Examine the content and context of what he's saying critically.

If your job is to protect the interests of the state, then preventing a mob from overthrowing the state is exactly what you’re expected to do. A socialist government would also need an armed force to prevent its overthrow. It’s okay to acknowledge this and to discern this from the use of wanton force against communities of color for the interests of capital and white supremacy. These two scenarios aren’t remotely similar and its stupid to pretend that they are.

If you are going to say fuck every cop that did their job during a literal attempt at overthrowing the government, then it stands to reason that you think that an angry mob of fascists attempting to install a white-ethno-state should go completely unopposed. And if you think that, then I have to question what motivates you to be a part of the left.

Deliberately or not, it's an attempt at laundering the reputation of an organization that is the chief enforcer of oppression and the well-spring of institutionalized white nationalism in the United States. It's revisionism depicting the police as the final obstacle to an fascist take-over, while neglecting to mention that they are quite literally responsible for ushering the reactionaries into the building and, in off-duty capacity, composing a very significant number of the reactionary ranks. What occurred with the shooting of that woman was not a skin-of-the-teeth defeat of fascism, but rather an apparatus of the bourgeois disciplining one of it's auxiliaries after they overstepped their bounds.

Any argument that frames the police as anything other than a body with the explicit purpose of intimidating the proletariat must be refuted.

Any argument that frames the police as anything other than a body that reinforces — not defends — from white nationalism and fascism must be refuted, otherwise it will lead to the proliferation of fatal assumptions regarding who can and cannot be allied with and how the bourgeois state functions.

Hypotheticals involving violence to AOC and other more 'popular' representatives are abused as rhetorical devices meant to elicit visceral emotional responses to detract from a material grasp of the situation.

Seriously, cut the edgelord shit. He’s a cop at the capitol building. His job is literally the last line of defense for our representatives. It’s fine to give him credit where it’s due. You can acknowledge that he did enough to stave off an angry mob from overthrowing the government to usher in a fascist totalitarian state without being a boot-licking cop-lover. It’s fine

This is the outright literal definition of cop-apologia, in a thread about a cop saving FUCKIN REPUBLICANS, there is no interpretation or representation where you can pretend otherwise

Murders absolutely would have happened if no one with a gun was there to defend. If you think that mob wouldn’t have killed AOC if they had the chance you’re dreaming.

Let me repeat myself, I don't care about your hypothetical scenario, point of fact it didn't happen and wasn't LIKELY to happen, you can up come with all sorts of morbid counterfactuals, end of the day it's a negative that can't be proven or disproven, so who cares that isn't the point of this media creation anyway. What really matters is who was the primary agency of power on that day, surprise! it's the pigs who "almost" got your little parasocial friend killed

But you wouldn't know that judging by the media....or some of the garage takes I've seen in the last few hours

Fuck when are the admins gonna get on that air jerking off motion emoji? That’s twice now I’ve needed it

lol I barely gave her half a fuckin sentence and it was in reference to someone else's take, I don't know no congresslady bruh I'm talkin about policemans