Garland, "I am not the president's lawyer"

[Marener]

Threat? To whom? What person did the protesters hurt once they were inside of the Capitol building? Name one. You don't shoot an unarmed person for kicking out a window. If that protester had been black and participating in a BLM protest? That Police officer would be in prison serving a long sentence for manslaughter. The double standard of justice in this country right now is breathtaking!

Many dozens of officers had been attacked by this point in time and this fact was known to every officer in that hallway that the mob was breaking into.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Garland is neither the President's lawyer nor the Congress' prosecutor.

 

[Independent thinker]

It's OK to lawfully kill a right-wing domestic terrorist while committing her act of domestic terrorism.

But it's not ok to lawfully kill a George Floyd terrorist committing their acts of domestic terrorism?

 

[Marener]

Yep, they are crimes, but still not worthy of being shot over.

So a police officer pulling up to some punk thrashing a lawn ornament on government property can just open fire?

The fact that she was committing those crimes demonstrates she presented a threat as she was part of a mob breaking through to get to the officers and members of Congress.

People who just want to play nice don't break windows and smash through barricades to get to you.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

But it's not ok to lawfully kill a George Floyd terrorist committing their acts of domestic terrorism?

What act of terrorism? Passing a counterfeit bill? Laying on the ground handcuffed with a state goon saying, "I don't care" when told the suspect is not breathing? That statement got all of them convicted.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Oh, we understand all too well that, even though not specifically asked by Biden, Garland is carrying out the Democratic agenda in a very biased fashion.

You've already exhibited your ignorance of the topic.

Republican presidents never fail to turn the DOJ into a partisan sewer.

 

[Independent thinker]

What act of terrorism? Passing a counterfeit bill? Laying on the ground handcuffed with a state goon saying, "I don't care" when told the suspect is not breathing? That statement got all of them convicted.

I wasn't talking about George Floyd himself, I was talking about all of the BLM terrorists.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

I wasn't talking about George Floyd himself, I was talking about all of the BLM terrorists.

14000 thousand arrested. 4500 in jail.

 

[Independent thinker]

You've already exhibited your ignorance of the topic.

Republican presidents never fail to turn the DOJ into a partisan sewer.

LOL. Oh, so you are now admitting that Bill Barr wasn't following Trump's orders?

 

[martybegan]

The fact that she was committing those crimes demonstrates she presented a threat as she was part of a mob breaking through to get to the officers and members of Congress.

People who just want to play nice don't break windows and smash through barricades to get to you.

And still not reason for the use of deadly force.

They get to get arrested. No person was being directly threatened. Hell there were as I said other officers intermingled with the protesters/rioters on the other side of the door.

 

[martybegan]

14000 thousand arrested. 4500 in jail.

And 10's of thousands more given a free pass.

 

[Independent thinker]

14000 thousand arrested. 4500 in jail.

But we weren't talking about that. We were talking about if it was OK for the police to shoot and kill any of those 14,000, even if they were unarmed.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

And 10's of thousands more given a free pass.

Another specious statement without evidence.

 

[Marener]

And still not reason for the use of deadly force.

They get to get arrested. No person was being directly threatened. Hell there were as I said other officers intermingled with the protesters/rioters on the other side of the door.

Sure, a mob smashing through barricaded doors gives justification to view them as a threat. Any reasonable person would tell you that. If you were on the other side of those doors, you'd feel threatened.

You can keep bringing up the officers on the other side of the door but based on controlling SCOTUS precedent, that's not relevant.

 

[martybegan]

Another specious statement without evidence.

Another delection of what is obvious to everyone.

Look at those two idiots who passed out incendiary devices to fellow protesters getting a slap on the wrist, and lefties like you bending over backwards to get them reduced sentences.

 

[martybegan]

Sure, a mob smashing through barricaded doors gives justification to view them as a threat. Any reasonable person would tell you that. If you were on the other side of those doors, you'd feel threatened.

You can keep bringing up the officers on the other side of the door but based on controlling SCOTUS precedent, that's not relevant.

One guy thought so, and he was wrong. multiple other cops didn't think so. So who was being reasonable?

What it shows is there was no direct threat to law enforcement or anyone else, especially from a woman unarmed and hanging halfway through a door window.

 

[Marener]

One guy thought so, and he was wrong. multiple other cops didn't think so. So who was being reasonable?

What it shows is there was no direct threat to law enforcement or anyone else, especially from a woman unarmed and hanging halfway through a door window.

Reasonable people can behave differently in the similar situations. A man can reasonable not shoot someone when they get popcorn thrown at them. According to conservatives, they can also reasonably shoot someone who does throw popcorn at them. You clearly don't understand how the issue works in court.

A mob crashing through a barricaded door is enough to demonstrate a reasonable threat. You'd feel threatened in that situation.

 

[martybegan]

Reasonable people can behave differently in the same situation.

A mob crashing through a barricaded door is enough to demonstrate a reasonable threat. You'd feel threatened in that situation.

Reasonableness is a standard in this case, and when multiple officers see it one way and one doesn't, that goes against the standard.

By an unarmed woman halfway through the door and not the people actually trying to smash through?

 

[Marener]

Reasonableness is a standard in this case, and when multiple officers see it one way and one doesn't, that goes against the standard.

It really doesn't. The reasonableness standard applies to the circumstances for the officer involved. Not anyone else. Beyond that, multiple officers in that hallway felt threatened as well.

By an unarmed woman halfway through the door and not the people actually trying to smash through?

She was climbing through the smashed in door window, she's the threat. This isn't complicated. Any reasonable person would reasonably believe she was there to cause harm.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Marty will give you a generalized specious response.