Trump v Biden 2020,The insurrection (pt 6) Read OP

Overheal

Sand wrote: »

Oh so its up to the peaceful protester to prove they were unarmed now?

It wasn't peaceful to trespass on Capitol grounds, smash through barricades and vault through a door to terrorize members of Congress and their staff.

This whole line of debate seems completely devoid of good faith.

jill_valentine

ToddDameron wrote: »

Is there any reputable news stating she was armed? Genuine question.

Haven't seen it acknowledged anywhere yet. If you can find the (and be careful, it's bloody) footage of the body broadcast live at the time, you'll see it. It's the black object above her jean waistband.

I find it strange that most outlets are mentioning in passing she was in the 113th without explaining what their mission is or even where they're stationed.

Overheal

combat14 wrote: »

google is alot more than just a search engine or an android operating system now

Yeah, that's why they did the Alphabet restructure. So, I don't think they are an antitrust violation. The next administration's FTC may have a different opinion about that.

Sand

Overheal wrote: »

I already told you: 18 US Code § 2331 (5).

You didn't answer my question about that: why do you think she is not a terrorist? Show your work, addressing the definition provided in federal statute please.

Well, its your about face thats more relevant.

18 U.S. Code § 2331 - Definitions

(5)the term “domestic terrorism” means activities that—
(A)involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;
(B)appear to be intended—
(i)to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
(ii)to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
(iii)to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping

By your own defintion, Kyle Rittenhouse shot 3 domestic terrorists. You think he is a hero, right? Or do you claim his attackers weren't involved in acts dangerous to human life (i.e. Kyle's) or werent rioting in that town in an attempt to intimidate or coerce the civillians in that town?

Again, I'm not trying to point score. I'm trying to help you. You need to break through the media conditioning that makes you think its okay for a mob to rampage through a town of law abiding Americans but evil terrorism for American people to go to a building of their representatives.

Christy42

oldtimeyfella wrote: »

I wonder if people here will be saying "he/she deserved it" the next time some dip**** criminal doesn't listen to cops orders to drop their weapon or put their hands where they can see them?

I guess we'll get more "fiery but most peaceful protests".

If they charge along side a mob towards a gunline then they will likely get shot. I don't believe she deserved death. None of the rest who survived will be killed for their actions I hope. Had she survived the shot I would certainly not be calling for her death.

However it does not seem like the cops were left with any option but to shoot. She was warned and was part of a large mob that would have overrun the last defenses between elected officials and the mob that wanted to kill them. I can't see what a cop could have done differently in that scenario. I don't wish any of them death but will certainly not mourn any of their deaths either.

Indeed they let the terrorists have full access to the capitol and the offices of all the staff to avoid shooting anyone else.

markodaly

Overheal wrote: »

In a very similar timeframe as here, about 4 days after the attack, Facebook began the process of revising their policies as a direct result of the shooting and viral streaming/upload activity.

https://about.fb.com/news/2019/05/protecting-live-from-abuse/

I doubt you would have heard about Apple/Google banning their apps since FB seemed reasonably proactive and willing to revise in the wake of the attack without public pressure. Parler seems pugilistic about the idea of having to moderate its content in a similar manner, in fact it markets itself off that selling point.

So, that is a no then. Apple or Google never threatened Facebook with removal from their AppStore when Facebook allowed someone to Livestream the murder of 51 people.

Just as I thought!

ToddDameron

jill_valentine wrote: »

Haven't seen it acknowledged anywhere yet. If you can find the (and be careful, it's bloody) footage of the body broadcast live at the time, you'll see it. It's the black object above her jean waistband.

I find it strange that most outlets are mentioning in passing she was in the 113th without explaining what their mission is or even where they're stationed.

I'll probably wait until an investigation is carried out, could to be room for error or misinterpretation there. I'm sure the news would have no issue saying she was armed if the footage was conclusive.

Timberrrrrrrr

markodaly wrote: »

So, that is a no then. Apple or Google never threatened Facebook with removal from their AppStore when Facebook allowed someone to Livestream the murder of 51 people.

Just as I thought!

Facebook had moderation, Parler didn't

Facebook took down the video's as fast as they could, Parler didn't.

Post a threat on Facebook saying Mike Pence should be killed and see how long it lasts

Do the same on parler.

If you still can't see the difference then there's no use explaining it further as it would be a waste of both our time.

Overheal

Sand wrote: »

By [18 US Code § 2331 (5)], Kyle Rittenhouse killed 3 domestic terrorists.

Kyle Rittenhouse is not a civilian population, he is an individual civilian. They didn't target Rittenhouse to "influence the policy of a government" or "affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping." In US code assassinations are the killing of US or State officials. They didn't even know Rittenhouse's name.

You don't appear to be arguing in good faith, really you just seem to be interested in pugilism.

Tea drinker

jill_valentine wrote: »

Only right wing whisper networks have claimed she was unarmed in an effort to present her as a martyr. The same reason she's described as a "San Diego Air Force Veteran", rather than a former member of DCs own security forces.

Her holster is visible in the footage of her body being removed from the building.

You conspiracy theory is that news outlets, left wing and right wing are spreading lies claiming she was unarmed, when in fact she was armed (you are suggessting pistol I assume?) even though this news would be manna from heaven for anti trump group.
She is listed as an employee for security at a nuclear facility, there is no mention of a record as DC security.

I'd hate to think you are making stuff up to tarnish a formerly troubled dead woman

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/07/us/who-was-ashli-babbitt.html

ToddDameron

Overheal wrote: »

It wasn't peaceful to trespass on Capitol grounds, smash through barricades and vault through a door to terrorize members of Congress and their staff.

This whole line of debate seems completely devoid of good faith.

Just curious about when you said there was police collusion, we have now seen footage of the cops disgracefully being brutalised. Was it rogue cops that were undermining the police force?

fryup

its playing out like an episode of Homeland

Timberrrrrrrr

Well this is good news

https://twitter.com/funder/status/1347990414817681408?s=19

BorneTobyWilde

Overheal wrote: »

Kyle Rittenhouse is not a civilian population, he is an individual civilian. They didn't target Rittenhouse to "influence the policy of a government" or "affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping." In US code assassinations are the killing of US or State officials. They didn't even know Rittenhouse's name.

You don't appear to be arguing in good faith, really you just seem to be interested in pugilism.

Nutjobs raided the Capitol Building, lots of regular folk followed in through the open doors, then walked back out.

Those nutjobs on the front line need locking up, they hardly represent the 75m people who voted for Trump.

namloc1980

Sand wrote: »

Well, its your about face thats more relevant.

18 U.S. Code § 2331 - Definitions

(5)the term “domestic terrorism” means activities that—
(A)involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;
(B)appear to be intended—
(i)to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
(ii)to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
(iii)to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping

By your own defintion, Kyle Rittenhouse shot 3 domestic terrorists. You think he is a hero, right? Or do you claim his attackers weren't involved in acts dangerous to human life (i.e. Kyle's) or werent rioting in that town in an attempt to intimidate or coerce the civillians in that town?

Again, I'm not trying to point score. I'm trying to help you. You need to break through the media conditioning that makes you think its okay for a mob to rampage through a town of law abiding Americans but evil terrorism for American people to go to a building of their representatives.

Looks like you're the one who has been conditioned. Look at the language you use to describe the protests from last year: "mob" "rampage", while describing a violent insurrection against the United States and the first time the Capitol had been stormed since 1814 as "people going to a building of their representatives". Like they were going for a nice mid afternoon stroll to have a quick chat, like these guys who were clearly just coming for peaceful purposes:



Looks like your very much conditioned.

markodaly

Overheal wrote: »

Yeah, that's why they did the Alphabet restructure. So, I don't think they are an antitrust violation. The next administration's FTC may have a different opinion about that.

The next FTC?

It already is happening. The DOJ are investigating them already, but wont see their case in court for a few years.

https://www.cnet.com/news/googles-three-antitrust-battles-heres-what-you-need-to-know-faq/

Google's antitrust woes continue to mount.

In two months, the search giant has attracted three antitrust lawsuits. In October, the US Department of Justice filed a landmark lawsuit alleging that Google unlawfully boxed out competitors by reaching deals with phone makers, including Apple and Samsung, to be the default search engine on their devices. The tentative start date for the trial is Sept. 23, 2023, Judge Amit Mehta said last week.

The latest lawsuit, filed by nearly 40 attorneys general on Dec. 17, alleges that the tech giant's search results favored its own services over those of more-specialized rivals, a tactic that harmed competitors. The bipartisan complaint also claims Google used its dominant position to become the default search engine not only on web browsers and smartphones, but in newer technologies like smart speakers and connected cars. The complaint came a day after 10 other states led by Texas accused Google of engaging in "false, deceptive, or misleading acts" while operating its buy-and-sell auction system for digital ads.

The legal actions, as well as a pair of complaints filed against Facebook, are the latest evidence of growing anxiety about the influence tech giants have over all aspects of our lives. Legislators and regulators are concerned about how Big Tech's power might ultimately harm consumers, especially by choking off competition from smaller players in Silicon Valley. The US House of Representatives has hammered Google and other tech giants, releasing a scathing 449-page report on the companies' allegedly anticompetitive practices.

With Twitter banning Trumps Account with the SCOTUS declaring that the platform DOES have a public utility function in past rulings, this banning will end up in the court somehow.

The ECB going after Facebook, the DOJ going after Google/Alphabet and Facebook, we could be seeing a very different tech landscape in the next 5 years, where many of these companies are brought to heel, broken up and regulated extensively.

I am sure all the Neo-Liberals here would be appalled at the state telling private business owners how to run their business. :pac:

oldtimeyfella

Christy42 wrote: »

If they charge along side a mob towards a gunline then they will likely get shot. I don't believe she deserved death. None of the rest who survived will be killed for their actions I hope. Had she survived the shot I would certainly not be calling for her death.

However it does not seem like the cops were left with any option but to shoot. She was warned and was part of a large mob that would have overrun the last defenses between elected officials and the mob that wanted to kill them. I can't see what a cop could have done differently in that scenario. I don't wish any of them death but will certainly not mourn any of their deaths either.

Indeed they let the terrorists have full access to the capitol and the offices of all the staff to avoid shooting anyone else.

Have you actaully seen the video? She climbed up on something to try to climb in a broken door/window and the secret service guy was 100% in the right to shoot her. It wasn't a terribly safe shooting because the captiol police appear right behiind her as she is falling but the target go hit so no harm, no foul.



There was no "mob" charging with her, there was a bunch of weirdy beardy types milling around shouting stuff in the same general area.


My problem is that if you change the colour of her skin or reveal that she was trans then the city burns while the politicians call for "healing".

Sand

Overheal wrote: »

Kyle Rittenhouse is not a civilian population, he is an individual civilian. They didn't target Rittenhouse to "influence the policy of a government" or "affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping." In US code assassinations are the killing of US or State officials. They didn't even know Rittenhouse's name.

You don't appear to be arguing in good faith, really you just seem to be interested in pugilism.

You're not arguing in good faith. The attempt to attack Kyle Rittenhouse was clearly an act dangerous to human life - Kyle's life. Hence domestic terrorism under the definition provided by you.

Look - stop pretending these are your views. You don't have to defend them to me. You do not win a prize. Step back and think about it.

markodaly

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Well this is good news

https://twitter.com/funder/status/1347990414817681408?s=19

The Senate isn't going to back this, so its all smoke and mirrors.

oldtimeyfella

oldtimeyfella wrote: »

I wonder if people here will be saying "he/she deserved it" the next time some dip**** criminal doesn't listen to cops orders to drop their weapon or put their hands where they can see them?

I guess we'll get more "fiery but most peaceful protests".

Yeah, the lad in Clonee deserved it.

What's your point?

MisterAnarchy

jill_valentine wrote: »

I take it from you having to get personal you can't address anything then.

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.

The amount of personal insults thrown in this thread towards anyone who doesnt slate Trump, Republicans , rural Americans or Trump supporters is alarming.

Its like hounds baying for blood.

Overheal

ToddDameron wrote: »

Just curious about when you said there was police collusion, we have now seen footage of the cops disgracefully being brutalised. Was it rogue cops that were undermining the police force?

We have no public disclosure of any police communications. Some officers appeared to be fighting them back like hell, others seemed to be complacent, waving them in, hugging off duty friends, etc.

All we know as of right now, which is the most compelling yet still inconclusive fact, is that the Capitol police chief as well as both the Senate & House Sgt at arms are in effect being fired under forced resignation by both parties leadership.

markodaly

jill_valentine wrote: »

Only right wing whisper networks have claimed she was unarmed in an effort to present her as a martyr. The same reason she's described as a "San Diego Air Force Veteran", rather than a former member of DCs own security forces.

Her holster is visible in the footage of her body being removed from the building.

Where does it say she was armed?

If its not confirmed that she was, why are you saying that she actually was, only to gild your argument further?

Overheal

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

Nutjobs raided the Capitol Building, lots of regular folk followed in through the open doors, then walked back out.

Those nutjobs on the front line need locking up, they hardly represent the 75m people who voted for Trump.

I'm with you on this. Each defendant will have their day in court. The Q Shaman is only getting a few lighter charges having not been involved in any of the violence himself.

Overheal

markodaly wrote: »

The next FTC?

It already is happening. The DOJ are investigating them already, but wont see their case in court for a few years.

https://www.cnet.com/news/googles-three-antitrust-battles-heres-what-you-need-to-know-faq/



With Twitter banning Trumps Account with the SCOTUS declaring that the platform DOES have a public utility function in past rulings, this banning will end up in the court somehow.

The ECB going after Facebook, the DOJ going after Google/Alphabet and Facebook, we could be seeing a very different tech landscape in the next 5 years, where many of these companies are brought to heel, broken up and regulated extensively.

I am sure all the Neo-Liberals here would be appalled at the state telling private business owners how to run their business. :pac:

Cheers! Didn't know that.

namloc1980

markodaly wrote: »

Where does it say she was armed?

If its not confirmed that she was, why are you saying that she actually was, only to gild your argument further?

It doesn't matter whether she was armed or not. She was trying to come through a broken door/window to gain access to the area where members of Congress were being secured.

Timberrrrrrrr

Apparently @teamtrump is now banned

https://twitter.com/donwinslow/status/1348040418210967553?s=19

Overheal

Sand wrote: »

The attempt to attack Kyle Rittenhouse was clearly an act dangerous to human life - Kyle's life. Hence domestic terrorism under the definition provided by you.

Being threatening to someone's life doesn't alone tag the definition of domestic terrorism in federal law. Assault and battery laws exist for that. You haven't demonstrated they fit § 2331. Unless Rittenhouse was an elected official?

Christy42

oldtimeyfella wrote: »

Have you actaully seen the video? She climbed up on something to try to climb in a broken door/window and the secret service guy was 100% in the right to shoot her. It wasn't a terribly safe shooting because the captiol police appear right behiind her as she is falling but the target go hit so no harm, no foul.



There was no "mob" charging with her, there was a bunch of weirdy beardy types milling around shouting stuff in the same general area.


My problem is that if you change the colour of her skin or reveal that she was trans then the city burns while the politicians call for "healing".

Ehhh. Not really. Given the amount of police violence in general very little results in protests and those that do have been very different situations(yeah the machete lad, but that is Ireland-- those protests shouldn't have happened but were at least peaceful). The main two, Floyd was on the ground for quite some time before dying, Breonna Taylor was shot while sleeping.

Finally if there was a serious amount of non white people in that crowd then they weren't reaching that building full stop. Tear gas was pulled on blm protestors because Trump wanted to walk by. Never mind any actual violence.

ToddDameron

namloc1980 wrote: »

It doesn't matter whether she was armed or not. She was trying to come through a broken door/window to gain access to the area where members of Congress were being secured.

It does kind of matter though, its certainly not irrelevant. I'm personally of the opinion that if you ignore police commands then you are risking your life needlessly, but there is a difference between unarmed and armed.