NotfooledbyW
Gold Member
- Jul 9, 2014
- 25,143
- 5,001
- 245
No it doesn’t. You are a liar.The Coroner's report disagrees with you, Notfooled
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.
No it doesn’t. You are a liar.The Coroner's report disagrees with you, Notfooled
Are you referring to this?Type this into your Google and you'll get your answers. I don't spoonfeed adults
january 6 2021 democrat carrying confederate flag
Show the text from the report that disagrees with anything I’ve written because I see nothing in it that I disagree with. if you have no text you are a liar.No it doesn’t.
If Babbitt HAD been put face down and in handcuffs instead of being shot she'd still be alive today! She wasn't OD'ing on hard drugs. Her lungs weren't ceasing to function because she'd consumed so much fOldestyle wrote: Did Babbitt die of a self induced drug overdose? 21NOV11-POST#988
NFBW wrote: It does not matter what Babbitt or Floyd died from at this part of the discussion we are having. One of the questions you have been asked is . . between Floyd and Babbitt which one was visibly physically violent and and visibly in violation of the law at the very first moment when a police officer made face-to-face contact with the victim? Floyd did not die of a drug overdose he was asphyxiated by a police officer who would not let him breathe. Babe it was not a protester at the location where she was shot - she was in on President trumps plan to steal the election from Joe Biden and millions of voters in cities like Detroit Philadelphia and Atlanta, 21NOV11-POST#990
NFBW wrote: Was Babbit lying face down and in handcuffs behind her back, being restrained in the presence of four police officers when she died at the hands of police? 21NOV11-POST#985
Floyd WAS innocent until proven guilty IN A COURT OF LAW! That doesn't mean he shouldn't have been ARRESTED, you idiot! That's what happens when people are suspected of committing a crime! Chauvin never "murdered" anyone! He simply didn't recognize that Floyd was OD'ing on drugs! That conviction was farce. When someone takes a lethal amount of drugs and then dies it's ludicrous to blame someone else for that happening! George Floyd killed himself!Oldestyle wrote: Duh? Because he just tried several times to pass a counterfeit bill? 21NOV11-POST#997
NFBW wrote: But your "point"... Oldestyle regarding BABBITT was that our entire legal system is based on a system that people are perceived as without guilt until they've been proven to do something unlawful 21NOV11-POST#999
NFBW wrote: So why Oldestyle won’t you perceive that Floyd would have been innocent until proven guilty if Chauvin had not murdered him over suspicion that he passed a counterfeit $20 bill? 21NOV11-POST#999
"Chauvin never "murdered" anyone!"If Babbitt HAD been put face down and in handcuffs instead of being shot she'd still be alive today! She wasn't OD'ing on hard drugs. Her lungs weren't ceasing to function because she'd consumed so much f
Floyd WAS innocent until proven guilty IN A COURT OF LAW! That doesn't mean he shouldn't have been ARRESTED, you idiot! That's what happens when people are suspected of committing a crime! Chauvin never "murdered" anyone! He simply didn't recognize that Floyd was OD'ing on drugs! That conviction was farce. When someone takes a lethal amount of drugs and then dies it's ludicrous to blame someone else for that happening! George Floyd killed himself!
Comparing a piece of crap drug addict like George Floyd to Ashli Babbitt is even more farcical than Chauvin's conviction.
Leftists again excusing felonieaDuh? Because he just tried several times to pass a counterfeit bill? What part of that being against the law don't you grasp? THAT was got the police called on his dumb ass! If George hadn't been so drugged out he would have known it was time to hit the bricks.
presumed innocent. Not the same thing.Floyd WAS innocent until proven guilty
Because you don't EXECUTE people for protesting! You arrest them! I have ZERO problem with any and all of the conservative protesters who stormed the Capitol being arrested, Notfooled! What I have a serious problem with is the decision to shoot to kill an unarmed protester instead of simply arresting them. Those protestors got out of hand because the people in charge of security for that event LET them get out of hand! That protest never should have reached that point and THAT is what we should be investigating! Who made the decisions that led to what happened that day and what the hell were they thinking given the intel that they were being given before the protest began?Oldestyle wrote: If Babbitt HAD been put face down and in handcuffs instead of being shot she'd still be alive today! 21NOV12-POST#1005
NFBW wrote: Why would Babbitt need to be restrained in that unique and volatile situation if she and the numbers in the rioting mob behind her were just protesting? - - - Do you agree Oldestyle with the universally truthful observation from all sides that this shooting happened in an extremely unique context of a physical invasion of the U.S. Capitol with the safety of all its members and VP at risk? - - - On top of that, the attackers were flying Trump flags and were a violent component of the political rally of tens of thousands that the POTUS assembled and told on that day to MARCH TO THE CAPITOL as the “last chance” to save America by awarding the presidency to DJT because he won the election entirely on his own word. - - - So in your right wing head Oldestyle is there some potential for you to recognize the situation that BABBITT put an officer in who had no way of knowing how many of the TRUMP mob followers would follow BABBITT through the barricade if he let her through, as he secures his weapon, so she could be handcuffed and put on her stomach? Then while performing that essential task, how does the officer deal with the dozens or hundreds of angry TRUMP rioters who are just as babbshit crazy as BABBITT trying to get in? 21NOV12-POST#1010
Kindly explain why ONE officer is having to make that call? Where the hell is everyone else that day? Who was it that set up security for that protest and what were they thinking?Oldestyle wrote: If Babbitt HAD been put face down and in handcuffs instead of being shot she'd still be alive today! 21NOV12-POST#1005
NFBW wrote: Why would Babbitt need to be restrained in that unique and volatile situation if she and the numbers in the rioting mob behind her were just protesting? - - - Do you agree Oldestyle with the universally truthful observation from all sides that this shooting happened in an extremely unique context of a physical invasion of the U.S. Capitol with the safety of all its members and VP at risk? - - - On top of that, the attackers were flying Trump flags and were a violent component of the political rally of tens of thousands that the POTUS assembled and told on that day to MARCH TO THE CAPITOL as the “last chance” to save America by awarding the presidency to DJT because he won the election entirely on his own word. - - - So in your right wing head Oldestyle is there some potential for you to recognize the situation that BABBITT put an officer in who had no way of knowing how many of the TRUMP mob followers would follow BABBITT through the barricade if he let her through, as he secures his weapon, so she could be handcuffed and put on her stomach? Then while performing that essential task, how does the officer deal with the dozens or hundreds of angry TRUMP rioters who are just as babbshit crazy as BABBITT trying to get in? 21NOV12-POST#1010
Nah, that's a lie too. You know what you said is false. But it's part of your pile of excuses, pinched off in lieu of admitting your real reasons.I don't agree.
"Because you don't EXECUTE people for protesting!"Because you don't EXECUTE people for protesting! You arrest them! I have ZERO problem with any and all of the conservative protesters who stormed the Capitol being arrested, Notfooled! What I have a serious problem with is the decision to shoot to kill an unarmed protester instead of simply arresting them. Those protestors got out of hand because the people in charge of security for that event LET them get out of hand! That protest never should have reached that point and THAT is what we should be investigating! Who made the decisions that led to what happened that day and what the hell were they thinking given the intel that they were being given before the protest began?
Indeed. It was literally his one job. Like, the one reason he was there. If he wasn't, we would all be screaming about there being nobody there. It was his one job that he was sworn and paid to do. Obviously. You can spot any cultist instantly by their stance on him and Babbitt. Easy litmus test."Because you don't EXECUTE people for protesting!"
You use lethal force to stop a mob which threatens to harm lawmakers.
Anyone that claims the Capitol Police were well prepared for that protest is either utterly clueless or a blinders wearing partisan! They turned down the offer of National Guard assistance. They didn't have their officers in riot gear. They didn't issue them pepper spray or Tasers. The brutal truth is that the people in charge at the Capitol Police ignored warnings that the protest could very well get violent because people were angry because of what they perceived to be a corrupt election and their total unpreparedness allowed a protest to turn into a riot.Oldestyle wrote: Kindly explain why ONE officer is having to make that call? Where the hell is everyone else that day? Who was it that set up security for that protest and what were they thinking? 21NOV12-POST#1012
NFBW wrote: They were well prepared for a protest / political rally on the ellipse near the White House. They did not prepare for 1000 or so domestic terrorists such as novice active terrorist Ashley Babbitt and real domestic terrorist militia group, such as the Oath Keepers who had infiltrated the peaceful rally after conspiring and planning for months that they would physically attack the Capitol on Jan6 in order to stop or disrupt the certification of the electors from all fifty states. Being attacked by domestic terrorists was not expected in a mistly white Trump sponsored event. Hindsight says the authorities including the White House should have predicted that DJT’s Big LIE would spark a physical attack on the Capitol itself and attack Mike Pence, the coward himself who refused to join the conspiracy and throw the election to DJT - - - I addressed this subject in October but you twisted it all to hell. Try again. 21NOV13-POST#1017
NFBW wrote: Its not that the topic of the rally was based on a huge lie by the sitting President who lost the election by a humiliating majority of voters who hate him, it is the FACT that an outgoing President had a fascistic anti-democracy plan, in writing, to steal the elect from me by unconstitutional means if his clueless VP would have gone along with it. That is the issue here. The peaceful part of the rally means nothing other than the fact that it occupied the police forces which enabled the violence to take place and to get as far into the capital and shut down the process that they did. Without the big lie and without the big rally there would’ve been no violence on Capitol Hill on January 6, 2021. Trump and the planners are all entirely responsible. 21OCT25- POST#304
Oldestyle wrote: Let me see if I follow your "logic", Notfooled! You think a peaceful rally is to blame for the violence that occurred when the Capital Police were woefully unprepared for a small number of protesters that decided they should occupy the Capital building? 21OCT25-POST#308
NFBW wrote: The peaceful part of the rally means nothing other than the fact that it occupied the police forces which enabled the violence to take place and to get as far into the capital and shut down the process that they did 21NOV13-POST#1017î
Why wouldn't you use non lethal force to stop said mob? You know...LIKE POLICE USED AGAINST LIBERAL PROTESTERS ALL ACROSS THE COUNTRY FOR THE BETTER PART OF TWO FREAKING YEARS!!! Why is it that an unarmed conservative protester that hadn't hurt anyone can be shot at point blank range by an officer laying in wait...while literally thousands of liberals protesters were allowed to loot, burn and assault Police officers in dozens of violent riots and yet not a single one of them was executed like Ashli Babbitt?"Because you don't EXECUTE people for protesting!"
You use lethal force to stop a mob which threatens to harm lawmakers.