leh-nerd skin-erd

https://www.cnn.com/2023/08/18/politics/capitol-rioters-split-sentences-appeals/index.html https://rollcall.com/2023/12/13/supreme-court-to-decide-issue-tied-to-hundreds-of-jan-6-cases/ Fair enough. I think reasonable people can disagree on this issue. I have no desire to go down a rabbit hole where we pretend there are no other controversial pardons, it seems an extraordinary waste of time. The rules are what they are, and I understand you would prefer Biden holds the authority to pardon v Trump. I prefer the other.

Are you looking for an argument? If you are, I'm the wrong person to have it with. I said then, and said now, that it was quite likely he felt strongly that his life was in danger and acted accordingly. His job was to go home that day to his family, and in the moment, he made a decision. Certainly, it's obvious she wasn't armed, carried no weapon and wasn't an immediate threat in that regard, but that's the problem with chaos and dangerous situations. As for the mob/crowd factor solely as a reason to fire, some of you keep saying that--but where in America is it acceptable for police officers to fire into crowds of people simply because they're angry or hostile? I'll answer for you--nowhere. My point remains the same--if every law enforcement officer involved in a scenario where his/her life is in jeopardy was given the same benefit of the doubt as that officer, I'd be fine with that. Would you? If so, welcome to the club.

No one is breaking in your house to kill you and steal your Beanie Baby collection, Tibsy. Mark yourself safe and stay strong!

Hmm. So you see this one as unjustified? You never said. AB, you see as justified because she was in the Capitol, and should have left. Not because the officer considered his life to be in jeopardy, not because he thought she had a weapon, not because his gun misfired....just because she existed in that place and time. Under the guidance of--stay with me now--the President of The United States, this shooting was unjustified. She was unarmed, the officer not in any imminent danger from her, and he abandoned the "shoot the leg" plan that JB touts as the answer. On the others that you say should have been shot--after surveillance often shows law enforcement directing and herding people around the Capitol as if in a glorified meet and greet--would you have them herded into a particular room where all the unarmed civilians could be shot en masse? Or, pick the unarmed civilians off in small groups, like at Kent State? And would they be kill shots, or leg shots? Btw--I agree with you that she should not have been in the Capitol, should not have wandered about, should not have climbed through that barrier. We have laws that address that, and none of them involve summary execution of people simply because they had no business being in one place or the other. Of course, that brings us full circle to the most reasoned and reasonable approach--law enforcement identifying people that broke the law, bring them to account under the rules of justice, and if as judged appropriate by the appropriate legal authority, pardoned, sentence commuted, or left to serve out their sentence. Easy breezy.

You feel the Michael Brown shooting was unwarranted? What about the Ashley Babbitt shooting, warranted?

I would say there are many. Michael Brown comes to mind. Jakob Blake another. Besides that, maybe this can give perspective: https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4878934/user-clip-vice-president-joe-biden-police-shoot-leg-heart You have to wonder how hard JB went after the officer that shot AB? It’s got all the elements of a BLS (Biden leg shot).

What case what?

I believe I understand the officer's line of thinking when he shot her, and agree that the actions of most individuals shot by law enforcement officers are the root cause of the shooting. The strange (and by strange I mean perfectly predictable) thing was the rush to defend the officer by left-leaning individuals (members of Congress, media, at large) who typically like to micro-analyze the actions of an officer when the shooting occurs elsewhere. In this case, an unarmed individual in range of an armed officer was shot--no leg shot, no warning shot into the ceiling, the officer with a sizable strength and training--and the shot was obviously intended to kill.

She did, and I cannot think of a reason she would ever want to expose herself to that type of life/scrutiny/stress. She literally has the world at her feet— wealthy beyond her wildest dreams, able to travel all over the world and treated like a queen, and her kids mostly out of the spotlight. Still, power can be intoxicating.

When you say "I would argue that there are lines in the sand...", it's important to understand who you are and why your perspective is complete irrelevant to reasonable people. Here's a list of people and crimes you've stated should be executed, many of which include 'pandering, demonstrating and picketing': https://www.businessinsider.com/capitol-rioters-who-pleaded-guilty-updated-list-2021-5 As for my perspective on the videos, I'm reasonable enough to understand that speaking directly on the subject doesn't imply I'm defending it, it's simply an acknowledgement of reality. False narratives exist, Fergie, and your line in the sand doesn't change that. "51 Intelligence agents" was a false narrative. Hookers n' urine was a false narrative. "Mitt Romney paid no taxes" was a false narrative. The illegitimate election of 2016 was a false narrative. The stolen election of 2020 was a false narrative. The 'Benghazi was caused by a filmmaker' was a false narrative. Nicholas Sandmann. Kyle Rittenhaus. "...anonymous sources deep within" often create and sustain false narratives. Deceptive editing of news stories. Slippage. The list goes on and on. I'm a centrist with a conservative point of view, happy to agree with any sane person that we would be better as a country if all this sort of thing was eliminated. You're just not that person. Michelle Obama.

You would think after a couple hundred years of misinformation, outrageous comments, slander, duels, lies, and saying horrible things about ones political opponent (often only to partner with them a short time later), that somehow this is an afront to political decency. Change the players, you would hear crickets, part 45.

People are gullible, but then they always have been. So?

Yeah, it’s the WaPo, so you have to wonder if what they publicized is accurate too. Besides, let’s assume there is some selective editing. Does it really matter? Politics is a bare knuckle game, and always has been.

Nothing says apathy like taking the time to read write.

But I believe certain assets are shielded from liability in certain states. So, while you may be awarded $500k from a jury, and have have $1,000,000 in your 401k (or assets coming from a pension), you may still recover $0--correct?

Jeesh, if you’re going to mix up the players, better make it 2 bottles of whiskey, and don’t dip into it early. You can say anything you want about me….but you keep my da*n screen name outcha mouth!

Holy Fook Frank—you’re onto something big here—you know FDR made absolutely no statements about the Japanese bombing Pearl Harbor until after it occurred? And…what did the “police” say about the “assassination” before “JFK” was “shot”? Get a packa Lucky Strikes, a bottle of cheap whiskey, a pencil and scratch pad, we have some work to do.

“The Trump Extrapolation” by Robert Ludlum

You're an extremist, with extreme views. That's obvious to all except you and the other extremists.

The hypocrisy with respect to law enforcement is quite obvious, but this goes even beyond that. You’ve got Tibsy pulling for life, Fergie fantasizing about a death sentence…while I support following the rule of law. I’ve disagreed with more than a few conservative friends on this issue, that being we have to have order and orderliness in situations like that. Change the facts a bit, and people like Tibs and Fergie are at the plaza, or complaining about law enforcement excess. What is interesting to me is that if the process followed in pursuit of J6 defendants was followed in society generally (that is to say the time, effort and techniques followed to solve a crime), the world would be a safer place. Alas, the average citizen is not in the protected class.

You are advocating for Soviet-style prison sentences for defendants, where all go to the gulag for life. I’m advocating for following the justice system we have here, Tibs, where rehabilitation and reintroduction into society should be the goal. Part of that process can involve pardons and commutations. If you do make the move, fyi, it’s hard to do in a U-Haul. Safe travels though.

Thank you, I had a wonderful Father’s Day, part of which I spent reflecting on how fortunate I was to have such a wonderful father of my own. I realize more now than ever what a gift I was given, and for tonight, I’ll roll with that. Have a good night, Kay.

I appreciate and support the law, but understand there are times when intent and application are two different things. See, for example, the appeals process. Given your desire to disregard the law and move straight to execution, you should revisit what the law actually calls for, pardons included.

This is why sensible people must be grateful that extremists who share your sensibilities are few and far between, at least to this point.

I would say that applies to both parties. Same with claims of elections being rigged. Same with “no one is above the law” and when complaining about special treatment for the other guy but supporting it fully when it’s your guy. Be that as it may, it has nothing to do Presidential pardons or people being given life sentences. Do you believe, as does Tibs and perhaps Scraps, that all people arrested and charged for activity on 1/6 should have been given life sentences?