• 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.
Reality also disagrees with them.

And reality disagrees with you and you keep not taking reality's side on purpose in an argument, there's a term for that.

Lying.
 
Planigale said:
That is where we have a difference. You think breaking the law sufficient reason to kill someone. I do not.
Click to expand...

Did you see the photo of the terrorist I showed? I can't remember which chamber he was in.
 
acbytesla said:
I see that Pelosi is determined to start impeachment process on Monday if the 25th Amendment isn't invoked or if Trump doesn't resign. Kevin McCarthy is desperately trying to prevent that. He says that is too divisive.
Click to expand...
There's something even worse than riling up Trump's base (which is what McCarthy really means by "divisive"), and that is having a further breakdown of democracy by not holding those responsible accountable for what we saw Wednesday.

McCarthy can go shove it. *He's* the one responsible for divisiveness for supporting Trump for the last 4 years. Christ, gimme a break.

The country is done with this crap. Dems move on impeachment within a week; Mitt Romney tells off his fellow Repubs on the floor of the Senate. Enough certainly is enough.
 
Meadmaker said:
That is a complete misreading of SGM's statement.

Her statement:

The key word in the sentence is not "lawbreaker". The key word is "threatening". Ashli Babbit was not killed because she broke the law. She was killed because she, and the mob behind her, presented a real threat to the Congressmen inside the House chamber.

Using the "reasonable person" standard of self defense and justification of the use of deadly force, a reasonable person would conclude that the Congressmen were in danger of death or great bodily harm. Under those circumstances, lethal force is justified in self defense or the defense of others.

I'm not happy that she's dead, but, based on the evidence available to us, killing her was justified.
Click to expand...
You are arguing that she was summarily executed as an example!.

Bravo!
 
Silly Green Monkey said:
And you think shooting at someone automatically kills them. I know better. The assault on Congress was halted at the choke point, the very last chance to stop the mob that PUT A GALLOWS ON THE CAPITOL LAWN. You'd be condemning death either way, whether it's of the mob finding out their targets are defended, or that mob finding their targets are undefended and stringing up as many as they please.
Click to expand...

I know that shooting some one does not necessarily kill them. I do accept that if you open fire on someone, you should shoot to kill. That shooting to wound is a Hollywood fantasy. i had wondered whether someone climbing through a window could have been shot in the arm, but I think that if you shoot you shoot to kill.

Did this murdering mob open fire through the window? Were any shots fired by the rioters? The only shots fired I can find by limited googling (Thanks Darat for the advice, ever helpful), were by the police. Of course this officer might not know that other shots were fired by police, and that would be a reason for believing violence was occurring.
 
Dr. Keith said:
I've got good money on "Molotov Cocktails are not bombs" so you people better not get lazy on the pedantry I've come to expect from your lot.
Click to expand...

To be fair, I think Planigale is seriously wrong on this point, but I'm not sure she's part of a "lot".
 
Planigale said:
No I would say pepper spray, taser, strike with a baton, hand cuff.
Click to expand...

Cool story. And what do you propose they do with the dozens coming in after she gets treated so sweetly?

I'm more against law enforcement overreactions than most people, but this was a mob that was already inside a building illegally, directly attacking our elected government. Deadly force was more than appropriate under the circumstances.
 
Planigale said:
I know that shooting some one does not necessarily kill them. I do accept that if you open fire on someone, you should shoot to kill. That shooting to wound is a Hollywood fantasy. i had wondered whether someone climbing through a window could have been shot in the arm, but I think that if you shoot you shoot to kill.

Did this murdering mob open fire through the window? Were any shots fired by the rioters? The only shots fired I can find by limited googling (Thanks Darat for the advice, ever helpful), were by the police. Of course this officer might not know that other shots were fired by police, and that would be a reason for believing violence was occurring.
Click to expand...

Please stop.
 
Paul2 said:
While the rest of the mob rushes right past you, or, worse, tries to prevent you from doing what you suggest?
Click to expand...

I think the window was only big enough for one person, (with a large back pack), pepper spraying her or tasering her halfway through effectively blocks the hole?
 
Dr. Keith said:
Expect a correction that the protestor with the Cocktails was merely among the protestors near the capitol building and had not yet entered the building. Also, the cocktails were not yet assembled, but since assembly and deployment seem tightly connected, I don't see why that matters much. But offer you this glimpse into your future . . . free of charge.
Click to expand...

What's an unassembled Molotov cocktail? A bottle of gasoline that has a cap instead of a wick?
 
Meadmaker said:
That is a complete misreading of SGM's statement.

Her statement:

The key word in the sentence is not "lawbreaker". The key word is "threatening". Ashli Babbit was not killed because she broke the law. She was killed because she, and the mob behind her, presented a real threat to the Congressmen inside the House chamber.

Using the "reasonable person" standard of self defense and justification of the use of deadly force, a reasonable person would conclude that the Congressmen were in danger of death or great bodily harm. Under those circumstances, lethal force is justified in self defense or the defense of others.

I'm not happy that she's dead, but, based on the evidence available to us, killing her was justified.
Click to expand...

And even in gun-shy UK such a shooting would be totally acceptable, it would be lawful, and of course only my opinion would have been accepted as morally OK.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom