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.
One of the key reasons the MLPD abandoned the 3rd precinct is because they were literally running out of riot munitions to fire at protesters after several days of gassing and maiming them. It got to the point where they needed people to periodically run in carts full of additional riot munitions, and the logistics of doing this became fraught. This is not what happened in D.C.
The battle in Minneapolis was like the Zap Brannigan bit where he sends wave after wave of troops at the killbots until they hit their kill limits and shut down. In D.C, they didn't even bother putting up a defense. There were no killbots.
IMO yes and no. If one only looks at the immediate, tactical, context the Capitol Police made the right decision. They clearly lacked the manpower to defend the Capitol against the mob of chuds and in that circumstance the wisest course of action is to evacuate and secure representatives in safe zones; while letting the chuds lose energy and motivation through rampaging around the rest of the building until reinforcements arrive. FWIW this behavior is textbook riot control and was used repeatedly by the Hong Kong Police throughout the 2019-20 protests.
However, things get far more complex when using a strategic perspective because that raises question of why (in the city with the worlds greatest access to policing resources) was the security assigned to the Capitol that day so bare-bones? There was more than ample warning that the protest would be targeted against the Capitol and large in intensity and numbers. Yet the Capitol Police dramatically undermanned and underequipped their response. Moreover, there was very little urgency in sending over additional support during the hour between the intensification of protests outside the Capitol, and the breaching of the building itself.
And we know the Capitol Police, alongside the vast numbers of nearby law enforcement agencies, are capable of overwhelmingly responding to situations at the Capitol because that's exactly what happened this summer; when heavy barriers and many thousands of heavily equipped personnel stood guard there during the BLM uprising.
Either the Capitol Police are incompetent and greatly underestimated the size and intensity of the riot when they prepared for it; or they deliberately choose to pursue a minimal response to it due to external and/or internal pressure.
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.
IMO MPD abandoning their precinct was on purpose.
https://twitter.com/webster/status/1267575768801918976
So, I do think both incidents are similar, but in a different way than you are implying. They are similar because both events were allowed to happen because they were useful to power. But I'm also very stupid and cynical so probably completely off base.
Yeah there's a few differences, first that comes to mind is that the cops were abandoning their stupid office versus abandoning other people to maybe die. The inside security literally shot someone to keep them away from the leaders of government.
If the MAGATS had been a little more insane, they could have killed the remaining security in there and a lot of congresspeople.
The inside security literally shot someone to keep them away from the leaders of government.
It seems like they didn’t really just abandon the politicians, they abandoned the less easy to defend ground and formed a different line of defence around the highest value targets, and made a choice to let the chuds have their fun to save themselves the paperwork they’d have to do if they mowed down 50 people.
You might be right, and in certain areas they seemed to do that, but it also seems like security got really thin in a few places where it didn't have to. I'm not sure. Someone will have to literally map it out on a diagram of the place lol. I suspect the people outside in riot gear took it a lot less seriously than the guys in suits who know the congresspeople.
For sure. And there’s probably so many conflicting different agencies involved, regular cops and security guards, maybe secret service for the higher ups, private body guards maybe.
