| > What leads you to call that probable? Because people with guns who said they wanted to kill her entered the capitol with their guns and started looking for her. E.g., from one charging document: "Thinking about heading over to Pelosi CUNT’s speech and putting a bullet in her noggin on Live TV [purple devil emoji]." Charges: Possession of Unregistered Firearms, Possession of Unregistered Ammunition, Possession of Large Capacity Ammunition Feeding Devices. So... he had a gun, said he wanted to kill pelosi, and then broke into a federal building and started looking for her. He was probably just trolling and this is all a big over-reaction, right? /s > unarmed https://www.justice.gov/usao-dc/capitol-breach-cases > that Bernie supporter... the main different here is that I don't recall there being a systemic effort to defend him and explain that it's really no big deal. |
Correct me if I'm wrong, but nobody entered the Capitol with guns. I'm aware that sounds like downplaying the incident, which is not my intention. I just think accuracy matters.
The guy you're referring to (who was thankfully charged), did not enter the Capitol with a gun, according to the charging document. What gave you the idea that he entered the Capitol with a gun, the charging document is pretty clear?
>the main different here is that I don't recall there being a systemic effort to defend him and explain that it's really no big deal.
The effort was just to blame Trump's rhetoric for that guys actions. Which, Trump's rhetoric was less than helpful to say the least, but that was a poor excuse for trying to murder a bunch of congresspeople.
Alas, this is the problem with demanding accuracy. If someone says something false about a bad person or incident, we are unable to ask for accuracy unless we are willing to be seen as defending it.