just turning this idea over in my mind. Obviously the images of selfies being taken with cops and things of that nature paint quite a different picture to what we were seeing during the Northern hemisphere summer, but let’s not forget they did also kill one of them, and they did bust out the tear gas and stuff.
Was this just another strategic retreat type of tactic, where the cops figure “let them come in and bust up the furniture, they’ll tucker themselves out”? Has the difference in police response been exaggerated? I think it’s obvious on its face that a significant portion, if not a majority, of cops share sympathies with the protestors cause, but that doesn’t necessarily equate to mass dereliction of “duty”.
I’m not particularly trying to advance this argument, more just trying to get a discussion going and see what everyone thinks.
I'd say the difference is that preventing what happened on Capitol Hill is literally the whole reason the Capitol Hill police exist. They have 2000 cops meant to police a very small area, and their entire job is controlling public demonstrations in the area. MPD might have been simply overwhelmed, but not the Capitol Hill police.
The Metro Police certainly have the manpower and the training to deal with this kind of shit as well. I've been to many protests in D.C. I've seen how they work first hand compared to police departments in other cities. Out of all the piggies i've lined up against, they are probably the most well-trained and disciplined. Their failure to take decisive action on the 6th can only be explained by insubordination or mismanagement.
Edit: This is a bit confusing. MPD could stand for Minneapolis Police Department, but also the Metro Police Department, which make up the bulk of the crowd control forces in D.C. aside from the Capitol Police/Marshalls/Secret Service which have limited jurisdictions and are tasked with defending specific buildings and VIPs. I guess you meant the Minneapolis Police, in which case I agree for the most part.