Almost 140 serious injuries to Capitol Cops

[martybegan]

Actually they have to justify it, that's the whole concept of a "justified use of deadly force"

You getting a hard on over a political enemies death doesn't cut it.

Fair enough, I didn't use the right language.

The use of force is justified by the rational threat to the life and safety of the police and their protectees.

She's not my political enemy. She's a tragedy that is the result of years of indoctrination.

One woman hopping through a window, an unarmed woman is not a threat to life and safety.

The cops on the other side of the door in direct contact with the other people sure didn't think so.

One woman no but she was part of a mob. And she was the first crazy who poked her head in.

Keep justifying it in your addled mind, you soi boi cuck.

How is kamala's dildo doing widening your ass?

What I find strange is the same people who said Colin kappernick was unpatriotic for kneeling during the national anthem are the same unpatriotic Treasonist insurrectionists who murdered a cop in an attempted failed coup

Colin Kapernick and this are two different things.

And the case involving the cop actually being killed by a protester is getting weaker and weaker by the day.

 

[martybegan]

A "violent" mob that had armed police officers mingling with it just on the other side of the door, being breached by an unarmed woman.

No need for quotations. The fact that they were violent is evidence in the damage and destruction they were doing in order to breach the barricaded doors.

You're also avoiding the question, probably because you know the answer.

No, just watching you jump through hoops to blow things out of proportion for political gain.

Nothing's been blown out of proportion just because you're a faithful idiot. That woman was a threat to lawmakers when attempted to gain access to where they were hiding.

an unarmed woman was a threat....

You're an idiot, Marty. The cop protecting law makers had no idea if she was personally armed or not. He also had no way of knowing if had he let her gain access to the House chamber, the mob wouldn't have followed her.

It was a good shoot. That's why he won't be charged with a crime.

He wasn't in immediate risk, shown by the other cops being interspersed with the protesters on the one side of the door.

What makes me think they know it's a bad shoot is the length of time it's taking to come up with a result of the investigation, and the complete dropping of the matter by the media.

And why hasn't his name been released yet? Any other officer in any other shooting under investigation would have been identified.

Of course he was as were the lawmakers behind him. That mob was smashing through the doors and began to enter the Speaker's Lobby. It was his duty to keep them out. He did a fine job as not one single Trump cultist got into the House chamber until all the lawmakers inside were safely escorted out.

By shooting an unarmed woman, pour encouragement les autres.

Don't think that's in the use of deadly force guidelines.

She was the only one shot because she was the only one who tried to enter. Had she not been shot, the rest of the mob behind her would have followed, just as they had throughout the Capitol. That cop deserves a medal.

Still not justified via use of deadly force protocols.

You're an idiot, Marty. Such protocols permit the use of lethal force if such force is reasonably believed necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm. Given that lunatic mob stormed the Capitol and was hunting for politicians to murder, that's a reasonable belief.

Just the fact a cop on duty that day died says the police were justified that day taking lives.

I think it# funny today republicans are saying the cops were not justified for shooting that female rioter but in every other case they defend the cops. What’s different here? Probably the color of the victim.

Not even fucking close, but thanks for showing you are OK with violence when done against people you simply disagree with politically.

 

[martybegan]

Pathology? It's called observation.

Irrational, but deserved. You are all that is wrong with this country.

Nah. What's wrong with this country is people like you who hate others so much you're willing to blind yourself to reality to avoid having to agree with them.

LOL that goes for you too bitch,

"I'm ok with people who disagree with me being silenced and like a coward I hide behind the "its their right fuh fuh fuh, corporations are Gods fuh fuh fuh" reasoning,

Enjoy Zuckerberg's dick in your mouth?

 

[Faun]

A "violent" mob that had armed police officers mingling with it just on the other side of the door, being breached by an unarmed woman.

No need for quotations. The fact that they were violent is evidence in the damage and destruction they were doing in order to breach the barricaded doors.

You're also avoiding the question, probably because you know the answer.

No, just watching you jump through hoops to blow things out of proportion for political gain.

Nothing's been blown out of proportion just because you're a faithful idiot. That woman was a threat to lawmakers when attempted to gain access to where they were hiding.

an unarmed woman was a threat....

You're an idiot, Marty. The cop protecting law makers had no idea if she was personally armed or not. He also had no way of knowing if had he let her gain access to the House chamber, the mob wouldn't have followed her.

It was a good shoot. That's why he won't be charged with a crime.

He wasn't in immediate risk, shown by the other cops being interspersed with the protesters on the one side of the door.

What makes me think they know it's a bad shoot is the length of time it's taking to come up with a result of the investigation, and the complete dropping of the matter by the media.

And why hasn't his name been released yet? Any other officer in any other shooting under investigation would have been identified.

Of course he was as were the lawmakers behind him. That mob was smashing through the doors and began to enter the Speaker's Lobby. It was his duty to keep them out. He did a fine job as not one single Trump cultist got into the House chamber until all the lawmakers inside were safely escorted out.

By shooting an unarmed woman, pour encouragement les autres.

Don't think that's in the use of deadly force guidelines.

She was the only one shot because she was the only one who tried to enter. Had she not been shot, the rest of the mob behind her would have followed, just as they had throughout the Capitol. That cop deserves a medal.

Still not justified via use of deadly force protocols.

You're an idiot, Marty. Such protocols permit the use of lethal force if such force is reasonably believed necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm. Given that lunatic mob stormed the Capitol and was hunting for politicians to murder, that's a reasonable belief.

Immediate threat, not maybe threat.

Reasonable threat.

Not even close to reasonable.

Again, if this was an easy clean shoot, they would have come out with the report already, the time taken shows they are either trying to spin as hard as they can to justify it, or don't want to throw the guy to the wolves until months have passed and they can get their agenda passed in the house.

LOL

You're fucking insane, Marty. A massive violent mob breaks in and storms the Capitol and then attempts to breach the House chamber with lawmakers still trapped inside.

That's a reasonable fear of death or freat bodily harm.

Your denial of such does nothing other than to reveal you're not playing with a full deck. If ya know what I mean.

 

[martybegan]

A "violent" mob that had armed police officers mingling with it just on the other side of the door, being breached by an unarmed woman.

No need for quotations. The fact that they were violent is evidence in the damage and destruction they were doing in order to breach the barricaded doors.

You're also avoiding the question, probably because you know the answer.

No, just watching you jump through hoops to blow things out of proportion for political gain.

Nothing's been blown out of proportion just because you're a faithful idiot. That woman was a threat to lawmakers when attempted to gain access to where they were hiding.

an unarmed woman was a threat....

You're an idiot, Marty. The cop protecting law makers had no idea if she was personally armed or not. He also had no way of knowing if had he let her gain access to the House chamber, the mob wouldn't have followed her.

It was a good shoot. That's why he won't be charged with a crime.

He wasn't in immediate risk, shown by the other cops being interspersed with the protesters on the one side of the door.

What makes me think they know it's a bad shoot is the length of time it's taking to come up with a result of the investigation, and the complete dropping of the matter by the media.

And why hasn't his name been released yet? Any other officer in any other shooting under investigation would have been identified.

Of course he was as were the lawmakers behind him. That mob was smashing through the doors and began to enter the Speaker's Lobby. It was his duty to keep them out. He did a fine job as not one single Trump cultist got into the House chamber until all the lawmakers inside were safely escorted out.

By shooting an unarmed woman, pour encouragement les autres.

Don't think that's in the use of deadly force guidelines.

She was the only one shot because she was the only one who tried to enter. Had she not been shot, the rest of the mob behind her would have followed, just as they had throughout the Capitol. That cop deserves a medal.

Still not justified via use of deadly force protocols.

You're an idiot, Marty. Such protocols permit the use of lethal force if such force is reasonably believed necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm. Given that lunatic mob stormed the Capitol and was hunting for politicians to murder, that's a reasonable belief.

Immediate threat, not maybe threat.

Reasonable threat.

Not even close to reasonable.

Again, if this was an easy clean shoot, they would have come out with the report already, the time taken shows they are either trying to spin as hard as they can to justify it, or don't want to throw the guy to the wolves until months have passed and they can get their agenda passed in the house.

LOL

You're fucking insane, Marty. A massive violent mob breaks in and storms the Capitol and then attempts to breach the House chamber with lawmakers still trapped inside.

That's a reasonable fear of death or freat bodily harm.

Your denial of such does nothing other than to reveal you're not playing with a full deck. If ya know what I mean.

Then why was he the ONLY officer who opened fire?

 

[colfax_m]

Then why was he the ONLY officer who opened fire?

Because people stopped trying to jump through the window after the first one who did was shot.

 

[colfax_m]

LOL that goes for you too bitch,

"I'm ok with people who disagree with me being silenced and like a coward I hide behind the "its their right fuh fuh fuh, corporations are Gods fuh fuh fuh" reasoning,

Enjoy Zuckerberg's dick in your mouth?

Tell you what Il Duce, go ahead and lock up Zuckerberg and Dorsey for kicking your buddies off their websites. Do it or stop your bitching.

Corporations aren't gods, it's fucking twitter and facebook you dumb shit. The way you act, it's like you think that these are necessary for human life to even exist when in fact they're just fucking websites that these idiots are shit posting to.

But you've got an axe to grind so you're going to pretend that this is a huge problem because your reality is so completely distorted.

 

[Faun]

A "violent" mob that had armed police officers mingling with it just on the other side of the door, being breached by an unarmed woman.

No need for quotations. The fact that they were violent is evidence in the damage and destruction they were doing in order to breach the barricaded doors.

You're also avoiding the question, probably because you know the answer.

No, just watching you jump through hoops to blow things out of proportion for political gain.

Nothing's been blown out of proportion just because you're a faithful idiot. That woman was a threat to lawmakers when attempted to gain access to where they were hiding.

an unarmed woman was a threat....

You're an idiot, Marty. The cop protecting law makers had no idea if she was personally armed or not. He also had no way of knowing if had he let her gain access to the House chamber, the mob wouldn't have followed her.

It was a good shoot. That's why he won't be charged with a crime.

He wasn't in immediate risk, shown by the other cops being interspersed with the protesters on the one side of the door.

What makes me think they know it's a bad shoot is the length of time it's taking to come up with a result of the investigation, and the complete dropping of the matter by the media.

And why hasn't his name been released yet? Any other officer in any other shooting under investigation would have been identified.

Of course he was as were the lawmakers behind him. That mob was smashing through the doors and began to enter the Speaker's Lobby. It was his duty to keep them out. He did a fine job as not one single Trump cultist got into the House chamber until all the lawmakers inside were safely escorted out.

By shooting an unarmed woman, pour encouragement les autres.

Don't think that's in the use of deadly force guidelines.

She was the only one shot because she was the only one who tried to enter. Had she not been shot, the rest of the mob behind her would have followed, just as they had throughout the Capitol. That cop deserves a medal.

Still not justified via use of deadly force protocols.

You're an idiot, Marty. Such protocols permit the use of lethal force if such force is reasonably believed necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm. Given that lunatic mob stormed the Capitol and was hunting for politicians to murder, that's a reasonable belief.

Immediate threat, not maybe threat.

Reasonable threat.

Not even close to reasonable.

Again, if this was an easy clean shoot, they would have come out with the report already, the time taken shows they are either trying to spin as hard as they can to justify it, or don't want to throw the guy to the wolves until months have passed and they can get their agenda passed in the house.

LOL

You're fucking insane, Marty. A massive violent mob breaks in and storms the Capitol and then attempts to breach the House chamber with lawmakers still trapped inside.

That's a reasonable fear of death or freat bodily harm.

Your denial of such does nothing other than to reveal you're not playing with a full deck. If ya know what I mean.

Then why was he the ONLY officer who opened fire?

Nutcase, he wasn't the only cop who had his gun out. But he was the closest and he was the one with the best angle to avoid hitting someone else by accident and he was the one who fired first. No one else attempted to breach the Speaker's Lobby so no other cop had to shoot.

 

[martybegan]

Then why was he the ONLY officer who opened fire?

Because people stopped trying to jump through the window after the first one who did was shot.

Again, pour encouragement les autres is not a justifiable reason for shooting someone.

 

[martybegan]

LOL that goes for you too bitch,

"I'm ok with people who disagree with me being silenced and like a coward I hide behind the "its their right fuh fuh fuh, corporations are Gods fuh fuh fuh" reasoning,

Enjoy Zuckerberg's dick in your mouth?

Tell you what Il Duce, go ahead and lock up Zuckerberg and Dorsey for kicking your buddies off their websites. Do it or stop your bitching.

Corporations aren't gods, it's fucking twitter and facebook you dumb shit. The way you act, it's like you think that these are necessary for human life to even exist when in fact they're just fucking websites that these idiots are shit posting to.

But you've got an axe to grind so you're going to pretend that this is a huge problem because your reality is so completely distorted.

Who wants to lock them up? All we want is to allow everyone access to the new digital commons.

You don't care because it's not your side being silenced, you let them do your dirty censor-work for you, and then claim you don't want to censor others, wink wink, nudge nudge.

 

[colfax_m]

Again, pour encouragement les autres is not a justifiable reason for shooting someone.

I didn't say it was justification for the shooting. I just said that explains why no one else had to take a shot, which was the question you asked.

 

[martybegan]

A "violent" mob that had armed police officers mingling with it just on the other side of the door, being breached by an unarmed woman.

No need for quotations. The fact that they were violent is evidence in the damage and destruction they were doing in order to breach the barricaded doors.

You're also avoiding the question, probably because you know the answer.

No, just watching you jump through hoops to blow things out of proportion for political gain.

Nothing's been blown out of proportion just because you're a faithful idiot. That woman was a threat to lawmakers when attempted to gain access to where they were hiding.

an unarmed woman was a threat....

You're an idiot, Marty. The cop protecting law makers had no idea if she was personally armed or not. He also had no way of knowing if had he let her gain access to the House chamber, the mob wouldn't have followed her.

It was a good shoot. That's why he won't be charged with a crime.

He wasn't in immediate risk, shown by the other cops being interspersed with the protesters on the one side of the door.

What makes me think they know it's a bad shoot is the length of time it's taking to come up with a result of the investigation, and the complete dropping of the matter by the media.

And why hasn't his name been released yet? Any other officer in any other shooting under investigation would have been identified.

Of course he was as were the lawmakers behind him. That mob was smashing through the doors and began to enter the Speaker's Lobby. It was his duty to keep them out. He did a fine job as not one single Trump cultist got into the House chamber until all the lawmakers inside were safely escorted out.

By shooting an unarmed woman, pour encouragement les autres.

Don't think that's in the use of deadly force guidelines.

She was the only one shot because she was the only one who tried to enter. Had she not been shot, the rest of the mob behind her would have followed, just as they had throughout the Capitol. That cop deserves a medal.

Still not justified via use of deadly force protocols.

You're an idiot, Marty. Such protocols permit the use of lethal force if such force is reasonably believed necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm. Given that lunatic mob stormed the Capitol and was hunting for politicians to murder, that's a reasonable belief.

Immediate threat, not maybe threat.

Reasonable threat.

Not even close to reasonable.

Again, if this was an easy clean shoot, they would have come out with the report already, the time taken shows they are either trying to spin as hard as they can to justify it, or don't want to throw the guy to the wolves until months have passed and they can get their agenda passed in the house.

LOL

You're fucking insane, Marty. A massive violent mob breaks in and storms the Capitol and then attempts to breach the House chamber with lawmakers still trapped inside.

That's a reasonable fear of death or freat bodily harm.

Your denial of such does nothing other than to reveal you're not playing with a full deck. If ya know what I mean.

Then why was he the ONLY officer who opened fire?

Nutcase, he wasn't the only cop who had his gun out. But he was the closest and he was the one with the best angle to avoid hitting someone else by accident and he was the one who fired first. No one else attempted to breach the Speaker's Lobby so no other cop had to shoot.

Nice attempt to move goalposts there, I said he was the only one to fire, you lying fucking hack-twat.

All not justifications for deadly force.

 

[martybegan]

Again, pour encouragement les autres is not a justifiable reason for shooting someone.

I didn't say it was justification for the shooting. I just said that explains why no one else had to take a shot, which was the question you asked.

So you are admitting it wasn't justified?

 

[colfax_m]

Who wants to lock them up? All we want is to allow everyone access to the new digital commons.

You don't care because it's not your side being silenced, you let them do your dirty censor-work for you, and then claim you don't want to censor others, wink wink, nudge nudge.

Facebook and Twitter doesn't want some people on their website. What are you going to do about, generalisimo?

 

[colfax_m]

So you are admitting it wasn't justified?

You're getting more delusional. I said nothing of the sort.

You're really not in touch with reality anymore.

 

[martybegan]

Who wants to lock them up? All we want is to allow everyone access to the new digital commons.

You don't care because it's not your side being silenced, you let them do your dirty censor-work for you, and then claim you don't want to censor others, wink wink, nudge nudge.

Facebook and Twitter doesn't want some people on their website. What are you going to do about, generalisimo?

They claim to be a site for open discussion and participation, then ban people for political reasons. And again, you only support it because people you want dead are the ones being silenced, and you get to keep your hands clean.

You are a fucking liar and a pathetic excuse for humanity.

 

[martybegan]

So you are admitting it wasn't justified?

You're getting more delusional. I said nothing of the sort.

You're really not in touch with reality anymore.

No, you are playing the goalpost game, and poorly.

 

[colfax_m]

They claim to be a site for open discussion and participation, then ban people for political reasons. And again, you only support it because people you want dead are the ones being silenced, and you get to keep your hands clean.

You are a fucking liar and a pathetic excuse for humanity.

You're not answering the question. I get that you don't like it. I don't care. What are you going to do about it, Jefe?

 

[colfax_m]

No, you are playing the goalpost game, and poorly.

I'm not moving any goal posts. You're acting like an idiot (not a new thing). I've clearly stated the justification for the shooting in many posts before. If you can't remember, you can go back and look.

 

[martybegan]

They claim to be a site for open discussion and participation, then ban people for political reasons. And again, you only support it because people you want dead are the ones being silenced, and you get to keep your hands clean.

You are a fucking liar and a pathetic excuse for humanity.

You're not answering the question. I get that you don't like it. I don't care. What are you going to do about it, Jefe?

I answered the question, you just don't care.

FCC has regulatory powers, they can say if you want 231 protections, you can't discriminate based on viewpoint.

If you want to discriminate based on viewpoint, you own the viewpoints and can be sued for them.