Breaking News January 6th Stop the Steal Rally & Capitol Breaching/Storming

[BlackDragon98]

Oh shit. I think the police got scared of someone else with a gun and chose to open fire.
Did you not see the guy with the AR (with mag) behind the woman?
I think the cop saw that gun and hit the woman instead.

And I think i saw another person with a gun in the foreground as well.

 

[Rocinante]

Oh shit. I think the police got scared of someone else with a gun and chose to open fire.
Did you not see the guy with the AR (with mag) behind the woman?
I think the cop saw that gun and hit the woman instead.

And I think i saw another person with a gun in the foreground as well.

I thought that person looked like they may be an officer but they're on screen for so quick I can't tell

 

[Zachowon]

It doesn't matter if she's maybe armed and might be dangerous later, she's not dangerous right now, and so you can't shoot her.



Can't as in "are not allowed to", of course not, defend away.

Can't as in "unable to assemble a compelling argument".....yes, kinda. I would suggest you stop, get your thoughts in order, and do some research before you keep going, because right now you're doing yourself no favors.

Case in point:



That is absolutely untrue. Mere fear and "a reason" is not sufficient to claim to be acting in self defense. Legally speaking, the acceptable cause for using deadly force is in the case of imminent risk of death or serious bodily harm, or in the defense of someone else threatened with such.

In layman's terms, the only acceptable defense for drawing a weapon and using it try and kill another human being, is that if you hadn't done so you or a third party were absolutely going to die or be badly hurt. Ashley babbitt was not mere instants away from killing that officer or even in a position to do so, therefore this wasn't justified. If you think otherwise, you should present an argument to that effect.



That's the risk they take when they swear an oath to protect and serve the public, in a job they know is life threatening. If you cannot handle that risk and are primed to shoot first just in case, you should not be a cop and you should not be legally empowered to use deadly force against other people.



Of those 3 cases, only the second is clearly justified.

Murder might be a bit of a stretch; I think a better case could be made for manslaughter. Of course, this whole "actually holding government officials accountable for their actions while carrying out their orders" thing is a relatively new concept (Ruby Ridge, anyone?).

I'm getting sick of Zachowon's crap, so.


(I'd like a better clip, but Youtube of course will only throw up links from 'trusted sources.')

So, what has happened here:

1. There is a riot inside the capital.
2. Some people are trying to break down a set of double doors.
3. There are armed police on the other side.
4. A police office shot an unarmed person.

What has not happened here:

1. The doors are still intact.
2. There is no one pointing a gun at the cop on the other side.
3. There is no one shooting at the police on the other side.
4. No one has even tried to strike the police officer on the other side.
5. No one's life is under immediate threat in any way by the rioters here.

This is not a justified killing. If they were through the door and charging a man with a gun raised, that would justify shooting. If they were screaming 'We will kill you!' it might be a justified shooting. If the cop shot the person actually attacking the door, it might have been justified.

Zachowon, you've had an increasing tendency towards trust in whatever institution(s) regardless of the facts for some time now, but your complete nonsense on this thread has destroyed what respect I have for you.

In the United States of America:

1. Police do not have the right to fire indiscriminately into a crowd of people that has not shown itself to be armed.
2. Police do not have the right to fire on civilians if they or the lives of others have not been threatened. Minor damage to public property does not count.
3. Government buildings are not a form of holy ground where the above two change somehow.

There's no reason I see to charge the cop for murder, but manslaughter of some sort is absolutely on the table.

Ya know what? I will drop it.

.y experience in law enforcement seems to mean Jack and shit.
Because since it was GA and no DC I can't compare laws.

Because in GA, the way it was explained to me, and how I have sene plenty of police on youtube say.

If there is resnable fear fornyour life, you can pull the trigger. You also better damn well be able to explain it in the report.

But I'm gonna drop it because no matter fucking what, I will get dogpiled on Because I don't fall in like with everyone on here.

Do you think that officer was calmly standing there and was like "I'm gonna shoot one" for the fun of it? I sure hope not.

It was fear. Of course he should not have shot, but we know that as outsiders.

Do you think he knew she was compeltly unarmed? Do you think he knew she wasn't gonna do anything to him?

 

[Battlegrinder]

Ya know what? I will drop it.

.y experience in law enforcement seems to mean Jack and shit.
Because since it was GA and no DC I can't compare laws.

Because in GA, the way it was explained to me, and how I have sene plenty of police on youtube say.

If there is resnable fear fornyour life, you can pull the trigger. You also better damn well be able to explain it in the report.

But I'm gonna drop it because no matter fucking what, I will get dogpiled on Because I don't fall in like with everyone on here.

Do you think that officer was calmly standing there and was like "I'm gonna shoot one" for the fun of it? I sure hope not.

It was fear. Of course he should not have shot, but we know that as outsiders.

Do you think he knew she was compeltly unarmed? Do you think he knew she wasn't gonna do anything to him?

You're not getting a lot of pushback because you "won't fall in line", you're getting a lot of pushback because you are making a claim that is highly contentious and not supporting it very well. I've made very contentious arguments here, against things that a lot of people hold to be true as a matter of course, but I've argued against them well enough that I think most people would agree that even if I don't agree with them and they don't agree with me, I hold the opinions I do for good reason.

As for this point, if we, as outsiders, know that he obviously shouldn't have fired his weapon, why did he get cleared of all wrongdoing? Even if he did think she was armed, and even he did think she intended to harm him at some point in the future, those are not acceptable reasons to have shot her when he did.

3. Government buildings are not a form of holy ground where the above two change somehow.

This is, I think, at the root of why he didn't get charged, because there's very clearly a narrative being pushed that government buildings are some sort of holy ground that must be defended at all costs. Storming into the building and running amok in the halls is, obviously, illegal and the riots should not have done that, but once that started there's no reason the cops should have been standing around in empty corridors, guarding them from...whatever. Leave, go get backup, and then send in riot cops to clear the building and arrest everyone they catch.

 

[BlackDragon98]

I thought that person looked like they may be an officer but they're on screen for so quick I can't tell

They were on the protestor side of the barricade.
In fact, I think there were probably more people with guns on the protestor side and the policeman who fired the killing shot probably saw all those guns and got really scared for no reason at all.
It's not like the Right screamed for the defunding of the police and attacked them on several occasions during "protests".

 

[BlackDragon98]

I'm getting sick of Zachowon's crap, so.


(I'd like a better clip, but Youtube of course will only throw up links from 'trusted sources.')

So, what has happened here:

1. There is a riot inside the capital.
2. Some people are trying to break down a set of double doors.
3. There are armed police on the other side.
4. A police office shot an unarmed person.

What has not happened here:

1. The doors are still intact.
2. There is no one pointing a gun at the cop on the other side.
3. There is no one shooting at the police on the other side.
4. No one has even tried to strike the police officer on the other side.
5. No one's life is under immediate threat in any way by the rioters here.

This is not a justified killing. If they were through the door and charging a man with a gun raised, that would justify shooting. If they were screaming 'We will kill you!' it might be a justified shooting. If the cop shot the person actually attacking the door, it might have been justified.

Zachowon, you've had an increasing tendency towards trust in whatever institution(s) regardless of the facts for some time now, but your complete nonsense on this thread has destroyed what respect I have for you.

In the United States of America:

1. Police do not have the right to fire indiscriminately into a crowd of people that has not shown itself to be armed.
2. Police do not have the right to fire on civilians if they or the lives of others have not been threatened. Minor damage to public property does not count.
3. Government buildings are not a form of holy ground where the above two change somehow.

There's no reason I see to charge the cop for murder, but manslaughter of some sort is absolutely on the table.

It's the military-industrial complex.
It's forcing him to give a Government Issued Answer.
Not @Zachowon 's fault, blame the military-industrial complex instead.

 

[The Immortal Watch Dog]

This is, I think, at the root of why he didn't get charged, because there's very clearly a narrative being pushed that government buildings are some sort of holy ground that must be defended at all costs. Storming into the building and running amok in the halls is, obviously, illegal and the riots should not have done that, but once that started there's no reason the cops should have been standing around in empty corridors, guarding them from...whatever. Leave, go get backup, and then send in riot cops to clear the building and arrest everyone they catch.

This is an incredibly Unamerican sentiment and I legitimately question the integrity, loyalty and character of anyone who genuinely believes elected officials and Government employees are superior to the American people and not their servants and that Government buildings are beyond protestations.

How so? Because I am conservative? If I walked in there ND didn't climb over a barrier I doubt he would shoot me because of my political leaning.

Yes he would, he is a traitor to the country, an attack dog of traitors in congress who work for China. He was Pelosi's executioner.

The man and every police officer, secretary and non protestor around him should be charged with sedition, collaborating with a foreign power. Murder, a battery of terrorism charges should be added and then they should be charged with treason and all of them should be facing a trail where the death penalty is given as an option.

Their assets should be seized as well, let their spouses and children go begging through the streets.

 

[Terthna]

Ya know what? I will drop it.

.y experience in law enforcement seems to mean Jack and shit.
Because since it was GA and no DC I can't compare laws.

Because in GA, the way it was explained to me, and how I have sene plenty of police on youtube say.

If there is resnable fear fornyour life, you can pull the trigger. You also better damn well be able to explain it in the report.

But I'm gonna drop it because no matter fucking what, I will get dogpiled on Because I don't fall in like with everyone on here.

Do you think that officer was calmly standing there and was like "I'm gonna shoot one" for the fun of it? I sure hope not.

It was fear. Of course he should not have shot, but we know that as outsiders.

Do you think he knew she was compeltly unarmed? Do you think he knew she wasn't gonna do anything to him?

I said a case could be made for manslaughter; I didn't say it was one I particularly agreed with. Fact of the matter is, a lot depends on things we have no knowledge of; things that one would hope were properly investigate before the decision not to prosecute was made. Though considering the current political climate, that's doubtful.

You're not getting a lot of pushback because you "won't fall in line", you're getting a lot of pushback because you are making a claim that is highly contentious and not supporting it very well. I've made very contentious arguments here, against things that a lot of people hold to be true as a matter of course, but I've argued against them well enough that I think most people would agree that even if I don't agree with them and they don't agree with me, I hold the opinions I do for good reason.

Yeah, no; mostly you've made yourself look like a fool who has no idea what he's talking about at any given time.

As for this point, if we, as outsiders, know that he obviously shouldn't have fired his weapon, why did he get cleared of all wrongdoing? Even if he did think she was armed, and even he did think she intended to harm him at some point in the future, those are not acceptable reasons to have shot her when he did.

If it was an honest mistake in a high-stress situation, it makes sense that, in a sane world at least, charges would not be brought up against them. Although at the same time, they should be reprimanded (or at worst, fired) for making such a deadly mistake.

 

[Battlegrinder]

Like I said, I think I've convinced most people. There are holdouts.

 

[Terthna]

Like I said, I think I've convinced most people. There are holdouts.

You mind letting me know who those people you've convinced are? Because I have a bridge I'd like to sell them.

 

[BlackDragon98]

This is an incredibly Unamerican sentiment and I legitimately question the integrity, loyalty and character of anyone who genuinely believes elected officials and Government employees are superior to the American people and not their servants and that Government buildings are beyond protestations.

The US government has been running the people for many, many decades.
it's long since ceased to represent the US people in any way, shape, or form.
Same goes for Canada.
We are led by a corrupt, racist, leftist stooge who used his father's big name to get himself in power and then proceeded to ruin our country.
He is at the head of a party of corrupt (bill morneau and SNC Lavalin bailout), leftist idiots and there is no organized opposition to stop him in Canada.
Unlike you guys, we have no Trump, no MCGA, and no Wall.
God Bless America, for if you guys fall to the Adversary, Canada will fall in a week's time.

Yes he would, he is a traitor to the country, an attack dog of traitors in congress who work for China. He was Pelosi's executioner.

The man and every police officer, secretary and non protestor around him should be charged with sedition, collaborating with a foreign power. Murder, a battery of terrorism charges should be added and then they should be charged with treason and all of them should be facing a trail where the death penalty is given as an option.

Their assets should be seized as well, let their spouses and children go begging through the streets.

Ok, this is too far. I'm willing to admit that the police officer in question should have been relieved of his job for what he did at minimum, but what you are suggesting is too far.
This is the kind of stuff that alienates people who are otherwise neutral in this conflict and driven them into the arms of our enemies.

 

[The Immortal Watch Dog]

Ok, this is too far. I'm willing to admit that the police officer in question should have been relieved of his job for what he did at minimum, but what you are suggesting is too far.
This is the kind of stuff that alienates people who are otherwise neutral in this conflict and driven them into the arms of our enemies.

"I'm sorry dude justice is just like, too extreme. Maybe if we show compassion to those who want to rape our children and change their genders, murder us and defile our wives. Maybe, just Maybe fence sitters will join us!"

Nah homie.

If you're still on the fence after this then you're cattle and neither side will care when it finally hits the fan.

 

[Terthna]

"I'm sorry dude justice is just like, too extreme. Maybe if we show compassion to those who want to rape our children and change their genders, murder us and defile our wives. Maybe, just Maybe fence sitters will join us!"

Nah home.

If you're still on the fence after this then you're cattle and neither side will care when it finally hits the fan.

Ah, the old "you're either with us, or against us" ploy. Classic, but often ends up biting you in the ass over the long term; as eventually, everyone is against you.

 

[The Immortal Watch Dog]

Ah, the old "you're either with us, or against us" ploy. Classic, but often ends up biting you in the ass over the long term; as eventually, everyone is against you.

I'm sorry for laughing but my side is saying "maybe we should hold to account people who drug and mutilate children, batter woken and destroy families. Violate the law, peddle flesh, overthrow countries and shoot war veterans in the throat for their own personal amusement"

Be the other side is in favor of; raping, drugging and mutilating children, battering spouses, stealing people's futures, destroying families, starting wars, overthrowing countries and shooting veterans in the throat for their own personal amusement"

If a little harsh rhetoric seems scarier than the reality of their atrocities then you aren't someone with a healthy grasp of reality.

So spare me, your pearl clutching.

 

[Arch Dornan]

I'm sorry for laughing but my side is saying "maybe we should hold to account people who drug and mutilate children, batter woken and destroy families. Violate the law, peddle flesh, overthrow countries and shoot war veterans in the throat for their own personal amusement"

Be the other side is in favor of; raping, drugging and mutilating children, battering spouses, stealing people's futures, destroying families, starting wars, overthrowing countries and shooting veterans in the throat for their own personal amusement"

If a little harsh rhetoric seems scarier than the reality of their atrocities then you aren't someone with a healthy grasp of reality.

So spare me, your pearl clutching.

Is that how rhetoric works when everything goes to shit? People pick sides or run away like the Syrians or Myanmarese?

 

[Zachowon]

I said a case could be made for manslaughter; I didn't say it was one I particularly agreed with. Fact of the matter is, a lot depends on things we have no knowledge of; things that one would hope were properly investigate before the decision not to prosecute was made. Though considering the current political climate, that's doubtful.




Yeah, no; mostly you've made yourself look like a fool who has no idea what he's talking about at any given time.


If it was an honest mistake in a high-stress situation, it makes sense that, in a sane world at least, charges would not be brought up against them. Although at the same time, they should be reprimanded (or at worst, fired) for making such a deadly mistake.

I think eh should be reprimanded but not charged with a crime

 

[Terthna]

I'm sorry for laughing but my side is saying "maybe we should hold to account people who drug and mutilate children, batter woken and destroy families. Violate the law, peddle flesh, overthrow countries and shoot war veterans in the throat for their own personal amusement"

Be the other side is in favor of; raping, drugging and mutilating children, battering spouses, stealing people's futures, destroying families, starting wars, overthrowing countries and shooting veterans in the throat for their own personal amusement"

If a little harsh rhetoric seems scarier than the reality of their atrocities then you aren't someone with a healthy grasp of reality.

So spare me, your pearl clutching.

And spare me your false dichotomy; the vast majority of the people you want punished for those crimes are not guilty of committing them, particularly the children. I'm sorry, but once you start targeting innocent children, and talking about how you want to toss them out onto the streets to fend for themselves because of what you think their parents are guilty of by proxy, you lose any pretense at having the moral high ground. You come across as just wanting to feel morally justified in hurting people.

 

[The Immortal Watch Dog]

Is that how rhetoric works when everything goes to shit? People pick sides or run away like the Syrians or Myanmarese?

Less rhetoric and more people.

60% of people will just continue to mindlessly consoom and engorge themselves and ignore even the suffering of their own children. It's how the LGBT movement has essentially created state sanctioned rape and made a century and a half long recognized human rights atrocity a 'stunning and brave decision".

All of us put together and the left represent combined 5% of the population.

And countries are destroyed or saved by 1% of that..more oft than not simply by convincing 5% of the remaining 40% to get off their fat asses.

It's actually remarkable how few people are involved in wide scale change.

And spare me your false dichotomy; the vast majority of the people you want punished for those crimes are not guilty of committing them, particularly the children. I'm sorry, but once you start targeting innocent children, and talking about how you want to toss them out onto the streets to fend for themselves because of what you think their parents are guilty of by proxy, you lose any pretense at having the moral high ground. You come across as just wanting to feel morally justified in hurting people.

"Targeting innocent children"

You know what would be cool, if you stopped hyperventilating and reread it. "let their children go begging" is a reference to the consequences of the criminal penalties attached to their parents crimes.

Calm your man boobs Terth.

I think eh should be reprimanded but not charged with a crime

Firing on an unarmed woman who posed zero threat to your employers is not a crime now?

Fascinating.

 

[Zachowon]

Less rhetoric and more people.

60% of people will just continue to mindlessly consoom and engorge themselves and ignore even the suffering of their own children. It's how the LGBT movement has essentially created state sanctioned rape and made a century and a half long recognized human rights atrocity a 'stunning and brave decision".

All of us put together and the left represent combined 5% of the population.

And countries are destroyed or saved by 1% of that..more oft than not simply by convincing 5% of the remaining 40% to get off their fat asses.

It's actually remarkable how few people are involved in wide scale change.




"Targeting innocent children"

You know what would be cool, if you stopped hyperventilating and reread it. "let their children go begging" is a reference to the consequences of the criminal penalties attached to their parents crimes.

Calm your man boobs Terth.



Firing on an unarmed woman who posed zero threat to your employers is not a crime now?

Fascinating.

It is.
But he didn't have hindsight, and we don't know what was going through his mind

 

[Terthna]

"Targeting innocent children"

You know what would be cool, if you stopped hyperventilating and reread it. "let their children go begging" is a reference to the consequences of the criminal penalties attached to their parents crimes.

Calm your man boobs Terth.

You sounded downright giddy at the prospect of forcing them onto the streets; don't pretend you don't understand what that would do to them. Many would end up dead, or wishing they were. Also, what crimes? You were talking about wanting to punish people simply for being nearby when the poor woman got shot; that's not a crime.

Firing on an unarmed woman who posed zero threat to your employers is not a crime now?

Fascinating.

To be fair, that is how things have often worked out in the past. Ruby Ridge, the Kent State shootings, the Columbine Mine massacre; nobody involved in any of those incidents were ever punished.