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

Tea drinker

After no evidence for the lies claiming she was armed the Goalposts getting shifted now to it doesn't matter if she was armed or not.
Even in Clonee a knife wielding lunatic had warning shots, tasers, mace. Not a good look for the secret service.

Overheal

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.

As though congressional security never explored or trained for the possibility of suicide bombings.

She was wearing a backpack



And the last time I saw someone that enthusiastic to vault through a small opening was to blow open a hole in the wall of Minas Tirith. :pac:

ToddDameron

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?

The usual sh1tholes like bitchute actually have videos of some of the Capitol police helping people enter which lead to the murder of one of their colleagues and others being injured. I'd say they will have a few questions to answer and won't be to popular with some of their colleagues, and accidents can happen.

Not surprisingly the same sites are putting forth examples of bad faith arguments that some of the posters on here are using.

Overheal

Tea drinker wrote: »

After no evidence for the lies claiming she was armed the Goalposts getting shifted now to it doesn't matter if she was armed or not.
Even in Clonee a knife wielding lunatic had warning shots, tasers, mace. Not a good look for the secret service.

IDK if you've noticed but police don't meddle in warning shots in the United States.

This was a special detail officer, I doubt that they had a utility belt full of less lethal options.

The crowd knew the guns were drawn, shouted the guns were drawn, and she dove in head first anyway.

Can't argue that it's not stellar optics, but the public also expects deadly threats to their leaders to be met by deadly force. We've been very clear about this as a culture since JFK.

namloc1980

ToddDameron wrote: »

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.

How does it matter? If she was unarmed should they have just let her through and see how things went? She had backpack on and was part of a violent mob storming the Capitol, and she tried to access an area where Congress members were being secured and sheltered from the mob.

oldtimeyfella

Christy42 wrote: »

Breonna Taylor was shot while sleeping.

The only place this has ever been claimed was in the wrongful death lawsuit that her family instigated. There's zero proof of it being the case.

ToddDameron

Overheal wrote: »

IDK if you've noticed but police don't meddle in warning shots in the United States.

This was a special detail officer, I doubt that they had a utility belt full of less lethal options.

The crowd knew the guns were drawn, shouted the guns were drawn, and she dove in head first anyway.

You don't comply, you die.

Sand

Overheal wrote: »

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?

You haven't demonstrated that crossing a threshold fits the definition of domestic terrorism in federal law. But you believe it.

A guy defending himself from a mob howling for his blood is a murderer. A police officer gunning down an unarmed military vet crossing a doorway is a hero of the republic. These are your views because media told you they are. It isnt up to me to reconcile them for you.

jill_valentine

ToddDameron wrote: »

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.

That's fair enough tbh, and the kind of holster it is the gun itself wouldn't be visible to onlookers as she was stretchered out. I'm 100% on it personally though, and I think there's a hazard in authorities not saying as much because it lets the "unarmed" thing circulate.

Overheal

ToddDameron wrote: »

You don't comply, you die.

Yes, that's right. Don't go ****ing around at secure US Govt buildings to find out.

ToddDameron

namloc1980 wrote: »

How does it matter? If she was unarmed should they have just let her through and see how things went? She had backpack on and was part of a violent mob storming the Capitol, and she tried to access an area where Congress members were being secured and sheltered from the mob.

I think it was a justified shooting. But it is important information, I mean others in the thread are insisting she was armed too so many consider it pertinent information.

Overheal

Sand wrote: »

You haven't demonstrated that crossing a threshold fits the definition of domestic terrorism in federal law. But you believe it.

Goodnight, Sand.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8lz702NhyKY

Overheal

Overheal wrote: »

IDK if you've noticed but police don't meddle in warning shots in the United States.

This was a special detail officer, I doubt that they had a utility belt full of less lethal options.

The crowd knew the guns were drawn, shouted the guns were drawn, and she dove in head first anyway.

Can't argue that it's not stellar optics, but the public also expects deadly threats to their leaders to be met by deadly force. We've been very clear about this as a culture since JFK.

Plus if devices had been found by that time or indeed if there was intelligence of IED devices then no other option really. If they let protestors through that area could have been a whole other outcome.

Who knows the value of that shot. They were not letting people into that corridor, that's for certain.

Timberrrrrrrr

Tea drinker wrote: »

After no evidence for the lies claiming she was armed the Goalposts getting shifted now to it doesn't matter if she was armed or not.
Even in Clonee a knife wielding lunatic had warning shots, tasers, mace. Not a good look for the secret service.

Have you ever been to DC? Ever walked near the capitol building? The paranoia is to the extreme! Someone attempting to climb through a window where the VP is mere meters away was lucky they were only shot once and by one officer.

namloc1980

Sand wrote: »

You haven't demonstrated that crossing a threshold fits the definition of domestic terrorism in federal law. But you believe it.

A guy defending himself from a mob howling for his blood is a murderer. A police officer gunning down an unarmed military vet crossing a doorway is a hero of the republic. These are your views because media told you they are. It isnt up to me to reconcile them for you.

These bad faith arguments are getting tiring. Once again, as your either badly misinformed or are simply ignoring the reality, she was part of a violent mob storming the United States Capitol. Many of this mob had violent intent, some were carrying hand restraints with the intent of taking hostages. She tried to go through a door to an area where members of Congress were being secured. The security teams job is to protect those leaders. You're fooling nobody with your nonsense and false equivocations.

Overheal

ToddDameron wrote: »

I think it was a justified shooting. But it is important information, I mean others in the thread are insisting she was armed too so many consider it pertinent information.

I haven't heard any credible report confirming she had a weapon. I would just as well assume she was not carrying a firearm. She still had a backpack, with security unclear about its contents when she began vaulting through the window.

Christy42

Sand wrote: »

You haven't demonstrated that crossing a threshold fits the definition of domestic terrorism in federal law. But you believe it.

A guy defending himself from a mob howling for his blood is a murderer. A police officer gunning down an unarmed military vet crossing a doorway is a hero of the republic. These are your views because media told you they are. It isnt up to me to reconcile them for you.

Kyle went down to kill people, seriously vigilante justice shout not be encouraged at protests/riots. The police officer was there to protect himself. Why the emotive language? I sincerely doubt the person who shot her had a clue she was a vet or indeed that she had multiple protective orders against her which would emotive language that could be used the other way.

I like how the mob that was trying to kidnap and kill elected officials doesn't get described as the one howling for blood?

namloc1980

Tea drinker wrote: »

After no evidence for the lies claiming she was armed the Goalposts getting shifted now to it doesn't matter if she was armed or not.
Even in Clonee a knife wielding lunatic had warning shots, tasers, mace. Not a good look for the secret service.

No shifting of goalposts. In that moment it didn't matter whether she was armed. At that moment she was part of a insurrectionist mob storming the US Capitol, and she was trying to break into an area where members of Congress were being secured. Justified shooting whether she was armed or not.

markodaly

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.

Oh that is fair enough, but we have had some posters declared she was armed when there is no conclusive proof that she was.

Overheal

Cruz Stocky Steak wrote: »

Plus if devices had been found by that time or indeed if there was intelligence of IED devices then no other option really. If they let protestors through that area could have been a whole other outcome.

Who knows the value of that shot. They were not letting people into that corridor, that's for certain.

Aggressors breaching that hallway was definitely not negotiable to that security detail. I assume the Speaker was nearby. Video evidence also shows in the minute leading up that congressional members were still unsecured down the hallway. The door she was shot at was the entryway into the suite of the Speaker's Chamber.

alchemist33

Sand wrote: »

A guy defending himself from a mob howling for his blood is a murderer. A police officer gunning down an unarmed military vet crossing a doorway is a hero of the republic. These are your views because media told you they are. It isnt up to me to reconcile them for you.

Why mention her military history all the time? Why not mention the three restraining orders she's had in the last five years if you're going to go into background, like so many did with the guys Rittenhouse killed?

JupiterKid

I found out a half an hour ago that a guy whose family were good family friends and former neighbours of mine was one of those who stormed the Capitol building on Wednesday.

Nutjob - I've a good feeling his late mother and father - Irish who emigrated to the USA in the 1950s and came back to Ireland in the 1970s - would be deeply ashamed of what he did.

He was born in the USA in 1970, grew up in Dublin and moved back to the States in the late 1990s. At his father's funeral afters in 2016, he told me he was an ardent Trump supporter and had fallen out with his brother and one of his sisters over this.

Would I be correct in presuming he's going to jail?

Timberrrrrrrr

markodaly wrote: »

Oh that is fair enough, but we have had some posters declared she was armed when there is no conclusive proof that she was.

We've also had posters declared she was unarmed when there is no conclusive proof that she wasn't

Foxtrol

Sand wrote: »

Bludgeoned to death? Fake news much?

He went back to his office and collapsed at some later point. He was hardly torn apart by some bloodthirsty mob. The real question is why werent you as exercised by the deaths of police officers at the hands of BLM motivated killers?

I know - the media told you it was peaceful protest.

Sure the cop fell into the fire extinguisher that the terrorist was holding because he was doing the annual test... :rolleyes:

markodaly

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

We've also had posters declared she was unarmed when there is no conclusive proof that she wasn't

Well that is kinda silly reverse logic. Sure you may as well say she had a WMD on her, no evidence yet she didn't :pac:

Overheal

JupiterKid wrote: »

I found out a half an hour ago that I guy whose family were good famoly friends and former neighbours was one of those who stormed the Capirol building on Wednesday.

Nutjob - I've a good feeling his late mother and father - Irish who emigrated to the USA in the 1950s and came back to Ireland in the 1970s - would be deeply ashamed of what he did.

He was born in the USA in 1970, grew up in Dublin and moved back to the States in the late 1990s. At his father's funeral after in 2016, he told me he was an ardent Trump supporter and had fallen out with his brother and one of his sisters over this.

Would I be correct in presuming he's going to jail?

If he was inside, more than likely, if not fined for trespassing (it's a higher charge at a federal building like this). If he participated in any violence, vandalism, or theft, it's a guarantee; the fact that people committed to violence while already in the engagement of a criminal act (like trespassing), escalates the charges to aggravated assault etc.

There are not many early paroles for federal sentences, either.

Sand

Christy42 wrote: »

Kyle went down to kill people, ... Why the emotive language?

Where is the proof he went down to kill people? By my read he was a simple minded boy who thought he might render medical assistance and protect people. Dumb as a box of rocks, but not a murderer.

Overheal

markodaly wrote: »

Well that is kinda silly reverse logic. Sure you may as well say she had a WMD on her, no evidence yet she didn't :pac:

Yes, that's the logic they have to take. She could have been strapped up. These were lawmakers, and these people chanted they wanted them dead. IEDs were also found in the siege, along with molotov cocktails. Several of those arrested were carrying concealed weapons and firearms - a serious federal crime in DC.

alchemist33

alchemist33 wrote: »

Why mention her military history all the time? Why not mention the three restraining orders she's had in the last five years if you're going to go into background, like so many did with the guys Rittenhouse killed?

Because it's one of the angles of argument that the usual scrote sites are pushing as her being some type of martyr.

Foxtrol

Sand wrote: »

I know you still think Kyle Rittenhouse is a murderer for shooting the 3 guys trying to chase him down and beat him to death. Yet you simultaneously believe the shooting of Babbet is justified because she was a domestic terrorist because she was in a place she shouldn't have been. I'm okay with us having different views. I'd second guess myself if we ever agreed on something.

I know this has been widely called out already but it might be the most ridiculous false equivalence in this thread.

You're really trying to equate the actions of a vigilante who crossed state lines and broke a police curfew so he could act like a little rambo to the actions of the secret service who had retreated to a confined area with high profile politicians protecting them from a violent mob that had smashed in the door of their room?

Pathetic.