Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

FBI, Homeland Security Int. Didn’t Issue Risk Assessment for ProTrump Protests

wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 136 posts

Re: FBI, Homeland Security Int. Didn’t Issue Risk Assessment for ProTrump Protests

#111

Post by chiefalchemist »

amanaplanacanal wrote: post #72
chiefalchemist wrote: post #15

How convenient. They didn't do their jobs. The DC police didn't do their job. A possible pivotal moment and...nothing? But this is simply coincidence? Some of the "best & brightest" all simultaneously go brain dead? I'm no fan of Trump. But as such facts continue to align my distate for him is overshadowed by my fear of nefarious actors and other suspect agendas.

I don’t think it was the DC police. That area is the responsibility of the Capitol police which is a different organization.

Ok. Fair enough. But the gist stands. This event was allowed to happen.

Re: FBI, Homeland Security Int. Didn’t Issue Risk Assessment for ProTrump Protests

#112

Post by jariel »

f430 wrote: post #78
avs733 wrote: post #6

Let’s be blunt... because white people. This is the same thing that happened in Charlottesville and the after action review of Charlottesville made that clear. No one listened. The need here isn’t more police or more training or more gear. Any of those things would just be used to harm people of color and low income communities. What needs to happen is people stop being taken in by bad faith arguments about “free spe…

> Let’s be blunt... because white people. No need to make such generalizations. The overwhelming majority of economic damages done in 2020 were by BLM/ANTIFA/ACAB crowd. Many of us supported them initially but when they started attacking minorities in particular Asian Americans and their businesses thats when I stopped. You are destroying your own country by being tricked into hating it by interest groups that isn't…

It's true that there was ultimately much more violence during the summer protests but a) they were quite widespread and ongoing, and poignantly b) they were not attacking the Capitol Building whilst votes were being counted, possibly trying to overthrow the Republic in an 'indirect coup'.

CNN reported today that as the Capitol Building was under attack - Trump was literally on the phone with Senators in lockdown (!!!) trying to convince them to press to 'stop the vote'.

Every time I think that Trump is 'Just playing games for TV and he's not actually that crazy' he really does something kind of shocking like a full-on E. Europe / African Dictator.

This 'riot' was incited by as sitting President and attacked part of the electoral process, for that reason it's much scarier than any of the possible excessive damage during the summer. Although in fairness, burning down Police Stations is also much more than just 'burning a building' as well.

Buildings can be replaced, Democracies cannot.

Re: FBI, Homeland Security Int. Didn’t Issue Risk Assessment for ProTrump Protests

#113

Post by chiefalchemist »

dmode wrote: post #21
chiefalchemist wrote: post #15

How convenient. They didn't do their jobs. The DC police didn't do their job. A possible pivotal moment and...nothing? But this is simply coincidence? Some of the "best & brightest" all simultaneously go brain dead? I'm no fan of Trump. But as such facts continue to align my distate for him is overshadowed by my fear of nefarious actors and other suspect agendas.

The nefarious actor is Trump and his cronies who most likely directed Federal agencies not to act. He already paused the National Guard deployment

Nah. He likely did not. Instead others played to that expectation, knew they could craft a "riot" and then drive a stake into the Trump legacy.

It will be a long long long time before the public votes for a candidate who is not a life long 100% legitimate Red or Blue. This is the final lesson to the masses: Don't you ever deviate again.

Re: FBI, Homeland Security Int. Didn’t Issue Risk Assessment for ProTrump Protests

#114

Post by neogodless »

jariel wrote: post #110
neogodless wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Depends on which news agencies you believe! The below articles report that the mayor was concerned and requested federal assistance. The Capitol Police however, refused help that was offered[0][1][2]. In the end two members of Capitol Police leadership resigned[3]. Their reasons for turning down assistance should be investigated. EDIT: Found an NPR article exploring this[4]. > Bowser's approach to security was clearl…

Her statement is right here [1] from Jan 5. on her own twitter account which, which is in the quote I posted. Paraphrasing: "We are prepared for this weeks activities and we are not asking for further assistance" In the links you sent, only the first link seems to contradict this statement, links 1, 2 and 3 have nothing to say about it really, and link 4 backs up the above quotes and doesn't contradict them - that sa…

The key takeaways:

* MPD coordinating with US Park Police, US Capitol Police, US Secret Service (all uniformed)

* Additional logistical support from unarmed DC National Guard (presumably these are not boots on the ground but just planning, equipment, etc?)

* In the past, unidentified (e.g. not uniformed) armed personnel caused confusion (and is not desirable)

Anyway, I agree this wasn't the right call. But I don't have enough inside information to know if Capitol Police assured her that with the various (above) coordination and help from surrounding areas (from your earlier link)[0], that everything would be "under control." Was she being naive, misinformed or have ill-intent? A good explanation would go a long way here.

> [0] a mutual-aid agreement with several local police departments from nearby jurisdictions, and had requested backup from the Maryland, New Jersey, and Virginia state police.

Re: FBI, Homeland Security Int. Didn’t Issue Risk Assessment for ProTrump Protests

#115

Post by dylan604 »

skyyler wrote: post #75
vkou wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Gas, less-lethal bullets, flashbangs. The stuff I've been seeing a few blocks away for most of the summer. All of those things are really good at dispersing crowds.

That's the most upsetting thing about this situation, in my opinion. Police in DC haven't had issues deploying such tactics in the past. Why was this different?

The instances you are referring to from the past were from police units that were fully prepared for riot combat. From what they were wearing and what weapons they were carrrying. They were also fully briefed on being placed into a riot situation. For the Capitol Police, it was just another Wednesday. There was no advanced prep for them to outfitted with riot gear/weapons. This is why it is so important to investigate the decision making process by leadership on why it was not something more than just another Wednesday.

Re: FBI, Homeland Security Int. Didn’t Issue Risk Assessment for ProTrump Protests

#116

Post by shadowgovt »

disgrunt wrote: post #85
wwright wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Given that there were literally millions of protestors on the streets over the summer, 20 is a pretty tiny number. Multiple people have already died from the DC attacks, just in two days in one city, with a much smaller number of people. That’s just comparing the number of deaths, and putting aside that one was a massive distributed protest of government brutality and the other was an attempted coup.

So five Trump supporters are killed and that's not police brutality? I just want to make sure I got this narrative straight.

One tased himself to death, one was trampled to death by the mob, and one was one-shot killed by the Secret Service after a clear warning to not pass through a heavy barricade.

Of these, only one was a police-action killing, and I would not call it brutality based on the video evidence.

I have no idea the story on the fourth.

The fifth death is a cop the Trump supporters beat to a pulp with a fire extinguisher.

Re: FBI, Homeland Security Int. Didn’t Issue Risk Assessment for ProTrump Protests

#117

Post by Spooky23 »

chrissnell wrote: post #20

A police officer friend with 20 years of crowd control experience told me that the preparations looked criminally negligent. I believe that this was done on purpose with full knowledge that these events were likely to occur. If crowd control and security are your job, there are only two explanations: you are horrible at your job, or, you did this on purpose with bad intentions.

You could see that the Capitol police were left hanging — they didn’t have the force necessary to protect the Congress and the building.

Obviously POTUS was doing whatever was necessary to maximize the drama. But there should be a through investigation to identify collaborators in government. We’re fortunate that many of the more ambitious people (the guy with the goat horns, etc) were obviously pretty crazy and disorganized.

I hope puts together an independent commission and prosecutor to make defense of the district more robust against this sort of threat. Maybe investing governor-like powers or elevating DC to statehood or some other form of government would be a start, so that the city administration could override a madman like POTUS.

Re: FBI, Homeland Security Int. Didn’t Issue Risk Assessment for ProTrump Protests

#118

Post by noodles_nomore »

chrissnell wrote: post #20

A police officer friend with 20 years of crowd control experience told me that the preparations looked criminally negligent. I believe that this was done on purpose with full knowledge that these events were likely to occur. If crowd control and security are your job, there are only two explanations: you are horrible at your job, or, you did this on purpose with bad intentions.

The most interesting thing about this incident is that it's a repeat of what happened earlier, late last year, in Germany.

Re: FBI, Homeland Security Int. Didn’t Issue Risk Assessment for ProTrump Protests

#119

Post by pseudalopex »

markdown wrote: post #102
whoisburbansky wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All the comments talking about how the Capitol Police didn’t have any choice but to let the protestors in, the bigger question is why weren’t they reinforced with National Guardsmen, who were apparently ready and prepared for exactly this situation ahead of time. Linked article from four days ago. [1] 1. https://abcnews.go.com/amp/Politics/dc-national-guard-activa...

The Mayor didn't foresee that it would be this bad, and didn't want an escalation. She declined help from the National Guard. So the cops were stretched thin, and some "fought" bravely to defend the Capitol, while others were sympathetic to the rioters and let them in, as can be seen clearly in multiple videos.

The mayor doesn't control the Capitol Police.

Re: FBI, Homeland Security Int. Didn’t Issue Risk Assessment for ProTrump Protests

#120

Post by jariel »

neogodless wrote: post #114
jariel wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Her statement is right here [1] from Jan 5. on her own twitter account which, which is in the quote I posted. Paraphrasing: "We are prepared for this weeks activities and we are not asking for further assistance" In the links you sent, only the first link seems to contradict this statement, links 1, 2 and 3 have nothing to say about it really, and link 4 backs up the above quotes and doesn't contradict them - that sa…

The key takeaways: * MPD coordinating with US Park Police, US Capitol Police, US Secret Service (all uniformed) * Additional logistical support from unarmed DC National Guard (presumably these are not boots on the ground but just planning, equipment, etc?) * In the past, unidentified (e.g. not uniformed) armed personnel caused confusion (and is not desirable) Anyway, I agree this wasn't the right call. But I don't ha…

Indeed confusing.

But this: " “we must get statehood on the president’s desk within the first 100 days of there 117th Congress,”

... is obviously a hugely politicaly partisan point (it throws the supposed balance of power off in favour of 'one side') and , not exactly related to the specific issue of 'Metro Security'.

The statement is really odd because 'DC Statehood' is a big political landmine (she knows this), and the statement just adds the possibility of partisan furor right a time when it's the last thing needed.

My hunch is that all of this was mostly a result of DC not expecting huge crowds (I don't think the raw numbers were massive) - and - the expectation that because it was a political rally, that it would be much like Trump's other political rallies, which is to say, relatively uneventful, and not riotous. Certainly not 'assaulting the Capitol building'. I wonder if that is even within their imagination for what could go wrong, although I suppose it should be.

I don't buy the conspiracy theories that the guards 'let them in', that's clearly not the case for the most part, although there are some guards who very oddly seemed to 'move away'. These kinds of conspiratorial actions would be impossible to keep under wraps, there's no chance that at least a few guards wouldn't 'leak' the 'secret plans' or whistle-blow after the fact.

It'd be great if there was a really objective piece by piece breakdown of all of this, but I'm not holding my breath.

Post reply on HN