Post by: Rush on January 07, 2021, 03:09:15 AM
The first casualty of the second civil war.
Post by: Lucifer on January 07, 2021, 06:54:09 AM
https://freenorthcarolina.blogspot.com/2021/01/ashli-babbitttrump-supporter-killed-at.html
The first casualty of the second civil war.
To the left she was just collateral damage. Just like all the cities they burned and all the people their hate groups murdered.
Post by: nudnik on January 07, 2021, 01:39:39 PM
To the left she was just collateral damage. Just like all the cities they burned and all the people their hate groups murdered.
No, she was an absolutely 100% avoidable tragedy. Her blood is on Trumps hands, and the hands of every one of his disciples. It's on your hands.
Post by: President-Elect Bob Noel on January 07, 2021, 01:45:31 PM
No, she was an absolutely 100% avoidable tragedy. Her blood is on Trumps hands, and the hands of every one of his disciples. It's on your hands.
wow - I continue to be surprised by people who demonstrate zero understanding of how to determine responsibility.
Post by: Number7 on January 07, 2021, 01:45:39 PM
No, she was an absolutely 100% avoidable tragedy. Her blood is on Trumps hands, and the hands of every one of his disciples. It's on your hands.
Congratulations.
You are a fucking idiot.
The blood of Ashli Babbit is one the hands of the shooter who murdered her on camera and gets a pass because he is a minority and she is white.
Post by: Lucifer on January 07, 2021, 01:47:26 PM
No, she was an absolutely 100% avoidable tragedy. Her blood is on Trumps hands, and the hands of every one of his disciples. It's on your hands.
She was shot by a Capital Hill Police (from what we know so far). She was not armed, nor was she being violent.
So is this blood on the hands of the democrats and their hate groups?
https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/tyler-o-neil/2020/07/05/say-their-names-20-people-killed-in-the-george-floyd-riots-n592577
https://thefederalist.com/2020/08/19/death-toll-rises-to-an-estimated-30-victims-since-mostly-peaceful-protests-began/
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/jun/4/riot-deaths-ignored-by-major-networks-watchdog-fin/
https://ktla.com/news/nationworld/at-least-11-killed-during-u-s-protests-seeking-justice-for-george-floyd-many-of-them-african-americans/
Post by: Number7 on January 07, 2021, 01:50:05 PM
Liberals think the facts are racist.
Liberals are just fine with murder as long as it occurs getting them what they want.
Liberalism is a religion of hate, racism, violence, stupidity and ignorance.
Just look at the far left assholes that have shown up to post here.
They all have one thing in common... they hate the truth and babble the propaganda as if it were gospel.
Post by: Number7 on January 07, 2021, 01:56:38 PM
Truth hurts but liberals lack the IQ and the integrity to examine the facts, so they drown in their ignorance.
Post by: bflynn on January 07, 2021, 02:07:41 PM
wow - I continue to be surprised by people who demonstrate zero understanding of how to determine responsibility.
I don't get the sense he is being serious, he is just repeating talking points. It's ridiculous to say that anyone other than her and the man who pulled the trigger are responsible for her death.
Obviously there is an internal investigation going on to to determine if the shooting was justified. She wasn't an obvious direct threat to anyone, so was deadly force authorized? I'm sure the officer is sweating it right now to wonder if he was justified in protecting the building.
Post by: nudnik on January 07, 2021, 02:25:38 PM
She was shot by a Capital Hill Police (from what we know so far). She was not armed, nor was she being violent.
You'll have absolutely no argument from me that police shouldn't go around murdering unarmed people.
I think this issue might have come up somewhere last year as well...
Post by: Lucifer on January 07, 2021, 02:30:27 PM
You'll have absolutely no argument from me that police shouldn't go around murdering unarmed people.
I think this issue might have come up somewhere last year as well...
You're changing the subject. typical.
So why does Trump have blood on his hands because of this? Are you saying Trump directed the action? And why can't you say the democrats have blood on their hands from the murders during the riots of their hate groups?
Post by: Little Joe on January 07, 2021, 02:39:30 PM
No, she was an absolutely 100% avoidable tragedy. Her blood is on Trumps hands, and the hands of every one of his disciples. It's on your hands.I suppose the guy that shot her has no blood on HIS hands and neither do the people he was taking orders from.
Post by: nudnik on January 07, 2021, 02:42:21 PM
I don't get the sense he is being serious, he is just repeating talking points. It's ridiculous to say that anyone other than her and the man who pulled the trigger are responsible for her death.
Obviously there is an internal investigation going on to to determine if the shooting was justified. She wasn't an obvious direct threat to anyone, so was deadly force authorized?
Storming a barrier held by police is called: "Suicide by cop".
I agree deadly force wasn't necessary. And in most other places in the world, this doesn't get you killed. Trump however is very much in support of police and their use of force. And he pretty much encouraged people to storm the barrier: "Walk down to the Capitol - You will never take back our country with weakness!".
Nobody I know is in the least surprised that it ended up like this.
Post by: EppyGA - White Christian Domestic Terrorist on January 07, 2021, 02:51:07 PM
Storming a barrier held by police is called: "Suicide by cop".
I agree deadly force wasn't necessary. And in most other places in the world, this doesn't get you killed. Trump however is very much in support of police and their use of force. And he pretty much encouraged people to storm the barrier: "Walk down to the Capitol - You will never take back our country with weakness!".
Nobody I know is in the least surprised that it ended up like this.
Are you aware that the original itinerary was to walk to the capital after his speech?
Post by: nudnik on January 07, 2021, 02:53:28 PM
I suppose the guy that shot her has no blood on HIS hands and neither do the people he was taking orders from.
He is a murderer. And his entire chain of command. No question about it.
But if I were to tell 10s of thousands of my followers to storm a crack house that's held down by a mob of murderers, for no reason other than to stroke my ego, I would have some moral responsibility if it leads to a bad outcome.
The cop can be prosecuted (but won't be). But that won't bring Ashli Babbitt back.
Post by: Lucifer on January 07, 2021, 02:54:12 PM
Storming a barrier held by police is called: "Suicide by cop".
I agree deadly force wasn't necessary. And in most other places in the world, this doesn't get you killed. Trump however is very much in support of police and their use of force. And he pretty much encouraged people to storm the barrier: "Walk down to the Capitol - You will never take back our country with weakness!".
Nobody I know is in the least surprised that it ended up like this.
Why weren't you concerned when ANTIFA and BLM was rioting and burning down buildings, and murdering people?
Remember Kamala Harris? Remember her encouraging rioters? Remember her staff providing money to bail out ANTIFA rioters?
I'm old enough to remember January 20th 2017 in Washington DC. Remember the democrats burning buildings, breaking windows and torching cars? Remember the vandalism? Remember the RIOTS?
All through 2020 were were told democrat hate groups were "peaceful protestors" as cities burned and bodies lay in the streets. Now, all of the sudden yesterday it's a RIOT and a INSURRECTION.
So don't play your silly fuckin' games here.
Post by: bflynn on January 07, 2021, 02:57:10 PM
You'll have absolutely no argument from me that police shouldn't go around murdering unarmed people.
I think this issue might have come up somewhere last year as well...
And yet, you're blaming her....
So contrary to your own posts, you ARE arguing that police go around shooting people.
The topic of deadly force is one that I learned early. Once upon a time, I stood a watch once where if anyone walked past a certain point, I was expected to shoot them dead. Fortunately, there were lots and lots of signs around that told everyone that and nobody was stupid enough to disregard that. That was the rules of engagement for nuclear weapons, what is it for unauthorized protestor in the Capitol?
I don't know the ROEs for this officer, but I cannot believe it drew a line in the sand where it became OK to shoot someone climbing over a barrier.
Post by: nudnik on January 07, 2021, 03:10:21 PM
Are you aware that the original itinerary was to walk to the capital after his speech?
Yes. That makes it worse, not better. Below is what DC looked like last year when there was a planned BLM march. That is what the Capitol SHOULD have looked like yesterday in preparation to the march and nobody wouldn't have breached it, and nobody would have gotten hurt. And we all know if these protestors looked a little different, it is exactly what it would have looked like.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ErEv7QSUYAMhtS1?format=jpg&name=medium)
Post by: bflynn on January 07, 2021, 03:21:36 PM
Yes. That makes it worse, not better. Below is what DC looked like last year when there was a planned BLM march. That is what the Capitol SHOULD have looked like yesterday in preparation to the march and nobody wouldn't have breached it, and nobody would have gotten hurt. And we all know if these protestors looked a little different, it is exactly what it would have looked like.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ErEv7QSUYAMhtS1?format=jpg&name=medium)
You're full of shit because your answer is wrong. You don't suggest fixing the problem, you suggest controlling the people harder. Really, this is your answer, to crush resistance out of people?
What a maroon.
Post by: nudnik on January 07, 2021, 03:52:11 PM
You're full of shit because your answer is wrong. You don't suggest fixing the problem, you suggest controlling the people harder. Really, this is your answer, to crush resistance out of people?
What a maroon.
What is the "fixing the problem" that you're referring to?
I have no problem with protestors. I have a problem with (In Lucifer's words): "buildings, breaking windows and torching cars, vandalism, RIOTS". The protestors shouldn't have been physically able to get into the Capitol while virtually the entire seat of government was present. BLM protestors or even rioters were never able to walk into the White House. Do you think it was because they just didn't feel like it?
Also, just a hunch here, but I'm pretty sure if I go back to the POA Spinzone the last time 4 Americans died while people were trying to get into a badly protected government building, I would likely be getting a diametrically opposed point of view in terms of who is responsible...
Post by: nddons on January 07, 2021, 05:12:58 PM
No, she was an absolutely 100% avoidable tragedy. Her blood is on Trumps hands, and the hands of every one of his disciples. It's on your hands.Go fuck yourself.
Post by: bflynn on January 07, 2021, 05:50:07 PM
The protestors shouldn't have been physically able to get into the Capitol while virtually the entire seat of government was present.
Why? Must the sacred politician be protected at all costs? They cannot be in the same room as a protestor?
The protestors were not the dangerous ones. They didn't shoot any police and I'd bet most of them could have brought guns.
Post by: EppyGA - White Christian Domestic Terrorist on January 07, 2021, 06:05:05 PM
Why? Must the sacred politician be protected at all costs? They cannot be in the same room as a protestor?
The protestors were not the dangerous ones. They didn't shoot any police and I'd bet most of them could have brought guns.
There were likely some protesters carrying at the rally. Not a one of them pulled a trigger. How does that happen? ::)
Post by: Number7 on January 07, 2021, 08:22:57 PM
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2021/01/07/utah-man-with-a-history-of-organizing-blm-protests-was-inside-the-capitol-n2582766
Post by: Anthony on January 08, 2021, 02:25:02 AM
What is the "fixing the problem" that you're referring to?
I have no problem with protestors. I have a problem with (In Lucifer's words): "buildings, breaking windows and torching cars, vandalism, RIOTS". The protestors shouldn't have been physically able to get into the Capitol while virtually the entire seat of government was present. BLM protestors or even rioters were never able to walk into the White House. Do you think it was because they just didn't feel like it?
Also, just a hunch here, but I'm pretty sure if I go back to the POA Spinzone the last time 4 Americans died while people were trying to get into a badly protected government building, I would likely be getting a diametrically opposed point of view in terms of who is responsible...
The politicians work for us. The buildings belong to us. They should not be insulated from We The People. That's why we are in this mess. They have forgotten that. It is now just a money and power game to enrich themselves and USE us.
Post by: Rush on January 08, 2021, 04:44:14 AM
For the pathetic, left wing, communists who make believe that what they see on cnn is news...
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2021/01/07/utah-man-with-a-history-of-organizing-blm-protests-was-inside-the-capitol-n2582766
I spent hours following things closely in real time with one of the reporters who was in the thick of it, who got tear gassed himself, and I concluded there were leftists (BLM/Antifa) in the crowd.
First, logic and common sense tells you there’s no way they were not going to be there. It was way too good an opportunity to hide among the crowd and be part of something historic.
But more importantly, remember, those groups are also against the current power structure in place. I’ve been preaching for years that the true conflict here is not Democrat vs Republican or even conservative vs liberal, the true conflict is the common people vs the elite class. What separates the sides is we disagree on what should replace the status quo. Trump supporters want it to go back to small government under the original constitutional blueprint and BLM/Antifa want it to be replaced with a leftist “utopia”, which means use a new blueprint. (They are the useful idiots of the communist faction embedded within the status quo.)
But both groups want to purge the existing people within the structure that aren’t part of their cause; Pelosi, Schumer etc. on the left, and RINOs on the right. So for that moment, they were aligned, and both sides were invading the Capitol to send the same message: “You have become disconnected and corrupt, the Capitol belongs to us the People.”
Remember, the leftist protesters didn’t want Biden, they wanted Sanders, and also remember they are a diverse group with differing ideologies, some anarchists. They see Biden as the lesser of two evils between him and Trump, but they still want to dismantle the current power structure, or rather, take it over and “transform” it using their operatives already in place (the radical arm of the Dems).
The story as I got it from people who were there in real time, is that the first violent acts were carried out by Antifa/BLM plants, but that Trump supporters enthusiastically joined in and they greatly outnumbered the leftist plants. So the reports in the media that “Trump supporters stormed the Capitol”, is partial truth, well yes, mostly they were Trump supporters but the storm was triggered by the leftist plants who also participated fully in the siege if not initiated the actual first breech.
The politicians work for us. The buildings belong to us. They should not be insulated from We The People. That's why we are in this mess. They have forgotten that. It is now just a money and power game to enrich themselves and USE us.
When you commit insurrection and treason, it is against the Constitution, not the people holding office. That is what the Trump haters (including members on this board) are completely missing. The storm on the Capitol was NOT about Trump and not instigated by Trump despite what the lying media says and what the uninformed believe.
It was about losing the Constitution, because whether or not there really was election fraud, the Trump supporters believe there was, which means they believe the Constitution has been abandoned, and that the constitutionally mandated process of elections is now hopelessly tainted. And if that is true, we no longer have a Constitutional government. We have a government structure that the political class has usurped and they have now crowned themselves permanent rulers.
Post by: Anthony on January 08, 2021, 04:51:16 AM
The Sheeple seem to want this and for the elites to take care of them through Big Government.
Post by: Rush on January 08, 2021, 06:48:18 AM
The lying media and the Democrats would have you believe it is treason to oppose Biden, or to oppose a certified election result. But no one swears an oath to uphold a person, or an election result. We swear an oath to uphold the Constitution.
We have all been calling these people “Trump supporters”. We don’t call them Republicans or conservatives. Because we must distinguish them from the RINOs and we must include all the Libertarians, Independents and walkaway Democrats that side with Trump against Biden. But “Trump supporters” is a misnomer, needed for convenience because what they really are is a populist uprising. It existed before Trump. Trump just happened to be the man that came along and galvanized what was already a restless undercurrent. He became a focal point and he shone a light on the rotting corruption in DC, and he was an outsider that connected with the Forgotten Man, and so he became the standard bearer. Then he proved himself for 4 years keeping the promises he made.
That’s the only reason they are “Trump supporters” but we really should call the people that stormed the Capitol “Constitution supporters” (except the leftist plants). Because it was the politicians inside the building that day that were committing treason.
Post by: Lucifer on January 08, 2021, 06:57:53 AM
Post by: Mr Pou on January 08, 2021, 07:03:03 AM
Once upon a time, I stood a watch once where if anyone walked past a certain point, I was expected to shoot them dead.
Yeah, I just don't get what people don't get about a secure facility. I think the police were quite accommodating to the crowd, but at some point the building HAS to be defended. That woman just wasn't very bright. Obvious barricade, obvious security personnel with weapons drawn and trained. This isn't on anyone but her. With bad choices in life come bad consequences.
Post by: bflynn on January 08, 2021, 07:21:25 AM
Yeah, I just don't get what people don't get about a secure facility. I think the police were quite accommodating to the crowd, but at some point the building HAS to be defended. That woman just wasn't very bright. Obvious barricade, obvious security personnel with weapons drawn and trained. This isn't on anyone but her. With bad choices in life come bad consequences.
Was deadly force an appropriate response to her breaching a barricade? I don't really have a dog in the fight, but it seems excessive to me. That officer was not personally in danger and if you pull the whole thing out of the context of the Capitol building, the officer would clearly be out of line. So why is it that inside the capitol, it becomes fair game without warning?
When I stood that nuclear weapons watch, there were signs up that said "do not enter this area. Deadly force is authorized". Were there such signs in the Capitol? Do you think anyone believed officers would start shooting unarmed civilians, even civilians performing unlawful entry?
Post by: President-Elect Bob Noel on January 08, 2021, 07:28:17 AM
Was deadly force an appropriate response to her breaching a barricade? I don't really have a dog in the fight, but it seems excessive to me. That officer was not personally in danger and if you pull the whole thing out of the context of the Capitol building, the officer would clearly be out of line. So why is it that inside the capitol, it becomes fair game without warning?
When I stood that nuclear weapons watch, there were signs up that said "do not enter this area. Deadly force is authorized". Were there such signs in the Capitol? Do you think anyone believed officers would start shooting unarmed civilians, even civilians performing unlawful entry?
(if you can say) when you stood watch, were you under orders to shoot everyone who entered the area? Or were you expected to exercise judgement?
Post by: Rush on January 08, 2021, 07:36:45 AM
Yeah, I just don't get what people don't get about a secure facility. I think the police were quite accommodating to the crowd, but at some point the building HAS to be defended. That woman just wasn't very bright. Obvious barricade, obvious security personnel with weapons drawn and trained. This isn't on anyone but her. With bad choices in life come bad consequences.
She was a firecracker on a mission. I doubt it was because she “wasn’t very bright”. From all accounts she was very intelligent and accomplished. I watched that second clip that came out that showed both the shooter and her action that caused him to shoot. It’s possible, maybe even likely, that she did not see the pistol over to the side that was trained on the door/window whatever it was she tried to climb through. She climbed higher than the others, and while she was not likely the first to attempt to get through that obstacle, her sudden upward and forward movement was seen by the officer as an imminent breach of the area he was defending.
She was not necessarily aware of that, and likely wasn’t at that time, as she was part of a large crowd all of whom had been trying to get through that door, glass was already broken, there was a huge crowd behind her urging the ones in front on, it was a collective push, and becomes at a certain point a mindless inevitability.
I cannot judge whether or not the decision to fire was right, because I don’t know what the officer’s orders were, and even if he was to use deadly force, it was not clear that he had a clean shot considering what was behind and around her. There were other officers behind her that could have been in the line of fire. He was off to the side. He stepped out to fire. It’s likely she never saw him. A trained Air Force vet who did 4 tours of duty would not have, had she seen the gun, done what she did, even given the passion and mob pressure of the situation. So I call foul on calling her stupid.
Post by: Mr Pou on January 08, 2021, 07:41:23 AM
Was deadly force an appropriate response to her breaching a barricade? I don't really have a dog in the fight, but it seems excessive to me.At some point the building has to be defended. Where the line in the sand was I cannot know, but it seems to me as if that barricade may have been the line.
Quote
When I stood that nuclear weapons watch, there were signs up that said "do not enter this area. Deadly force is authorized". Were there such signs in the Capitol? Do you think anyone believed officers would start shooting unarmed civilians, even civilians performing unlawful entry?
There are no signs at my house that says "do not enter this area. Deadly force is authorized". Yet, I think it's pretty widely known among criminals that if you break into a home (IE, unlawful entry), you very well may get shot.
These people knew at some point, the shit would hit the fan.
Post by: Mr Pou on January 08, 2021, 07:53:06 AM
She was a firecracker on a mission. I doubt it was because she “wasn’t very bright”. From all accounts she was very intelligent and accomplished.
Please. She was somewhere she shouldn't have been. They were all somewhere they shouldn't be. And they knew it. At some point, a reasonable person would predict a bad outcome.
Post by: nddons on January 08, 2021, 08:06:18 AM
The media and the left are telling the sheeple that the “attack” (unarmed) on the Capitol was insurrection against the constitutional process of certifying the election and therefore treason. But the protesters see the real treason is the certification of fraudulent vote results. If they are right, then Pence, Pelosi and all the rest who did not contest the results are the true traitors.Spot fucking on. Well said.
The lying media and the Democrats would have you believe it is treason to oppose Biden, or to oppose a certified election result. But no one swears an oath to uphold a person, or an election result. We swear an oath to uphold the Constitution.
We have all been calling these people “Trump supporters”. We don’t call them Republicans or conservatives. Because we must distinguish them from the RINOs and we must include all the Libertarians, Independents and walkaway Democrats that side with Trump against Biden. But “Trump supporters” is a misnomer, needed for convenience because what they really are is a populist uprising. It existed before Trump. Trump just happened to be the man that came along and galvanized what was already a restless undercurrent. He became a focal point and he shone a light on the rotting corruption in DC, and he was an outsider that connected with the Forgotten Man, and so he became the standard bearer. Then he proved himself for 4 years keeping the promises he made.
That’s the only reason they are “Trump supporters” but we really should call the people that stormed the Capitol “Constitution supporters” (except the leftist plants). Because it was the politicians inside the building that day that were committing treason.
Post by: Lucifer on January 08, 2021, 08:17:44 AM
The media and the left are telling the sheeple that the “attack” (unarmed) on the Capitol was insurrection against the constitutional process of certifying the election and therefore treason. But the protesters see the real treason is the certification of fraudulent vote results. If they are right, then Pence, Pelosi and all the rest who did not contest the results are the true traitors.
The lying media and the Democrats would have you believe it is treason to oppose Biden, or to oppose a certified election result. But no one swears an oath to uphold a person, or an election result. We swear an oath to uphold the Constitution.
We have all been calling these people “Trump supporters”. We don’t call them Republicans or conservatives. Because we must distinguish them from the RINOs and we must include all the Libertarians, Independents and walkaway Democrats that side with Trump against Biden. But “Trump supporters” is a misnomer, needed for convenience because what they really are is a populist uprising. It existed before Trump. Trump just happened to be the man that came along and galvanized what was already a restless undercurrent. He became a focal point and he shone a light on the rotting corruption in DC, and he was an outsider that connected with the Forgotten Man, and so he became the standard bearer. Then he proved himself for 4 years keeping the promises he made.
That’s the only reason they are “Trump supporters” but we really should call the people that stormed the Capitol “Constitution supporters” (except the leftist plants). Because it was the politicians inside the building that day that were committing treason.
https://thefederalist.com/2021/01/08/the-left-wont-be-satisfied-until-conservatives-smear-trump-voters-as-bigots/
Post by: bflynn on January 08, 2021, 08:18:31 AM
(if you can say) when you stood watch, were you under orders to shoot everyone who entered the area? Or were you expected to exercise judgement?
There was no judgement allowed. The possibility of being forced to shoot someone innocent was discussed. If you see an area that says "deadly force is authorized", understand that means everyone.
Did the capitol police have such policies in place? Or did the officer lose it under stress?
Post by: Rush on January 08, 2021, 08:23:52 AM
Please. She was somewhere she shouldn't have been. They were all somewhere they shouldn't be. And they knew it. At some point, a reasonable person would predict a bad outcome.
Did I say she was right be be there? Did I say the officer was wrong to defend the premises? Did I say she didn’t make a bad choice?
All I said was she didn’t get herself shot out of stupidity. Bad choices maybe, but you questioned her intelligence. I was just pointing out that you made the assumption that she knew a gun was trained on her and jumped up into the face of it, and from the video I don’t think that was the case.
Post by: bflynn on January 08, 2021, 08:27:51 AM
I cannot judge whether or not the decision to fire was right, because I don’t know what the officer’s orders were, and even if he was to use deadly force, it was not clear that he had a clean shot considering what was behind and around her.
But we should be able to. LEOs operate under rules of engagement, just like I did, just like every concealed carry holder does.
For LEOs, the primary principle for the application of deadly force is an imminent threat of death or serious injury. Can someone explain how an unarmed woman climbing over a barrier represents a threat?
This has nothing to do with unlawful entry, which is what most of the protestors are being charged with and being in the Capitol is not sufficient to shoot someone.
Post by: Lucifer on January 08, 2021, 08:36:56 AM
Post by: Anthony on January 08, 2021, 08:58:35 AM
Post by: Rush on January 08, 2021, 09:14:42 AM
But we should be able to. LEOs operate under rules of engagement, just like I did, just like every concealed carry holder does.
For LEOs, the primary principle for the application of deadly force is an imminent threat of death or serious injury. Can someone explain how an unarmed woman climbing over a barrier represents a threat?
This has nothing to do with unlawful entry, which is what most of the protestors are being charged with and being in the Capitol is not sufficient to shoot someone.
We should be able to do what? Judge whether or not he was right to fire? I agree that imminent threat of death or serious injury or, you forgot to mention, serious sexual assault (at least in the state of NC) is grounds for using deadly force, and the bar is in your own head - not objective reality. IOW if you think he has a gun and is ready to shoot you, you are justified in shooting him even if he doesn’t have a gun.
But a credible threat doesn’t require firearms be involved. An unarmed person beating you with his fists or choking your neck is sufficient. In this case, a crowd of dozens of very angry agitated protesters sure looks to me like could be a deadly threat. Had she broken through, many more would have followed and it is very believable to me that officer feared for his life. You have to remember the statistical likelihood that he is a Democrat and watches CNN. He viewed those protesters as virtual demons. Racist deplorables, violent militia rednecks and hillbillies. It doesn’t matter if they were actually a bunch of nuns, what matters is if he perceived a deadly threat then he was justified. (At least in my understanding based on the laws of the states in which I received training.)
Having said that I’m still not saying he was right. I don’t have all the facts. I’m basing it on one short video clip. My feeling, for what it’s worth, is that on the individual level, he probably did nothing wrong and were I in his position I myself might have done the same thing. But on the broader level, he is on the wrong side of history, he is defending traitors, and the protesters storming the Capitol had the moral rectitude. That’s not to say it was a good strategic move though, they may still have been “wrong” to do that particular thing.
We shall see how it plays out. The consequences may backfire and result in heavy handed KGB style oppression but on the other hand, I believe that was coming anyway. If nothing else it sent a very clear message to the political class: We resent you, you no longer represent us, you don’t listen to us, you don’t care about us, and fuck you.
I think it was about time that message was sent.
Post by: bflynn on January 08, 2021, 09:31:25 AM
We should be able to do what?
Determine if the officer was right. Was he operating within his rules of engagement? For normal LEO use of deadly force rules, the answer is probably not because there was no imminent threat.
Sorry, I thought it was obvious in context. Reading back, I don't see that it was. My mistake.
Post by: Rush on January 08, 2021, 09:46:36 AM
Determine if the officer was right. Was he operating within his rules of engagement? For normal LEO use of deadly force rules, the answer is probably not because there was no imminent threat.
Sorry, I thought it was obvious in context. Reading back, I don't see that it was. My mistake.
And I see your point. All my training is civilian self defense. I’ve no idea what the rules are for LEO or military.
Post by: bflynn on January 08, 2021, 09:48:37 AM
The protestors had generally not shown a propensity to attack people, I'm not sure what they were hoping to accomplish other than to show they were mad.
Post by: Number7 on January 08, 2021, 01:23:40 PM
Please. She was somewhere she shouldn't have been. They were all somewhere they shouldn't be. And they knew it. At some point, a reasonable person would predict a bad outcome.
Now that you have (presumably) stopped foaming at the mouth like a rabid commie, liberal, tell us how this would have been presented had the White Conservative woman been a black, progressive, welfare mom.
We will wait while you think up a good lie.
Post by: Mr Pou on January 11, 2021, 05:48:45 AM
Now that you have (presumably) stopped foaming at the mouth like a rabid commie, liberal,
You really don't have a clue. Let me drop you a hint, I'm as right as they come, but even an idiot has to understand that attacking secured facilities is NOT a good idea.
And THAT is the only thing I'm trying to get across. Don't agree? Go to New London and try to get on a nuc boat, tell me how far you get.
EDIT: One area where you are right is yes, had that been a black woman shot, the shit would be coming down everywhere and cities would be burning.
Post by: Rush on January 11, 2021, 06:25:36 AM
You really don't have a clue. Let me drop you a hint, I'm as right as they come, but even an idiot has to understand that attacking secured facilities is NOT a good idea.
And THAT is the only thing I'm trying to get across. Don't agree? Go to New London and try to get on a nuc boat, tell me how far you get.
EDIT: One area where you are right is yes, had that been a black woman shot, the shit would be coming down everywhere and cities would be burning.
As it turns out it wasn’t very secured. One protester there said they were actually invited in. And there is a picture of a lot of them standing patiently within a roped corridor.
Post by: Mr Pou on January 11, 2021, 07:13:10 AM
As it turns out it wasn’t very secured. One protester there said they were actually invited in. And there is a picture of a lot of them standing patiently within a roped corridor.
If they were invited in, then I redact my statement. What a muddy mess.
Post by: Lucifer on January 11, 2021, 07:17:12 AM
If they were invited in, then I redact my statement. What a muddy mess.
It's a false flag operation. "In chaos there is opportunity".
Post by: Mr Pou on January 11, 2021, 08:10:18 AM
It's a false flag operation.
That makes sense.
Post by: nddons on January 11, 2021, 08:43:08 AM
As it turns out it wasn’t very secured. One protester there said they were actually invited in. And there is a picture of a lot of them standing patiently within a roped corridor.(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20210111/40cf650aad0a1002faf212864d7b7707.jpg)
Post by: nddons on January 11, 2021, 08:46:54 AM
Post by: Rush on January 11, 2021, 08:51:40 AM
Has the Capitol Police Officer that killed this woman been publicly identified? I’d like to know so we can do what we’ve been taught is necessary in police shootings. I think the program is to be outraged, dox the LEO, march on their house, and then of course tear down statues and burn buildings. I’m new to this so if anyone has any manual or program that would really help.
Not as far as I know. He’s been placed on leave and the incident is “being investigated”.
Post by: nddons on January 11, 2021, 09:01:19 AM
Not as far as I know. He’s been placed on leave and the incident is “being investigated”.So the burning and rioting start anyway. Ok, good to know.
Post by: Rush on January 11, 2021, 09:43:04 AM
So the burning and rioting start anyway. Ok, good to know.
Right. We assume he will not be charged and we prophylactically start burning down innocent businesses.
Post by: EppyGA - White Christian Domestic Terrorist on January 11, 2021, 09:57:11 AM
Not as far as I know. He’s been placed on leave and the incident is “being investigated”.
I've been wondering if it the officer that committed suicide.
Post by: Rush on January 11, 2021, 10:12:08 AM
I've been wondering if it the officer that committed suicide.
No I think that guy was white and the one that shot her was black but I could be wrong.
Post by: Rush on January 11, 2021, 08:01:10 PM
Post by: Lucifer on January 12, 2021, 06:48:43 AM
Post by: President-Elect Bob Noel on January 12, 2021, 07:10:16 AM
Post by: Number7 on January 12, 2021, 12:52:39 PM
But...
Whenever liberals speak, they are often fact free, truth free, historically inaccurate, ethically naked and morally bankrupt, so...
They fit right in with chinese commies.
Post by: Rush on January 14, 2021, 07:09:59 PM
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/left-wing-activist-charged-in-capitol-riot
Do I see snopes and politifact retract their statements that claims of the riot being infiltrated by the left were false and “right wing conspiracy theory”? I’m waiting.
This chick has the best analysis of the shooting incident yet. By the way, these two end up explaining how globalist fascists control us by splitting us and setting us against each other. The left needs to quit burning down small businesses and local police stations and wake up and join MAGA against the political power structure.
Post by: bflynn on January 14, 2021, 08:16:01 PM
By the way, these two end up explaining how globalist fascists control us by splitting us and setting us against each other.
It is up to all of us to resist from from being split. We often claim the other side is putting party before country, but do we sincerely evaluate our own behavior?
Maybe too serious, too late at night, too much moonshine.
Post by: Rush on January 14, 2021, 08:55:53 PM
It is up to all of us to resist from from being split. We often claim the other side is putting party before country, but do we sincerely evaluate our own behavior?
Maybe too serious, too late at night, too much moonshine.
I’m talking about the right and left forgotten, oppressed people unifying, not us unifying with the new Biden illegitimate government and its cabal of fascist communists and their traitor RINO bootlickers. I’m no longer putting any of the current parties before anything.
Post by: Rush on January 15, 2021, 05:02:35 AM
In reality he is an Orthodox Jew and while it may be true he’s registered as a Democrat, it appears he is a true Trump supporter.
Here is why:
https://www.jta.org/2020/08/28/opinion/many-orthodox-jews-support-president-trump-im-one-of-them-heres-why
Post by: Number7 on January 15, 2021, 05:46:25 AM
https://trendingpolitics.com/breaking-bombshell-cnn-was-in-on-it-reporter-disguised-herself-as-trump-supporter-and-plotted-with-blm-member/