• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Cont: Trump’s Coup - Part 2

Status
Not open for further replies.
acbytesla said:
No one should be "executed" but that isn't what happened. An armed mob mounted an insurrection on the Capitol while our political leaders were conducting the transition of power. And a police officer defending that process shot a member of that mob.

What do you think they should do? Open the doors and end democracy?

I'm a peaceful guy, but there is always a point when you have to stand up.
Click to expand...

Democracy would not have ended if they had opened the doors. Not even US democracy. It would have had no effect on the democratic institutions of the constituent states. It would have had transient impact on the functioning at federal level. If US democracy is really so frail then it needs a radical overhaul.
 
Planigale said:
I suppose this all depends on definitions. Merriam-Webster 'a putting to death especially as a legal penalty'. She was deliberately put to death. If she was climbing through the window she was of no immediate threat to anybody. Was she armed? I don't know, does anyone here? I still rest with the issue that non-lethal force was available. The potential of what someone else might do is not justification for killing another person. Killing her to discourage others is not a justification for homicide. I would be happy to substitute 'homicide', 'murder', 'kill'.

I do recognise that many of these people were armed. I think the second amendment is stupid and this is a direct consequence of the second amendment, indeed one can say this was the justification for the second amendment. But a key thing (one that one can hear in every dubious shooting of a black man by a LEO) "once you draw your weapon like that, you have to defend yourself with deadly force." No, a police officer drawing a weapon does not mean that by merely drawing his weapon he is justified in using it.

I think posters here do not know what terrorism is. Terrorists would have roamed the corridors shooting everyone they saw, terrorists do not target. This was not terrorism. They were not a radical political group who took hostages and entered into negotiations, they were not political activists who occupied the capitol with a lock in. I have heard no report that a single shot was fired by these rioters*. (I may be wrong and if so I anticipate a stream of corrections.) They stole a podium.
Click to expand...

you quoted the dictionary definition to try and shoehorn "execution" into the conversation, but then define terrorism as whatever you say it is
 
Planigale said:
Democracy would not have ended if they had opened the doors. Not even US democracy. It would have had no effect on the democratic institutions of the constituent states. It would have had transient impact on the functioning at federal level. If US democracy is really so frail then it needs a radical overhaul.
Click to expand...

The killing of the likes of Pence would have had no effect? :jaw-dropp
 
Fast Eddie B said:
“But this was a few protesters who broke into a public building.”

That can’t be serious, right?
Click to expand...

How many people actually roamed the corridors of the capitol? My take was it was a few dozen, but I have seen no count so I may be completely misinterpreting what happened.

Here is an example of people occupying a federal building as part of a demonstration and seeking a change in the constitution of the US, sounds pretty revolutionary to me.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/stories-54794408
 
Planigale said:
...but I still thinking shooting her in the face when she was climbing in through a window was unnecessary. I know 'stand your ground' is a US thing, but I do not think this is a reason for killing someone.
Click to expand...

Maybe, maybe not.

But one has to play out the scenario if she was the first of many to pour in through the window. Then overwhelmed the handful of armed officers and took their weapons. Then started hunting down and executing Democratic representatives and possibly even Pence if they could find him. The investigation into the massacre could then focus on why the officers chose not to use their weapons. Extending the Principle of Charity to the officer involved seems reasonable, pending investigation. To extend that Principle to a mob focused on beaching a perimeter to access lawmakers seems risky at best.
 
Last edited:
Planigale said:
Democracy would not have ended if they had opened the doors. Not even US democracy. It would have had no effect on the democratic institutions of the constituent states. It would have had transient impact on the functioning at federal level. If US democracy is really so frail then it needs a radical overhaul.
Click to expand...

That's great and all.

Realistically, the officer's action was justifiable in that setting. We don't need an armed mob storming in; we don't know what they'd do.
 
Planigale said:
Democracy would not have ended if they had opened the doors. Not even US democracy. It would have had no effect on the democratic institutions of the constituent states. It would have had transient impact on the functioning at federal level. If US democracy is really so frail then it needs a radical overhaul.
Click to expand...

Actually, no. Democracy and liberty have been dearly bought and they should be vehemently defended in all liberal democracies. Symbols are very important and events can snowball out of all control. Swift and strong action is very necessary to defend these sacred places of democracy - especially when there was actually vital business being conducted and people's representatives in very real danger for their safety. This was no ordinary riot but a sinister attack at the very foundations of the Republic.
 
Last edited:
Jesus ******* Christ are people still flooding this thread "What's the big deal?" arguments.

What the **** do you think should happen when you try to storm into Congress? They call your mother? Ask you nicely to know that off?
 
Last edited:
Planigale said:
I suppose this all depends on definitions. Merriam-Webster 'a putting to death especially as a legal penalty'. She was deliberately put to death. If she was climbing through the window she was of no immediate threat to anybody. Was she armed? I don't know, does anyone here? I still rest with the issue that non-lethal force was available. The potential of what someone else might do is not justification for killing another person. Killing her to discourage others is not a justification for homicide. I would be happy to substitute 'homicide', 'murder', 'kill'.

I do recognise that many of these people were armed. I think the second amendment is stupid and this is a direct consequence of the second amendment, indeed one can say this was the justification for the second amendment. But a key thing (one that one can hear in every dubious shooting of a black man by a LEO) "once you draw your weapon like that, you have to defend yourself with deadly force." No, a police officer drawing a weapon does not mean that by merely drawing his weapon he is justified in using it.

I think posters here do not know what terrorism is. Terrorists would have roamed the corridors shooting everyone they saw, terrorists do not target. This was not terrorism. They were not a radical political group who took hostages and entered into negotiations, they were not political activists who occupied the capitol with a lock in. I have heard no report that a single shot was fired by these rioters*. (I may be wrong and if so I anticipate a stream of corrections.) They stole a podium.

If police officers (or anyone else) were assaulted then the individuals concerned should be prosecuted. I do not defend attacking a police officer with an extinguisher (I have not seen a report of this, but I am sure that the poster who said this knows this as a fact, and I accept this). But this does not justify killing other people.

These maybe horrible neo-nazi scum but they need their rights defended in the same way as every other human.

I think it is deeply sad the police officer died, however it happened. I think it is sad that others died who perhaps might not have had there not been a riot. I am not sad a weirdo right wing Trumpist woman died, but I still thinking shooting her in the face when she was climbing in through a window was unnecessary. I know 'stand your ground' is a US thing, but I do not think this is a reason for killing someone.

ETA
* Within the capitol
Click to expand...

You really have gone into your head. I don't mean that disparagingly. Deliberately put to death? Or maybe stopped in her tracks. You have no idea that this was "deliberate" or a reaction to a wave of people that could be a danger to members of Congress, their staff, other officers or to democracy itself.

60 police officers were injured on the 6th. One died because he was hit with a fire extinguisher.
 
Planigale said:
How many people actually roamed the corridors of the capitol? My take was it was a few dozen, but I have seen no count so I may be completely misinterpreting what happened.

Here is an example of people occupying a federal building as part of a demonstration and seeking a change in the constitution of the US, sounds pretty revolutionary to me.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/stories-54794408
Click to expand...

did they plant any pipe bombs at the sit in?
 
JoeMorgue said:
Jesus ******* Christ are people still flooding this thread "What's the big deal?" arguments.
Click to expand...

Yeah, a violent mob invades the Congress while all the democratically elected representatives are in session. No biggie, almost a daily occurance. I mean what about 1812, much worse that.
 
Darat said:
The killing of the likes of Pence would have had no effect? :jaw-dropp
Click to expand...

No, there is a line of succession. Yes, it would be a dreadful thing. I am sure that the secret service detail would not have allowed that to happen so this is a pretty hypothetical issue. But really, the POTUS is shot democracy goes on in the US. the VP is shot, pretty sure that would not end democracy in the US.

I do not defend the violence. I despise the things these neo-nazis believe. But this was not an existential threat to US democracy. All this talk of hang them high is as bad as the rioters.
 
Planigale said:
I suppose this all depends on definitions. Merriam-Webster 'a putting to death especially as a legal penalty'. She was deliberately put to death. If she was climbing through the window she was of no immediate threat to anybody. Was she armed? I don't know, does anyone here? I still rest with the issue that non-lethal force was available. The potential of what someone else might do is not justification for killing another person. Killing her to discourage others is not a justification for homicide. I would be happy to substitute 'homicide', 'murder', 'kill'.
[...]
Click to expand...

A newer video from the other thread for some context:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/2021/01/08/ashli-babbitt-shooting-video-capitol/

The barricaded door was the last barrier between the mob and congressmen. The mob was determined to get inside, and once one person got through, everyone else would have felt confident of getting through themselves.

The police around the mob seemed completely overwhelmed and incapable of stopping them in any way. Even after cops with riot gear arrived, the mob continued to attack the barricade unopposed. No one went to stop the woman from entering a space where congressmen were still in the process of being evacuated.
 
Last edited:
Planigale said:
No, there is a line of succession. Yes, it would be a dreadful thing. I am sure that the secret service detail would not have allowed that to happen so this is a pretty hypothetical issue. But really, the POTUS is shot democracy goes on in the US. the VP is shot, pretty sure that would not end democracy in the US.

I do not defend the violence. I despise the things these neo-nazis believe. But this was not an existential threat to US democracy. All this talk of hang them high is as bad as the rioters.
Click to expand...

yeah, maybe the secret service would have shot someone
 
Planigale said:
Democracy would not have ended if they had opened the doors. Not even US democracy. It would have had no effect on the democratic institutions of the constituent states. It would have had transient impact on the functioning at federal level. If US democracy is really so frail then it needs a radical overhaul.
Click to expand...

You don't know that. This was an armed mob. Who's to say they wouldn't have mowed down legislators if they got to them? Sure, in hindsight, it would have been better if she wasn't killed but the person to blame for this is not the officer.
 
Planigale said:
How many people actually roamed the corridors of the capitol? My take was it was a few dozen, but I have seen no count so I may be completely misinterpreting what happened.
Click to expand...

Hundreds got in. Reporters already in the building to cover the EC vote mentioned coming out into the hallways and seeing literal hundreds of people in there, maybe a thousand or more.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom