providing enough constraint for their unthinking inevitable violence.

What a joke

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Why do you make me hit you Baby, you know I love you.

 

[ronburgundy]

I keep hearing over and over again from Democrat friends that if Trump had just conceded gracefully, the riot never would have happened.

Perhaps but we do not know that for sure.

We know it well beyond any reasonable doubt. Almost none of rioters would have even been in the Capitol area had Trump not organized the rally to begin with. The entire subject of the rally was that the election was stolen, which is a narrative Trump created and began creating years ago. Had he already conceded and never lied about fraud and rejected other's claims of fraud, then there would have been nothing for those terrorist to be fighting for b/c Trump would not stay in office no matter what they did. The went to the Capitol b/c he explicitly told them to go there and stop Congress from completing the process of affirming the vote. There was no possible way they could have stopped it other than criminal violence and threats.

So, not only would it not have happened if Trump had not lied, but Trump directly caused it to happen in the same way that someone who yells fire in a theater causes the resulting panic and is criminally responsible for any harm. Like those who naturally react with fear to fire in a theater, his cult reacted in a highly predictable to the inaccurate information Trump gave them that criminals had seized the government and were at that moment completing the process of destroying the constitutional democracy that their lives and well being depend upon. Had what Trump was claiming been true, those action by the rioters would have been justified and even heroic, similar to those who violently revolted against the crown to create the current government. Thus, the person who told and promoted the lies that triggered such a reaction bears criminal responsibility for the harm. Given that the terrorists themselves failed to make a reasonable effort to verify the information (which they had weeks to do and much information available to them), they still are liable for their criminal actions, but their is no doubt that Trump deliberately created the situation that made this outcome likely.

What is FAR more useful IMO is to say that the riot could never have happened if the capital police had not LET them get in.

They were a massive raging mob trying to push over the flimsy barriers, and they outnumbered the police about 500 to 1. They violently assaulted dozens of cops and murdered one of them. Those cops had more objective basis to fear for their lives than most cops who have ever shot a black person. The fear explains why they didn't put up more resistance in a futile effort to maintaining those barriers. Granted, these people posed a real and violent threat to the members of congress these cops are sworn to protect. So, if they could have done more to uphold their oath, why didn't they?
The most plausible answers are cowardice and ideological affiliation with the rioters

Let us apply Occam's razor and ask ourselves. Did they let them in because of racism....or did they let them in because the Trump supporters were not smart enough not to take the bait? Because once inside, the Democrats had their “insurrection” and “storming of the Capitol.

”

Occam's razor? Okay, we already knew with massive evidence before these events that 1) Most police are Trump supporters, 2) The overwhelming majority of Trump supporters are white supremacist. Thus, we already knew that most police are white supremacists.

So, we already knew 2 things about the cops, either one of which on it's own would predict and explain why the cops did not put up more resistance to these white Trump supporting terrorists. Occam's razor says the most probable answer is one of these and not some explanation that requires new assumptions for which there is zero supporting evidence and that are a priori highly improbable. (that these particular police were for no known reason atypical of police in general, the the Dems told them to let these people in, and that these police violated their oaths to conspire with the Dems.

BTW, had the cops been successful in stopping these terrorists from breaching the building itself, it still would have been an attempted criminal insurrection for with Trump is criminally responsible. In addition, the dozens of members of Congress (and other state politicians) who participated in spreading Trump's lie are also criminally responsible, including those who them pretended to be outraged at the reaction that their lies predictably caused.

 

[ronburgundy]

Adding this to my above arguments:

The fact that Trump and other Republicans who have lied about fraud and a "stolen" election claim to be now outraged about the Capitol riots only proves that they know their claims that incited these actions are baseless lies. If what they say is true, then the government had already been criminally seized, making the rule of law and the constitution null and void, and making violent revolt the sole possible means of taking control back from those criminals and re instituting democracy. Thus, anyone who sincerely believed those claims would not be outraged at the Capitol riots, and anyone who is outraged does not believe the claims, and anyone who made those claims and claims to be outraged is a liar who deliberately misled people to incite a violent response.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Your argument seems to be that the American right is so uncontrollable that merely being in the presence of the Capitol without a security cordon is going to cause them to invade. They're incapable of controlling their actions and the only responsibility lies with external forces not providing enough constraint for their unthinking inevitable violence.

What a joke

Well, yeah. Congress was dressed sexy that day. So Congress has at least half the fault.

 

[laughing dog]

I keep hearing over and over again from Democrat friends that if Trump had just conceded gracefully, the riot never would have happened.

Perhaps but we do not know that for sure.

We don't much for sure, so I don't understand your point. If Trump had conceded gracefully the day after the election, not only would have hell frozen over, but there is a very good chance that he would have avoided a 2nd impeachment regardless whether the invasion of the Capitol occurred or not.

 

[TomC]

I keep hearing over and over again from Democrat friends that if Trump had just conceded gracefully, the riot never would have happened.

Perhaps but we do not know that for sure.

We don't much for sure, so I don't understand your point. If Trump had conceded gracefully the day after the election, not only would have hell frozen over, but there is a very good chance that he would have avoided a 2nd impeachment regardless whether the invasion of the Capitol occurred or not.

Let's not forget the whataboutism.

Clinton called to congratulate Trump on his win within hours of the results. Obama smoothly transitioned to the new administration.

Then there's Trump's reaction to the election....
Tom

 

[Jarhyn]

I keep hearing over and over again from Democrat friends that if Trump had just conceded gracefully, the riot never would have happened.

Perhaps but we do not know that for sure.

We don't much for sure, so I don't understand your point. If Trump had conceded gracefully the day after the election, not only would have hell frozen over, but there is a very good chance that he would have avoided a 2nd impeachment regardless whether the invasion of the Capitol occurred or not.

Ah yes, the nebulous "lucy's football" technique. It sets an ambiguous goal that can never be satisfied on account of the fact that no matter what it seems to mean at first, an alternate goal may instead be provided that will not be met.

Why ought we need to "know that for sure"? We can reasonably surmise, given our knowledge of probabilities that the actions taken were on the side of "will probably result from". If I take actions that will, given the context I take them in, result in someone dying a horrible death, i have committed an atrocity, full stop. It doesn't matter if they do or don't, I've already taken an evil gamble with someone else's life.

If I get up on a podium, holding the admiration of any substantial segment of the population, and say "RVonse needs to go, fight like hell", I have incited violence against them even if no violence actually happens.

It doesn't matter whether some action taken actually results in some consequence, because the universe is not deterministic in that way. Rather, the universe is probabilistic in this regard, so it is the probabilities that need to be considered.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I keep hearing over and over again from Democrat friends that if Trump had just conceded gracefully, the riot never would have happened.

Perhaps but we do not know that for sure.

We don't much for sure, so I don't understand your point. If Trump had conceded gracefully the day after the election, not only would have hell frozen over, but there is a very good chance that he would have avoided a 2nd impeachment regardless whether the invasion of the Capitol occurred or not.

Let's not forget the whataboutism.

Clinton called to congratulate Trump on his win within hours of the results. Obama smoothly transitioned to the new administration.

Then there's Trump's reaction to the election....
Tom

But if we exist with an infinite multi-verse, one of those verses had Trump concede the day of the election and there are still riots, even after he pleas for calm with tears in his eyes on TV.

 

[Jarhyn]

Let's not forget the whataboutism.

Clinton called to congratulate Trump on his win within hours of the results. Obama smoothly transitioned to the new administration.

Then there's Trump's reaction to the election....
Tom

But if we exist with an infinite multi-verse, one of those verses had Trump concede the day of the election and there are still riots, even after he pleas for calm with tears in his eyes on TV.

And in that verse, he would not be at fault! But this one ain't that one, and at fault he is.

 

[Shadowy Man]

Let's not forget the whataboutism.

Clinton called to congratulate Trump on his win within hours of the results. Obama smoothly transitioned to the new administration.

Then there's Trump's reaction to the election....
Tom

But if we exist with an infinite multi-verse, one of those verses had Trump concede the day of the election and there are still riots, even after he pleas for calm with tears in his eyes on TV.

I’m not sure that everything is possible, even in an infinite multiverse.

 

[Jarhyn]

Let's not forget the whataboutism.

Clinton called to congratulate Trump on his win within hours of the results. Obama smoothly transitioned to the new administration.

Then there's Trump's reaction to the election....
Tom

But if we exist with an infinite multi-verse, one of those verses had Trump concede the day of the election and there are still riots, even after he pleas for calm with tears in his eyes on TV.

I’m not sure that everything is possible, even in an infinite multiverse.

So, I was thinking on this on my way to work today: consider the asymptote.

The asymptote is a function that has has an infinity of values, all unique, over time. Any X you give will give a different value, all across the infinity of time. But there are still points that this function, despite it's infinite variation across infinite points, will never reach. The asymptote will always approach, but never reach, the value of the asymptotic line.

In the same way, there are integrations of function that do the same: where despite infinite variance in the integral set, there is still no version where Y will ever reach some particular value at any point.

So you are correct, insofar as it MAY be the case, depending on the the nature of the universe itself, that some things may never happen even across the integral to the universe.

In fact, the ultimate proof of this is in that any universe describable by math will not, in any instance, allow for an asymptotic function to cross the asymptotic line (as then the universe would contain a base contradiction).

 

[Shadowy Man]

I’m not sure that everything is possible, even in an infinite multiverse.

So, I was thinking on this on my way to work today: consider the asymptote.

The asymptote is a function that has has an infinity of values, all unique, over time. Any X you give will give a different value, all across the infinity of time. But there are still points that this function, despite it's infinite variation across infinite points, will never reach. The asymptote will always approach, but never reach, the value of the asymptotic line.

In the same way, there are integrations of function that do the same: where despite infinite variance in the integral set, there is still no version where Y will ever reach some particular value at any point.

So you are correct, insofar as it MAY be the case, depending on the the nature of the universe itself, that some things may never happen even across the integral to the universe.

In fact, the ultimate proof of this is in that any universe describable by math will not, in any instance, allow for an asymptotic function to cross the asymptotic line (as then the universe would contain a base contradiction).

Also there are laws of physics. If the laws of physics are the same across the multiverse (and I’ll admit that’s an assumption) then there may be things that would violate the laws of physics that will never happen in any universe, even given an infinite variety of starting conditions.

I won’t derail any further with my thoughts on multiverses.

 

[ZiprHead]

This one has got to be one of the dumbest conspiracy theories RVonse has bought into, and he's bought into quite a few of them.