You have it exactly backasswards.

They were incited by those attacks on them - WHICH WAS THE WHOLE PURPOSE - of the provocation.  Video clearly shows this.  Fire point blank into a thick, hemmed-in bunch of people and they will 1) try to get out to avoid being severely injured, as they are ducks in a barrel, and 2) will want to rip your throat out.  So that is what the capital police did.

Next, in order to achieve the objective of charging them with illegally entering the Capital, those same vermin police opened the building and took them on a guided tour of it.

Seriously, the fuse on American anger is so frigging long, that even egregious, open and calculated political persecution - complete with sham Soviet-style commissions and trials - is apparently not enough to result in the sacking of DC.

But it was enough at least to severely wound the Democrat organized crime syndicate at election time.

https://x.com/HumanEvents/status/1726698078399308152?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1726698078399308152%7Ctwgr%5E67b38e491064c9e6da3f87c5f6ec5d42384202cf%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fhumanevents.com%2F2023%2F11%2F20%2Fbreaking-j6-footage-reveals-capitol-police-fired-into-peaceful-crowd-gave-no-warnings

I am not going down the rabbit hole of wild conspiracy theories because it never ends, there is always another deeper theory behind it. What happened at the capital building with the clashes is pretty standard confrontational protest type stuff we have seen many many times in recent history. Note that I am not saying the police didn't do anything wrong, there are many times police respond to riots in ways that are improper or counterproductive. I am sure there was room for improvement in the way they handled the situation but I do not believe it is the case that the crowd was just standing peacefully at a distance and obeying the instructions of the cops then the cops randomly started throwing flashbangs and spraying the crowd.

On top of that, even if the cop is somehow abusing his power you don't then go assault, you retreat, get a lawyer, and sue the crap out of the department. It doesn't justify running in to beat up the cop.

And?
When you have some ANTIFA protest and a few of them charge cops the other non-violent ones get sprayed too. Are you trying to make the case that pepper spray shouldn't be allowed because of the high risk of bystanders getting exposed as well?

What do you mean by "and?".  Wasn't it obvious that my reply was calling you out at being wrong again.  I mean, almost every post you post are wrong.  Guess you still haven't comprehended that yet.

Why are you changing the subject to not being allowed to use pepper spray?  I mean, I know why, it's cause you're wrong again and now using this new tactic to avoid admitting you're wrong again.

I am not going down the rabbit hole of wild conspiracy theories because it never ends, there is always another deeper theory behind it. What happened at the capital building with the clashes is pretty standard confrontational protest type stuff we have seen many many times in recent history. Note that I am not saying the police didn't do anything wrong, there are many times police respond to riots in ways that are improper or counterproductive. I am sure there was room for improvement in the way they handled the situation but I do not believe it is the case that the crowd was just standing peacefully at a distance and obeying the instructions of the cops then the cops randomly started throwing flashbangs and spraying the crowd.

On top of that, even if the cop is somehow abusing his power you don't then go assault, you retreat, get a lawyer, and sue the crap out of the department. It doesn't justify running in to beat up the cop.

\
I'm sure we've covered this before when the event took place. But watch the vids, not just the ones the fake news allows you to see.  This will clear up your thoughts in this post.  But then again, you won't admit you're wrong again, so this topic will go on and on like the other ones.

What do you mean by "and?".  Wasn't it obvious that my reply was calling you out at being wrong again.  I mean, almost every post you post are wrong.  Guess you still haven't comprehended that yet.

Why are you changing the subject to not being allowed to use pepper spray?  I mean, I know why, it's cause you're wrong again and now using this new tactic to avoid admitting you're wrong again.

What do I mean by "and"? Should be obvious but guess not. The point is you are acting as if the risk of pepper spray hitting unintended targets somehow indicates its application was not justified.

Declaring yourself right is like declaring yourself king, it doesn't mean it's true.

\
I'm sure we've covered this before when the event took place. But watch the vids, not just the ones the fake news allows you to see.  This will clear up your thoughts in this post.  But then again, you won't admit you're wrong again, so this topic will go on and on like the other ones.

Funny how the test for being labeled "fake news" lines up perfectly with the Pro-Trump agenda....

But I am objective so I will look at any video you want to post and will change my position if the facts support such a change.
 

What do I mean by "and"? Should be obvious but guess not. The point is you are acting as if the risk of pepper spray hitting unintended targets somehow indicates its application was not justified.

Declaring yourself right is like declaring yourself king, it doesn't mean it's true.

Wrong again on all the above.  Thanks for playing.

You've posted a bunch today and so far, everything is wrong.

I am not going down the rabbit hole of wild conspiracy theories because it never ends, there is always another deeper theory behind it. What happened at the capital building with the clashes is pretty standard confrontational protest type stuff we have seen many many times in recent history. Note that I am not saying the police didn't do anything wrong, there are many times police respond to riots in ways that are improper or counterproductive. I am sure there was room for improvement in the way they handled the situation but I do not believe it is the case that the crowd was just standing peacefully at a distance and obeying the instructions of the cops then the cops randomly started throwing flashbangs and spraying the crowd.

On top of that, even if the cop is somehow abusing his power you don't then go assault, you retreat, get a lawyer, and sue the crap out of the department. It doesn't justify running in to beat up the cop.

Ah - you used the term “conspiracy theories,” which actually means that the information provided screws the shit out of the hive narrative - hence in hive-speak it is required to default to a “conspiracy theory” - so no need for me to get all habut!

Just like, if I take the view that my physical being does not exist primarily as a receptacle for whatever big pharma needs to inject into it in order to make next quarter’s financials look good, in hive-speak, I’m an “antivaxer.”

Hope you’re not planning at some point to use the phrase “A man can have a baby” in a post 

Funny how the test for being labeled "fake news" lines up perfectly with the Pro-Trump agenda....

But I am objective so I will look at any video you want to post and will change my position if the facts support such a change.
 

Calling yourself objective is like calling yourself king…

Calling yourself objective is like calling yourself king…

Calling yourself objective is like saying you're in charge.

If you have to say it, then you're not.

Calling yourself objective is like saying you're in charge.

If you have to say it, then you're not.

"Do you feel you're in charge" ~Bane

Calling yourself objective is like calling yourself king…

I would say instead with regard to EEF,  "imagining yourself objective is like calling yourself king".

Calling yourself objective is like calling yourself king…

If you say so.

Ah - you used the term “conspiracy theories,” which actually means that the information provided screws the shit out of the hive narrative - hence in hive-speak it is required to default to a “conspiracy theory” - so no need for me to get all habut!

Just like, if I take the view that my physical being does not exist primarily as a receptacle for whatever big pharma needs to inject into it in order to make next quarter’s financials look good, in hive-speak, I’m an “antivaxer.”

Hope you’re not planning at some point to use the phrase “A man can have a baby” in a post 

Thats why I said wile conspiracy theories. I don't mind reasonable conspiracy theories.   

Chuck Norris could have a baby....

Fake news popping up on my feed: "Trump wishes the best for Biden's health, but did he mean it"

South African President visited the WH today and when the subject about the white African farmers was brought up , he didn't believe it.

This has been going on for at least over a year.  So what did Trump do, he brought his receipts.  He showed a vid in front of everyone present.  S. African pres was speechless.

Either he knew about it and lied or has poor intel. 

Similar like to what the CCP is doing to Muslims in China.  Crickets on the fake news.  But here in the US or other countries, Muslims and illegally entered Muslims are protected much more.  The fake news bows to the CCP.

Notice how the "refugee's" from S. Africa are families and not majority military aged males.  Same with Ukraine refugee's, mainly women and children.  Compare this to the Afgan withdrawal mess up which was mainly military aged males.

Thats why I said wile conspiracy theories. I don't mind reasonable conspiracy theories.   

Chuck Norris could have a baby....

Gross dude.

Now if you would have said “George Clooney could have a baby….,” - my first thought would be, well yeah, maybe.

But I still say a man can’t have a baby.

Gross dude.

Now if you would have said “George Clooney could have a baby….,” - my first thought would be, well yeah, maybe.

But I still say a man can’t have a baby.

Chuck Norris' tears can cure cancer too. Too bad he never cries.

Chuck Norris' tears can cure cancer too. Too bad he never cries.

 

I know where someone here gets their "debating" practice from.  The fake news today said the video shown to the S. African president was fake.  The reply from the WH was no, it's not fake and asked why the fake news thought it was fake.

The fake news reply was "because it is".  At no point did the fake news state any other reasoning besides "it's fake".  I mean, had they said "this vid is from X country and not S. Africa" or "This vid is CGI". But nope, all they said was "it's fake" because they deemed it so.  I'm surprised they didn't move goal post.

Independent journalist have been covering this for at least a year now with video proof.  Why the main stream media didn't cover this more shows their agenda.  Same fake news is silent about Islam in China.

I know where someone here gets their "debating" practice from.  The fake news today said the video shown to the S. African president was fake.  The reply from the WH was no, it's not fake and asked why the fake news thought it was fake.

The fake news reply was "because it is".  At no point did the fake news state any other reasoning besides "it's fake".  I mean, had they said "this vid is from X country and not S. Africa" or "This vid is CGI". But nope, all they said was "it's fake" because they deemed it so.  I'm surprised they didn't move goal post.

Independent journalist have been covering this for at least a year now with video proof.  Why the main stream media didn't cover this more shows their agenda.  Same fake news is silent about Islam in China.

The View showed 2 very short clips from that meeting and called Trump's allegation that White farmers are being murdered a conspiracy theory.

They never played the evidence Trump had the African President watch.  I wonder why?

i think in court that's what they call "suppression of evidence."