We need to be clear, she was shot while trying to force her way through a barricaded door when law enforcement was trying to safely get elected officials and other innocent people out of harm's way, and she was only shot after multiple warnings.
I fully agree that the terrorists shouldn't have been allowed into the building, but it happened, and given that, if this isn't a textbook example of a situation where law enforcement was justified in using lethal force, I'm not sure what is.
.. have they bothered taking down their "blue lives matter" decorations first?
There is no reasonable justification for the police to execute an unarmed protestor simply for trespassing in a political building.
I suspect that you (like many others) have just become normalized to such police brutality, to think this is acceptable.
Not to mention, the largest difference is that during the BLM protests you saw daily police brutality against the protesters from day one, with tear gas, rubber bullets, etc. You did NOT see police taking selfies on the steps of the buildings they were supposed to keep the protesters out of.
I think if you compare a single event with a large number of different events, you’ll find examples where one is worse by some measure and others where one is better. I don’t really want to comment on the recent events or the validity of the argument (or it’s spirit), but I think it probably isn’t reasonable to compare a single event with the aggregate of many different events.
Even if the people defending the Red House did call it an autonomous zone, their only real demands were to protect the livelihood of one family. They did not seek to expand, they did not try to gain political power from it,they did nothing that I would actually view as a significant attempt to challenge the authority of the state beyond a very specific case.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitol_Hill_Autonomous_Zone
I fail to see how this can be presented as comparable in gravity with people attacking the Capitol building with the intent of overturning the result of the federal election.
But there is a difference between demanding social change and demanding to take down a politician or to overturn an election.
>(except for police),
I rest my case.
And it's not just the fact that the police allowed it to happen or that the military was not asked to intervene until way too late.
It's also the alarmingly not-alarmed media response. What happened to "thugs" or "rioters" or "enemy combatants"?
Correct me if I'm wrong but a dozen or so cops standing down in front of hundreds of protestors != compliance.
> The protesters should have never even been allowed to get near the Capitol building while Congress was in session
That's absolutely right.
The fact that a woman was shot by police in last night's protest is a tragedy, as all human life is precious. But a democracy can't bow down to mob rule for fear of violence. The protesters should have never even been allowed to get near the Capitol building while Congress was in session, and in that case perhaps this loss of life could have also been avoided.
Police brutality and the police culture of violence before other solutions is also something that has been discussed in leftist circles the entire year. It is a culture that must be changed, which will surely be a monumental task, if it even is attempted. Still, the alternative is not simply allowing mobs to attack federal institutions with impunity.