Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Dumbfuck, she was the one killed because she was the one who attempted to climb through the broken out window leading to the lobby of the House chamber. That was the justification for shooting her. That doing so discouraged others from following her was just the result of having to take her out.The threat changes when it’s one person versus a mob.And that isn't justification for a shooting by officers. "Pour encouragement les autres" is a soviet tactic, but not a viable police use of force explanation.
This shouldn’t need explanation.
Please show me the rules of deadly force that says you can kill one mob member to discourage other mob members.
How was the cop supposed to know she was unarmed? And whether or not she was armed is irrelevant as she was part of a much bigger mob who were making their way through the Capitol, hunting for politicians to murder.No. He shoots the guy because he’s coming at the cop and presents an immediate threat to him.Of course it does. Deadly force is justifiable based on the threat one faces.That has nothing to do with use of deadly force regulations.
It has to be a specific lethal threat or bodily harm threat.
20 black guys robbing a store and one tries to jump out a window towards a cop, the cop can shoot him to make sure the other guys know the cop means business?
Unarmed, going through a window is a threat? Coming from a room with far heavier armed police who aren't even aiming their weapons at the other people there?
You are using the "spaghetti on the wall" method of trying to argue this, just throwing things and seeing what sticks.
You talk about not being able to admit when a side is wrong, and you are doing just that right here.
Talk about fucking ignorant.
His agenda is often contrary to law, ethics and facts.Yeah, problem is you think their apolitical jobs are to support Trump’s political ambitions. Like when he had the census come up with a nonsense reason to exclude undocumented immigrants. It was clearly prefectural and intended to support Republican’s electoral chances.You’re silencing people from expressing their opinions on government policy. That’s screwed up.Ah, so you just want people who disagree to be silenced. Gotcha.How about you stop calling policy disagreements illegal, unethical or factually incorrect?
Sorry, don’t think so. People aren’t going to keep their mouths shut just to protect the fragile ego of a dumb ass like Trump. Especially when it comes to things like hurricanes.
What do you mean silenced? They should do their fucking job and bitch about policy disagreements on their own fucking time.
They also shouldn't speak for the government unless saying something approved by the duly elected person holding office or their other political appointees.
So you think the forecasters at the NWS have to ask Trump’s permission before telling the people in Alabama that a hurricane isn’t going to hit them? That’s the dumbest idea you’ve had in this thread and that’s saying something.
You really are trying to turn the country into a shitty authoritarian state.
I am telling them to do their fucking jobs and bitch on their own time.
Sorry, but if 90% of the civil service is held by dems, how is that fair to Republicans?
It's not about those forecasters, it's about the leaks, about the lack of cooperation, about the overall "resistance" that was going on in the civil service.
You work for the government, you may have to implement policies you don't like, or you fucking quit.
His agenda.
If they can't handle that, they can go get another fucking job.
His agenda is often contrary to law, ethics and facts.Yeah, problem is you think their apolitical jobs are to support Trump’s political ambitions. Like when he had the census come up with a nonsense reason to exclude undocumented immigrants. It was clearly prefectural and intended to support Republican’s electoral chances.You’re silencing people from expressing their opinions on government policy. That’s screwed up.Ah, so you just want people who disagree to be silenced. Gotcha.How about you stop calling policy disagreements illegal, unethical or factually incorrect?
Sorry, don’t think so. People aren’t going to keep their mouths shut just to protect the fragile ego of a dumb ass like Trump. Especially when it comes to things like hurricanes.
What do you mean silenced? They should do their fucking job and bitch about policy disagreements on their own fucking time.
They also shouldn't speak for the government unless saying something approved by the duly elected person holding office or their other political appointees.
So you think the forecasters at the NWS have to ask Trump’s permission before telling the people in Alabama that a hurricane isn’t going to hit them? That’s the dumbest idea you’ve had in this thread and that’s saying something.
You really are trying to turn the country into a shitty authoritarian state.
I am telling them to do their fucking jobs and bitch on their own time.
Sorry, but if 90% of the civil service is held by dems, how is that fair to Republicans?
It's not about those forecasters, it's about the leaks, about the lack of cooperation, about the overall "resistance" that was going on in the civil service.
You work for the government, you may have to implement policies you don't like, or you fucking quit.
His agenda.
If they can't handle that, they can go get another fucking job.
You want him to be able to fire three clueless meteorologists who simply told Alabamans that a hurricane wasn’t going to hit them for the sin of contradicting Trump.
So he should have just let her break in?I didn't say that was justification. That was the result. The justification was protecting the lawmakers in the room behind him.He only had to shoot one person to keep the rest out. Had any others tried to gain access to the House chamber at that point, they too would have been shot.From the officers vantage point, it could have been dozens and dozens and dozens. He didn’t ask them for a head count. The officer knew hundreds of violent protestors were inside the Capitol. He knew that people were attacking officers.How many protesters were in that one hallway? How many officers were in that one hallway?
So that means he was justified in shooting the one woman?
Really?
Try that at any other police interaction and see where that gets you.
And that isn't justification for a shooting by officers. "Pour encouragement les autres" is a soviet tactic, but not a viable police use of force explanation.
Which really doesn't justify deadly force against an unarmed woman trying to jump through a window.
A guy walking down the street late at night in a black area? and you don't think something is amiss? Pfffft....You got pulled over because you were doing something wrong.Not if it was happening to himAnd why should the cops be allowed to stop and frisk random people in high crime areas?How about breathalizers in every car? Why do we have to wait for you to kill someone?You won't pass legislation to stop nuts from shooting up schools. You're guilty. You have blood on your hands.We supported those rioters the same way you support nutjobs every time they shoot up a school.Almost 140 serious injuries to Capitol Cops
They were just making America great again, one cop at a time.
Animals.
I don't ever wanna hear another Republican say they are the "Party of Law and Order". If I do, I'll throw up in my mouth just a little bit.
One day vs. months of leftist lawlessness you support.
Fuck of and Die in a Fire.
You support the status quo which allows those nutjobs to obtain guns. No background checks, etc.
We don’t support the rioters we supported the protesters and blm movement.
Please show a post detailing a person supporting a guy shooting up a school, or remove the accusation you fucking pansy.
You gave the rioters a pass and make a big deal of ONE DAY OF UNREST because its being done by people you don't like.
Were the people who just marched to the capitol and didn't go in peaceful protesters?
Were the people who went into the capitol after the police stopped trying to stop people and just walked around peaceful?
You want to punish law abiding people who want to own firearms. It's like banning sober people from driving because of alcohol abusers.
Again, point out someone supporting a school shooter or shut the fuck up.
Because why should I have to take a test to start my vehicle if I don't drink and drive?
Marty will be fine on the stop n frisk thingy. He's white ;-)
I've been pulled over plenty of times, not much different than stop and frisk. every time I took it as you should.
You republicans are such hypocrites. You claim you love freedom and you claim to care about your rights and the constitution but you are so ready to give up your freedoms for security.
Or, you are willing to give up black peoples freedoms so you can be more safe.
Listen asshole. A black guy will be walking down the street doing nothing wrong. It’s late. It’s dark. The cops pull up and four cops rush out of the car, tackle you, search your pockets, then say go ahead boy on your way When they find nothing.
No way you trump voters would put up with this happening to you.
Blm
And how were they supposed to stop the mob who would have followed her, just as the mob was doing throughout the Capitol?Dumbfuck, she was the one killed because she was the one who attempted to climb through the broken out window leading to the lobby of the House chamber. That was the justification for shooting her. That doing so discouraged others from following her was just the result of having to take her out.The threat changes when it’s one person versus a mob.And that isn't justification for a shooting by officers. "Pour encouragement les autres" is a soviet tactic, but not a viable police use of force explanation.
This shouldn’t need explanation.
Please show me the rules of deadly force that says you can kill one mob member to discourage other mob members.
And in the act of jumping could have been restrained and arrested. Again, there was no imminent threat to the officer or anyone in that chamber, and there were plenty of other officers in direct contact with the group that didn't see the need to open fire.
So he should have just let her break in?I didn't say that was justification. That was the result. The justification was protecting the lawmakers in the room behind him.He only had to shoot one person to keep the rest out. Had any others tried to gain access to the House chamber at that point, they too would have been shot.From the officers vantage point, it could have been dozens and dozens and dozens. He didn’t ask them for a head count. The officer knew hundreds of violent protestors were inside the Capitol. He knew that people were attacking officers.How many protesters were in that one hallway? How many officers were in that one hallway?
So that means he was justified in shooting the one woman?
Really?
Try that at any other police interaction and see where that gets you.
And that isn't justification for a shooting by officers. "Pour encouragement les autres" is a soviet tactic, but not a viable police use of force explanation.
Which really doesn't justify deadly force against an unarmed woman trying to jump through a window.
Well, yeah. When Trump says the hurricane is probably going to hit Alabama and the facts say it doesn’t, they’re going to say so.No, his agenda is something they merely disagree with, and you think that gives them the right and duty to sabotage it.
I've moved nothing, ya moron. My position has been solid since the details of her death first emerged.How was the cop supposed to know she was unarmed? And whether or not she was armed is irrelevant as she was part of a much bigger mob who were making their way through the Capitol, hunting for politicians to murder.No. He shoots the guy because he’s coming at the cop and presents an immediate threat to him.Of course it does. Deadly force is justifiable based on the threat one faces.That has nothing to do with use of deadly force regulations.
It has to be a specific lethal threat or bodily harm threat.
20 black guys robbing a store and one tries to jump out a window towards a cop, the cop can shoot him to make sure the other guys know the cop means business?
Unarmed, going through a window is a threat? Coming from a room with far heavier armed police who aren't even aiming their weapons at the other people there?
You are using the "spaghetti on the wall" method of trying to argue this, just throwing things and seeing what sticks.
You talk about not being able to admit when a side is wrong, and you are doing just that right here.
Talk about fucking ignorant.
It's amazing how much goalpost moving you do to justify this.
She didn't have a weapon out at all, she could have easily been restrained while in the act of going through the door, and there were other officers there far more heavily armed amongst the crowd that didn't see the need to open fire.
And the more times goes on, the more the "looking for politicians to murder" bullshit gets debunked.
It wasn’t necessarily the only choice but it was probably a reasonable one.So the only two choices were let her proceed or shoot her dead?
Well, yeah. When Trump says the hurricane is probably going to hit Alabama and the facts say it doesn’t, they’re going to say so.No, his agenda is something they merely disagree with, and you think that gives them the right and duty to sabotage it.
That’s the right thing to do if you want a country that isn’t a shithole and we don’t need fragile egos like yours and Trump’s ruining it for us.
Your argument about other cops not shooting anyone is spurious. You don't know why they were there and you don't know if they knew there were still lawmakers in that chamber and you don't know if they didn't shoot anyone because the cops on the other side of that door were handling keeping the mob out of the chamber.So he should have just let her break in?I didn't say that was justification. That was the result. The justification was protecting the lawmakers in the room behind him.He only had to shoot one person to keep the rest out. Had any others tried to gain access to the House chamber at that point, they too would have been shot.From the officers vantage point, it could have been dozens and dozens and dozens. He didn’t ask them for a head count. The officer knew hundreds of violent protestors were inside the Capitol. He knew that people were attacking officers.How many protesters were in that one hallway? How many officers were in that one hallway?
So that means he was justified in shooting the one woman?
Really?
Try that at any other police interaction and see where that gets you.
And that isn't justification for a shooting by officers. "Pour encouragement les autres" is a soviet tactic, but not a viable police use of force explanation.
Which really doesn't justify deadly force against an unarmed woman trying to jump through a window.
So the only two choices were let her proceed or shoot her dead?
They were already in, there were officers on her side of the barricade, and they didn't shoot anyone.
I've moved nothing, ya moron. My position has been solid since the details of her death first emerged.How was the cop supposed to know she was unarmed? And whether or not she was armed is irrelevant as she was part of a much bigger mob who were making their way through the Capitol, hunting for politicians to murder.No. He shoots the guy because he’s coming at the cop and presents an immediate threat to him.Of course it does. Deadly force is justifiable based on the threat one faces.That has nothing to do with use of deadly force regulations.
It has to be a specific lethal threat or bodily harm threat.
20 black guys robbing a store and one tries to jump out a window towards a cop, the cop can shoot him to make sure the other guys know the cop means business?
Unarmed, going through a window is a threat? Coming from a room with far heavier armed police who aren't even aiming their weapons at the other people there?
You are using the "spaghetti on the wall" method of trying to argue this, just throwing things and seeing what sticks.
You talk about not being able to admit when a side is wrong, and you are doing just that right here.
Talk about fucking ignorant.
It's amazing how much goalpost moving you do to justify this.
She didn't have a weapon out at all, she could have easily been restrained while in the act of going through the door, and there were other officers there far more heavily armed amongst the crowd that didn't see the need to open fire.
And the more times goes on, the more the "looking for politicians to murder" bullshit gets debunked.
And nothing's been debunked regarding the potential for murdering politicians. The mob is heard on video, calling to hang the VP.
Yeah, it’s almost as if your accusations against me are bullshit and you’re suggesting doing the exact same thing only far worse because it’s done by the government.LOL, this coming from a side that can't hear opposing opinions without crying and wanting to shut them down.
It wasn’t necessarily the only choice but it was probably a reasonable one.So the only two choices were let her proceed or shoot her dead?
A handful of officers were all that stood in between a violent mob and members of Congress whom they have a duty to protect.
This shouldn’t be controversial. If a horde of people were running through the White House and they were breaking into a door outside the Oval Office, no one would question secret service shooting someone.
Your argument about other cops not shooting anyone is spurious. You don't know why they were there and you don't know if they knew there were still lawmakers in that chamber and you don't know if they didn't shoot anyone because the cops on the other side of that door were handling keeping the mob out of the chamber.So he should have just let her break in?I didn't say that was justification. That was the result. The justification was protecting the lawmakers in the room behind him.He only had to shoot one person to keep the rest out. Had any others tried to gain access to the House chamber at that point, they too would have been shot.From the officers vantage point, it could have been dozens and dozens and dozens. He didn’t ask them for a head count. The officer knew hundreds of violent protestors were inside the Capitol. He knew that people were attacking officers.How many protesters were in that one hallway? How many officers were in that one hallway?
So that means he was justified in shooting the one woman?
Really?
Try that at any other police interaction and see where that gets you.
And that isn't justification for a shooting by officers. "Pour encouragement les autres" is a soviet tactic, but not a viable police use of force explanation.
Which really doesn't justify deadly force against an unarmed woman trying to jump through a window.
So the only two choices were let her proceed or shoot her dead?
They were already in, there were officers on her side of the barricade, and they didn't shoot anyone.
And the mob wasn't "already in there." They got as far a the entryway leading into the Speaker's Lobby which leads directly into the House chamber. It was the other side of that entryway which was barricaded with stacked furniture and armed police with guns drawn. Ashli Targetpractice ignored all that and got what she deserved. Poor thing. She once proudly served her nation but then dies a traitor.
Yeah, it’s almost as if your accusations against me are bullshit and you’re suggesting doing the exact same thing only far worse because it’s done by the government.LOL, this coming from a side that can't hear opposing opinions without crying and wanting to shut them down.
Her death is a tragedy that could have been averted a million times before she decided to jump through a window.It wasn’t necessarily the only choice but it was probably a reasonable one.So the only two choices were let her proceed or shoot her dead?
A handful of officers were all that stood in between a violent mob and members of Congress whom they have a duty to protect.
This shouldn’t be controversial. If a horde of people were running through the White House and they were breaking into a door outside the Oval Office, no one would question secret service shooting someone.
It's amazing how far you will go to justify this woman dying because you hate her politics and you see her death as a political victory.
It’s only a problem for people who demand things that aren’t theirs.No, my accusations against your silencing cheerleading are not bullshit, and YES, when some things are done by the government it is far worse. The problem is corporations are acting as proxies for ONE SIDE of the political spectrum, which just happens to control the federal government both politically and bureaucratically.
