NullHypothesis
No bio...
User ID: 2718
NullHypothesis
1d ago
From the other videos we can see was filming with a phone using his left hand, he pulls the gun out from the right side of his body with his right hand.
NullHypothesis
2d ago
Had the vehicle not moved, the spot the officer stopped moving would not have been in front of the vehicle. If you go frame by frame you can see he stops in the area covered by the tree. If you compare that to the angle of the car before it starts moving, if it moves straight forward it would not hit that spot.
I think it's pretty clear the woman did not begin backing up the war with the intention of running someone over.
I also think it's clear the officer did not deliberately position himself in front of the car with the intention of stopping the vehicle.
Considering the officer's previous experience of being run over by a car in a previous incident, it's possible he entered into a fight response, and in response he took out his gun to shoot at a perceived threat. But in reality she wasn't trying to hit an officer, she was in a moment of panic trying to run away from the officer that grabbed the vehicle's door.
It's important to note this all happens in a matter of seconds. There's a lot of analysis about what we can see from behind the car being able to rewind and watch what happened frame by frame. In contrast there is very little analysis about what the situation looked like from the perspective of the officer that took the shot (partially because there is still no footage from the officer's POV).
Stephen Crowder has an attempt at an analysis, although I find it a bit lacking and the positions to be off, but I think the key point he attempts to tackle is general correct, in that the officer has no vision of the direction of the wheel of the vehicle.
Now there could be an argument made about what the officer should've done as soon as the car starts moving backwards. I think my instinctual response would actually to walk backwards, which would actually put me MORE in the path of the car, but it's also possible this may have caused my figure to be more clearly in front of the car and maybe the woman wouldn't have accelerated forward to begin with.
Regardless, I think any analysis assuming he was trying to walk in front of the car is incorrect. I think there can be discussion to be had about his reaction once the car starts moving, but again this happens in a matter of seconds and I'm giving the officer some leeway here considering his previous experience of being run over. (There is also some potential discussion to be had about how someone would react if they had previously been in an incident and how fit that makes them to continue doing their job).
NullHypothesis
2d ago
I think you mean @zoink instead of @self_made_human for who shared links to multiple angles of the video.
NullHypothesis
2d ago
- This iceman was hit by a different car previously.
I haven't seen this claim before, so I found this article discussing the issue, in case anyone else here might be curious about this piece of information.
Had the ICE officer not moved left, the path the vehicle took definitely would have hit him.
If you watch the video, he's moving from the right to the left, so he was in the way of the vehicle in the seconds before the car started moving.
Here's what I can see happened from the different videos.
ICE Officer A (the officer that fired the shot) is filming the vehicle of the woman and moves in from the right side of the vehicle to the front of the vehicle. ICE Officer B approaches the vehicle from the left saying "get out of the car" multiple times and as soon as he reaches the car attempts to open the door.
Going frame by frame, the wheels start to move before the officer's hand tries to open the door, but not before the officer raises his hand at towards her.
The car reverses a bit and stops. While this is happening, ICE officer A is in front of the vehicle moving from the right to the left. It's possible the woman's attention is solely focused on ICE Officer B and may not even be aware ICE officer A is in front of her, possibly inattentional blindness.
The instant the car attempts to move forward Ice Officer A pulls out the card and shoots. The time between when the wheel starts to move forward and when he tries to pull the gun out is about 8 frames (going frame by frame on the linked youtube video for angle 2), and since the video is playing at 30 frames per seconds, that is about 266 milliseconds.
So based on what I can see this is what I conclude.
The woman was there to be disruptive to ICE. As soon as ICE shows up and confronts her, she panics and tries to run away. I don't think she was intending to run someone over and it's possible the ICE Officer standing in front of her vehicle wasn't registering in her mind, or the path the ICE officer took walking from right to left in front of her vehicle made her think he would keep moving left out of the way of the vehicle. Perhaps she thought a path was opening up and in a moment of panic was looking for a way to get out as soon as possible. (Which by the way, is an extremely stupid thing to do. Even if you are in the right and an officer is harassing you, trying to run away is one of the worst responses you can do other than physically attacking the officer. In this situation, even if unintentionally, attempting to run away also cause the possibility of physical harm to an officer. The behavior of the type of people to run and resist police might be interesting to dig further into but likely has already been discussed heavily here in the Motte already and this is already going too far off-topic from the point I want to make so I shall abstain from commenting further for now.)
Regardless, when she decides to try to move the vehicle forward, he is very clearly standing in a spot where the vehicle would hit him. 266 milliseconds from when the car starts to move forward to when he starts to pull the gun out is well within standard human reaction time. There's about 36-38 frames from when he begins to pull the gun out to when smoke appears from the gun. I think it is within possibility that the moment he detected the car driving towards him the ICE officer felt his life threatened and used his gun as a response, and not that he was waiting for an opportunity to shoot someone. If he had been pulling the gun out sooner, I think the arguments that he was looking for an opportunity to shoot someone would be stronger, but here that is not the case.
I don't think a lot of people understand how dangerous vehicles are due to being around cars all the time. Due to their size, even at a small speed it can do significant damage to the human body. For example, if you had a 4500 lb SUV accelerate from 0 to 5 mph in 1 second that's approximately 10,000 N of force. For comparison, a punch from an elite level boxer would be around 5000 N of force. From what I saw in the video, I don't think the vehicle would've killed the officer if it hit him, but it could've done significant physical damage if he didn't move out of the way. If a guy was running towards an officer trying to punch him and got shot, it would be very hard to defend that. A vehicle accelerating to even 5mph when it would hit someone possesses way more power behind it. Intentional or not, that was the level of physical force that could've hit that officer. Driving a car is an insane privilege with great potential for damage that I think a lot of people simply don't respect.
EDIT: There is a 4th angle video that makes it clearer what happened.
Officer A went to the car in front of the woman's car with the door open (perhaps to grab something or check something on the system), then he turns around and starts moving towards the woman's car, but he is NOT in front of the car. When she begins moving backwards, that positions the car to be angled towards him. Officer A stops his walk. The charitable take for the officer is that this triggers his memory of being run over previously, and he enters a fight response, causing him to pull out his firearm and shoot. It's important to note that the decision for the women to reverse and for the officer to shoot happens in a matter of seconds.
I think this makes it clear several things
-
The woman did not purposefully attempt to run over an officer when she made her decision to back the vehicle up. It's very likely her attention was focused on Officer B that grabbed her vehicle's door and in fact Officer A was clearly not in front of the vehicle when she begins backing up.
-
Officer A did not deliberately position himself in front of the car to block the vehicle from moving. It just so happened that the vehicle began moving backward while he was moving towards the car. If we go frame by frame and look at where he stopped moving relative to the direction the car was facing before it began backing up, he would not have been in the path of the car had it moved straight forward instead of backing up first. So my initial assessment that he was walking right from left in front of the vehicle was completely wrong.
What pisses me off is that on Twitter and Youtube and Discord the culture war warriors are arguing over the demonstratable facts of the case rather than the interpretation of the events. Everyone has the same access to the videos I do and linking the exact same video I watched and yet they seem to have missed key details entirely and then forming their entire opinion and analysis based on it. The "analysis" videos are even worse, I saw one circle the random pedestrian (not the officer) and add an arrow to officer B (but no highlighting of Officer A) and now people on Twitter are sharing that video as proof that the Officer A was not in front of the car. Or the screenshot of the officer shooting at the car but not the frame before showing that the car would've hit the officer. Are the people liking and sharing this dishonest evaluation, not watching the video? Are they mentally blocking any information that would provide evidence towards the conclusion they don't like, and only looking for the conclusion they would like?
This is nothing new, of course. There were people that believed Rittenhouse shot a black person even though the video evidence was available even before the trials. But you cannot even have a proper conversation when the core facts of the situation is in dispute and one side refuses to acknowledge the reality of what happened. You can have an argument about who is in fault here (is shooting the right response or a reasonable response, do you deserve to be shot if you're running away in a vehicle and in the process put someone in harm's way), you cannot have an argument with someone that believes that the officer was trying to block the vehicle with his body or that the vehicle was never pointing towards the officer because the fundamental assumptions of their argument is completely false.
NullHypothesis
1mo ago
Some people have gone and fixed stuff on their own, only to be fined and ordered to stop by the very city that hasn't fixed those issues for one reason or another. When you have to fix problems on your own while also hiding your identity, it's sign of a failing society. The problem shouldn't have gotten this big to begin with, the system should've solved the issue when it arrived, and it shouldn't be punishing people for solving the problems it failed to fix to begin with.
if we accepted donations like the one you suggest, there would be an imbalance between neighbourhoods. Richer neighbourhoods would have better amenities and poorer neighbourhoods would remain slideless. But you can pay to install a bench with your name somewhere in who-the-fuck-knows-where. We'll take your money, but you can't tell us what to do with it.
This kind of ideology, the need to value equality above all else, is really upsetting and possibly one of the worst ideas ever to come into the public consciousness as a "virtuous" idea. The implication here is that every slide in all the neighborhoods are broken, and unless they can fix every single slide in every neighborhood and give them all access to slides, nobody should have access to slides. Insert meme about the equity solution to three people of different heights watching a baseball game is to cut off the feet of the 2 taller ones.
I'm left to wonder if they really think that or it's just the excuse given to hide some other reason, such as embarrassment from not being able to fix the issues plaguing the city or laziness or greed (donate money, we'll build a bench for 50% of the donated money and pocket the rest).
All this alarm about Nazis and no attempt to demonstrate any policy position these supposed "Nazis" hold that would make them actual Nazis.
Holocaust denial does not make you a Nazi.
Making edgy jokes does not make you a Nazi.
Thinking Hitler did some good things (or at the very least for the German people) does not make you a Nazi.
Having some overlap with the Nazi platform does not make you a Nazi. As the classic argument goes, Hitler liked dogs, so if you like dogs, does that mean you are a Nazi?
Being antisemitic does not make you a Nazi. There are plenty of people who express antisemitic views from the left.
Heck even calling yourself a Nazi does not make yourself a Nazi. I can call myself the richest man in the world, it doesn't make me the richest man in the world. I can say I'm a Christian, but if I don't believe in Christ as savior or do anything associated with typical Christians such as going to church or praying, am I really a Christian? You have to believe in the values and core tenets of the Nazi ideology to be a Nazi.
Since you seem so keen on raising the alarm on the rise of Nazism, how about you actually define what are the core ideas and values of Nazism, that way we can actually pit all these supposed Nazis against these values to determine if they actually are Nazis or not?
Nazi is a term with an extremely negative connotation and reputation. Why were the Nazis so bad? A big part of the reason is that the Nazis killed millions of Jews during the Holocaust. Antisemitism alone does not lead to the killing of 6 million Jews. If you want to argue all these supposed new "Nazis" want to kill all the Jews, then make that argument instead of just calling them Nazis.
When you label your opponents as Nazis with little to no care, all it does is erode away the negativity associated with the term Nazi. The fact that more people are now okay with being labeled a Nazi is evidence that the term is losing the negative power associated with it, which was due to the liberal application of that term to people who actually aren't Nazis. You've called all these people Nazis, yet if I imagined any of these people you have mentioned being put in charge of a country and given complete authority to do whatever they wanted, I don't think any of them would recreate the holocaust. So how exactly are they Nazis and should be ascribed all the negative things we associate with the actual Nazis from WW2 Germany?
NullHypothesis
2mo ago
I haven't heard of the Young Republicans before this.
Their Wikipedia page is almost empty except for the story that just broke out: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_Republicans
They have under 4000 followers on Twitter https://x.com/yrnational
I checked their website and most state chapters have at most a Facebook page.
They haven't seem to have accomplished much that would be newsworthy.
I'm sure they do stuff, but as an outsider doing some minor research, I can't say I'm impressed.
NullHypothesis
2mo ago
Epithets like “f----t,” “retarded” and “n--ga” appeared more than 251 times combined.
I just found it funny the writers censored out "faggot" and "nigga", but not "retarded". So they're trying to get the list of the worst offensive things that were said but the 3rd item on the list wasn't offensive enough to censor but it's all grouped together to get the 251 count?
Mosiman was derided by members of the chat as “beaner” and “sp-c.”
How come they didn't censor out "beaner", isn't that racist too?
What's with the self-censorship, anyway? Politico had no problem quoting faggot just a year ago:
https://www.politico.com/search?q=faggot&s=newest
Same with bitch, cunt, nigga, nigger, spic, and chink. All words that have appeared in previous politico articles uncensored.
NullHypothesis
3mo ago
Sounds like McDonald's should've sold a 1/5 burger for the same price then.
NullHypothesis
3mo ago
I think there is a significant difference due to which population gets impacted; prohibition impacts citizens, ICE doesn't. Certain rights are determined by whether you are a citizen of the country or not. I don't think it's inconsistent to want less freedom for foreigners than for fellow citizens.
NullHypothesis
3mo ago
There is a culture war angle here about how some people like animals way more than humans.
Considering all the things Hasan has previously done and said (things that break the Twitch TOS like doxing other people and arguably inciting violence with inflammatory rhetoric), if this alleged mistreatment of the dog is what gets him cancelled, it's pretty revealing what certain people's priorities actually are.
This story was brought up on some discord servers I'm in with people that lean mostly left/center and the consensus is that's "subhuman" behavior from Hasan. So it's not something that's just circulating around his haters.
That being said, I highly doubt this is what gets Hasan cancelled, or that this will be a major blow to his reputation. Anyone who isn't a fan of Hasan probably already greatly dislike him, and many people on the left aren't huge fans of Hasan. The worst this can do is get some of his existing fans to stop watching his content.
NullHypothesis
3mo ago
According to a 2020 survey of South Koreans, 83.8% of respondents reported to never having consumed dog meat before.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog_meat_consumption_in_South_Korea
It was more common several decades ago, but it's in decline. The people who have eaten it before are of the older generation, and most of them do not consume it regularly.
If you're talking to a Korean online (especially in English), they probably have never eaten dog before.
NullHypothesis
3mo ago
Why is it that I will forever know
As long as you keep bringing it up it'll get stored in your memory more. If you said your mother's middle name every day for a week and every week for a month and every month for a year and every year for the rest of your life, you'd probably remember that too.
see nothing but excuses, equivocation, or using tragic events as an opportunity to dunk on his political opponents
This is fairly uncharitable given nearly all of these events Trump does have words of condemnation to say of the violence, so "nothing but" is inaccurate.
Dylann Roof
Cesar Sayok
Trump, speaking at the 2018 Young Black Leadership Summit at the White House, called the sending of the bombs a “despicable” act that has “no place in our country” and vowed that “swift and certain justice” would be delivered.
“We must never allow political violence to take root in America. We cannot let it happen. I am committed to do everything in my power as president to stop it and stop it now,” he said.
According to Wikipedia's summary of the events trump says this first:
My highest duty, as you know, as President, is to keep America safe. That's what we talk about. That's what we do. The federal government is conducting an aggressive investigation and we will find those responsible and we will bring them to justice. Hopefully very quickly. Any acts or threats of political violence are an attack on our democracy, itself. No nation can succeed that tolerates violence or the threat of violence as a method of political intimidation, coercion, or control. We all know that. Such conduct must be fiercely opposed and firmly prosecuted. We want all sides to come together in peace and harmony. We can do it. We can do it. We can do it. It will happen.
He starts attacking the media the day after. So I think your summary is uncharitable, unless the Wikipedia summary missed something Trump said before.
The Whitmer Kidnapping Plot
He does dunk on Whitmer. He also said he condemns violence and that he defends all Americans, even his opponents.
I'm going to stop going down the list here, but I'm sure I could find an example of Trump condemning the attack and disavowing political violence for each one of these. Yes, I realize this doesn't fit your extremely narrow criteria you defined, which I will question below, but it does provide some context for your summary of the events.
Name one instance where someone on the right engaged in violence or violent rhetoric and Trump offered nothing but a full-throated, unequivocal condemnation. Name one.
Why is this the requirement? The issue a lot of people had with rhetoric from the left is there were a lot of people who wouldn't even condemn the killing of Kirk or of any political violence at all. At least Trump had the sense to condemn the events before he starts dunking on his political opponents. Is there one instance where someone on the left engaged in violence or violent rhetoric and the left or the media offered nothing but a full-throated, unequivocal condemnation? I'd also like to note trump dunking on his political opponents is not an endorsement or excuse for political violence.
I'm not interested in which side has more total incidents or who started it or any of that, because it honestly doesn't matter at this point.
Why does it not matter? None of these events are equivalent to the Kirk assassination. Nor are they equivalent to a literal expression of wanting to murder the other side. Nor are the reactions to these events equivalent. Has Trump been calling for the literal deaths of his opponents, especially by shooting them? It seems unfair to demand the absolute best behavior from Trump while simultaneously waiving off any bad behavior from his opponents by saying you're not interested. Can we at least demand the left match Trump's behavior of condemning political violence before dunking on their political opponents?
turn down the temperature
I'm not sure this type of messaging will resonate with the right at all. One side watched one of their own get murdered in cold blood and in the aftermath watch a pretty significant portion of the left actively cheer for it. Why is it up to the side being attacked to try to "turn down the temperature"? If one side has people calling for the literal death and murder of their opponents and the other side has Trump making jokes about his political opponents, which side has more heat?
There definitely is truth to the notion that many on the right seems not willing to want to reconcile with the left anymore. Most of this rhetoric was in response to the response to the left of Kirk's assassination. I do think long term if no solution is found this will only continue to divide America. That being said, willingness to reconcile has to come from both sides, with both sides being willing to addresses bad actors on their party.
insinuating that the ends justified the means; right-wing extremists were okay because they at least wanted the same things he did
Could I get a source for this? It does seem alarming for Trump to have said Right wing extremists are okay (assuming he's talking about violent actions from the far right are okay).
the Democrats didn't do a good job of stopping the 2020 protests (never mind Trump was president)
So when democrat states and cities were allowed to do what they want, was it a failure on Trump? What are your thoughts on Trump now using federal troops to enforce laws that these places refused to do? Was there anything Trump should've done to minimize the damages caused by the 2020 protests?
NullHypothesis
3mo ago
There are only so many novel ideas and viewpoints, and eventually you end up with the applications of those ideas and viewpoints, so I'm not surprised if you feel like you aren't seeing many new unique ideas and perspectives. The posts with the most activity is the weekly culture war roundup which by its nature will be around current day events.
I like this space, even though I go long periods of just lurking. I too am admittedly not a good writer nor do I have much novelty to offer in unique/interesting analysis or perspective. Usually all I can offer is effort, but I'm glad to know some people appreciate it.
I still haven't found a better place on the internet with this level of diversity of viewpoints and ideas, even if the Motte seems to have shifted more rightwards over the years and prominent left leaning posters have left or were banned. Most places that discuss culture war topics spiral into low effort sneers, ingroup signals, and outgroup outrages, with very little intellectual honesty or posters with opposing viewpoints.
NullHypothesis
3mo ago
So your evidence that the "Anti-ICE" shooter feeling like a school shooter and having no apparent motive is an interview with old friends of his that haven't had contact with him for likely at least 5-6 years? If anything, considering he withdrew from social life and got seeped more and more into the dark trenches of the internet, this story to me provides some evidence that he likely became more and more political and radical. Combine this with other evidence that had come out, and it paints the picture of someone radicalized by far left and anti-trump ideology.
It's easy to conveniently ignore evidence to the contrary and put zero effort into even explaining why that evidence might be flawed or invalid, but not even attempting that will do nothing to convince people on the other side that you may have a point, and makes you come off as intellectually dishonest.
as someone who moves through leftist circles, which are mostly extremely disorganized and very dedicated to specific issues (climate change, homelessness, worker empowerment)
You know, your experiences of moving through leftist circles could something really interesting to read about if you actually provided some details.
That being said, you're attacking a straw man. Who's claiming every leftwing organization/group is actively encouraging violence? Have you gone through a randomly selected sample of leftists groups (hint, you haven't) to be able to determine they are all in fact, actively disavowing political violence and banning people who do show any support for political violence?
How do you reconcile your personal experiences with the data indicating that 24% of very liberal individuals that say it's okay to be happy with the death of a public figure they oppose, or 25% of very liberal individuals that thing political violence can be justified? When prompted specifically with figures like Elon Musk or Donald Trump, that number rises to over 50% of people left of center. Is it possible that you are in fact, not really engaging with this segment of the population?
How about you provide some examples of people here "foaming at the mouth of some grand leftist move towards violence" instead of attacking an uncharitable strawman? If you are unable to summarize your opponent's position in a manner they find charitable, I don't think you actually understand what their argument or reasoning is. Or you're being intellectual dishonest.
Edit: Reviewing this thread and FoxNews over the past few days has made me realize that the red tribe has gone full retard and will believe anything the retards and losers in the White House say. Guess I'm just going to become a normie and hypernormalize like the rest of the people in my life. Been nice commenting here. Your boos have always meant nothing to me, because I've seen what makes you cheer.
This is a statement that says nothing. Here, let me replace some words
Edit: Reviewing Reddit, BlueSky, Twitter, Instagram, Youtube, TikTok, (Insert your whatever social media/political space you want here) and MSNBC, CNN, (Insert your whatever news media you want here) over the past few days has made me realize that the blue tribe has gone full retard and will believe anything the retards and losers opposing those in the White House say. Guess I'm just going to become a normie and hypernormalize like the rest of the people in my life. Been nice commenting here. Your boos have always meant nothing to me, because I've seen what makes you cheer.
See how this did nothing to move your thoughts and position?
It is a legitimate political opinion, but I can't help but notice most people with that position are saying that only now despite ICE having done deportations in mass under Obama and Biden. At least in terms of the raw numbers, Trump is not deporting in rates surpassing the previous administrations.
There certainly are differences in how ICE is operating, like how the time frame for expedited removal increased to 2 years from a previous 14 days. The number of border encounters is also down significantly, so the fact that the deportation rates have remained to similar levels does support the notion that ICE is targeting a larger population than they previously had. However, the call for the complete abolition of ICE versus a reversal to the previous status and mode of operation (which had comparatively very little calls to abolish the agency) to me suggests the position is not derived from principled values but rather an anti-trump position.
I recently talked to someone that very much had a "fuck ICE it should be abolished they contribute nothing of value" attitude and when I pressed him on the issues I think his issue was more on Trump's rhetoric and framing rather than what ICE was actually doing. He even acknowledged that he wasn't necessarily against immigration restrictions or post-migration enforcement! But even when I asked about the numbers, his first response was to question if comparing the number of deportations even accomplishes anything. I don't think I changed his mind much, but I think I at least brought down the temperature from his initial anger towards ICE.
NullHypothesis
3mo ago
If your argument did not have any major flaws, we should've been able to extrapolate 140 cops injured per 2.5K participants (the most generous assumption that supports your argument) to 40,000K to get 2240 cop injuries.
We didn't get 2240 cop injuries for the 40,000 protestors. Nowhere even close. So we now have real world data that demonstrate how assuming going up at the same rate is an absurdly ignorant assumption to make for this particular scenario, and you should not do that to try to make your point.
Just saying you agree with me that a larger crowd is likely to have less violence overall does not excuse the extremely poor logic you have used to make your argument.
NullHypothesis
3mo ago
"If we went up at the same rate" of 1:400 then yes it would equal that.
The numbers should be self-evident why that assumption should not hold.
You should not extrapolate 140 cops injured per 40K participants to 16 million for the same reason you should not extrapolate 140 cops injured per 2.5k participant to 40K participants to get 2240 cop injuries.
I can do bad math too. Hey, we were able to add 37.5k to the total number of participants in a protest without needing to adjust the number of cops being injured, so let's use the rate of 0 cops injured per 37.5k added to scale to 0 cops injured per 16 million to get a final result of 140 cops injured per 16 million participants.
The reason why my bad math is wrong is the same reason why your math is wrong.
I agree that data needs to be taken a look at more closely to get a more accurate picture of the truth, and that outliers happen in data all the time. But you're the one that introduced shoddy analysis of data. I gave a good effort to give the most reasonable comparison, and I even gave criticism of that comparison.
NullHypothesis
3mo ago
That $2.7billion includes a lot of things like costs spent increasing new security.
This amount reflects, among other things, damage to the Capitol building and grounds, estimated costs borne by the Capitol Police, the District of Columbia, and federal agencies, and estimated costs to address security needs and investigations as described in budget and funding requests, appropriations, agency estimates, and other publicly available information.
NullHypothesis
3mo ago
It should be the job of the person making the claim to prove their position, not for the other side to prove someone didn't say something.
👉 Conclusion: On a per-participant basis, Jan 6th was vastly more violent toward police officers — by orders of magnitude.
No, it's not that simple. This is comparing apples to oranges. I'll try my best to make a more appropriate comparison.
Here is an article from the New York Times with the 140 number for police office injured on Jan 6th.
Here is a report from the US Government Accountability Office indicating at least 174 police officers were assaulted. Note that assaults and injuries are not the same, which could explain the different numbers.
A better comparison would be this statistic from U.S. Senator Chuck Grassley.
During the 2020 riots, more than 900 law enforcement officers were injured, including 277 officer injuries while defending the federal courthouse in Portland, Oregon, and 60 Secret Service officers defending the White House.
This source clarifies it's 277 injuries amongst 140 officers.
Here are some numbers from the DHS indicating that the crowd sizes were approximately 1000 around the federal courthouse in Portland.
This seems like a more appropriate comparison than using the entirety of the 15-26 million Americans protesting during 2020 BLM riots to the 2000-2500 on January 6th.
That being said, there are several reasons as for why even this cannot be a direct comparison:
- The 277 injury count is the total number sustained over a period of time and not on a singular day.
- The source indicating crowd sizes for 1000 in Portland show that only 7 arrests were made on one specific day.
- Different tactics were used to disperse the crowds. More effective dispersal will likely decrease officer injury rates. For example, it seems there were restrictions of using crowd dispersal tools by the capital police. I couldn't find anything about a similar restriction for police in Portland, and they were able to use pepper balls and tear gas to disperse protestors.
- Injuries per protestor participant count is not a good metric. A single person can injure multiple police officers. Multiple protestors can work together to injure 1 police officer.
If we were to have millions of right-leaning Americans protest on a level similar to that of the BLM riots, how much more violence would we see? I acknowledge the number of police injuries would go up just due to statistics. But I think the current right-wing response to Kirk's assassination is pretty telling. We aren't seeing cities being burned and looted to anything remotely close to the BLM riots after Floyd's death.
I wouldn't say impossible, see inattentional blindness. There are a lot of people driving cars that shouldn't be driving cars but do because you kind of need a car to get anywhere in most of the US.
It certainly doesn't help the side that wants to say she had absolutely no awareness, and does help the side that wants to argue she wanted to run him over intentionally. But also, this happens in a matter of seconds, and I'd think someone with the intention of trying to run over ICE with a car would've done it a different way, and invoking Occum's razor I think the answer that she was being wreckless, and a bad driver is more likely than she saw an opportunity to run over an ICE officer and made a split second decision to run him over.
More options
Context Copy link