It's dubious. That wasn't the position that was overrun, and there were protesters both behind and in front of the police. That position likely needed to be abandoned, because being pressed upon on two sides is no bueno.

The bigger question is whether there was any deliberate decision to withhold necessary force --- in particular, whether the executive had any influence on the lack of Guard support or other measures not being taken.

A subsidiary question is whether there were any cops that were deliberately facilitating this. When so far outnumbered, 5-10 rogue police officers could make a huge difference in outcomes.

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.

But what about that day? Maryland Governor Larry Hogan (R):

"I was actually on the phone with Leader Hoyer who was pleading with us to send the guard," Hogan said, The Post reported. "He was yelling across the room to Schumer and they were back and forth saying we do have the authorization and I'm saying, 'I'm telling you we do not have the authorization.'"

As rioters smashed windows and forced lawmakers into hiding, the head of the Maryland National Guard was told he could not come to the aid of US Capitol police, per Hogan.

Ninety minutes later, according to Hogan, the secretary of the Army, Ryan McCarthy, called him to request the deployment.

Typically such calls come from the US Secretary of Defense. It was not the only apparent breach in the chain of command on Wednesday. The order to deploy the National Guard came not from the commander in chief, President Donald Trump, but rather Vice President Mike Pence, according to The New York Times.

https://www.businessinsider.com/maryland-governor-repeatedly...

The mayor doesn't control the Capitol Police.

Did someone here say she did?

They asked why the Capitol Police weren't reinforced by the National Guard. You replied the mayor declined help from the National Guard.

There is also video of them shooting and killing people trying to enter the capital and video of them actively pushing back and being overwhelmed. Much more than one out of context clip.

The capitol police definitely don’t seem to have been acting as one unit in this. At least some were trying to protect the capitol.

True, but I think that one was protecting the inner rooms, close to where pence was

There's plenty of fighting over barricades outside.

I can't find the video of the first, outer cordon falling anymore, but this is the second, inner cordon falling at the beginning of this clip, followed by attempts to stop the protesters on the steps:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6PCHra6JuuQ&t=3s

Then there was desperate fighting over doorways inside the capitol building.

Which at that point was probably the correct decision. What’s the other option? Get overwhelmed by the crowd or attacked from behind?

I don't know, but the way they casually let them in doesn't look like they're retreating from the position. If they were, why open the barriers? Why wouldn't they just back up from the position to their fallback position as one group?

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.

Plenty of gas was used, and so were other less lethal weapons.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6PCHra6JuuQ&t=3s

Gas, flashbangs, and guns were used at the Capital on the 6th.

1:100 doesn’t make escalation a wise decision

I thought it was odd how it seemed like the majority of the people were walking as if they were going on a tour of the capitol and not like they were a violent mob.

It'll be interesting to see what more comes out of the wtf bad capitol security.

This is speculation, but apparently there were protesters on both the civilian entrance side as well as the promenade (where you saw the protesters scaling walls). When the protesters breached the promenade entrance, I assume there was some sort of stand down orders for the police at the civilian entrance, presumably so that the officers wouldn't get pinched.

Hence the weird dual screen of protesters breaking through windows/protesters staying within the cordons. They weren't part of the same cohort.

This was also my reaction. I think many viewed it that way, like it was an expected part of them being there

If true, looks like they thought “stand back and stand by” was meant for them.

I agree, and I also urge people to watch this footage. It can be found here[1] (it is also featured for a few seconds in the other videos [2-4]).

There are two takes on this by comedian's here[2] and here[3], which I personally thought were intriguing (and funny).

There is also a comprehensive (serious) take here[4] showing a bunch of extra footage I hadn't seen yet.

If anyone watches these takes and disagrees with them, I would love to hear how specifically you don't agree?

Especially: how can it be explained the omissions shown in [4] that the media are making, e.g. not showing the several incidences where the masses of Trump supporters were actively stopping the violent provocateurs (protecting police, stopping them from smashing a window, etc)? I am genuinely curious.

[1] https://mobile.twitter.com/sugaspov/status/13469199432380006... [2] https://www.bitchute.com/video/bZCHyUgTc0o/ [3] https://youtu.be/xH9XWNz0GW4?t=219 [4] https://youtu.be/BwSxVvRFMJA

This video is likely being misinterpreted. It doesn't really make any sense because there are masses of plain clothes citizens on this side of the barricade before it is opened, including the guy who steps forward and gestures for everyone to "come on over." The police and barricade where they were had already lost the line by this time. The zooming at the beginning makes it hard to see exactly who is lifting and moving the barricades, though. Perhaps frame by frame it could be better analyzed.

Considering [4] Rudy "trial by combat" Giuliani, I'm going to take a pass at using that as a news source. Allowing him to shape your message is probably not ideal!

Here's an analysis of the footage: https://www.politifact.com/article/2021/jan/07/ask-politifac...

So all the people who were framegrabbed and getting arrested were not Trump supporters, but antifa?

All the people physically confronting the police here a small minority of agent provocateurs?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6PCHra6JuuQ&t=3s

Pretty ridiculous take, bro.