Leader

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

"Jan 6th Insurrection" narrative falls completely apart at the seams

Collapse

300x250 Mobile

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Bing_Oh
    replied
    Originally posted by not.in.MY.town View Post
    You might want to do some research on what is and is not permitted inside the Capitol and on Capitol grounds.
    Because the Federal government never passed a law/ordinance/rule that violated the Constitution, right?

    Leave a comment:


  • CCCSD
    replied
    Originally posted by not.in.MY.town View Post

    You might want to do some research on what is and is not permitted inside the Capitol and on Capitol grounds.
    Oh those pesky laws…never let them get in the way of smashing and looting and beating cops…

    Leave a comment:


  • not.in.MY.town
    replied
    Originally posted by Bing_Oh View Post

    The People (and I capitalize that intentionally) peacefully protesting on the Capitol grounds were not "legally protesting" now? Last time I checked, the US Capitol belonged to the People of the United States, who also happen to have a Constitutional right to peaceably assemble and protest. I could even argue that preventing people from protesting inside the Capitol Building, assuming that they did not do anything to intentionally prevent the Legislature from doing its duty, may be a violation of the First Amendment.

    Those who were not involved in violence were, most certainly, legally protesting...and it disturbs me greatly that a sworn LEO doesn't see that.
    You might want to do some research on what is and is not permitted inside the Capitol and on Capitol grounds.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bing_Oh
    replied
    Originally posted by not.in.MY.town View Post
    For the record, there was NO "legal protest" going on inside the Capitol or anywhere on Capitol grounds. Every single person inside the Capitol (not including LEOs and authorized personnel) were committing a criminal offense simply by being there.
    The People (and I capitalize that intentionally) peacefully protesting on the Capitol grounds were not "legally protesting" now? Last time I checked, the US Capitol belonged to the People of the United States, who also happen to have a Constitutional right to peaceably assemble and protest. I could even argue that preventing people from protesting inside the Capitol Building, assuming that they did not do anything to intentionally prevent the Legislature from doing its duty, may be a violation of the First Amendment.

    Those who were not involved in violence were, most certainly, legally protesting...and it disturbs me greatly that a sworn LEO doesn't see that.

    Leave a comment:


  • not.in.MY.town
    replied
    Originally posted by Bing_Oh View Post
    But, hearing a rumor of it really doesn't add to the level of justification (especially in a crowd of that size, where there were many, many different levels and modes of activity...from legal protest to illegal rioting...going on).
    For the record, there was NO "legal protest" going on inside the Capitol or anywhere on Capitol grounds. Every single person inside the Capitol (not including LEOs and authorized personnel) were committing a criminal offense simply by being there.

    Leave a comment:


  • BlueLou
    replied
    Originally posted by Bing_Oh View Post

    Don't trust Youtube or movies. Movies are written by people who don't know anything about real life LE...they generally just make it up from their overactive imaginations to fit their plot and what's "exciting" and "dramatic" for the viewer. Youtube is cherry-picking. You can see good and bad, but it's usually not the boring stuff that makes up the vast majority of LE.

    Court precedence in deadly force has established that an officer (or, in fact, anyone using deadly force) has to be able to justify that the INDIVIDUAL that deadly force is used against constitutes an immediate threat or serious physical harm or death to yourself or another. If you SAW an officer being violently beaten, then it could justify deadly force. But, hearing a rumor of it really doesn't add to the level of justification (especially in a crowd of that size, where there were many, many different levels and modes of activity...from legal protest to illegal rioting...going on). In this particular scenario, the officer would have to justify that Babbit HERSELF through her own actions was an immediate threat of serious physical harm or death...not that some unaffiliated guy on the other end of the Capitol was a threat and so every officer could up their level of force.

    As for trusting the investigation, I'm not saying we should or shouldn't I am saying that there's reason to look closely at it because it may have been politically-influenced. I've personally been involved in investigations that 100% justified action but were swept away because of lazy prosecutors/deciding authorities, political manipulation, etc.


    At first I read your response and thought "'Rumors'? It was the PD radio, you can't consider that a 'rumor'." I also thought "'Unaffiliated guy'? They are in the same demonstration. She was physically breaking through a glass window which was desperately barricaded by chairs, in essence agressively jumping through a window towards a policeman about 20 feet away!"

    But, then I reread all you wrote. I realize my initial response is more emotional than grounded in any meaningful facts.

    It's an overall horrible situation that shouldn't have escalated. Hopefully this doesn't continue to polarize the country and especially not those that enforce its laws. If the ones doing the enforcement aren't on the same page (whichever the page) we are all screwed.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bing_Oh
    replied
    Originally posted by BlueLou View Post
    So that makes sense on why I have seen on YouTube/movies men women and children killed when breaching security in a military scenario. Probably justified under ROE. That example may not apply for January 6th then.

    For Tennessee vs Garner I skimmed through. I know this was investigated by Capitol PD. How does the acts of the people present that day combined with what included assume was on the radio chatter not be considered violent to possible harmless? I understand there were calls of gallows being erected and officers being beaten.

    Again I have no formal training yet. Why would we not trust the investigation?

    Might just be gullible talking...
    Don't trust Youtube or movies. Movies are written by people who don't know anything about real life LE...they generally just make it up from their overactive imaginations to fit their plot and what's "exciting" and "dramatic" for the viewer. Youtube is cherry-picking. You can see good and bad, but it's usually not the boring stuff that makes up the vast majority of LE.

    Court precedence in deadly force has established that an officer (or, in fact, anyone using deadly force) has to be able to justify that the INDIVIDUAL that deadly force is used against constitutes an immediate threat or serious physical harm or death to yourself or another. If you SAW an officer being violently beaten, then it could justify deadly force. But, hearing a rumor of it really doesn't add to the level of justification (especially in a crowd of that size, where there were many, many different levels and modes of activity...from legal protest to illegal rioting...going on). In this particular scenario, the officer would have to justify that Babbit HERSELF through her own actions was an immediate threat of serious physical harm or death...not that some unaffiliated guy on the other end of the Capitol was a threat and so every officer could up their level of force.

    As for trusting the investigation, I'm not saying we should or shouldn't I am saying that there's reason to look closely at it because it may have been politically-influenced. I've personally been involved in investigations that 100% justified action but were swept away because of lazy prosecutors/deciding authorities, political manipulation, etc.

    Leave a comment:


  • BlueLou
    replied
    Originally posted by Bing_Oh View Post

    Soldiers operating under Rules of Engagement (ROE) in a war zone are not governed by the same standards as civilian LEO's. We are guided by court precedence (Tennessee v. Garner being the most prominent), Federal, state and local law, training, and policy.
    So that makes sense on why I have seen on YouTube/movies men women and children killed when breaching security in a military scenario. Probably justified under ROE. That example may not apply for January 6th then.

    For Tennessee vs Garner I skimmed through. I know this was investigated by Capitol PD. How does the acts of the people present that day combined with what included assume was on the radio chatter not be considered violent to possible harmless? I understand there were calls of gallows being erected and officers being beaten.

    Again I have no formal training yet. Why would we not trust the investigation?

    Might just be gullible talking...

    Leave a comment:


  • Bing_Oh
    replied
    Originally posted by BlueLou View Post
    Question... I have not been in the military and am not yet a LEO. Most of what I know is from movies and youtube...

    If you were in Afghanistan and you set a perimeter or checkpoint and protestors or rioters appeared outside the barriers you would not shoot, obviously. Now if the crowd became agitated and began physically breaking the barriers down and leaping towards you (not knowing if armed or intent) you still would not shoot?

    Just curious on the comparison you made...
    Soldiers operating under Rules of Engagement (ROE) in a war zone are not governed by the same standards as civilian LEO's. We are guided by court precedence (Tennessee v. Garner being the most prominent), Federal, state and local law, training, and policy.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bing_Oh
    replied
    Originally posted by CCCSD View Post
    And you knew she was unarmed how..?

    Don’t whine about your ROE OCONUS.
    For an experienced LEO, that's a very strange standard. We cannot treat people with the automatic assumption that they're armed simply because we don't know. Can we use due caution? Absolutely. We can't take the step to treating everyone as being armed because we don't know if they are or not, however.

    Leave a comment:


  • BlueLou
    replied
    Originally posted by Krinkiboi2020 View Post
    If I had shot and killed some random unarmed Iraqi or Afghan during any of my deployments, because they were engaged in a protest or riot (and we saw plenty of those), I'd probably still be in Leavenworth. Especially if they were surrounded by my fellow soldiers or sailors, who saw no need to shoot them themselves.
    ​​​​​
    Just saying. If I couldn't light up random unarmed civilians in a f*cking warzone, then maybe Capitol PD shouldn't be able to do it in DC either.
    Question... I have not been in the military and am not yet a LEO. Most of what I know is from movies and youtube...

    If you were in Afghanistan and you set a perimeter or checkpoint and protestors or rioters appeared outside the barriers you would not shoot, obviously. Now if the crowd became agitated and began physically breaking the barriers down and leaping towards you (not knowing if armed or intent) you still would not shoot?

    Just curious on the comparison you made...

    Leave a comment:


  • Krinkiboi2020
    replied
    Originally posted by CCCSD View Post

    And you knew she was unarmed how..?

    Don’t whine about your ROE OCONUS.
    Not whining about my OCONUS ROE. Just pointing that out.

    Leave a comment:


  • CCCSD
    replied
    Originally posted by Krinkiboi2020 View Post
    If I had shot and killed some random unarmed Iraqi or Afghan during any of my deployments, because they were engaged in a protest or riot (and we saw plenty of those), I'd probably still be in Leavenworth. Especially if they were surrounded by my fellow soldiers or sailors, who saw no need to shoot them themselves.
    ​​​​​
    Just saying. If I couldn't light up random unarmed civilians in a f*cking warzone, then maybe Capitol PD shouldn't be able to do it in DC either.
    And you knew she was unarmed how..?

    Don’t whine about your ROE OCONUS.

    Leave a comment:


  • OneAdam12
    replied
    Tell me why all the insurrectionists were in Washington D.C. and none in Portland or any of the other cities? Taking over police stations and federal buildings isn't an insurrectionist act? Why aren't ANTIFA and BLM members being arrested? They are both Marxist organizations and nothing has happened to anyone involved. Were the no-go zone murderers charged?

    Leave a comment:


  • Krinkiboi2020
    replied
    If I had shot and killed some random unarmed Iraqi or Afghan during any of my deployments, because they were engaged in a protest or riot (and we saw plenty of those), I'd probably still be in Leavenworth. Especially if they were surrounded by my fellow soldiers or sailors, who saw no need to shoot them themselves.
    ​​​​​
    Just saying. If I couldn't light up random unarmed civilians in a f*cking warzone, then maybe Capitol PD shouldn't be able to do it in DC either.

    Leave a comment:

MR300x250 Tablet

Collapse

What's Going On

Collapse

There are currently 4936 users online. 313 members and 4623 guests.

Most users ever online was 158,966 at 04:57 AM on 01-16-2021.

Welcome Ad

Collapse
Working...
X