The Jan. 6 Investigation

Status
Not open for further replies.
shemp said:
January 6 panel moves to hold Steve Bannon in criminal contempt


As severe as a criminal contempt referral sounds, the House's choice to use the Justice Department may be more of a warning shot than a solution. Holding Bannon in criminal contempt through a prosecution could take years, and historic criminal contempt cases have been derailed by appeals and acquittals.
Click to expand...

So, maybe, or more likely not, they might resolve this before Civil War II begins.
Click to expand...

Bannon is betting on running out the clock. Make it to the midterms and hope that a Republican House of Representatives will drop it.
That it can't be settled simply by an immediate hearing and quick trial is obscene.
 
A warning shot? Just firing off a round in any direction? Yeah, that's it.
 
acbytesla said:
Bannon is betting on running out the clock. Make it to the midterms and hope that a Republican House of Representatives will drop it.
That it can't be settled simply by an immediate hearing and quick trial is obscene.
Click to expand...

Don't hate the player, hate the game.
 
Resume said:
A warning shot? Just firing off a round in any direction? Yeah, that's it.
Click to expand...

Yeah, no chance that aiming away from the people is better than killing someone. "Hey, no better place to put this one than in that lady right there". :thumbsup:
 
Warp12 said:
Yeah, no chance that aiming away from the people is better than killing someone. "Hey, no better place to put this one than in that lady right there". :thumbsup:
Click to expand...

So risk a ricochet that could possibly hurt someone else or put one in the lady climbing through a broken window in a building she's illegally entered and has repeatedly ignored commands to leave? Yeah, seems legit.
 
Warp12 said:
Yeah, no chance that aiming away from the people is better than killing someone. "Hey, no better place to put this one than in that lady right there". :thumbsup:
Click to expand...

How would that have stopped anything? That's just stupid; he sent the round into the threat where it belonged.
 
plague311 said:
So risk a ricochet that could possibly hurt someone else or put one in the lady climbing through a broken window in a building she's illegally entered and has repeatedly ignored commands to leave? Yeah, seems legit.
Click to expand...

"Ricochet", LOL. Yeah, we wouldn't want anyone to get hurt, of course. Remember, deadly force is always the best, non-dangerous action.
 
Warp12 said:
None, of course. I mean, the officer probably had no choice but to kill her. It's not as though he might have any other weapon at his disposal (do they?)...or even the ability to fire a warning shot. You gotta go for the kill!
Click to expand...

He didn't necessarily shoot to kill as he shot her in the front right shoulder, not the head as Trump lied about. That close, Byrd could certainly have shot her right through the head. Shoulder wounds are not commonly "lethal" shots. From the reports that she "was gushing blood", one could reasonably assume she died from loss of blood. He could also have shot her more than once if his intention was to kill her outright.

Your attempt to shift the responsibility of Babbitt's death from her to Byrd is noted.
 
Warp12 said:
None, of course. I mean, the officer probably had no choice but to kill her. It's not as though he might have any other weapon at his disposal (do they?)...or even the ability to fire a warning shot. You gotta go for the kill!
Click to expand...

I repeat: they knew he was pointing a gun at the window as one man in the video is clearly yelling "He's got a gun! He's got a gun!" I heard it yelled by more than one person at least five times. Also as the video shows, the mob continued smashing the glass and trying to break down the doors. It did not stop Babbitt from attempting to climb through the window. She started to climb through well after the shouts of "He's got a gun!"

Stop trying to shift blame.
 
I'm still waiting for Warp12 to describe an alternative course of action which would not have risked at least a few rioters getting past the two officers who were all that stood between a large armed mob and the people they were sworn to protect. Reasons why firing a warning shot and physically tackling the first couple of rioters through the window were too risky have already been given.
 
Ziggurat said:
You seem confused. A warning to someone specific doesn't require their name be used, nor does it need to be polite. But you can't warn person A, and then act against person B as if they had been warned.

Byrd claims he gave such a warning. I didn't claim he didn't.

Of course, giving a warning is relevant to the use of deadly force, but it isn't sufficient on its own to justify its use.
Click to expand...

A country, like a person does good business when it rids itself of a turd.
 
Sen. Bennie Thompson said that ex-Deputy AG Rosen's testimony yesterday supported basically what the Committee report previously said: Trump was pressuring them to put out a statement that the election was essentially rigged.
 
Pixel42 said:
I'm still waiting for Warp12 to describe an alternative course of action which would not have risked at least a few rioters getting past the two officers who were all that stood between a large armed mob and the people they were sworn to protect. Reasons why firing a warning shot and physically tackling the first couple of rioters through the window were too risky have already been given.
Click to expand...

Agreed.

I doubt there will be any forthcoming descriptions of alternative actions that realistically take into account the seriousness of the situation at the time. Armchair quarterbacking at best here, and probably not something that should be done regarding police response during an insurrection. Reviewing and investigating with the proper authorities, as has been and continues to be done, is the best response.
 
Stacyhs said:
I repeat: they knew he was pointing a gun at the window as one man in the video is clearly yelling "He's got a gun! He's got a gun!" I heard it yelled by more than one person at least five times. Also as the video shows, the mob continued smashing the glass and trying to break down the doors. It did not stop Babbitt from attempting to climb through the window. She started to climb through well after the shouts of "He's got a gun!"

Stop trying to shift blame.
Click to expand...

For the record, as someone who was once a commissioned federal officer, there is no agency in the federal government that authorizes warning shots. It is not trained at FLETC and there are specific regulations against them. If you discharge your weapon, it will be at the center of mass of the available target. If you believe or determine the person is wearing body armor, you are to take a CNS or Central Nervous System shot aiming at roughly the nose of the person.
 
Last edited:
Craig4 said:
For the record, as someone who was once a commissioned federal officer, there is no agency in the federal government that authorizes warning shots. It is not trained at FLETC and there are specific regulations against them. If you discharge your weapon, it will be at the center of mass of the available target. If you believe or determine the person is wearing body armor, you are to take a CNS or Central Nervous System shot aiming at roughly the nose of the person.
Click to expand...

I suspected this might be the case, but wasn't sure of my own recollections. Thank you for the information.
 
The alternative action for the officer would have been to not shoot and wait for the crowd to get through the doors and overwhelm him.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom