Starker on 8/1/2021 at 19:29
It's Daily Mail, though.
Gryzemuis on 8/1/2021 at 19:32
Oh, I didn't notice. I just googled "Kevin Greeson taser Capitol" to confirm there are multiple sources. There were. I linked the top one. But there are more. I wouldn't be surprised if this really happened. The Daily Mail just mentions their names. The 2nd link (revolt.tv, no idea who they are) is the one mentioning the guy tasering himself.
The death of the woman is a little sad. Her first "Trump event". No matter how wrong, or how dumb, nobody should die because of these stupidities.
Edit:
Inline Image:
https://d.newsweek.com/en/full/1700119/richard-barnett-capitol.jpgArrested today. At home in Arkansas.
I wonder if he was surprised when they came and picked him up?
Good entertainment for the man who has already seen everything on TV.
rachel on 8/1/2021 at 19:44
I'm as sad for her as I'm sad for any Darwin Award.
And nbohr1more, enough with this "auditing the election" nonsense, really. Get a grip, man.
nbohr1more on 8/1/2021 at 19:52
Quote Posted by raph
I'm as sad for her as I'm sad for any Darwin Award.
And nbohr1more, enough with this "auditing the election" nonsense, really. Get a grip, man.
"Get a grip"? You might as well say "why don't you just be cool, all the cool kids don't ask these nerd questions".
If you want to unravel the poison of Trumpism, then REALLY show WITH EVIDENCE in a BIG PUBLIC VENUE what is untrue using Scientific data.
Letting tribal "twitter culture lingo" such as "it's been debunked" and "they already did X" define the conversation will not mend this issue.
SubJeff on 8/1/2021 at 20:00
What needs to be shown as untrue now?
Starker on 8/1/2021 at 20:10
Earlier this summer there was this scene I can't forget where an elderly white man was walking on an empty sidewalk with a cane and a policeman in full riot gear pushed him onto the street with full force so that he flew a ways before landing on the street. For the crime of not being able to walk quickly enough. They immediately helped him get up, because they probably realised how bad it looked, but I saw many more scenes like that. A homeless vet in wheelchair getting his eye shot out. A kid that looked no older than 13 getting shot in the head with less lethal ammunition and losing consciousness. A woman getting trampled under a police horse. Journalists beaten up and shot at. Many, many scenes like that. A lot of bad apples doing bad things with the tacit approval and support of the ostensibly good apples who maybe wouldn't do such things themselves, but absolutely are willing to stand by and let it happen without so much as a comment, if not outright assist the bad apples and actively protect them later.
The point is that if I saw a bunch of US police standing with drawn guns, I would not feel like I could walk towards them without seriously putting my life on the line. That woman who tried to barge through the window who got shot did just that. Did she just think nothing would happen? Does she not watch TV or something? Did she hope others would follow her sacrifice and charge the police? We will never know.
That Miserable Thief on 8/1/2021 at 20:14
Quote Posted by nbohr1more
"Get a grip"? You might as well say "why don't you just be cool, all the cool kids don't ask these nerd questions".
If you want to unravel the poison of Trumpism, then REALLY show WITH EVIDENCE in a BIG PUBLIC VENUE what is untrue using Scientific data.
Letting tribal "twitter culture lingo" such as "it's been debunked" and "they already did X" define the conversation will not mend this issue.
So, you are saying that in this case, guilty until proven innocent is the correct logic to follow? Absurd.
The onus is on the accuser to provide evidence to prove their accusation is true, not on the accused to prove it false. This is a pretty basic universal concept that most relatively intelligent people understand. For the millions of people clinging to the belief that the election was stolen, there is absolutely no way to convince them otherwise - because they will only believe what reinforces their bias. No amount of "investigation" or "data" will ever be enough, because their belief is founded in lies. To them, every source that provides information that contradicts their conspiracy theories is part of the coverup.
nbohr1more on 8/1/2021 at 20:24
Quote Posted by That Miserable Thief
So, you are saying that in this case, guilty until proven innocent is the correct logic to follow? Absurd.
The onus is on the accuser to provide evidence to prove their accusation is true, not on the accused to prove it false. This is a pretty basic universal concept that most relatively intelligent people understand. For the millions of people clinging to the belief that the election was stolen, there is absolutely no way to convince them otherwise - because they will only believe what reinforces their bias. No amount of "investigation" or "data" will ever be enough, because their belief is founded in lies. To them, every source that provides information that contradicts their conspiracy theories is part of the coverup.
This is a bad faith argument.
The Trump team claims their evidence is true and is asking for a "good faith" effort to examine it.
You do not even need the accused to be present.
Get computer scientists, IT workers, NSA personnel, and mathematicians into the room with the evidence and validate it the truth\falsehood of it digitally.
Gryzemuis on 8/1/2021 at 20:28
I've read that the Capitol Hill Police has an annual budget of half a billion USD. That's the 10th largest budget of any police department in the US.
They were supposed to defend the leadership of the US. They acted like a bunch of mall-cops. But to be honest, I rather see the police act gentle with the crowd than fare war against them. I just wish they would also have acted that way in previous demonstrations (as Starker pointed out the difference). But once the mob started rattling at the doors of the building, the police should have stepped in, with violence as necessary.
