Group/reverse group fallacy?

As the storming of the US capitol by supporters of a certain man having lost his office just occurred a couple of hours ago, I keep seeing this (admittedly paraphrased) statement (and variations of it) pop up often in regards to the lax and overwhelmed police presence at this event, usually drawing comparisons to BLM:

"If this happened with BLM protesters instead of right wingers, they will all be dead."
"If they stormed the capitol, BLM protesters would have been gassed, shot and beaten, yet this one with right wingers did not."
"BLM would have been gunned down by all the police if it was them storming the capitol, not "
"The police would have gunned down the protesters if they were not right wingers."

From what I can tell, the two logical 'trains' to justify these statements is this:

Train 1:
A: Police are more sympathetic to right wing protesters because of previous actions.
B: Due to this, right wing protesters usually allow more leeway in what they do during protests.
C: There is no confrontation with police and right wing protesters, as police usually use less force.
X: The Capitol Police was inhabited points A, B and C during the rally, and no tear gas, live rounds or rubber bullets were used to disperse the crowd, despite this being the US Capitol.
Y: Therefore, police and right wing protesters are in collusion with each other and allowed the storming of the capitol to happen, because of the addition of X to A, B and C.

This connects to Train 2:
A: Police are hostile and aggressive to Black Lives Matter and its supporters.
B: Police hostility to Black Lives Matter protests are often visual and confrontational, often escalating to violence and rioting.
C: Due to this, Black Lives Matter protests are often broken up by police with more force than non BLM protests.
X: As seen during the George Floyd protests, police often use tear gas, rubber bullets, water cannons and batons on BLM protesters, further increasing the tension.
Y: Therefore, if it was BLM protesters storming the US Capitol today, all of them would have been shot dead by the police and the military on the spot because the combination of A, B, C and X.

What are the logical fallacies used in these chain of arguments?

These can be classified specifically as speculations or hypotheticals.

The logical trains are not deductive arguments, which is fine, it just means that each connection contains some degree of error. Like the slippery slope , as the margin of errors are multiplied the conclusion becomes more improbable than probable. Also, the first item is an assertion with no support given, so that is problematic.