"Well gee. The fact that there were armed people in the crowd. The fact that they beat up law enforcement and the fact that they tried to force their was into the chambers where the counting was taking place- only being stopped after one of the protestors was fatally wounded after she was dumb enough to try climbing through a broken window.Ooops, I'd better stop there. I've provided you with four facts, not three. Wouldn't want to get too cocky now would I?"
And this is what you should have done. Analysis. You did no analysis.
Armed people in the crowd. How many? What weapons did they have? Did they use them? How many have been charged with weapons offences? What weapons have they been charged with? Considering these numbers compared to the total crowd number do they constitute a significant percentage of the crowd? Was it organised? Was any of this caught on video? Presumably all this is picked up on the officers' body-worne cameras. Have these been released? If not why not?
Does beating up police mean you are automatically involved in an armed insurrection? What about hundreds of hours of video showing police letting people in and the crowd speaking back politely? Democrats claimed for some time that an officer had been beaten to death with a fire extinghuiser. Then apparently death by pepper spray. Then finally admitting the officer died of an unrelated stroke a day later. If they could get this so badly wrong what else did they report had happened but in fact did not.
A raged mob committed to armed insurrection stopped because one person was shot...but the mob were armed. This was an armed insurrection. They were going to overthrow the government!!
Your narrative does not stack up. You have done no analysis and hence provide none of your own insight.
