One officer dead after man rams Capitol barricade; suspect fatally shot by police, officials say

[Crtcl Rice Theory 2,432]

One officer dead after man rams Capitol barricade; suspect fatally shot by police, officials say
By Peter Hermann, Aaron C. Davis and Matt Zapotosky

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/capitol-lockdown-police-officers-injured-barricade-rammed/2021/04/02/1e1820aa-93d8-11eb-a74e-1f4cf89fd948_story.html

[Crtcl Rice Theory 2,432]

Nothing to see here

[Dashinka 24,732]

9 minutes ago, CanAm1980 said:

Nothing to see here

What do they know so far?

[laylalex 7,300]

25 year old guy from Indiana, seems like he was a follower of the Nation of Islam and "suffering from personal issues." The cops are saying it's not being treated as terrorism. 

https://thegrio.com/2021/04/02/us-capitol-suspect-noah-green/

[yuna628 9,700]

3 hours ago, Dashinka said:

What do they know so far?

Young guy, religion was NOI. Some might think that would give a clue as to him being some sort of violent zealot guy, and I'm sure someone will try to find a link.. but oddly enough I don't see anything mentioned online about him that would point in that direction. His last internet posting was not violent but it did mention he was going through difficult hardships. There is however a lot that point in the direction of clear mental illness, paranoia about the government/anti government and some conspiracy theory end times/end of the world stuff.

 

Officer that was brutally killed was Billy Evans, an 18 year veteran. https://www.nbcboston.com/news/local/heartbroken-new-england-leaders-react-after-us-capitol-officer-killed-in-attack/2345696/ Have not heard anything about the other officer yet.

 

[Dashinka 24,732]

8 hours ago, yuna628 said:

Young guy, religion was NOI. Some might think that would give a clue as to him being some sort of violent zealot guy, and I'm sure someone will try to find a link.. but oddly enough I don't see anything mentioned online about him that would point in that direction. His last internet posting was not violent but it did mention he was going through difficult hardships. There is however a lot that point in the direction of clear mental illness, paranoia about the government/anti government and some conspiracy theory end times/end of the world stuff.

 

Officer that was brutally killed was Billy Evans, an 18 year veteran. https://www.nbcboston.com/news/local/heartbroken-new-england-leaders-react-after-us-capitol-officer-killed-in-attack/2345696/ Have not heard anything about the other officer yet.

 

Too bad about the officer.  Seems like a lone actor with some recent issues.  Doesn’t really seem to fit the current narrative, so I expect it will drop out of the news cycle quite quickly.

Edited April 3, 2021 by Dashinka

[Nature Boy 2.0 8,378]

Capitol attack suspect identified as Louis Farrakhan follower, Noah Green

 

https://www.foxnews.com/us/noah-green-louis-farrakhan-capitol-attack

[Nature Boy 2.0 8,378]

MSNBC erroneously reported that Capitol attack suspect was a 'White male'

 

https://www.foxnews.com/media/msnbc-noah-green-white-male-capitol-attack

[nykolos 711]

5 hours ago, Nature Boy 2.0 said:

MSNBC erroneously reported that Capitol attack suspect was a 'White male'

 

https://www.foxnews.com/media/msnbc-noah-green-white-male-capitol-attack

We knew that was coming, a White Supremacist who hasn't yet been de-programmed.

 

 

[Dashinka 24,732]

Hmm, not a lot of coverage on this anymore.

[laylalex 7,300]

5 hours ago, Dashinka said:

Hmm, not a lot of coverage on this anymore.

Probably because (1) this wasn't a terrorist attack (we are told); and (2) the motive is under investigation. More will come out when more information is available. What is being discussed is whether the attack shows that security needs to remain particularly tight around the Capitol at the moment. In the weeks before, more than a few politicians were calling the additional barriers political theatre.

[Dashinka 24,732]

13 hours ago, laylalex said:

Probably because (1) this wasn't a terrorist attack (we are told); and (2) the motive is under investigation. More will come out when more information is available. What is being discussed is whether the attack shows that security needs to remain particularly tight around the Capitol at the moment. In the weeks before, more than a few politicians were calling the additional barriers political theatre.

Your 1 and 2 seem to contradict each other.  If we do not know the motive, how can they say it was not terror related.  Anyway, my point was more about how the Leftist media has covered this.  Sure it gave them a chance to drag out their footage from January 6, but since the perpetrator in this most recent case does not fit a specific narrative, the stories fell away very quickly.  A similar observation can be seen with the coverage of the Boulder shooting story.

[yuna628 9,700]

4 hours ago, Dashinka said:

Your 1 and 2 seem to contradict each other.  If we do not know the motive, how can they say it was not terror related.  Anyway, my point was more about how the Leftist media has covered this.  Sure it gave them a chance to drag out their footage from January 6, but since the perpetrator in this most recent case does not fit a specific narrative, the stories fell away very quickly.  A similar observation can be seen with the coverage of the Boulder shooting story.

We the public don't know the motive, but you don't think that the FBI knew the motivation within hours or a day or two? I think the assessment that it is not terror related is an accurate one by the current defined parameters. He does not appear to be a Jihadist nor does he seem to be associated with a militia group that attacked the Capitol. He is not a member of the KKK or a group on a particular list. As I said before, he is a NOI member, which may have immediately made the FBI go digging that angle. At least, he claims to be one, he may have been fibbing about that. His association is claimed and only very recent. His social profile does not draw any big flags to me except for mental illness, paranoia, and delusions. His family was very aware of lengthy mental health problems and were desperate to get him help. Now we can certainly debate that anyone that makes a random attack on a location is by some definition a terrorist, and I wouldn't disagree.

 

I don't see how you can say coverage has ended though. There was coverage on both shootings last night, more this morning even. There has been good investigative reports on the lives of both men.

[Dashinka 24,732]

1 hour ago, yuna628 said:

We the public don't know the motive, but you don't think that the FBI knew the motivation within hours or a day or two? I think the assessment that it is not terror related is an accurate one by the current defined parameters. He does not appear to be a Jihadist nor does he seem to be associated with a militia group that attacked the Capitol. He is not a member of the KKK or a group on a particular list. As I said before, he is a NOI member, which may have immediately made the FBI go digging that angle. At least, he claims to be one, he may have been fibbing about that. His association is claimed and only very recent. His social profile does not draw any big flags to me except for mental illness, paranoia, and delusions. His family was very aware of lengthy mental health problems and were desperate to get him help. Now we can certainly debate that anyone that makes a random attack on a location is by some definition a terrorist, and I wouldn't disagree.

 

I don't see how you can say coverage has ended though. There was coverage on both shootings last night, more this morning even. There has been good investigative reports on the lives of both men.

I really have no idea if the FBI knows anything.  Contrary to popular belief, they are fallible, and I have no idea if this person is talking or maintaining his right to remain silent.  If this guy was a despondent as the stories last week led us to believe, attacking a road block at the US Capitol seems an unlikely target unless he had a political axe to grind.  As to the coverage ending, going through CNN, MSNBC, ABCNews, and NBCNews, the only story I found was regarding the slain officer going to lie in state at the Capitol.  I would have thought the MSM big boys may have tried to keep this at the forefront so they could keep pushing their Jan 6th activism, but this guy doesn't fit the narrative they wish to push apparently.

[laylalex 7,300]

10 hours ago, Dashinka said:

Your 1 and 2 seem to contradict each other.  If we do not know the motive, how can they say it was not terror related.  Anyway, my point was more about how the Leftist media has covered this.  Sure it gave them a chance to drag out their footage from January 6, but since the perpetrator in this most recent case does not fit a specific narrative, the stories fell away very quickly.  A similar observation can be seen with the coverage of the Boulder shooting story.

No, they do not, as yuna pointed out. Just because WE do not know the motive doesn't mean they don't. I do not know why people ask for all of the evidence in an ongoing investigation to be laid out as it is uncovered. It just doesn't work that way. Showing what cards you have all the time means you can cut off potential areas of investigation, because people who might not know they were being looked at will run to ground, evidence gets destroyed, people might not want to call in tips.

 

Not only that, as investigations develop, theories develop and shift. Look only to your very recent (like today) criticism of Dr. Fauci and the CDC's evolving stance on the importance of mask wearing and visiting healthcare professionals during the pandemic for a parallel. In public health, it's important to give the most up to date and accurate advice, but as more information is gathered, that advice will naturally change because there's more information. Accusations then fly that the earlier information -- even if was based on the best scientific evidence available at the time it was put out -- was wrong, so how can we trust the new information? In criminal investigations, theories also shift and develop. Imagine if the first suspect was someone who was immediately discarded because there was a reliable alibi within minutes or hours of the investigation starting. What happens when another suspect is identified, and another, and another? Do we say, oh, can't trust the cops, look at all these people they're looking at. We know the minimum amount in order to satisfy curiosity while keeping investigations actually capable of turning up reliable evidence. That is my understanding.