Welcome to the Utopia Forums! Register a new account
The current time is Sat Jan 23 17:31:58 PST 2021

Utopia Talk / Politics / Murder in DC (Video Trigger Warning)
Renzo Marquez
Member
Thu Jan 07 05:48:47
http://twitter.com/dancohen3000/status/1347076676342185984

And this one won't be prosecuted.
jergul
large member
Thu Jan 07 05:57:23
Sure that is murder?

Remember that the police were defending the literal bodies of government.

Some perimeters must hold and the former service member was clearly trying to penetrate the perimeter.
Renzo Marquez
Member
Thu Jan 07 05:58:04
Yes, it's murder.
jergul
large member
Thu Jan 07 06:02:41
It did not look that way to me. A controlled, single bullet to the center mass looks like someone trying to hold a perimeter and not someone trying to murder someone.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Thu Jan 07 06:04:44
If police have guns drawn on you, yelling in no uncertain terms to stop, while you are breaking into a building as the vanguard of a rioting mob, I and every other person on earth expect you to get shot. I might even think you deserve to get shot, not in the face, but in the knee.
Paramount
Member
Thu Jan 07 06:11:35
Maybe she wanted to die.

http://twi...tatus/1347031864683458560?s=20
Paramount
Member
Thu Jan 07 06:14:44
It looks like she was a very friendly and peaceful person.

http://mobile.twitter.com/BFauzzy/status/1347116563518861312
Nekran
Member
Thu Jan 07 06:14:45
I do think this should be prosecuted... lethal violence was hardly the only option left here... fucking trigger happy US cops are fucking crazy.
jergul
large member
Thu Jan 07 06:23:22
Nekran
Check the cufflinks. This was the inner security detail.

Some perimeters have to hold.
Daemon
Member
Thu Jan 07 06:23:30
"Cop was standing his ground"
Nekran
Member
Thu Jan 07 06:25:00
Inner security detail, cops, whatever... he had other options to hold his perimeter than the lethal one he chose and should face consequences if you ask me.
jergul
large member
Thu Jan 07 06:25:49
You can incidentally also tell by to cops arriving on the scene immediately thereafter. They had to be enroute to hold that door.

The terrorists were a hallway and a door away from legislators seeking shelter in place.
Nekran
Member
Thu Jan 07 06:30:16
I'm not condoning the crazies' actions here... I'm judging the security's action. It definitely looks like unnecessary lethal violence to me.
Daemon
Member
Thu Jan 07 06:30:51
jergul you can see the "arriving" cops better in this video/another perspective. They were there before the shot and seem pretty helpless
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AZ9oThRuMVs
jergul
large member
Thu Jan 07 07:01:03
Daemon
Working their way up the stairwell? The point of them being there is simply underlining the importance of the perimeter.

Legislators and staff were definately just beyond the barrier the woman was breaching.

Nekran
I don't know what the shooter was supposed to do. He was physically out of position to stop people entering from the other side and was literally the last line of defence. He was holding the barrier alone and the people he was tasked with protecting.

I am not drawing an arbitrary distinction. The people with the cufflinks are tasked with guarding people.
Nekran
Member
Thu Jan 07 07:06:24
You see no other option than shooting a gun? I assume he has non-lethal tools to do his job with. I see no reason why he couldn't have used any of those.

And with cops right next to the intruder as well... if you can't think of anything that he could've done but shoot that person, you have me worried about your state of mind.
patom
Member
Thu Jan 07 07:22:55
This mob member was killed as a direct result of Trump egging them on. All from the safety of the White House.

A few weeks ago I was critical of that new Congresswoman who said she was going to carry a side arm into Congress with her. I thought at the time it was ridiculous. I WAS WRONG.

Who was in Charge of the Security of the Capital building? Who gave him the order to NOT secure the doors? Who said to let this mob in to roam the halls of Congress and invade the offices of members of Congress? Who was authorizing the free passage of the mob to the Senate Chambers? Allowing this mob to root through the desks? Who said it was a good idea to allow unidentified people inside? No search? No ID checks? We don't even know who the hell theses people were? Hell there very well could have been agents from a number of countries with embassies in DC that could have full protection. There could have been biological timebombs placed all over the Capital building. Bugs, planted in sensitive areas.
Cherub Cow
Member
Thu Jan 07 07:24:42
On Imgur, they were talking about how no one was getting shot because of white privilege. http://imgur.com/gallery/BLUxbI9
After she was shot, many of those comments miraculously moved down from the top comments or were deleted. Other people moved the goal posts and said things such as, "Compare that to the massive injuries and large number of deaths at peaceful BLM protests".

They celebrated her death here: http://imgur.com/gallery/k5i9C3U

They also made comments about how no one was being arrested. After arrests started posting, they complained that not enough people were being arrested. Into the night, curfew-breaking lingering rioters/protesters were brutalized in police confrontations and more arrests occurred. Now it's "convenient" that police waited so long ( http://imgur.com/gallery/3TlEJ1w ). I see no comments about how breaking curfew should not result in this kind of police action, but those arguments were common previously.

Imgurians also gave traction to the Tweet, "this is a really strange way to find out that cops know how not to use deadly force" ( http://imgur.com/gallery/wbOOOBd ), but that narrative fizzled also. I have not seen any comments discussing the actual circumstances of her death — they only call her a terrorist and say that she deserved it.

Meanwhile, looking at the actual OP video and liveleak videos of the same shooting, it looks like she was unarmed and about 10 feet from the [officer?] who shot her. It looks like the officer decided that any entry would necessitate lethal force, and you can hear commands being yelled and ignored. Given that it's a government building and she was scaling a barricade (possibly the last barrier before congressional members), the shooting will likely hold up. Given her size and position, the officer could have used other options (like, shoving her back with a chair), but authorities will probably give him lots of leeway given how far into the building the rioters got. Police and protective details in these government buildings also have extra protections because they're protecting not just personnel but classified materials. It's unfortunate/ironic that SWAT arrived only seconds after the shooting, because that means that the shooting was not necessary (as it turned out but perhaps not as it was in the moment). I.e., another few seconds and she would have been arrested or pushed out of the building.

That said, like the Twitter comments point out, it's interesting that people who advocated for non-lethal police actions have been celebrating this death. Suddenly, they're aware that a person can make poor decisions with regards to police confrontations and that the consequence may be death — and they're okay with it. I'd guess that the people who were saying that listening to police commands makes a person a "bootlicker" would have some Venn Diagram overlap with people who have been saying that she got shot because she wasn't listening to police commands. Some good ideological consistency in the Twitter-sphere. If they think that Breonna Taylor was virtuous for standing in a hallway next to her boyfriend who had just fired a shot at police and who was involved in a criminal enterprise, then they should probably consider whether or not this "terrorist" should have been shot for her final act of scaling a wall. Both had problematic context, but they celebrate only the one death. A proud day for social media and therefore the world.
jergul
large member
Thu Jan 07 07:35:10
Nekran
*Shrug*, sometimes lethal force is justified. The shooter was literally the last line of defence for the bodies of government.

He fired a single bullet with the clear objective of holding the last line of defence. A line he was holding alone from his POV.

CC
Yah, a few more seconds and the doorway would have been secured and the immediacy of danger would have passed.

The lesson here is not that the police should have shown less restraint in the capitol, but rather that it should show a lot more restraint elsewhere.

AKA reform.
Seb
Member
Thu Jan 07 07:48:14
It should be investigated by it doesn't look like the cop had many options at all here.

Physically grappling with one person leaves them unable to deal with one of the others coming a different route.

I'm assuming warnings were given.



patom
Member
Thu Jan 07 07:55:56
Cherub, you seem pretty sure that the officer was privy to the scheduled arrival of a SWAT team. That is a pretty far fetched assumption. Seeing as how disorganized the Capital Police were with obvious total lack of planning on the part of their supervisors. This officer was facing a mob of unknown quantity and intention.

I'm betting that he had no idea or any confidence when or if any back up was going to arrive. He did what needed to be done. I think he was a hero. Should get the Medal of Freedom for his heroic actions to protect the highest officers of this country.
Renzo Marquez
Member
Thu Jan 07 07:57:01
Lots of bootlickers in this thread. Sad!
jergul
large member
Thu Jan 07 08:17:02
RM
Just imagine the shooter was secret service and the person being guarded was Trump.

See?
Rugian
Member
Thu Jan 07 08:24:27
Jergul

The shooter (and whoever he was guarding) should have retreated in the face of the protesters.

Isn't that what your side has been saying all along? Attempting to stand ones ground in the face of anarchy is a chargeable offense.
Renzo Marquez
Member
Thu Jan 07 08:32:19
jergul
large member Thu Jan 07 08:17:02
"RM
Just imagine the shooter was secret service and the person being guarded was Trump.

See?"

I see that this would still be murder.
jergul
large member
Thu Jan 07 08:33:29
Ruggy
Your mockery of the castle doctrine does not change the validity of the basic tenant.

This member of the security detail tasked with protecting the persons of government had no choice.

It seems rather rich to look for examples of excessive force when in fact the police erred more on the side of excessive restraint.

Black face the terrorists if it helps you see my point.
jergul
large member
Thu Jan 07 08:34:24
RM
Is eating carrots also murder? I would just like to clarify the extent of your understanding of that word.
Paramount
Member
Thu Jan 07 08:36:22
” It's unfortunate/ironic that SWAT arrived only seconds after the shooting, because that means that the shooting was not necessary (as it turned out but perhaps not as it was in the moment).”


Maybe the guard who was holding the door thought that some swat member was part of the Trump mob. Many of his people dress in commando clothings and gear. The guard was likely stressed because of the situation, and when that frenzied woman smashed the window to the door and started to climb through it he thought that shit was going to hit the fan and shot one shot. If he was shouting warnings to her that she ignored, well what's there to say? That woman knew what she was getting herself into. She was a very angry woman and dead set on taking over the Congress to overthrow democracy. Ultimately, Trump and conservative alt-right media is responsible for her death. For feeding her with lies and inciting her and everyone else to do what they did. The rest of the Trump administration do also have responsibility for what happened.
Renzo Marquez
Member
Thu Jan 07 08:41:16
Paramount
Member Thu Jan 07 08:36:22
"Ultimately, Trump and conservative alt-right media is responsible for her death."

They're certainly partially responsible. However, the shooter is the murderer here.
Paramount
Member
Thu Jan 07 08:50:11
The guards probably has the right to use leathal force against an intruder who is forcing herself into the building. It likely why the guards are armed with guns.
jergul
large member
Thu Jan 07 08:55:16
Para
The guy was guarding people, not property. He has a lot more discretion because what he is protecting is a lot more important.

I would have agreed with RM if he was just watching over a random corridor. Indeed, if investigation shows that is the case, then I will retract my position.
Rugian
Member
Thu Jan 07 09:02:11
Jergul

Fair enough. I'm actually quite happy that you would embrace the castle doctrine as a valid defense.

Tell me, what is your opinion of the criminal charges filed against the McCloskeys?
jergul
large member
Thu Jan 07 09:10:53
Philosophically?

Property is not an extention of self, but every person needs an inner sanction where they are safe.

The couple was way out of line.
jergul
large member
Thu Jan 07 09:11:24
inner sanctum*
TJ
Member
Thu Jan 07 09:34:21
Looks like a false flag operation. Could this have happened under any other circumstances? Just the same, the hundred or so out of 10's of thousands people, who entered the Capitol building should be arrested and charged for several different crimes.
chuck
Member
Thu Jan 07 09:43:39
> The lesson here is not that the police should have shown less restraint in the capitol.

100% agreed with this complete and whole sentence from Jergul. The people who breached the Capitol did it because they wanted to overturn a vote I cast and they deserved no restraint.

People who are saying "but BLM" are either dissembling, pathetically, pathetically stupid, or both at once.

To be clear, every single one of the people who breached the Capitol yesterday attempting to undo my vote deserved death. They should have been shot one by one by one as they came through the windows.

"What would have happened if they were black?" is a ridiculous response to this. Some people own hammers and see nails everywhere.

The only thing that matters is, if you try to overturn fair elections, you deserve to die. Yesterday, a huge group of deserving recipients did us all the kindness of congregating together and showing that this is exactly what they wanted to do. It's a shame that every single one of the people who stormed the Capitol was not shot dead. I have no faith that this act of restraint will lead to a better long term outcome.
chuck
Member
Thu Jan 07 09:53:01
Damn, tried to be cutesy taking Jergul's sentence out of context and forgot to remove the "not". That's what I get for trying to soften my tone with a joke.

That aside, every one of the scum who stormed the US Capitol building should have been shot. "You can't shoot them, they are confused, have a truth and reconciliation!" is not the answer.
Forwyn
Member
Thu Jan 07 09:54:29
A group of Boomers meandering around the building for a few hours, one was shot by a trigger-happy retard. Naturally, those who have spent months (not years, they only hopped on the train for the race game) decrying police violence are happy here.

No vote was cancelled, no legislators were kidnapped, no coup was attempted.

INSURRECTION! COUP! KILL THEM ALL! WHAT IF THEY WERE BLACK?

Fucking retards.
Forwyn
Member
Thu Jan 07 09:55:41
Anyway, clearly unjustified shoot.

http://mob...000/status/1347076676342185984
chuck
Member
Thu Jan 07 09:58:54
"They're harmless!"

They should been shot.
TJ
Member
Thu Jan 07 09:59:25
Why weren't all of them evacuated with Pence and Pelosi? I doubt very much that the escape route was a tight exit. It doesn't make much sense, go fish.
Forwyn
Member
Thu Jan 07 10:05:13
They may have been evacuated to a different bunker, but they were definitely evacuated, and perfectly safe.

They would have been just as safe without evacuation, barring the crossfire of trigger happy cops.
TJ
Member
Thu Jan 07 10:16:38
I'm sticking with the false flag operation. The shoot was sketchy, a trigger. Pun intended.
chuck
Member
Thu Jan 07 10:24:16
False flag? What the fuck?
Forwyn
Member
Thu Jan 07 10:27:48
Ah, the idea that it was just a group of hired Antifa goons who instigated the entry, which put a damper on opposition votes. lol
TJ
Member
Thu Jan 07 10:32:10
Success
Daemon
Member
Thu Jan 07 11:02:15
You're lost.
TJ
Member
Thu Jan 07 11:03:25
lulz
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Thu Jan 07 11:05:17
”False flag”

Yes, the way out of the unfounded conspiracy theories of yesterday, is more unfounded conspiracy theories.

There is a fairly straight line from how Trump and his goons have behaved and all the things they have said, to this moment, were the prophecy fulfills itself. That is the simplest explanation.
jergul
large member
Thu Jan 07 11:12:27
I have never heard the confederate battle banner being called a false flag before, but it makes sense.

chuck
I don't mind you butchering my words. I usually do it myself.
TJ
Member
Thu Jan 07 11:22:25
There is no end to imagination. Everything considered that is a good thing.
Dukhat
Member
Thu Jan 07 11:44:48
Lol. Shooting like that would never be prosecuted according to “stand your ground” laws passed by conservative activists in over 30 states.

The fact that shitheads like forwyn think that this shooting is unjustified when they would fully support it if the victim had brown skin shows the kind of worthless hypocrites they are.

Fuck you neckbeards. You don’t have any principles at all.
Forwyn
Member
Thu Jan 07 11:52:41
"according to “stand your ground” laws passed by conservative activists in over 30 states."

Yes, protecting a private domicile is different from a woman climbing through a window on public property.

"when they would fully support it if the victim had brown skin"

I was protesting unjust police shootings, including against minorities, before BLM was ever conceived, and before your retarded ass settled on a brand-new ideology.
chuck
Member
Thu Jan 07 12:16:46
> INSURRECTION! COUP! KILL THEM ALL! WHAT IF THEY WERE BLACK?

Three valid responses and then you tack on some SJWism to try to justify why you're not capable of mustering an appropriate response. "Boomers meandering" indeed.

I'm sorry you are unable or unwilling to consider right and wrong in any terms apart from "...and does this benefit me?"

It was the intent and the actions that the people took which should have gotten them shot. If it wasn't a mob of low info voters trying to overturn my vote but instead a mob of black trans women trying to overturn my vote, they would deserve the exact same fate.

Realpolitiking every single thing that happens makes you furniture.
Forwyn
Member
Thu Jan 07 12:31:31
'I'm sorry you are unable or unwilling to consider right and wrong in any terms apart from "...and does this benefit me?"'

The irony is thick enough to cut.

chuck
Member
Thu Jan 07 12:31:55
Seriously, take a second to unpack your point of view.

Is it fair to say the thing that pisses you off/makes you apologize for the shitbags who did this is that - hypothetically - if everything had been exactly mirrored across the political spectrum and Biden had incited a crowd of black people to storm the Capitol to disrupt Congress from counting electoral votes against him, all the people you hate would be like "This is fine" and you can't stand the hypothetical unfairness of it all?

And so instead of thinking about the batshit crazy thing that was done by real people yesterday, you dismiss it and get mad about how unfairly it would be handled if the shoe were on the other foot?
Wrath of Orion
Member
Thu Jan 07 12:33:30
I'm sure you've noticed that's a common tactic of these retards.
chuck
Member
Thu Jan 07 12:36:24
> Forwyn
> The irony is thick enough to cut.

By all means, feel free to explain why you think so.

I can assure you that regardless of political affiliation if the stormers who want to overturn my vote, I would want every last one of them shot.

My view on the situation is not predicated on who is committing treason. Sure seems like yours is.
Forwyn
Member
Thu Jan 07 12:40:07
"By all means, feel free to explain why you think so."

"who want to overturn my vote"

lol. My position is not based on whether or not I benefit. Yours clearly is.

"makes you apologize for the shitbags"

I haven't apologized for anything. I said it wasn't a coup attempt, and that unarmed protesters should generally not be shot.

Libya and Syria called.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Thu Jan 07 12:41:27
To summarize chucks point: what happened was bad, but this other hypothetical thing that hasn’t happened is CLEARLY worse.
Forwyn
Member
Thu Jan 07 12:43:17
I won't be wasting my time getting mad at a hypothetical situation; I will merely say that I don't believe that unarmed protesters should be shot for trespassing on public property, even if they're black Democrats.
chuck
Member
Thu Jan 07 12:57:28
I guess you're trying to play semantics now.

"My vote" means the outcome of the fair election in which I participated.

Four years ago I thought it was a disaster when Trump was elected. That was my vote too though. I bitched and moaned, but I abided by the outcome of that election for four years.

I would not excuse antifa storming the Capitol to disrupt the election as "just some dumb kids." In 2016, people walked around in pussy hats instead of disrupting the election.
Forwyn
Member
Thu Jan 07 13:02:35
You're the one that made the retarded claim that my stance is somehow predicated on benefitting from the situation.

And that not calling their idiocy a "coup attempt" is excusing them. Many will face hefty federal charges, and should not expect leniency from a Biden DoJ.
chuck
Member
Thu Jan 07 13:09:48
To look at what happened yesterday and see "trespassing" is excusing them.
Nekran
Member
Thu Jan 07 13:10:14
Maybe Trump will still pardon them all in the next 2 weeks? I mean... if I were any one of them, I'd kind of be expecting him to.
Sam Adams
Member
Thu Jan 07 13:29:56
Looks like a pretty clean shoot.
Forwyn
Member
Thu Jan 07 13:33:51
"To look at what happened yesterday and see "trespassing" is excusing them."

I'm not especially worried about the evaluation of people who watched - actually watched, not read the headlines - the event, and came away with thoughts of "coup", "insurrection", or "terrorism".
chuck
Member
Thu Jan 07 13:48:01
...
chuck
Member
Thu Jan 07 13:53:23
That's nice.
Cherub Cow
Member
Thu Jan 07 16:38:48
[patom]: “ Cherub, you seem pretty sure that the officer was privy to the scheduled arrival of a SWAT team. That is a pretty far fetched assumption.”

That’s the exact opposite of what I said. I said that it was ironic (specifically, it’s dramatic irony) that it turned out that SWAT was seconds away. It’s like the end of “The Myst” (2007) where they do something terrible and then find out it was unnecessary. They didn’t know.

..
[chuck]: “To be clear, every single one of the people who breached the Capitol yesterday attempting to undo my vote deserved death.”

It’s a good thing that the justice system isn’t this unhinged.
And the stated goal of this group was not to “undo [the] vote”. One of the people who was with this woman when she died said that they wanted an audience with lawmakers to get them to look at evidence of voter fraud. He said they wanted to see someone actually investigate the claims, since he felt that no one had. One can say that that’s misguided and a reflection of Trump’s narrative to think that there was enough fraud to overturn the election, but that was the stated goal. That person was not there simply to overturn votes. In his mind, he was there to uphold the vote.
werewolf dictator
Member
Thu Jan 07 17:38:06
chuck is such a moral imbecile that i don't think he realizes when he makes his psychopathy manifest
Forwyn
Member
Sat Jan 09 16:06:21
US Attorney Michael Sherwin confirms
@CBSNews his office has opened a formal, federal excessive force investigation related to the shooting death of Ashli Babbitt who was shot by US Capitol Police Wednesday within the Capitol building. Sherwin has assigned his civil rights section to be the lead prosecutors for the case which is being investigation by both FBI and DC Police
@DCPoliceDept

The same US Attorney’s Office has also opened a homicide investigation into the death of Capitol Hill Police Officer Brian Sicknick.

http://twi...tatus/1348000132898447363?s=20
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Sun Jan 10 04:24:54
If they were to excute people on the steps of the Capitol, as the roof of the capitol is still smouldering, CC and others permanently damaged by the Trump warp field, will be here to explain that, technically ”public executions” are not illegal, if a proper federal legal process was followed.
Hrothgar
Member
Sun Jan 10 04:52:25
imo, cops should have been shooting every MF'er that came through the outer door.

And NOW they should be using the full effort of the FBI/CIA/NSA whatever to identify every single person who entered the front door and arrest them, charged with insurrection based charges.

AND apply these arrests to any Republican congress person that supported and encouraged the insurrection.

Thousands of people need to be in prison over this abomination.
Daemon
Member
Sun Jan 10 05:37:03
Fuck Q-Anon and all the other liars, fuck them.

http://www.../the-journey-of-ashli-babbitt/

[...]
Babbitt’s shooting was captured on several videos that were recorded and shared by people in the crowd. Her own social media history also reveals her movements on the morning and afternoon of January 6. But looking back further shows an ideological journey that saw her travel from stating she had backed President Barack Obama to engaging in damaging right-wing conspiracy theories.

We have looked at Babbitt’s social media footprint, as well as other open source information, to trace both journeys.
[...]
habebe
Member
Sun Jan 10 06:14:25
"stating she had backed President Barack Obama"

So this mental illness goes back a ways...
Renzo Marquez
Member
Sun Jan 10 08:15:20
Lulz. Hrothgar probably a fan of the Patriot Act too.
Dukhat
Member
Sun Jan 10 11:06:54
"I will merely say that I don't believe that unarmed protesters should be shot for trespassing on public property, even if they're black Democrats."

Pretty sure Foreskin is a rabid 2nd amendment supporter and fully supports stand-your-ground laws that let people do exactly that in over 30 states.

In this case, the person was a member of the government so he just picks whatever facts suit the pseudo-libertarian-but-really-far-right-republican beliefs he actually holds.
Forwyn
Member
Sun Jan 10 12:54:01
"stand-your-ground laws that let people do exactly that"

What SYG laws are relevant to my statement, retard?
jergul
large member
Sun Jan 10 13:02:13
Woman was murdered by a police officer standing his ground?
Forwyn
Member
Sun Jan 10 13:04:07
1. Public property is not a private domicile.
2. There is no evidence of aggression to the officer hiding behind the corner.

SYG is not relevant here, even as a bad trolling attempt.
jergul
large member
Sun Jan 10 13:07:42
Fowyn
My god, the dishonesty involved in being a trumptard. How do you live with yourself?
Forwyn
Member
Sun Jan 10 13:10:18
My God, the retardation in trying to tie completely unrelated laws to this event. Do you have to remind yourself to breathe?
Memory Lane
Member
Sun Jan 10 16:55:44
I recall that Forwyn has a history of tying many unrelated laws to many other subjects of certain events. Or having a complete misinterpretation of them. Only if the archivist was still around to dig these gems up...
Cherub Cow
Member
Mon Jan 11 02:57:57
[Jergul]: "Woman was murdered by a police officer standing his ground?"
[Forwyn]: "My God, the retardation in trying to tie completely unrelated laws to this event."

I again have a Poe's law issue with Jergul's comment.. like.. is he a fucking idiot or a troll? Maybe it's just terrible ignorance? I like "ignorance" for an answer, because it can at least be checked. Like, you could perhaps explain to an ignorant person that stand-your-ground laws do not apply to the conduct of a police officer. But, Jergul resisted the explanation, so, we're back to "fucking idiot" or "troll". As usual.

..
[Nimatzo]: "If they were to excute people on the steps of the Capitol, as the roof of the capitol is still smouldering, CC and others permanently damaged by the Trump warp field, will be here to explain that, technically ”public executions” are not illegal, if a proper federal legal process was followed."

This gets so much wrong that it sounds syphilitic. Care to explain using direct quotations and specific reasoning?

Two major problems:
- I am not a Trump supporter, so being in the "Trump warp field" is insane. I am, however, against media misinformation. Those things are not synonymous, and if you think they are, that's a problem.
- I am consistently against police killings. For years I have been extremely consistent on saying that even when the law protects police officers, those officers still typically demonstrate bad judgment which better training would have prevented. I have thus advocated for better funding and better training of police.

..
[Hrothgar]: "imo, cops should have been shooting every MF'er that came through the outer door."

IMO, it shows a severe lack of imagination to default to mass killing of a crowd before considering the options that police should have had at their disposal.

For instance, sealed hard line doors in an airlock style which can control access and prevent mob entry, a riot response room which allows police to transition to crowd control tactics when needed, police equipped with less lethal options for use on crowds, and better training protocols for these sorts of emergencies. It is no wonder that so much leadership resigned after this incident; this was incompetence and poor planning by D.C. police. We saw groups of six officers in regular duty attire trying to hold police barricades against hundreds of protestors, then retreating back to better choke points when that failed (Twitter headline of the same incident: "[police let protestors through! White supremacy!]").

I would say that if your response to this was a desire for mass killing, then your mind rests exactly where the social media narrative wants it to.
jergul
large member
Mon Jan 11 04:04:54
CC
You are a Trump supporter and have been one for years.

You have also consistently victim blamed when killings occur. Except for this white woman. I have not heard you blame her for her death.

Police are under no obligation to retreat. I did not cite legislation, but rather the principle that police can indeed stand their ground and use deadly force. This is particularly true when they are tasked with guarding property or persons.

Stand your ground legislation and castle defense are waterdowned versions of rights security forces have always held.

Security forces should have shot anyone going through inner doors. And yah, we are seeing the contours of a conspiracy that kept federal security forces from keeping the capitol secure.
Seb
Member
Mon Jan 11 04:55:52
Ah bless, CC thinks you need to be a Trump supporter to have been affected by his warp field.

Like Sam, they are a "too smart to be a trumpist" fellow traveler.
Cherub Cow
Member
Mon Jan 11 04:59:46
[jergul]: "You are a Trump supporter and have been one for years."

Thank you for positing something with no evidence. It really sells your point. As I have said before, I do not support Trump, but I gladly critique the mass misinformation coming from the media, even when it's against Trump. I will say that despite Trump's narcissism and huge character flaws, his very being has exposed the rot within the U.S. political system and its media apparatus. And I will give him credit again for removing the individual mandate of the ACA.

..
[jergul]: "You have also consistently victim blamed when killings occur. Except for this white woman. I have not heard you blame her for her death."

I'm not surprised that you haven't heard me say anything, since you don't read my posts. Not even the one above where I said, "Given that it's a government building and she was scaling a barricade (possibly the last barrier before congressional members), the shooting will likely hold up ... authorities will probably give him lots of leeway given how far into the building the rioters got. Police and protective details in these government buildings also have extra protections because they're protecting not just personnel but classified materials."

Feel free to find evidence of me victim-blaming! I'm sure you're really good at offering contextual evidence, given how often I find quotation marks in your posts. Oh wait!

..
[Jergul]: "Police are under no obligation to retreat. I did not cite legislation, but rather the principle that police can indeed stand their ground and use deadly force. This is particularly true when they are tasked with guarding property or persons."

Lulz.. and now you pretend like you were using the language "a police officer standing his ground" in response to the comment "stand-your-ground laws that let people do exactly that" but you were *not* talking about "legislation, but rather the principle". Lol.. does this kind of bullshit work on other sites, Jergul? Or against people with no memory? I can simply scroll up and see how full of shit you are in your own words. You don't get to pretend that you meant something else when your own words and the direct context of your reply show exactly what you were saying. You're only now — after being firmly revealed to be the complete idiot that you are — attempting to backtrack and make some kind of a legitimate argument that you never intended in the first place.

..
[Jergul]: "Security forces should have shot anyone going through inner doors."

False. You do not know what you're talking about, yet again. Because you don't know what you're talking about, you slide from concepts such as "[These police have protections for these scenarios]" to "[This is absolutely what they're supposed to do in these scenarios]" You just made the latter point, because, again, you're a fucking idiot who talks out of his ass.

The reality is that even in a hard line breach (which this was pretty close to being), lethal force is not the only course of action. An officer in that scenario should also be carrying OC spray and/or a baton. This officer very likely had that option at his disposal, but he decided to use lethal force for the action of scaling a barrier. Again, he will likely be protected for his choice, but that was not the only choice, so there is no "should" about it. You are flat wrong in saying that.
Cherub Cow
Member
Mon Jan 11 05:03:41
[Seb]: "Ah bless, CC thinks you need to be a Trump supporter to have been affected by his warp field."

If that's true, then I'm sure you'll be willing to admit that the news that you consume only to regurgitate on UP has been wildly flawed, heavily distorted, and at times wholly incorrect. Additionally, you might have to admit that your own approach to information itself is devoid of personal accountability, which is antithetical to the scientific approach to information interpretation, and you further self-abase by outright ignoring facts when they're presented to you with utmost care and continual explanation. You are immune to logic, and you have proven so consistently that you reject reason that your very screen name has become a joke that people make at your expense.
jergul
large member
Mon Jan 11 05:14:49
CC
"Should" is a normative position.

The police should have used deadly force against any penetration that could have harmed legislators trying to do their constitutionally ordained duty.

There is absolutely no obligation to use an escalation ladder in a situation so obviously out of control.

Frankly, you would do better arguing entrapment. Not the demonstrators fault that security forces let themselves be put in a situation were lethal force was the best way to protect legislators.

Seb
Member
Mon Jan 11 08:23:51
CC:

Yeah, not so much.

"Additionally, you might have to admit that your own approach to information itself is devoid of personal accountability, which is antithetical to the scientific approach to information interpretation."

You know, if you could convey your argument concisely and to the point (for example):

"Your failure to acknowledge your errors is unscientific."

then I might not end up ignoring most of your posts. The same posts you have *explicitly asked* me to ignore though still repeatedly indirectly address to me.

Unfortunately, you are one of those people that spends far too much intellectual energy sustaining contrarian positions as a form of intellectual differentiation - without regard for whether it is actually a good idea. Much like those clever oxbridge entrance essays people used to do in the 60 and 70s arguing from a liberal perspective that Hitler was morally right to start WWII. It can be done, and my, it is a fun game. But it is also unserious and frivolous, and unbecoming when the time comes to deploy intellect to real purpose. And it can also lead to reflexively internalising some very strange ideas. As it has with you.



Seb
Member
Mon Jan 11 08:25:36
"your very screen name has become a joke that people make at your expense."

The clowns often laugh at the straight-man.
Renzo Marquez
Member
Mon Jan 11 08:26:50
You aren't a straight man. You're gayer than AIDS.
Senor Marquez
Member
Mon Jan 11 08:38:42
Anyone still believe I am a lawyer? I still use 3rd grade flames. Wheee!
Seb
Member
Mon Jan 11 10:36:03
Predictably dull screams lawyer to me.
Cherub Cow
Member
Mon Jan 11 10:43:01
[jergul]: ""Should" is a normative position.
The police should have used deadly force against any penetration that could have harmed legislators trying to do their constitutionally ordained duty."

Then the point stands: you don't know what you're talking about.

..
[jergul]: "There is absolutely no obligation to use an escalation ladder in a situation so obviously out of control."

That erroneous belief shows how you got it so totally wrong. There is indeed nearly always a continuum of force, even in riot situations. Even in *kill* raids a trained team will not necessarily just kill anyone, they'll just take fewer chances. So do you *really* think that once people start storming a building, security gets to absolutely unload ammunition on the stormers? No. That's how you get charged with war crimes and/or mass murder. If you believe that even in the slightest degree, you are fucking insane and I hope you never stood in a position of power where you could make such a call.

In reality, in a world with laws and procedure and training, even with a mob at the doors, security personnel still must exercise responsible discretion under threat. When that officer is investigated, they will ask whether or not reasonable persons with similar training would have made that fire decision. They will ask if that was truly their last defensive line. They will ask whether or not he had other tools available to him and why he chose lethal force. They will *not* simply say, "Yeah, you get to shoot anyone you want if things seem 'out of control'."

..
[Seb]: "The same posts you have *explicitly asked* me to ignore though still repeatedly indirectly address to me."

How many times do I have to explain this to you, you illiterate cretin? I did *not* tell you to ignore *any* of my posts. If you had any accuracy of memory, you would recall that after the 5x3 threads I told you that *you* were not worth my time, and therefore I would be skipping over *your* posts and would only read your comments in the context of other people responding to you. That was years ago now. In subsequent conversations I have begun reading your drivel again. And I have zero problem with you responding to me. You can respond to me a thousand times and it would be fine. I can't wait for you to bring this up again in a few months and say the exact same thing, Mr. Memento.

..
[Seb]: "Unfortunately, you are one of those people that spends far too much intellectual energy sustaining contrarian positions as a form of intellectual differentiation - without regard for whether it is actually a good idea."

False. If you were capable of paying attention to the things that people have said in these forums, you would recognize that I have been very intellectually consistent. I am not simply being contrarian (although, all the same: KMFDM). Topically, I have shown consistency with police matters and with issues of political violence. If you want to test this then go after my positions rather than simply pursuing your usual refrain of, "Didn't read. Too long! Too many fancy words! Words are so hard! You should have just say fewer words and limit the syllable count! Can you re-submit as a meme? I like memes! Memes say you're wrong! Can you disprove those memes?"
jergul
large member
Mon Jan 11 11:10:58
CC
I think it is quite clear I know what I am talking about.

Hence you reframing my words to something that suits your agenda.

You are despicably dishonest.
Sam Adams
Member
Mon Jan 11 11:13:42

"Your failure to acknowledge your errors is unscientific."


Seb indeed has a great mental deffect where he is unable to acknowledge his own mistakes even when they are obvious. This prevents him from fixing any error, or learning at all.

Its quite sad :(
PhunkyPhishStyle
Member
Mon Jan 11 11:48:01
She was a QAnon acolyte and therefore absolutely a threat. You see, she was just a pissed off MAGA woman - she was a warrior for the Lord Jesus Christ and the God-King Trump and she was just a barricaded door away from destroying satan himself and freeing millions of children from sacrifice at the altar of Moloch.
PhunkyPhishStyle
Member
Mon Jan 11 11:48:33
She wasn’t* just a POed MAGA
show deleted posts
Bookmark and Share