Doc Posted January 14, 2022 Share Posted January 14, 2022 Thankfully they won't be able to pass legislation. They won't have the 60 votes necessary in the Senate. And as we've seen, most people don't care about this sham committee. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Frankish Reich Posted January 14, 2022 Share Posted January 14, 2022 32 minutes ago, B-Man said: New Report Raises More Questions About Ashli Babbitt Shooting https://redstate.com/nick-arama/2022/01/13/new-report-raises-more-questions-about-ashli-babbitt-shooting-n506299 https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2022/01/06/capitol_police_officer_who_shot_ashli_babbitt_refused_to_answer_investigators_questions_810720.html Still zero defendants yet to be charged with the actual crime of insurrection, we should probably stop using that word to describe what happened at the Capitol. How about “the seditious conspiracy of January 6” instead? From the first article you cited: Does it then mean that the Capitol Police have the right to gun down any trespasser? If the BLM were to come through the door next and an officer shoots one of them down, are all the Democrats going to cheer that, too, under similar circumstances? Yes. And (although I am not a registered Democrat) Yes. I have worked in secured federal buildings. There have been protests outside on many occasions. If those protesters ever storm the building, bypass security, and then try to break down the door to my office, well, then they should be shot. Byrd should get a medal for marksmanship. And these idiot articles saying he didn't "cooperate in the investigation" - these are the same people who were urging federal murder/manslaughter charges against him. Remember that 5th Amendment you always claim to support? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted January 14, 2022 Share Posted January 14, 2022 10 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said: From the first article you cited: Does it then mean that the Capitol Police have the right to gun down any trespasser? If the BLM were to come through the door next and an officer shoots one of them down, are all the Democrats going to cheer that, too, under similar circumstances? Yes. And (although I am not a registered Democrat) Yes. I have worked in secured federal buildings. There have been protests outside on many occasions. If those protesters ever storm the building, bypass security, and then try to break down the door to my office, well, then they should be shot. Byrd should get a medal for marksmanship. And these idiot articles saying he didn't "cooperate in the investigation" - these are the same people who were urging federal murder/manslaughter charges against him. Remember that 5th Amendment you always claim to support? So then, what is your position on people who get stopped by the police, resist arrest and make threatening gestures? Are those justified shootings? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Frankish Reich Posted January 14, 2022 Share Posted January 14, 2022 9 minutes ago, Doc said: So then, what is your position on people who get stopped by the police, resist arrest and make threatening gestures? Are those justified shootings? What on earth does that have to do with storming a secured building? This is the silliest form of "argument" - the idea that if I say storming past security, then trying to break through an interior door justifies lethal force, it suggests that an ordinary law enforcement encounter on the street likewise must justify lethal force. Occasionally it does. It depends on the facts. Just now, Doc said: Nice feint. OK. Let's keep it real: - Have you ever worked in a secured facility, guarded by federal officers? - If so, what would you expect those federal officers to do if someone deliberately evaded the security desk/metal detector and then tried to break through the door to your office space? - If not, well, I guess you just don't get it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted January 14, 2022 Share Posted January 14, 2022 Just now, The Frankish Reich said: What on earth does that have to do with storming a secured building? This is the silliest form of "argument" - the idea that if I say storming past security, then trying to break through an interior door justifies lethal force, it suggests that an ordinary law enforcement encounter on the street likewise must justify lethal force. Occasionally it does. It depends on the facts. Funny, I think it's silly to justify an officer murdering a non-violent protestor like Babbitt. Lest you are stupid enough to believe that breaking into a building justifies murder. Meaning LEO's should have shot hundreds of people that day. Or would have been justified shooting thousands of people all last summer. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Frankish Reich Posted January 14, 2022 Share Posted January 14, 2022 1 minute ago, Doc said: Funny, I think it's silly to justify an officer murdering a non-violent protestor like Babbitt. Lest you are stupid enough to believe that breaking into a building justifies murder. Meaning LEO's should have shot hundreds of people that day. Or would have been justified shooting thousands of people all last summer. You guys are so immersed in conspiracy nuttery that you can't see common sense. Let's set aside the law on use of lethal force for a moment. Imagine asking the ordinary American this scenario pre-Jan 6: - you deliberately bypass security at a secured federal facility - you try to break through a closed interior security door where the offices of a leadership work - what do you expect to happen to you? I can't believe that less than 98% of people would say they would expect to be shot. Or at least tasered (which wasn't feasible in this situation) As for the law: again, a silly strawman argument again. We are not talking about shooting "hundreds of people." No lethal force was employed to stop the horde that bypassed security. It was only when there was an attempt to break through an interior security door that lethal force was employed. Every so often we hear about an airport being shut down because a guy who's late for a flight bypasses TSA. That's not a lethal force situation. No if that guy is identified/followed on camera and he tries runs up the a jetbridge and starts pounding on a closed airplane cockpit door? Yeah, he's gonna get shot. It is reasonable and appropriate and that circumstance to assume that he is armed (that would be why someone evades security) and that he poses an imminent threat of grave harm to the persons inside. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted January 14, 2022 Share Posted January 14, 2022 14 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said: You guys are so immersed in conspiracy nuttery that you can't see common sense. Let's set aside the law on use of lethal force for a moment. Imagine asking the ordinary American this scenario pre-Jan 6: - you deliberately bypass security at a secured federal facility - you try to break through a closed interior security door where the offices of a leadership work - what do you expect to happen to you? I can't believe that less than 98% of people would say they would expect to be shot. Or at least tasered (which wasn't feasible in this situation) As for the law: again, a silly strawman argument again. We are not talking about shooting "hundreds of people." No lethal force was employed to stop the horde that bypassed security. It was only when there was an attempt to break through an interior security door that lethal force was employed. Every so often we hear about an airport being shut down because a guy who's late for a flight bypasses TSA. That's not a lethal force situation. No if that guy is identified/followed on camera and he tries runs up the a jetbridge and starts pounding on a closed airplane cockpit door? Yeah, he's gonna get shot. It is reasonable and appropriate and that circumstance to assume that he is armed (that would be why someone evades security) and that he poses an imminent threat of grave harm to the persons inside. Carry on, TFR. Carry on. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Frankish Reich Posted January 14, 2022 Share Posted January 14, 2022 2 hours ago, Doc said: Carry on, TFR. Carry on. Deal with it. American Hero: vs. American Idiot: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orlando Tim Posted January 14, 2022 Share Posted January 14, 2022 53 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said: Deal with it. American Hero: vs. American Idiot: He is a hero to you? I don't think he deserves to be charged but that is a long way from hero. He certainly could have handled it better and no one would have died that day. You don't have to canonize her to realize that he should not have shot her 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoCal Deek Posted January 14, 2022 Share Posted January 14, 2022 1 hour ago, The Frankish Reich said: Deal with it. American Hero: vs. American Idiot: Wait a minute. This police officer is a hero? In every other police force he'd either be on leave, or on trial for a classic case of extensive use of force. We now know that the people he shot at did NOT actually pose an imminent threat to anyone (even if they certainly gave that impression). They left the building peacefully long after the shot was fired. The officer killed this person for no real purpose. And it was NOT his shot that ended the 'insurrection'. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillStime Posted January 14, 2022 Share Posted January 14, 2022 9 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said: Wait a minute. This police officer is a hero? In every other police force he'd either be on leave, or on trial for a classic case of extensive use of force. We now know that the people he shot at did NOT actually pose an imminent threat to anyone (even if they certainly gave that impression). They left the building peacefully long after the shot was fired. The officer killed this person for no real purpose. And it was NOT his shot that ended the 'insurrection'. So the officer should have waited to see what threat this mob posed? Meanwhile - Kevin McCarthy is pathetic. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoCal Deek Posted January 14, 2022 Share Posted January 14, 2022 Just now, BillStime said: So the officer should have waited to see what threat this mob posed? Meanwhile - Kevin McCarthy is pathetic. Yes....the officer is specifically TRAINED to wait and see what threat is posed. He was not under immediate, personal danger. This doesn't make the rioters right in their actions, but nobody should have been shot that day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillStime Posted January 14, 2022 Share Posted January 14, 2022 2 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said: Yes....the officer is specifically TRAINED to wait and see what threat is posed. He was not under immediate, personal danger. This doesn't make the rioters right in their actions, but nobody should have been shot that day. How long should he have waited? Eight minutes 46 seconds? Miss American Taliban - like the rest of the mob - was crawling through a window to an even more restricted area and he should have waited until she got completely thru the window to find out what next the mob is going to do? Idiots SMFH Why do these idiots continue to defend the indefensible? Its a freakn cult. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoCal Deek Posted January 14, 2022 Share Posted January 14, 2022 2 minutes ago, BillStime said: How long should he have waited? Eight minutes 46 seconds? Miss American Taliban - like the rest of the mob - was crawling through a window to an even more restricted area and he should have waited until she got completely thru the window to find out what next the mob is going to do? Idiots SMFH Why do these idiots continue to defend the indefensible? Its a freakn cult. So now you're also a TRAINED police officer. You're out of your core competency here Billsy. Get back in the basement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillStime Posted January 14, 2022 Share Posted January 14, 2022 1 minute ago, SoCal Deek said: So now you're also a TRAINED police officer. You're out of your core competency here Billsy. Get back in the basement. Wrong again One successfully gets thru they all get thru. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted January 14, 2022 Share Posted January 14, 2022 43 minutes ago, Buffalo Timmy said: He is a hero to you? I don't think he deserves to be charged but that is a long way from hero. He certainly could have handled it better and no one would have died that day. You don't have to canonize her to realize that he should not have shot her 27 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said: Wait a minute. This police officer is a hero? In every other police force he'd either be on leave, or on trial for a classic case of extensive use of force. We now know that the people he shot at did NOT actually pose an imminent threat to anyone (even if they certainly gave that impression). They left the building peacefully long after the shot was fired. The officer killed this person for no real purpose. And it was NOT his shot that ended the 'insurrection'. Amazing, isn't it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
All_Pro_Bills Posted January 14, 2022 Share Posted January 14, 2022 1 minute ago, SoCal Deek said: So now you're also a TRAINED police officer. You're out of your core competency here Billsy. Get back in the basement. As this isn't a case of a police officer alone on patrol confronting a dangerous suspect the question is why did this particular officer open fire while the others did not? After all, if the threat was extreme why didn't they all open fire? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillStime Posted January 14, 2022 Share Posted January 14, 2022 ☝️🤡---> Ladies and gentlemen - the party of law and order. Miss American Taliban died for the Big Lie - she risked it all for this: 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Frankish Reich Posted January 14, 2022 Share Posted January 14, 2022 (edited) 1 hour ago, SoCal Deek said: He was not under immediate, personal danger And you know this ... how? What happens if they breach that door? Are they going to politely request that he step aside and allow them to proceed to the Speaker of the House? And he knew this ... how? He knew what was in her backpack? You know, the one she didn't send through security like she was supposed to? And why limit it to whether he was under immediate, personal danger. His job is to protect the Capitol and our representatives/staff lawfully conducting business inside of it. In fact, in hindsight (since you seem to want to play that game) it looks like she - even if not personally armed - was part of a group planning to overthrow the election by any means necessary: the day before the assault on the Capitol, Babbitt retweeted: "Nothing can stop us....they can try and try but the storm is here and it is descending upon DC in less than 24 hours....dark to light...." All that moronic QAnon crap - crap that didn't exactly preach all sweetness and light when it comes to how those devilish child-eaters like Pelosi were supposed to be dealt with. He did the right thing under the circumstances. There's a lot of this "whataboutism" in this thread and in society in general - an attempt to change the topic because these January 6 attackers were absolutely as "low class" (Trump's words) and violent as advertised. I am the recipient of the stock response, "yeah, well then why do you have a problem with the cop shooting Jacob Blake?" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Jacob_Blake I'm consistent here. That was a justified shooting too. Are you guys consistent? Edited January 14, 2022 by The Frankish Reich Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillStime Posted January 14, 2022 Share Posted January 14, 2022 15 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said: And you know this ... how? What happens if they breach that door? Are they going to politely request that he step aside and allow them to proceed to the Speaker of the House? And he knew this ... how? He knew what was in her backpack? You know, the one she didn't send through security like she was supposed to? And why limit it to whether he was under immediate, personal danger. His job is to protect the Capitol and our representatives/staff lawfully conducting business inside of it. In fact, in hindsight (since you seem to want to play that game) it looks like she - even if not personally armed - was part of a group planning to overthrow the election by any means necessary: the day before the assault on the Capitol, Babbitt retweeted: "Nothing can stop us....they can try and try but the storm is here and it is descending upon DC in less than 24 hours....dark to light...." All that moronic QAnon crap - crap that didn't exactly preach all sweetness and light when it comes to how those devilish child-eaters like Pelosi were supposed to be dealt with. He did the right thing under the circumstances. There's a lot of this "whataboutism" in this thread and in society in general - an attempt to change the topic because these January 6 attackers were absolutely as "low class" (Trump's words) and violent as advertised. I am the recipient of the stock response, "yeah, well then why do you have a problem with the cop shooting Jacob Blake?" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Jacob_Blake I'm consistent here. That was a justified shooting too. Are you guys consistent? SoCal is a TRAINED police officer - dontcha know? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts