• 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.

Certifying the Vote.

BobTheCoward said:
Broadly speaking, this isn't accurate. If specifically the shooter was not authorized to shoot by use of force at that moment, I will then have a problem with his actions.
Click to expand...

I also will have a problem with his actions if the shooter was not authorized to shoot by use of force at that moment, but we have no information to review any determination on that issue at this time.
 
DevilsAdvocate said:
I read one unconfirmed report that she was shot by the people in the widely spread picture of men pointing guns at a window barricaded by a piece of furniture. Those were men in suits, so it likes like they are probably Secret Service.
Click to expand...

No, this is incorrect. There's footage of the shooting available from at least three angles, so you can see that for yourself if you're that interested.
 
DevilsAdvocate said:
I don't think they had a target. I don't think they planned on storming the Capitol building until Trump told them to march to the Capitol and then once they were there they decided they should bust their way in because...they didn't really know why, but it just seemed like the thing to do.
Click to expand...

Agreed 100%. This wasn't an insurrection or coup, it was bunch of pig-ignorant hooligans getting over-excited.
 
GlennB said:
Agreed 100%. This wasn't an insurrection or coup, it was bunch of pig-ignorant hooligans getting over-excited.
Click to expand...

Like how Hawaii was conquered by a bunch of drunk marines. Even more fatalities in this. But I guess the overthrow of the ruling dynasty by foreign interests doesn't really count as a coup or anything to get over excited about.
 
DevilsAdvocate said:
I also will have a problem with his actions if the shooter was not authorized to shoot by use of force at that moment, but we have no information to review any determination on that issue at this time.
Click to expand...

Well, Secret Service agents are always authorised to use deadly force to protect their charges. They don't have to wait for a note from their boss when confronted with a situation.

However this Q-Anon woman was shot by local Police - not sure what their "authority to use force" is, but lacking it has certainly never seemed to prevent them shooting unarmed black people without any consequences.
 
Last edited:
smartcooky said:
Secret Service are always authorised to use deadly force to protect their charges. They don't have to wait for a note from their boss when confronted with a situation.
Click to expand...

And if deadly force was determined not a reasonable decision to fulfill that role, I would like the shooter punished. And if it was fine, then it is fine.
 
BobTheCoward said:
And if deadly force was determined not a reasonable decision to fulfill that role, I would like the shooter punished. And if it was fine, then it is fine.
Click to expand...

It was fine. If you, for one minute, imagine that a US policeman is going to get in trouble for shooting someone in these circumstances I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.
 
Venom said:
As he's done in the past he'd probably condemn or minimize it, if only to avoid drawing any attention to his own insecure rule.

Putin is said to watch Gaddafi's fall on repeat in private. Will he do the same for this?? :boxedin:
Click to expand...

I think he was more worried about ending up like former Egyptian ruler Hosni Mubarak - in courtroom.
 
Matthew Best said:
No, this is incorrect. There's footage of the shooting available from at least three angles, so you can see that for yourself if you're that interested.
Click to expand...

I didn't think the unconfirmed report sounded right. I have seen the footage now which confirms the report was incorrect.
 
Matthew Best said:
What does "authorised to shoot by use of force" mean?
Click to expand...

I actually don't know. Usually police cannot use deadly force unless faced with a deadly threat. But they can also use deadly force to protect the lives of others facing a deadly threat. And in some cases to protect property. And this is a bit of an unusual circumstance.

I certainly hope that this shooting was within laws and regulations and was necessary wand was not the action of a trigger-happy cop. I suspect that this was a perimeter point that had to be defended to protect lives and was likely lawful and necessary. I hope.
 
Anyone but Bob.

What exactly else do you think the officer needed to use deadly force?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom