Thread by @lymanstoneky

This whole thread is striking.

My take is: in general, for decades, Capitol security forces have use too little violence to dispense with people who should be allowed to become the martyrs they so obviously desire to be.

https://twitter.com/YossiGestetner/status/1478930417893916689

Indeed, the extent to which Capitol security forces have repeatedly failed to use lethal force when the government was under threat arguably is an important causal element in what appears to be a decades-long trend of increasing violence at the Capitol and WH.

What I'm saying is that a whiff of grapeshot is an important part of a just and civil society.

And indeed, it is precisely the highly discriminating nature of violence by security forces that is problematic. They are fairly few in number and obviously can be overwhelmed; their only real strategic advantage is an asymmetry of lethal force + mob mentality.

A discipled set of armed security personnel upon firing indiscriminately into a crowd at sufficient speed can repeal a force of absolutely extraordinary size. A fact made clear at Isandlwhana and true ever since.

The issue is most cases of mob action involve a very small number of actually violent people and then just tons of human press behind them. That overwhelms security forces. But trying to ID the violent 2% is almost impossible.

Solution: Convince the 98% that remaining on site will lead to their pointless and innocent death. They will run.

This kind of solution makes absolutely no sense for defending public sites in general but when we're talking about THE SEAT OF GOVERNMENT ITSELF, yeah, lethal force should be applied and without too much pause.

To be clear, this is also my view of the big protests outside the WH under Trump or the folks who tried to mob into the Capitol during one of the conservative SCOTUS justice hearings. Disperse with force as necessary.

https://twitter.com/MrMasley/status/1479170061155901441