Why does left want some cops prosecuted, but not others.

  

Category:  News & Politics

Via:  gooseisgone  •  3 weeks ago  •  177 comments

Why does left want some cops prosecuted, but not others.
“Specifically, the investigation revealed no evidence to establish that, at the time the officer fired a single shot at Ms. Babbitt, the officer did not reasonably believe that it was necessary to do so in self-defense or in defense of the Members of Congress and others evacuating the House Chamber,” prosecutors said.

This officer's name was "never" disclosed, why? The names of Derek Chauvin and Kim Potter were disclosed in hours after the incident Why isn't the left screaming for murder charges, this officer acted with a reckless disregard for Ashli Babbit's life and the lives of people around her.  


S E E D E D   C O N T E N T


Video clips posted online depict Babbitt, wearing a stars and stripes backpack, stepping up and beginning to go through the waist-high opening of an area of the Capitol known as the Speaker’s Lobby when a gunshot is heard. She falls backward. Another video shows other unidentified people attempting to lift Babbitt up. She can be seen slumping back to the ground.


Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
[]
 
gooseisgone
Senior Quiet
1  seeder  gooseisgone    3 weeks ago

If you watch the video you can see some type of security guards or police holding back the crowd, they were not being attacked in anyway didn't appear to be concern for their safety, then there called away, why?  Moments later Babbit is killed from a coward of an Officer with out warning from point blank range.  His reckless disregard for Babbit and those around her is unbelievable.   

 
 
 
devangelical
PhD Principal
1.1  devangelical  replied to  gooseisgone @1    3 weeks ago

pffft, that domestic terrorist Qnut deserved 2 in the head. meh, same end result.

 
 
 
gooseisgone
Senior Quiet
1.1.2  seeder  gooseisgone  replied to  devangelical @1.1    3 weeks ago
pffft, that domestic terrorist Qnut deserved 2 in the head. meh, same end result.

Oh Ok, so killing trespassers without warning is what you consider justice. What "terror" did she commit, she was a 120 lb unarmed female. Guess you didn't care about what happened to George Floyd and Daunte Wright then.

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Expert
1.1.3  Tacos!  replied to  devangelical @1.1    3 weeks ago

I guess some people scare easy.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.1.4  Texan1211  replied to  Tacos! @1.1.3    3 weeks ago

Oh, the internet tough guys would never admit to that!

 
 
 
Ronin2
Senior Quiet
1.1.5  Ronin2  replied to  devangelical @1.1    3 weeks ago

So you will have no problem with unarmed BLM and Antifa members being shot and killed the next time they vandalize, commit arson, loot, or assault any piece of federal property or federal officer right?

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Participates
1.1.6  Sean Treacy  replied to  Ronin2 @1.1.5    3 weeks ago
So you will have no problem with unarmed BLM and Antifa members being shot and killed the next time they vandalize, commit arson, loot, or assault any piece of federal property or federal officer righ

It's loony tunes seeing the same people  justify shooting an unarmed woman who defended the rights of rioters to chunks of concrete and Molotov cocktails at police without repercussion. 

 
 
 
Ronin2
Senior Quiet
1.1.7  Ronin2  replied to  Sean Treacy @1.1.6    3 weeks ago

When it comes to the leftist Brown Shirts of BLM and Antifa they us the term "mostly peaceful protesters".

The left's definitions suck. 

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
1.1.8  Dulay  replied to  gooseisgone @1.1.2    3 weeks ago
Oh Ok, so killing trespassers without warning is what you consider justice.

She was 'warned' multiple times that the officer on the other side of the door has a gun. The fucking door was barricaded and your own seed states that she tried to climb through the broken window in that barricaded door. 

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
1.1.9  Dulay  replied to  Sean Treacy @1.1.6    3 weeks ago

Please post a quote of 'those' 'who defended the rights of rioters to chunks of concrete and Molotov cocktails at police without repercussion'. I won't be holding my breath...

 
 
 
Ronin2
Senior Quiet
1.1.10  Ronin2  replied to  Dulay @1.1.8    3 weeks ago

So again no damn problem with shooting BLM or Antifa rioters next time they riot right? They have had more than enough damn warnings.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
1.1.11  Dulay  replied to  Ronin2 @1.1.10    3 weeks ago
So again no damn problem with shooting BLM or Antifa rioters next time they riot right?

If they are a threat to a LEOs life, NO. 

They have had more than enough damn warnings.

Nope, the LEO at that time and place or someone in the crowd has to give a warning. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.1.12  Tessylo  replied to  devangelical @1.1    3 weeks ago

Yup, she's dead.  Where she belongs!

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
1.1.13  XXJefferson51  replied to  gooseisgone @1.1.2    3 weeks ago

[Deleted]  The officer who executed her should have been charged.  

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
1.1.14  XXJefferson51  replied to  Ronin2 @1.1.5    3 weeks ago

[Deleted]

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
1.1.15  XXJefferson51  replied to  devangelical @1.1    3 weeks ago

Going forward, that should be the standard for all protesters that turn to vandalism and trespassing as part of a crowd.  

 
 
 
bugsy
PhD Guide
1.1.16  bugsy  replied to  devangelical @1.1    3 weeks ago

Meh..I feel the same of any left wing loon that gets on the wrong side of an LEO's lead. One less welfare recipient.

 
 
 
r.t..b...
Masters Participates
1.2  r.t..b...  replied to  gooseisgone @1    3 weeks ago

Where exactly was she, with whom, and for what intent. 

Her death, while tragic, did not happen in a vacuum...

 
 
 
gooseisgone
Senior Quiet
1.2.1  seeder  gooseisgone  replied to  r.t..b... @1.2    3 weeks ago
Where exactly was she, with whom, and for what intent

So the Capital is a shoot on sight location, wow didn't know that. I didn't know you could be killed if you were with people Democrats don't like, why don't you tell me what her "intent" was.

Her death, while tragic, did not happen in a vacuum..

Watch the "video" in the seeded article, then tell me she posed a threat to anyone, she was murdered. 

 
 
 
r.t..b...
Masters Participates
1.2.2  r.t..b...  replied to  gooseisgone @1.2.1    3 weeks ago

It is the Capitol, goose...with Congress under session, overrun by ‘protesters’ at best and at that, illegal and posing an obvious threat. At worst and closer to the truth, insurrectionists looking to disrupt the validation of the electoral vote.

She was probably not singled out, just another case of being in the wrong place with the worst of compatriots for no excusable reason.

She is not a martyr, she is the sad face of a ridiculous cause...and that is the true tragedy. 

 
 
 
gooseisgone
Senior Quiet
1.2.3  seeder  gooseisgone  replied to  r.t..b... @1.2.2    3 weeks ago
It is the Capitol, goose.

I don't give a shit where it is, you don't shoot someone who is unarmed with no warning, when they were basically given a green light to enter.  This Officer is a "fucking idiot" for firing a round in close quarters with people everywhere, he had no regard for what was next to and behind the target, we don't even know if he was aiming at Babbit!  Hell... the police where just feet away, they were as surprised as anyone that a round was fired. 

 
 
 
r.t..b...
Masters Participates
1.2.4  r.t..b...  replied to  gooseisgone @1.2.3    3 weeks ago

[Deleted]

 
 
 
gooseisgone
Senior Quiet
1.2.5  seeder  gooseisgone  replied to  r.t..b... @1.2.4    3 weeks ago
Removed for context - sandy

So you feel Chauvin and Potter were justified then. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.2.6  Tessylo  replied to  gooseisgone @1.2.3    3 weeks ago

They were not given a green light and that traitor had plenty of warning.  They're all lucky, those who were in the Capitol, those who 'Stormed the Capitol' 'It's a Revolution', that they weren't shot dead.

 
 
 
Ronin2
Senior Quiet
1.2.7  Ronin2  replied to  r.t..b... @1.2.4    3 weeks ago

No, he is being logical.

Just apply the same logic that you are using on Babbit to any of the African American criminals that are shot by police. Break the law and do something really stupid and you run the risk of death by a law enforcement officer. Seems to be a pretty basic concept. One that the left is applying here in full force. No problem with that; but use the exact same damn standard across the board. The left seems to like making martyrs out of minority criminals.

Also, haven't heard one person claim that police shouldn't be investigated or held accountable when they kill someone. Yet in a great disconnect those on the left seem to think that shooting an unarmed female for any damn reason is justifiable. No warning, no nothing. Of course she was a "far alt right seditionist"; that is all the left needs to justify murdering her.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
1.2.8  Dulay  replied to  gooseisgone @1.2.1    3 weeks ago
So the Capital is a shoot on sight location, wow didn't know that.

That is a ridiculously hyperbolic statement. 

If the Capital was a shoot on sight location, HUNDREDS of insurrectionists would have died that day. 

 
 
 
devangelical
PhD Principal
1.2.9  devangelical  replied to  Dulay @1.2.8    3 weeks ago

... a suitable end to that fascist administration and it's domestic terrorist supporters.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
1.2.10  Trout Giggles  replied to  gooseisgone @1.2.3    3 weeks ago

Who gave them the "green light"?

 
 
 
gooseisgone
Senior Quiet
1.2.11  seeder  gooseisgone  replied to  Dulay @1.2.8    3 weeks ago
If the Capital was a shoot on sight location, HUNDREDS of insurrectionists would have died that day. 

Well obviously it was in one case, unless you have some explanation why the officer shot an unarmed female that posed no threat to him or anyone else.

 
 
 
gooseisgone
Senior Quiet
1.2.12  seeder  gooseisgone  replied to  Trout Giggles @1.2.10    3 weeks ago
Who gave them the "green light"?

Watch the video at the two minute mark the security guards who were guarding the entrance just leave. 

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
1.2.13  Trout Giggles  replied to  gooseisgone @1.2.12    3 weeks ago

What video?

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
1.2.14  Dulay  replied to  gooseisgone @1.2.11    3 weeks ago
Well obviously it was in one case, unless you have some explanation why the officer shot an unarmed female that posed no threat to him or anyone else.

Wow, you guys keep harping on the 'unarmed female' BS. 

First of all, of what relevance is gender? 

Secondly, there is NO evidence that the officer knew she was unarmed. 

Thirdly, the explanation for why she was shot is that she was trying to enter the hallway just outside of the Speaker's office, well inside a RESTRICTED building, during an INSURRECTION. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.2.15  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @1.2.14    3 weeks ago

Please present any evidence that the officer thought she was armed, even though he could see no weapon.

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
1.2.16  XXJefferson51  replied to  Trout Giggles @1.2.13    3 weeks ago

Did you not read the article? 

 
 
 
gooseisgone
Senior Quiet
1.2.17  seeder  gooseisgone  replied to  Trout Giggles @1.2.13    3 weeks ago
What video?

The video in the seeded article.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
1.2.18  Trout Giggles  replied to  gooseisgone @1.2.17    3 weeks ago

If you don't actually post the video I'm not likely to go to the article and watch it. I have issues with strange websites

 
 
 
gooseisgone
Senior Quiet
1.2.19  seeder  gooseisgone  replied to  Dulay @1.2.14    3 weeks ago
First of all, of what relevance is gender? 

The genitalia isn't an issue other than she was "not" 6'2" and weighed 220lbs, she was not an imposing person.

Secondly, there is NO evidence that the officer knew she was unarmed. 

Did he have his eyes shut, they were in the hall way for some time, no one drew a weapon on the guards who were watching the doors. So in your mind she was waiting to draw the imaginary weapon when she got through those doors, tell me where you read that. .  

Thirdly, the explanation for why she was shot is that she was trying to enter the hallway just outside of the Speaker's office, well inside a RESTRICTED building, during an INSURRECTION. 

She was trespassing, she may have committed property damage, are those shoot on site offenses, what is this Minority Report.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
1.2.20  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @1.2.15    3 weeks ago
Please present any evidence that the officer thought she was armed, even though he could see no weapon.

Why Tex? Did I say somewhere that the officer thought she was armed? Hint: NO. 

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
1.2.21  Dulay  replied to  gooseisgone @1.2.19    3 weeks ago
The genitalia isn't an issue other than she was "not" 6'2" and weighed 220lbs, she was not an imposing person.

So what? She was capable of moving the shit that was barricading the door, couldn't she? 

Oh and BTFW, I know quite a few women, especially those with military training, that are quite  imposing when they want to be, my wife included. 

Did he have his eyes shut, they were in the hall way for some time, no one drew a weapon on the guards who were watching the doors. 

Did you WATCH the video? The officer could NOT see any of the insurrections below the waist. 

So in your mind she was waiting to draw the imaginary weapon when she got through those doors, tell me where you read that. .  

It would behoove you NOT to try to put words in my mouth. I 'assume' nothing, I rely on FACTS. 

She was trespassing, she may have committed property damage, are those shoot on site offenses, what is this Minority Report.

She was participating in an armed insurrection at the Capitol of the United States. If she had lived she would be facing FAR more than 'property damage' and 'trespassing'. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.2.22  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @1.2.20    3 weeks ago

So your comment had no point.

Great!

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
1.2.23  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @1.2.22    3 weeks ago

Oh, my comment has a clear point Tex but it obviously went right over your head. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
1.2.24  JohnRussell  replied to  Texan1211 @1.2.22    3 weeks ago

Ashley Babbitt was an extremist, and possibly mentally ill. Her death was a tragedy, but she was not there to play tiddlywinks with the House chamber guards. What happened to her was her own doing. It surprised absolutely no one when that guard shot her, including her fellow insurrectionists who were at the scene. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
1.2.25  JohnRussell  replied to  JohnRussell @1.2.24    3 weeks ago

She was yelling into a camera while going 50 or 55 mph down the road. She could have killed somebody. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.2.26  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @1.2.23    3 weeks ago

That is hilarious!

"Over my head".....LMAO!

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.2.27  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @1.2.24    3 weeks ago

Gee, where have I ever said otherwise? Who you arguing with now?

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.3  Tessylo  replied to  gooseisgone @1    3 weeks ago

You must have watched a different video.

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
1.4  XXJefferson51  replied to  gooseisgone @1    3 weeks ago

I seeded an article the other day regarding Tucker Carlson’s comments on this very double standard issue. It is a serious concern for constitution loving law abiding Americans.  

 
 
 
devangelical
PhD Principal
1.4.1  devangelical  replied to  XXJefferson51 @1.4    3 weeks ago
It is a serious concern for constitution loving law abiding Americans.

[Deleted]

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.4.2  Tessylo  replied to  XXJefferson51 @1.4    3 weeks ago

So what?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2  Vic Eldred    3 weeks ago

The double standard is obvious. Violent protesters rioted all summer and our current VP set up a fund to bail them out if they were arrested. The police in those cities were clearly ordered to stand down. Cops seldom shoot at protesters, no matter how violent they get.

Someday things will change and we will remember Ashli Babbitt as well as the hate-filled comment we see here.

 
 
 
gooseisgone
Senior Quiet
2.1  seeder  gooseisgone  replied to  Vic Eldred @2    3 weeks ago

The hypocrisy is off the charts. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2.1.1  Vic Eldred  replied to  gooseisgone @2.1    3 weeks ago

They know. They don't care. They are forging a totalitarian regime.

 
 
 
gooseisgone
Senior Quiet
2.1.2  seeder  gooseisgone  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1.1    3 weeks ago
They know. They don't care

Imagine the destruction had this been a white officer shooting a BLM trespasser (which could happen on a weekly basis). 

 
 
 
pat wilson
Professor Guide
2.1.3  pat wilson  replied to  gooseisgone @2.1.2    3 weeks ago
Imagine the destruction had this been a white officer shooting a BLM trespasser (which could happen on a weekly basis). 

A Black person has been shot dead by police every two weeks since 2015.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Participates
2.1.4  Sean Treacy  replied to  pat wilson @2.1.3    3 weeks ago
A Black person has been shot dead by police every two weeks since 2015.

How often has a white person? 

 
 
 
pat wilson
Professor Guide
2.1.5  pat wilson  replied to  Sean Treacy @2.1.4    3 weeks ago

My comment was a response to this :

Imagine the destruction had this been a white officer shooting a BLM trespasser (which could happen on a weekly basis). 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2.1.6  Vic Eldred  replied to  pat wilson @2.1.3    3 weeks ago

Homicide - According to the FBI, Black or African Americans accounted for 55.9% of all homicide offenders in 2019.  That is quite a record for a group that represents only 13% of the population.  


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_crime_in_the_United_States#:~:text=Crime%20statistics%201%20Homicide.%20According%20to%20the%20FBI%2C,composition%20of%20geographic%20areas.%20...%208%20Trends.%20

 
 
 
Ronin2
Senior Quiet
2.1.7  Ronin2  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1.6    3 weeks ago

Don't give them real facts and statistics, backed up by a link, they hate that.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
2.1.8  Dulay  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1.6    3 weeks ago
Homicide - According to the FBI, Black or African Americans accounted for 55.9% of all homicide offenders in 2019.  That is quite a record for a group that represents only 13% of the population. 

Has it somehow eluded you that BLM is a MULTIRACIAL movement Vic? Or are you just desperate to pretend otherwise? 

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
2.1.9  Trout Giggles  replied to  gooseisgone @2.1    3 weeks ago

Isn't it tho....

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2.1.10  Vic Eldred  replied to  Dulay @2.1.8    3 weeks ago

What does BLM have to do with national crime statistics?

 
 
 
gooseisgone
Senior Quiet
2.1.11  seeder  gooseisgone  replied to  pat wilson @2.1.3    3 weeks ago
A Black person has been shot dead by police every two weeks since 2015.

What's your point, it's OK for this Officer to shoot an unarmed person because she was white?  

 
 
 
Sunshine
Masters Guide
2.1.12  Sunshine  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1.10    3 weeks ago
What does BLM have to do with national crime statistics?

Failed attempt at deflection?

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
2.1.13  Tessylo  replied to  pat wilson @2.1.5    3 weeks ago

WE know Pat.  That's all they have . . . deflection, projection, and denial.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
2.1.14  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1.10    3 weeks ago
"What does BLM have to do with national crime statistics?"

You're the one who keeps bringing them up.  What do they have to do with it?  With this traitor Babbit being shot justifiably?

 
 
 
bugsy
PhD Guide
2.1.15  bugsy  replied to  pat wilson @2.1.3    3 weeks ago
A Black person has been shot dead by police every two weeks since 2015.

Do stupid shit...win stupid prizes.

 
 
 
bugsy
PhD Guide
2.1.16  bugsy  replied to  Sean Treacy @2.1.4    3 weeks ago
How often has a white person? 

To most leftists.....not enough

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
2.2  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @2    3 weeks ago

So you think the LEO that shot Ashley Babbit should have just let her climb through a broken door window and let all the other insurrectionists into the Speakers lobby of the US house, an area directly adjacent to the House floor where members of the US House were hiding. 

One question - are you nuts? 

What is that guard there for if not to prevent exactly what was happening? If Ashli Babbit thought she was going to be allowed to do what she was trying to do, she was badly misinformed. 

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Expert
2.2.1  Tacos!  replied to  JohnRussell @2.2    3 weeks ago
What is that guard there for if not to prevent exactly what was happening?

His job is shoot to kill unarmed women?

 
 
 
gooseisgone
Senior Quiet
2.2.2  seeder  gooseisgone  replied to  JohnRussell @2.2    3 weeks ago
What is that guard there for if not to prevent exactly what was happening? If Ashli Babbit thought she was going to be allowed to do what she was trying to do, she was badly misinformed. 

John, did you bother to look at the video in the seed, did you read what the prosecutor wrote, 

"the officer fired a single shot at Ms. Babbitt, the officer did not reasonably believe that it was necessary to do so in self-defense or in defense of the Members of Congress and others evacuating the House Chamber,” 

Why do demand other Officers are charged, but not this one?

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
2.2.3  JohnRussell  replied to  gooseisgone @2.2.2    3 weeks ago

Lets see the entire context of that passage

“Specifically, the investigation revealed no evidence to establish that, at the time the officer fired a single shot at Ms. Babbitt, the officer did not reasonably believe that it was necessary to do so in self-defense or in defense of the Members of Congress and others evacuating the House Chamber, prosecutors said.

In context, the passage means the exact opposite of what you are trying to present it as. 

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
2.2.4  Kavika   replied to  JohnRussell @2.2.3    3 weeks ago

Officer Cleared In The Shooting Death Of Ashli Babbitt During Capitol Riot

 
 
 
pat wilson
Professor Guide
2.2.5  pat wilson  replied to  Tacos! @2.2.1    3 weeks ago

The guard didn't have any way of knowing who was armed or not. And gender is not relevant.

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Expert
2.2.6  Tacos!  replied to  pat wilson @2.2.5    3 weeks ago
The guard didn't have any way of knowing who was armed or not

So he should just shoot people at random?

And gender is not relevant.

If you have to get physical with a person, it’s real relevant. On the other hand, if you’re just going to shoot people indiscriminately, then yeah, it doesn’t matter. Bullets work pretty well on everyone.

 
 
 
pat wilson
Professor Guide
2.2.7  pat wilson  replied to  Tacos! @2.2.6    3 weeks ago
So he should just shoot people at random?

I didn't say anything like that. 

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Expert
2.2.8  Tacos!  replied to  pat wilson @2.2.7    3 weeks ago

Well is there a standard for shooting a person or not?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2.2.9  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @2.2.3    3 weeks ago
prosecutors said.

You mean the feds????   This decision was made on day 1. The shooter was never fired/detained and his identity is protected to this day.

This is about progressives in power.

She was unarmed!!!

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2.2.10  Vic Eldred  replied to  Kavika @2.2.4    3 weeks ago

WE WANT JUSTICE.

NO JUSTICE NO PEACE!

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2.2.11  Vic Eldred  replied to  Tacos! @2.2.6    3 weeks ago
So he should just shoot people at random?

Only if they are white!

 
 
 
Ronin2
Senior Quiet
2.2.12  Ronin2  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.2.10    3 weeks ago

Sorry Vic, I almost fell out of my chair laughing at that one.

Yes we want justice. No arguing that.

But no peace? The Democrats already know they are safe. Five consecutive plus years of their leftist Brown Shirts rioting w/o repercussions have taught them that. If we were to actually riot to get their damn attention and force them to do what needs to be done; then we would all be "far alt right seditionists" and would be put down.

The most that will happen is we will call, write, email our congress people; and complain to any media that are willing to listen (but since the majority have bought into the Democrat BS of the DC riot being an attempt to overthrow the government- good luck with that).  The government can and will ignore us.

 
 
 
Ronin2
Senior Quiet
2.2.13  Ronin2  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.2.11    3 weeks ago

There is no such thing as an innocent white person; especially if they aren't a liberal or Democrat. You know that.

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
2.2.14  Kavika   replied to  Vic Eldred @2.2.10    3 weeks ago

WE WANT JUSTICE.

NO JUSTICE NO PEACE!

If you really believe that then get out from behind your computer and take to the streets and protest. 

 
 
 
Ronin2
Senior Quiet
2.2.15  Ronin2  replied to  Kavika @2.2.14    3 weeks ago

You mean riot. The Democrats and media won't listen to anything else.

We don't do that.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
2.2.16  Dulay  replied to  JohnRussell @2.2.3    3 weeks ago

Well done John. 

Those that truncate quotes to falsely bolster their own agenda are trying to gaslight. 

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
2.2.17  Kavika   replied to  Ronin2 @2.2.15    3 weeks ago
You mean riot. The Democrats and media won't listen to anything else.

I was very clear in what I said. [Deleted] your old fall back of, radical left or brown shirts would suit you well. 

Again, show some courage and get out from behind your computer and excise your first amendment rights, or hide behind your computer and whine.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2.2.18  Vic Eldred  replied to  Ronin2 @2.2.12    3 weeks ago
If we were to actually riot to get their damn attention and force them to do what needs to be done; then we would all be "far alt right seditionists" and would be put down.

The FBI would be right on it. 


The most that will happen is we will call, write, email our congress people; and complain to any media that are willing to listen (but since the majority have bought into the Democrat BS of the DC riot being an attempt to overthrow the government- good luck with that).  

The most we can do is vote. The reason for a lot of this is that Republicans in GA didn't come out to vote in two key Senate elections.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
2.2.19  Tessylo  replied to  Tacos! @2.2.6    3 weeks ago

He didn't shoot any one at random or indiscriminately.  He shot that traitor.  They're lucky, everyone breaking through that barricade, like Babbit, weren't shot dead.  They were all traitors. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
2.2.20  Tessylo  replied to  pat wilson @2.2.7    3 weeks ago
"So he should just shoot people at random?"

"I didn't say anything like that."

WE know Pat.  Certain folks are always putting words in people's mouths, moving the goal posts, etc., etc., etc. . . . .  

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
2.2.21  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.2.9    3 weeks ago
"prosecutors said."

"You mean the feds????   This decision was made on day 1. The shooter was never fired/detained and his identity is protected to this day.

This is about progressives in power.

She was unarmed!!!"

SINCE WHEN HAVE THE 'PROGRESSIVES' BEEN IN POWER?
"She was unarmed!!!"

HOW WOULD THE OFFICERS KNOW THAT???

She should have thought of that before she 'Stormed the Capitol' 'It's a Revolution'

 
 
 
gooseisgone
Senior Quiet
2.2.22  seeder  gooseisgone  replied to  JohnRussell @2.2.3    3 weeks ago
In context, the passage means the exact opposite of what you are trying to present it as.

So every time an Officer shoots an unarmed suspect, all he has to say I believed it was necessary in self defense.   . 

 
 
 
gooseisgone
Senior Quiet
2.2.23  seeder  gooseisgone  replied to  Tessylo @2.2.21    3 weeks ago
HOW WOULD THE OFFICERS KNOW THAT???

Well for starters, HIS TWO EYES.

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Masters Participates
2.2.24  Greg Jones  replied to  pat wilson @2.2.5    3 weeks ago

Both her hands were clearly visible

 
 
 
r.t..b...
Masters Participates
2.2.25  r.t..b...  replied to  gooseisgone @2.2.22    3 weeks ago

The M.O. for every defense attorney and every police union in every case when an armed officer walks and the unarmed ‘perp’ gets buried.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
2.2.26  Tessylo  replied to  Greg Jones @2.2.24    3 weeks ago

Makes no difference.  If she hadn't been there, the traitor wouldn't have been shot dead.  

 
 
 
bugsy
PhD Guide
2.2.27  bugsy  replied to  Tessylo @2.2.26    3 weeks ago
If she hadn't been there, the traitor wouldn't have been shot dead.  

I feel the same way of any BLM rioter looting or burning any building by the person protecting said property. The more taken out, the less welfare paid out.

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Expert
2.2.28  Tacos!  replied to  Tessylo @2.2.19    3 weeks ago

How many unarmed people do you think they should have shot? Just the one? Or more? 10? 50? 100? 1000?

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Expert
3  Tacos!    3 weeks ago

We can have a real debate about what levels of force are appropriate in different situations, but this is a whole new level of doub standard. We don’t even know this officer’s name, much less what, if any, disciplinary action might be forthcoming. Why? Because she had the wrong politics for the media or the Left to treat her like a human being.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
3.1  JohnRussell  replied to  Tacos! @3    3 weeks ago

The woman was forcibly entering a prohibited part of the building, unlawfully breaking through a locked door. Her presence in the prohibited area would have put governmental officials in danger.  And you think there was no justification for stopping her?  Unbelievable.  Seconds before, her compadres had bashed in the windows on the door, and that cop has no idea if they are armed with machetes, or hand grenades, or nothing.  You dont want to risk getting shot, dont break into the inner chambers of the US Congress. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
3.1.1  Tessylo  replied to  JohnRussell @3.1    3 weeks ago

Twist and spin and spin and twist is all you'll get with some folks.

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Expert
3.1.2  Tacos!  replied to  JohnRussell @3.1    3 weeks ago
The woman was forcibly entering a prohibited part of the building, unlawfully breaking through a locked door.

So the best response from police is to shoot her with a firearm? That was necessary? 

And why does the shooter remain anonymous?

And you think there was no justification for stopping her?  Unbelievable

Oh WOW! Could you shove them goal posts any harder? Where did I say there was no justification to STOP her? We’re not talking about “stopping” her. She was shot in the neck and killed. That is levels above “stopping” her. Oh my god.

that cop has no idea if they are armed with machetes, or hand grenades, or nothing

I am just blown away at how politics can make people say the most absurd things. You could literally say this about every person that police encounter. You’re right, by golly! They don’t know if anybody has a machete or a hand grenade. Might as well roll ye olde 50 caliber out into the street and just let everybody have it, eh?

You do understand, I hope, that “cop doesn’t know if she is armed” is not the standard for deciding to shoot someone - anywhere at anytime.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
3.1.3  JohnRussell  replied to  Tacos! @3.1.2    3 weeks ago

Sometimes you make sense, but right now is not one of those times. Under what circumstances would a mob be allowed into the inner chambers of the US House?  They weren't a mob you say?  They were trying to break the door down, and did bash in the windows on the door. The cop could see that there were dozens of them, at least. 

How was he going to stop them if not with his weapon?  By reasoning with them? 

What if he had waved them in and they went on to harm or kill a member of Congress. What position would he be in then? 

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Expert
3.1.4  Tacos!  replied to  JohnRussell @3.1.3    3 weeks ago
Under what circumstances would a mob be allowed into the inner chambers of the US House?

They’re not. That’s not the issue. I didn’t say she had a right to be there. I’m saying it’s not cause to KILL her!

They weren't a mob you say?

No JR. I didn’t say that. Did I? Be honest. Please.

They were trying to break the door down, and did bash in the windows on the door.

Yeah, and property damage is a crime. She deserved to be arrested. She did not deserve to be shot.

The cop could see that there were dozens of them, at least. 

Sure, but by extending your logic to its absurd conclusion, he was negligent in his duty for not shooting and killing dozens of people. Please tell me you would not be ok with that.

And if killing dozens is wrong, then isn’t killing one wrong?

How was he going to stop them if not with his weapon?

Is that his job? One man? To stop a mob? I don’t think so. His priority at that point should have been protecting the lives of the people inside - if he could - by getting them safely away. And in fact, that was already being done.

JR, over the last year, many thousands of protestors broke into places - some public and some private - and did massive property damage. But no one thinks it would be a good idea for cops to have opened up on the crowds with live ammunition. But you’re totally fine with it here because you don’t like the victim’s politics.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
3.1.5  JohnRussell  replied to  Tacos! @3.1.4    3 weeks ago

The assault on the US Capitol was not primarily or significantly a property crime. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
3.1.6  JohnRussell  replied to  Tacos! @3.1.4    3 weeks ago
Sure, but by extending your logic to its absurd conclusion, he was negligent in his duty for not shooting and killing dozens of people. Please tell me you would not be ok with that.

You are going over the cliff.  Right after he shot her the assault on the Speakers lobby came to an end. 

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Expert
3.1.7  Tacos!  replied to  JohnRussell @3.1.5    3 weeks ago
The assault on the US Capitol was not primarily or significantly a property crime.

How many people had Ashli Babbitt attacked before this hero cop finally put this monster down with the gun?

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Expert
3.1.8  Tacos!  replied to  JohnRussell @3.1.6    3 weeks ago

But if it hadn’t, he should have kept firing, right?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
3.1.9  Vic Eldred  replied to  Tacos! @3.1.4    3 weeks ago

You nailed it!

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
3.1.10  Dulay  replied to  Tacos! @3.1.4    3 weeks ago
Is that his job? One man? To stop a mob?

Yes it WAS and IS his job. He 'stood his ground'. 

I don’t think so.

You're wrong and the investigation proves it. 

His priority at that point should have been protecting the lives of the people inside - if he could - by getting them safely away. And in fact, that was already being done.

'Being done' is not achieved Tacos. The officer did his duty, stood his ground and gave others time to get House members into safety. The House members had JUST left the hallway SECONDS before Babbit tried to go through the window. THAT is the information that the officer acted on. 

 
 
 
r.t..b...
Masters Participates
3.1.11  r.t..b...  replied to  Tacos! @3.1.7    3 weeks ago

For goodness sake, Tacos.

She was a willful participant in an unlawful insurrection against the constitutional proceedings of her own government.

Tragic? Of course. But given the tragedy, it is irresponsible to conflate her death with the innumerable examples of people losing their lives at the hands of police.

Regardless of the efforts, the attempt at equation does not compute. 

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Expert
3.1.12  Tacos!  replied to  r.t..b... @3.1.11    3 weeks ago
She was a willful participant in an unlawful insurrection against the constitutional proceedings of her own government.

Was she? Or was she just a protestor?

Maybe they should have just shot all the people in Seattle who chased police from their own precinct building. Or maybe they should have shot all the people in Portland who broke through a fence protecting the federal building. Or maybe they should have shot all the people in Washington DC last summer who lit fires and damaged property- particularly in front of the White House.

Why aren’t those events “insurrection?” They were all mobs attacking the government in some way. And those people not only escaped being shot, but they were also allowed to continue their activities for several days in the case of DC, and for weeks in the case of Seattle and Portland.

 
 
 
gooseisgone
Senior Quiet
3.1.13  seeder  gooseisgone  replied to  JohnRussell @3.1.3    3 weeks ago
How was he going to stop them if not with his weapon?  By reasoning with them? 

Didn't appear to be a problem for the 3 security guards in front of the doors prior to the shooting, they didn't have weapons drawn they didn't shoot anyone.  Maybe you should ask who called them off from their position or could maybe  there was nothing to guard, everyone had been evacuated.  There where armed police in full riot gear right next to the protesters, you're trying to paint this as these people where blood thirsty criminals. 

 
 
 
gooseisgone
Senior Quiet
3.1.14  seeder  gooseisgone  replied to  JohnRussell @3.1.5    3 weeks ago
The assault on the US Capitol was not primarily or significantly a property crime.

Then by all means tell me what other crimes there are other than trespassing.

 
 
 
gooseisgone
Senior Quiet
3.1.15  seeder  gooseisgone  replied to  Dulay @3.1.10    3 weeks ago
Yes it WAS and IS his job. He 'stood his ground'. 

How do you know, we don't even know who this guy is and why he shot in the first place, there's never been a public statement for the justification for this killing. 

 
 
 
r.t..b...
Masters Participates
3.1.16  r.t..b...  replied to  gooseisgone @3.1.13    3 weeks ago

“trying to paint this as these people where blood thirsty criminals.”

They became criminals when they attempted a hostile takeover of our nation’s seat of government.

How that simple, undeniable fact is complicated and denied by any number of apologists is beyond the pale. 

 
 
 
Sunshine
Masters Guide
3.1.17  Sunshine  replied to  r.t..b... @3.1.16    3 weeks ago
They became criminals when they took over our nation’s seat of government.

A bit dramatic are we?  No one took over our government.  It was still functioning fine. This wasn't an invasion of an armed platoon.  No one deserves to die for making mistakes and wrong decisions do they?  

We will never know what really happened because "the government" has decided to hide the investigation.

Didn't you say once that no one should be accuser, judge, and jury?  

 
 
 
r.t..b...
Masters Participates
3.1.18  r.t..b...  replied to  Sunshine @3.1.17    3 weeks ago

Again, beyond the pale. 

 
 
 
Sunshine
Masters Guide
3.1.19  Sunshine  replied to  r.t..b... @3.1.18    3 weeks ago

Yes the hyperbole is beyond the pale.

 
 
 
Veronica
Junior Guide
3.1.20  Veronica  replied to  Sunshine @3.1.17    3 weeks ago
No one deserves to die for making mistakes and wrong decisions do they?  

So speaks the person who on another seed said Duante Wright shouldn't have run & he wouldn't have gotten shot.... funny how you change your mind when it comes to people trying to break into a governmental building to disrupt the proper running of our government.  But I guess I shouldn't be surprised.

 
 
 
Sunshine
Masters Guide
3.1.21  Sunshine  replied to  Veronica @3.1.20    3 weeks ago
So speaks the person who on another seed said Duante Wright shouldn't

I haven't had any comments about Duante Wright, so you need to get your shit together on that.

 
 
 
MsAubrey (aka Ahyoka)
Sophomore Principal
3.1.22  MsAubrey (aka Ahyoka)  replied to  Veronica @3.1.20    3 weeks ago

I don't think any of them should've been shot. I think there are two points here that I personally feel are important [take it for what it's worth]:

1) don't break the law [for the everyday person] and

2) don't automatically shoot if someone is breaking a law.

 
 
 
r.t..b...
Masters Participates
3.1.23  r.t..b...  replied to  Sunshine @3.1.17    3 weeks ago

“It was still functioning fine.”

When the entire House is evacuated, interrupting the confirmation of the election results, under armed protection in the face of the Capitol being stormed...in no reasonable context can that be considered ‘functioning fine.’

Hyperbole?

 
 
 
Sunshine
Masters Guide
3.1.24  Sunshine  replied to  r.t..b... @3.1.23    3 weeks ago

Oh for pete's sake, when where they back in session? 

Nothing was stopped from going forward immediately and the US Government was functioning just fine.  

But don't let that stop you from fearmongering.  

 
 
 
r.t..b...
Masters Participates
3.1.25  r.t..b...  replied to  Sunshine @3.1.24    3 weeks ago

[Deleted]

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
3.1.26  XXJefferson51  replied to  JohnRussell @3.1.6    3 weeks ago

 A warning shot into the air would have accomplished that.  

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
3.1.27  XXJefferson51  replied to  Tacos! @3.1.12    3 weeks ago
Was she? Or was she just a protestor?

Maybe they should have just shot all the people in Seattle who chased police from their own precinct building. Or maybe they should have shot all the people in Portland who broke through a fence protecting the federal building. Or maybe they should have shot all the people in Washington DC last summer who lit fires and damaged property- particularly in front of the White House.

Why aren’t those events “insurrection?” They were all mobs attacking the government in some way. And those people not only escaped being shot, but they were also allowed to continue their activities for several days in the case of DC, and for weeks in the case of Seattle and Portland.

that is the bottom line here isn’t it.  

 
 
 
Veronica
Junior Guide
3.1.28  Veronica  replied to  Sunshine @3.1.21    3 weeks ago

My apologies - it's just that you all are starting to sound the same to me.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
3.1.29  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.1.9    3 weeks ago

No, he didn't!

 
 
 
Sunshine
Masters Guide
3.1.30  Sunshine  replied to  Veronica @3.1.28    3 weeks ago

Yeah, I know how you feel.  You all sound the same to me.

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Masters Participates
3.1.31  Greg Jones  replied to  JohnRussell @3.1.3    3 weeks ago
How was he going to stop them if not with his weapon?  By reasoning with them? 

 Yes...it's called deescalating the situation, or he should have retreated. His or her name will eventually be found out.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
3.1.32  Dulay  replied to  gooseisgone @3.1.15    3 weeks ago
How do you know, we don't even know who this guy is and why he shot in the first place, there's never been a public statement for the justification for this killing. 

Well first of all, I watched the video, multiple times in the past and twice today.  

Second of all, unlike you it seems, I reviewed the statement from the DOJ about closing the investigation. 

Based on my experience here, I'm sure whining about providing a link will ensue since so few here are willing to invest the couple of seconds it took me to find the statement. 

Here it is: 

You're welcome. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
3.1.33  Tessylo  replied to  Greg Jones @3.1.31    3 weeks ago
Yes...it's called deescalating the situation, or he should have retreated. His or her name will eventually be found out.

jrSmiley_88_smiley_image.gif

If it is, you can be sure it will be one of the gqp who leaks the information.  Boebert or Taylor-Greene or any republican I'm sure will be the ones who leak that information if it happens.  

 
 
 
gooseisgone
Senior Quiet
3.1.34  seeder  gooseisgone  replied to  Dulay @3.1.32    3 weeks ago
Here it is: 

Already read it. 

Eventually, the three USCP officers positioned outside the doors were forced to evacuate.  As members of the mob continued to strike the glass doors, Ms. Babbitt attempted to climb through one of the doors where glass was broken out.  An officer inside the Speaker’s Lobby fired one round from his service pistol, striking Ms. Babbitt in the left shoulder, causing her to fall back from the doorway and onto the floor.  A USCP emergency response team, which had begun making its way into the hallway to try and subdue the mob, administered aid to Ms. Babbitt, who was transported to Washington Hospital Center, where she succumbed to her injuries.

You watched the video these officers weren't forced to evacuate, they were called away. Wait for the Civil suit. 

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
3.1.35  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  XXJefferson51 @3.1.26    3 weeks ago
A warning shot into the air would have accomplished that

due to the scarcity and cost of ammunition , warning shots will not be given .....

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
3.1.36  Dulay  replied to  gooseisgone @3.1.34    3 weeks ago
You watched the video these officers weren't forced to evacuate, they were called away. Wait for the Civil suit. 

Well then I presume you have a link to prove that. Because I didn't see or hear ANY LEO  communication with the officers at the door. 

Prove it. 

 
 
 
gooseisgone
Senior Quiet
3.1.37  seeder  gooseisgone  replied to  Dulay @3.1.36    2 weeks ago
Well then I presume you have a link to prove that.

Yes, its in the seeded link.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
3.1.38  Dulay  replied to  gooseisgone @3.1.37    2 weeks ago

So your support for your statement is the opinion of the unnamed author of your seed. Got ya. 

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
3.2  Dulay  replied to  Tacos! @3    3 weeks ago
We don’t even know this officer’s name, much less what, if any, disciplinary action might be forthcoming. Why?

Because as it has been well reported, he and his family would become a target of Trumpists. Since the investigation found that the officer did his duty, why would you want him to be a target of RW extremists for the rest of his life? 

Secondly, considering the result of the investigation, WHY would ANY disciplinary action be appropriate? 

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Expert
3.2.1  Tacos!  replied to  Dulay @3.2    3 weeks ago
Because as it has been well reported, he and his family would become a target of Trumpists.

Oh but it’s ok to publish the names of cops who shoot people who aren’t Trumpists, right?

Since the investigation found that the officer did his duty

How comforting - especially since there is no way the public can review the investigation.

Secondly, considering the result of the investigation, WHY would ANY disciplinary action be appropriate?

So, from now on, when a cop shoots a person, I expect you will endorse keeping both the cop’s identity and the details of any investigation entirely confidential.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
3.2.2  JohnRussell  replied to  Tacos! @3.2.1    3 weeks ago

There have been a lot of strange arguments take place on Newstalkers and across all social media , but the idea that a law enforcement officer should have let a mob enter the floor of the House of Representatives so he didnt have to seriously hurt anyone is one of the strangest I've seen. 

The rioters are lucky more of them weren't killed by the police or National Guard. 

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Expert
3.2.3  Tacos!  replied to  JohnRussell @3.2.2    3 weeks ago

I think it’s strange that the mob was supposed to be allowed to do its thing last year in DC, Seattle, and Portland. I think it’s strange that the DC riots went on for a week, while Seattle and Portland went on for several weeks and it was fine with so many people. And no unarmed people were shot and killed by cops with live ammunition at those events. When people surrounded the police station in Seattle, the cops didn’t shoot anyone. They left instead.

But in the Trumper DC riot, it’s perfectly fine to shoot some unarmed person just to keep them out of the building. And oh yeah, the whole thing was over in a matter of hours because after all, you can’t just let a thing like that keep going.

Do the words “double standard” mean anything anymore?

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
3.2.4  Tessylo  replied to  Tacos! @3.2.3    3 weeks ago
"Do the words “double standard” mean anything anymore?"

That's all some have.

 
 
 
gooseisgone
Senior Quiet
3.2.5  seeder  gooseisgone  replied to  JohnRussell @3.2.2    3 weeks ago
The rioters are lucky more of them weren't killed by the police or National Guard. 

Just want to see you post that same comment for the next BLM or Antifa riot. 

 
 
 
MsAubrey (aka Ahyoka)
Sophomore Principal
3.2.6  MsAubrey (aka Ahyoka)  replied to  gooseisgone @3.2.5    3 weeks ago

But isn't that situation the one that a right "stirs the pot" and causes it all to happen? s/

 
 
 
Sunshine
Masters Guide
3.2.7  Sunshine  replied to  gooseisgone @3.2.5    3 weeks ago
Just want to see you post that same comment for the next BLM or Antifa riot. 

Good luck...

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
3.2.8  Tessylo  replied to  gooseisgone @3.2.5    3 weeks ago

So all you have then is double standards and deflection and projection.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
3.2.9  Tessylo  replied to  Dulay @3.2    3 weeks ago
"We don’t even know this officer’s name, much less what, if any, disciplinary action might be forthcoming. Why?"
"Because as it has been well reported, he and his family would become a target of Trumpists. Since the investigation found that the officer did his duty, why would you want him to be a target of RW extremists for the rest of his life?  Secondly, considering the result of the investigation, WHY would ANY disciplinary action be appropriate?"

The truth!  Facts!  Something which Trumpists have no use for.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
3.2.10  Dulay  replied to  Tacos! @3.2.1    3 weeks ago
Oh but it’s ok to publish the names of cops who shoot people who aren’t Trumpists, right?

That decision is up to each individual law enforcement agency. I've seen people here whining about Chavin's name being released even though the murder was on video and his identity was well known. 

The CP officer's face isn't visible in the video, WHY out him now? 

How comforting - especially since there is no way the public can review the investigation.

Is it your posit that every investigation into a police use of force where the officer is exonerated has been released for public review? 

BTFW, as I answered your question, I noted that you conveniently truncated my comment and ignored my question.

So, from now on, when a cop shoots a person, I expect you will endorse keeping both the cop’s identity and the details of any investigation entirely confidential.

Why would you have that expectation? I would demand that my local law enforcement agency be as transparent as possible. I would ALSO demand that if there is a credible threat to the officer, as there is in this case, that they keep the officers identity confidential unless and until they are found to have violated agency policy or the law. 

 

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
3.2.11  Dulay  replied to  Tacos! @3.2.3    3 weeks ago
Do the words “double standard” mean anything anymore?

Sure it does. 

Let's look at the 'double standards'. 

In HOURS of video with thousands of attackers NOT ONE rubber bullet was fired. 

There were a couple of tear gas canisters fired inside and outside but NO flash bangs. 

I'm sure you are well aware that the BLM protestors in DC were 'dispersed' using ALL of the above. 

In ANTICIPATION of BLM protests in DC, Trump activated the National Guard and stationed them all over the city, at almost every monument, INCLUDING the Capitol. Mounted Park Service Police and Federal Corrections Officers were also activated. The Secret Service handled logistics and planning. 

For the 'Stop the Steal' protest, the National Guard was only authorized to be used for traffic control. 

The NG wasn't deployed until the insurrection went on for HOURS. 

Oh and PLEASE don't repeat the BS about the DC Mayor. Neither the grounds or the Capitol are under the DC Mayor's jurisdiction OR authority. The 'Stop the Steal' rally was held at the Ellipse, FEDERAL land. The insurrection occurred at the Capitol, FEDERAL property. 

I guess you could try to make an argument for the DC Mayor trying to stop thousands of rabid Trumpsters as they Marched to the Capitol but then I doubt you would like the amount of force THAT would have required... 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
3.2.12  JohnRussell  replied to  Tacos! @3.2.3    3 weeks ago
When people surrounded the police station in Seattle, the cops didn’t shoot anyone. They left instead.

Did the mob in Seattle attempt to break into and occupy the police station? I don't recall hearing that.  THAT would be slightly analogous to what happened at the Capitol.  Surrounding the police station is not. 

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Expert
3.2.13  Tacos!  replied to  JohnRussell @3.2.12    3 weeks ago

Police fled the building for their own safety. On their way out, they barricaded all the doors and windows so people couldn’t break in. You really think that makes things ok?

At one point, protestors tried to trap police inside the building before setting it on fire . That’s right, they wanted to burn cops alive in their own police station. Attempted murder. No biggie, though, right?

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
3.2.14  Tessylo  replied to  JohnRussell @3.2.12    3 weeks ago

Just more deflection and projection, and spinning and twisting, as usual.  

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
4  Tessylo    3 weeks ago

Here's a video of what happened.  The morons knew the officer had a gun.  They're lucky, every one of them who broke through that door, every one who 'Stormed the Capitol' 'It's a Revolution', that they weren't shot dead.  

 
 
 
devangelical
PhD Principal
4.1  devangelical  replied to  Tessylo @4    3 weeks ago

exactly right. every terrorist that crossed a door threshold or climbed thru a window of the US Capitol during the constitutional certification of a free and fair election should have been shot and dropped.

 
 
 
FortunateSon
Freshman Silent
4.1.1  FortunateSon  replied to  devangelical @4.1    3 weeks ago

Same with the left when they riot and burn business... we should just kill them all on the spot? Or is that different somehow?

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
4.1.2  Dulay  replied to  FortunateSon @4.1.1    3 weeks ago

If they are endangering life, no, if they are NOT, YES there is a BIG difference. 

 
 
 
devangelical
PhD Principal
4.1.3  devangelical  replied to  FortunateSon @4.1.1    3 weeks ago
is that different somehow?

yeah. here's the part you missed.

the US Capitol during the constitutional certification of a free and fair election

got any more false equivalencies to offer up?

breaking: oath keeper pleads guilty to charges in DC insurrection.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
4.1.4  Tessylo  replied to  FortunateSon @4.1.1    3 weeks ago

Deflection and projection.  

tenor.gif

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
4.1.5  Tessylo  replied to  FortunateSon @4.1.1    3 weeks ago

"Or is that different somehow?"

They weren't traitors incited and encouraged and led on by the former occupant of the White House.  

And the majority of 'rioting' and 'burning businesses' was outside agitators, not peaceful protesters.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
4.1.6  JohnRussell  replied to  devangelical @4.1.3    3 weeks ago

Some of us predicted on Jan 7th that the day would soon come when the right would say in unison that there was nothing wrong with what happened on the 6th at the Capitol Building. That  day seems to have arrived for the Newstalkers right wing contingent. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
4.1.7  Tessylo  replied to  JohnRussell @4.1.6    3 weeks ago

"Some of us predicted on Jan 7th that the day would soon come when the right would say in unison that there was nothing wrong with what happened on the 6th at the Capitol Building. That  day seems to have arrived for the Newstalkers right wing contingent. "

So true, when it involves the former occupant of the White House and his mob, thugs, goons, it's:

giphy.gif

 
 
 
shona1
Freshman Participates
5  shona1    3 weeks ago

Evening. I find this slightly confusing...shooting and riot wise.. sorry if slightly off topic..

I don't have a problem if you are a cop and your life is under threat. I back and support our cops here 100%. If they do the wrong thing which is extremely rare they face the consequences..end of story.

So if black cop shoots dead black person what happens?

If white cop shoots black person I know.

If black cop shoots white person what happens?

If white cop shoots white person what happens?

So why aren't people rioting for everyone??

And I don't care if you are left, right, inbetween, up side down or spin on your head. People are dieing and that is pure tragedy, especially when it comes to kids.

This is just one of many shootings and no doubt, there is worse to come...

I fear for you mob at times..to many lost souls to many shootings...

 
 
 
pat wilson
Professor Guide
5.1  pat wilson  replied to  shona1 @5    3 weeks ago

We've had 45 mass shootings in one month. It's insane.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
5.1.1  Trout Giggles  replied to  pat wilson @5.1    3 weeks ago

There was another one at the FexEx facility in Indianapolis last night

 
 
 
shona1
Freshman Participates
5.1.2  shona1  replied to  pat wilson @5.1    3 weeks ago

Good god.. almost taking your own life in your own hands when you go out somewhere. Or worse when family members wipe out their own families...what is wrong with people these day??

 
 
 
shona1
Freshman Participates
5.1.3  shona1  replied to  Trout Giggles @5.1.1    3 weeks ago

Yep that one was headlines here..more lost souls and ruined lives forever..never to be the same again..heart breaking.

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
5.1.4  XXJefferson51  replied to  pat wilson @5.1    3 weeks ago

It’s all Bidens fault.  

 
 
 
zuksam
Sophomore Silent
6  zuksam    3 weeks ago

Unlike many I have no problem separating politics from my judgements of criminals or police. George Floyd was murdered in cold blood. Daunte Wright's death was in part the result of a tragic accident but the overall cause was his own criminal behavior, he created the situation that lead to his death and he bears the lion's share of the responsibility for what happened. I don't believe the cop committed a crime but the fact that she accidentally used her gun instead of her taser should be grounds for firing her, it was a mistake but it was a big mistake and she should never be allowed to be a cop again. Ashli Babbitt also caused her own death, any fool should have known that in the capitol there would be a line you would not be allowed to cross and deadly force would be used to stop you. I would have thought it would be the front door but apparently it was this barricaded doorway, I don't know what was on the other side but between cops blocking it, the furniture pilled against it, and the gunman covering it you could tell it was "The Line" and I wouldn't have tried to cross it. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
6.1  JohnRussell  replied to  zuksam @6    3 weeks ago

Well put. 

The only thing I would add is that Ashley Babbitt wanted to go through that door and change the election. 

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
Masters Guide
6.2  Thrawn 31  replied to  zuksam @6    3 weeks ago

Look at that, we agree on all points. Floyd was murdered, Wright had a big hand in bringing about his own death but it was a HUGE fuck up on the officers part that should indeed preclude her from being an officer in the future (but not criminal in my mind), and Babbitt was asking for it by storming the Capitol during a joint session of congress (still disturbed that the CP didn’t open fire when the crowd started going through the front door).

 
 
 
Veronica
Junior Guide
7  Veronica    3 weeks ago

So, white woman is breaking the law - she shouldn't have been shot.

Black man stopped for traffic violation - it's ok he was shot....     (just one example from my hometown)

Gotcha....

 
 
 
Sunshine
Masters Guide
8  Sunshine    3 weeks ago
This officer's name was "never" disclosed, why?

I don't understand why this is not public record.  Police and court records are public.

If it was a warranted kill, then there should be no reason not to release the name.

384

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
8.1  Dulay  replied to  Sunshine @8    3 weeks ago
If it was a warranted kill, then there should be no reason not to release the name.

Why? So the RW can harass and threaten he and his family? Is there ANY doubt that would happen if his name was released? 

 
 
 
gooseisgone
Senior Quiet
8.1.1  seeder  gooseisgone  replied to  Dulay @8.1    3 weeks ago
Why? So the RW can harass and threaten he and his family?

Give me some examples of the "RW' harassing and threatening Officers families. 

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
8.1.2  Dulay  replied to  gooseisgone @8.1.1    3 weeks ago
Give me some examples of the "RW' harassing and threatening Officers families. 

TRUTHFULLY answer my question goose. 

Hell, the entire GOP Congress is afraid of Trump unleashing his minions on them. Countless Democrats and journalists have had make police reports and get security. It's what the RW DOES. 

 
 
 
gooseisgone
Senior Quiet
8.1.3  seeder  gooseisgone  replied to  Dulay @8.1.2    2 weeks ago
Countless Democrats and journalists have had make police reports and get security. 

As I said before give me examples. 

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
8.1.4  Dulay  replied to  gooseisgone @8.1.3    2 weeks ago

As I said before, TRUTHFULLY answer my question goose. 

Oh and BTFW, I not that you don't refute that the GOP is afraid of Trump unleashing his minions on them. 

As I said before give me examples. 

Next time I'll make you ask nicely.

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
Masters Guide
9  Thrawn 31    3 weeks ago

Yeah, she deserves it when she decided to join in an insurrection. Fuck her.

 
 
Loading...
Loading...

Who is online


34 visitors