U.S. Capitol Police to Be Sued for $10 Million for Killing Unarmed Rioter

[Mustang]

Police deliberately make situation as dangerous as possible, for no good reason.

That's not true.

Spare us all your broad brushing of police.

The broad brush is deserved because when one cop does something bad or wrong, the other cops don't condemn it.
That makes them all complicit after the fact. It prevents fixing things so will cause the next murder.

Oh my, you are mentally ill, my friend.

Or just blissfully ignorant of how police are trained.

Don't you love some white guy screaming racist, racist, racist in your face because you're white and then thinking how great that makes him and all the free shit he should get for it?

Rigby5 should apologize for being in the party of slavery, the KKK, Jim Crow, lynching and segregation instead of crowing about it

old rigby believes you and I should die because floyd died. he just said so. wow!!!!

No, what I said is that you and I should have to pay for broken windows because we did not change the illegal way we know the police are being trained and protected.

Again you're lying and portraying a tiny fraction of police as the standard. You're the white guy who cried racist and saying how wonderful you are and you want free shit for it

Wrong.
Although police do rarely pull the trigger to murder people illegally, they illegally point guns at people all the time, and do not condemn illegal murders by other police.
Which makes them accomplices.
The murder of Ashli is proof.
Police illegally shoot unarmed people who are no threat, and the rest of the police say nothing.
Which ensures it will be repeated.
If police were responsible, they would all admit the shooting of Ashli not only was illegal for killing her, but endangering everyone else, including the 2 cops standing next to her.

Apparently, being a conservative nowadays means a complete and total rejection of objectivity and common sense.

Yeah, show me a conservative on a jury and a conservative defendant who's accused of committing a crime (like Ashli nutcase Babbitt or Kyle Rittenhouse) and despite overwhelming evidence that points all the other jurors to vote guilty, I have no problem believing that the conservative juror will not only vote not guilty, he'll also throw them a parade.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Oh come on. Would you condemn the Boston Tea Party because it was rioting and looting, or would you say it was justified due to the unfair taxation without representation?

No. Because that was a victimless form of protest. No British harmed or killed.

Although it's relevant to note that some of the Founding Fathers DID condemn it at the time, feeling that destruction of other people's property was inappropriate to their cause. Notably, Benjamin Franklin insisted that the British East India Company should be reimbursed for the loss of their cargo.

Correct.

"
LONDON, Feb. 2, 1774

Gentlemen: I received the Honour of your Letter dated Decr. 21, containing a distinct Account of the Proceedings at Boston relative to the Tea imported there, and of the Circumstances that occasioned its Destruction. I communicated the same to Lord Dartmouth, with some other Advices of the same import. It is yet unknown what Measures will be taken here on the Occasion; but the Clamour against the Proceedings is high and general. I am truly concern’d, as I believe all considerate Men are with you, that there should seem to any a Necessity for carrying Matters to such Extremity, as, in a Dispute about Publick Rights, to destroy private Property; This (notwithstanding the Blame justly due to those who obstructed the Return of the Tea) it is impossible to justify with People so prejudiced in favour of the Power of Parliament to tax America, as most are in this Country.

As the India Company however are not our Adversaries, and the offensive Measure of sending their Teas did not take its Rise with them, but was an Expedient of the Ministry to serve them and yet avoid a Repeal of the old Act, I cannot but wish & hope that before any compulsive Measures are thought of here, our General court will have shewn a Disposition to repair the Damage and make Compensation to the Company. This all our Friends here wish with me; and that if War is finally to be made upon us, which some threaten, an Act or violent injustice on our part, unrectified, may not give a colourable Pretence for it. A speedy Reparation will immediately set us right in the Opinion of all Europe. And tho’ the Mischief was the Act of Persons unknown, yet as probably they cannot be found or brought to answer for it, there seems to be some reasonable Claim on the Society at large in which it happened. Making voluntarily such Reparation can be no Dishonour to us or Prejudice to our Claim or Rights, since Parliament here has frequently considered in the same Light similar Cases; and only a few Years since, when a valuable Saw-mill, which had been destroyed by a Number of Persons supposed to be Sawyers, but unknown, a Grant was made out of the Publick Treasury of Two Thousand Pounds to the Owner as a Compensation—I hope in thus freely (and perhaps too forwardly) expressing my Sentiments & Wishes, I shall not give Offence to any. I am sure I mean well; being over with sincere Affection to my native Country, and great Respect to the Assembly and yourselves,

Gentlemen, Your most obedient and most humble Servant

B. FRANKLIN,

Honble Thomas Cushing, Sam’l Adams, John Hancock, William Phillips, Esquires."

 

[Rigby5]

Police deliberately make situation as dangerous as possible, for no good reason.

That's not true.

Spare us all your broad brushing of police.

The broad brush is deserved because when one cop does something bad or wrong, the other cops don't condemn it.
That makes them all complicit after the fact. It prevents fixing things so will cause the next murder.

Oh my, you are mentally ill, my friend.

Or just blissfully ignorant of how police are trained.

Don't you love some white guy screaming racist, racist, racist in your face because you're white and then thinking how great that makes him and all the free shit he should get for it?

Rigby5 should apologize for being in the party of slavery, the KKK, Jim Crow, lynching and segregation instead of crowing about it

old rigby believes you and I should die because floyd died. he just said so. wow!!!!

No, what I said is that you and I should have to pay for broken windows because we did not change the illegal way we know the police are being trained and protected.

Again you're lying and portraying a tiny fraction of police as the standard. You're the white guy who cried racist and saying how wonderful you are and you want free shit for it

Wrong.
Although police do rarely pull the trigger to murder people illegally, they illegally point guns at people all the time, and do not condemn illegal murders by other police.
Which makes them accomplices.
The murder of Ashli is proof.
Police illegally shoot unarmed people who are no threat, and the rest of the police say nothing.
Which ensures it will be repeated.
If police were responsible, they would all admit the shooting of Ashli not only was illegal for killing her, but endangering everyone else, including the 2 cops standing next to her.

Actually, police rarely point guns at people. Turn off the TV and go out into the real world once in a while

Wrong.
I am wealthy enough to be above the radar of the police normally, but I am self employed so do everything myself.
That include remodeling and dump runs in the old rusty pickup truck.
And whenever I do that, or anything that makes me appear poor, the police are stopping me and pointing guns.
Happened over 30 times or so.
Not stopped once with the newer car, even though I drive it 99% more.

 

[Rigby5]

Shooting an unarmed suspect in the back as he's running away, is not only a violation of their training, it's against the law. Even for a cop.

The same could be said for Babbit, but since you disagree with her, she isn't deserving of the same type of veneration of say George Floyd for example.

Or that wannabe murderer Makiyah Bryant, perhaps.

Babbit was attacking the Capitol in violation of her oath to defend the Constitution, and threatening the lives of both the police officers there, and the people in the House Chamber.

George Floyd threatened no one and was murdered in public for the crime of being too big to fit into the back of the cruiser.


Makiyah was defended herself when the police rolled up and shot her without hesitation.

I generally agree, but Babbitt mistakenly thought she was defending democracy.
Her motives can not be impugned.
Being wrong does not equate to being criminal.

 

[Rigby5]

Police deliberately make situation as dangerous as possible, for no good reason.

That's not true.

Spare us all your broad brushing of police.

The broad brush is deserved because when one cop does something bad or wrong, the other cops don't condemn it.
That makes them all complicit after the fact. It prevents fixing things so will cause the next murder.

Oh my, you are mentally ill, my friend.

Or just blissfully ignorant of how police are trained.

Don't you love some white guy screaming racist, racist, racist in your face because you're white and then thinking how great that makes him and all the free shit he should get for it?

Rigby5 should apologize for being in the party of slavery, the KKK, Jim Crow, lynching and segregation instead of crowing about it

old rigby believes you and I should die because floyd died. he just said so. wow!!!!

No, what I said is that you and I should have to pay for broken windows because we did not change the illegal way we know the police are being trained and protected.

Again you're lying and portraying a tiny fraction of police as the standard. You're the white guy who cried racist and saying how wonderful you are and you want free shit for it

Wrong.
Although police do rarely pull the trigger to murder people illegally, they illegally point guns at people all the time, and do not condemn illegal murders by other police.
Which makes them accomplices.
The murder of Ashli is proof.
Police illegally shoot unarmed people who are no threat, and the rest of the police say nothing.
Which ensures it will be repeated.
If police were responsible, they would all admit the shooting of Ashli not only was illegal for killing her, but endangering everyone else, including the 2 cops standing next to her.

Apparently, being a conservative nowadays means a complete and total rejection of objectivity and common sense.

Yeah, show me a conservative on a jury and a conservative defendant who's accused of committing a crime (like Ashli nutcase Babbitt or Kyle Rittenhouse) and despite overwhelming evidence that points all the other jurors to vote guilty, I have no problem believing that the conservative juror will not only vote not guilty, he'll also throw them a parade.

But you can't compare Ashi Babbitt with Kyle Rittenhouse.
Ashli had good intent in that she believed there was election fraud people need to be told about.
I disagree with her, but she brought nothing to indicate harmful intent.
Kyle on the other hand brought an AR-15, which seems overtly provocative to me.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Being wrong does not equate to being criminal.

Fascinating.

 

[jc456]

Cops have no more legal authority to shoot than anyone does.

sure they do, you're messed in the head.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Police deliberately make situation as dangerous as possible, for no good reason.

That's not true.

Spare us all your broad brushing of police.

The broad brush is deserved because when one cop does something bad or wrong, the other cops don't condemn it.
That makes them all complicit after the fact. It prevents fixing things so will cause the next murder.

Oh my, you are mentally ill, my friend.

Or just blissfully ignorant of how police are trained.

Don't you love some white guy screaming racist, racist, racist in your face because you're white and then thinking how great that makes him and all the free shit he should get for it?

Rigby5 should apologize for being in the party of slavery, the KKK, Jim Crow, lynching and segregation instead of crowing about it

old rigby believes you and I should die because floyd died. he just said so. wow!!!!

No, what I said is that you and I should have to pay for broken windows because we did not change the illegal way we know the police are being trained and protected.

Again you're lying and portraying a tiny fraction of police as the standard. You're the white guy who cried racist and saying how wonderful you are and you want free shit for it

Wrong.
Although police do rarely pull the trigger to murder people illegally, they illegally point guns at people all the time, and do not condemn illegal murders by other police.
Which makes them accomplices.
The murder of Ashli is proof.
Police illegally shoot unarmed people who are no threat, and the rest of the police say nothing.
Which ensures it will be repeated.
If police were responsible, they would all admit the shooting of Ashli not only was illegal for killing her, but endangering everyone else, including the 2 cops standing next to her.

Apparently, being a conservative nowadays means a complete and total rejection of objectivity and common sense.

Yeah, show me a conservative on a jury and a conservative defendant who's accused of committing a crime (like Ashli nutcase Babbitt or Kyle Rittenhouse) and despite overwhelming evidence that points all the other jurors to vote guilty, I have no problem believing that the conservative juror will not only vote not guilty, he'll also throw them a parade.

But you can't compare Ashi Babbitt with Kyle Rittenhouse.
Ashli had good intent in that she believed there was election fraud people need to be told about.
I disagree with her, but she brought nothing to indicate harmful intent.
Kyle on the other hand brought an AR-15, which seems overtly provocative to me.

Even more fascinating.

 

[jc456]

But you can't compare Ashi Babbitt with Kyle Rittenhouse.

kyle was hit in the head and had a gun pointed at his head point blank.

 

[jc456]

Being wrong does not equate to being criminal.

Fascinating.

that dude is truly fked in his head.

 

[jc456]

...

However, in the case of the cop who shot Ashli Babbitt, well, who knew she was 'unarmed'? Did the cop? Did her compatriots on the other side of the barricaded door? She and they battered it down, she jumped into the breach despite being warned by the cops --and her compatriots. She still jumped.

It's on her.

...

Its the other way around.
You can't legally shoot unless you know for sure she WAS armed.
And no, Ashli had no part in battering doors or windows.
We hear no warning from the cop who shot, but the gun was pointed for a long time and people were pointing out the gun.
But a warning is where you shoot into the floor or something.
Never happened.
So then legally its murder.
Police do not have the authority to shoot unless they for sure see a deadly weapon.

You're FOS, police all around the country do it all the time.

And Smokin' lies again. It's actually incredibly rare. It's your exploitation that isn't rare because you're a racist

You're FOS.

Cops have no more legal authority to shoot than anyone does.
Can you shoot someone unarmed over a deliberate trespass protest?
No, you can't.
So then police legally can't either.
Whether or not police do it all the times is a good reason for more protests and lawsuits, not less.

Actually, there are hundreds of millions of interactions between police and people of all races every year and virtually all of them are uneventful. Cops rarely shoot anyone. Our media is just Pravda reporting that they do

that dude knows every interaction, he said so. his claim.

 

[Rigby5]

Oh come on. Would you condemn the Boston Tea Party because it was rioting and looting, or would you say it was justified due to the unfair taxation without representation?

No. Because that was a victimless form of protest. No British harmed or killed.

Although it's relevant to note that some of the Founding Fathers DID condemn it at the time, feeling that destruction of other people's property was inappropriate to their cause. Notably, Benjamin Franklin insisted that the British East India Company should be reimbursed for the loss of their cargo.

Correct.

"
LONDON, Feb. 2, 1774

Gentlemen: I received the Honour of your Letter dated Decr. 21, containing a distinct Account of the Proceedings at Boston relative to the Tea imported there, and of the Circumstances that occasioned its Destruction. I communicated the same to Lord Dartmouth, with some other Advices of the same import. It is yet unknown what Measures will be taken here on the Occasion; but the Clamour against the Proceedings is high and general. I am truly concern’d, as I believe all considerate Men are with you, that there should seem to any a Necessity for carrying Matters to such Extremity, as, in a Dispute about Publick Rights, to destroy private Property; This (notwithstanding the Blame justly due to those who obstructed the Return of the Tea) it is impossible to justify with People so prejudiced in favour of the Power of Parliament to tax America, as most are in this Country.

As the India Company however are not our Adversaries, and the offensive Measure of sending their Teas did not take its Rise with them, but was an Expedient of the Ministry to serve them and yet avoid a Repeal of the old Act, I cannot but wish & hope that before any compulsive Measures are thought of here, our General court will have shewn a Disposition to repair the Damage and make Compensation to the Company. This all our Friends here wish with me; and that if War is finally to be made upon us, which some threaten, an Act or violent injustice on our part, unrectified, may not give a colourable Pretence for it. A speedy Reparation will immediately set us right in the Opinion of all Europe. And tho’ the Mischief was the Act of Persons unknown, yet as probably they cannot be found or brought to answer for it, there seems to be some reasonable Claim on the Society at large in which it happened. Making voluntarily such Reparation can be no Dishonour to us or Prejudice to our Claim or Rights, since Parliament here has frequently considered in the same Light similar Cases; and only a few Years since, when a valuable Saw-mill, which had been destroyed by a Number of Persons supposed to be Sawyers, but unknown, a Grant was made out of the Publick Treasury of Two Thousand Pounds to the Owner as a Compensation—I hope in thus freely (and perhaps too forwardly) expressing my Sentiments & Wishes, I shall not give Offence to any. I am sure I mean well; being over with sincere Affection to my native Country, and great Respect to the Assembly and yourselves,

Gentlemen, Your most obedient and most humble Servant

B. FRANKLIN,

Honble Thomas Cushing, Sam’l Adams, John Hancock, William Phillips, Esquires."

More likely is that Franklin was doing double speak.
He likely supported and encouraged the Boston Tea Party, but was keeping open negotiation channels with the wealthy elite by sounding supportive of their losses.

Franklin was well aware of the value of economic warfare, and supported it whenever there was an advantage to it.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Oh come on. Would you condemn the Boston Tea Party because it was rioting and looting, or would you say it was justified due to the unfair taxation without representation?

No. Because that was a victimless form of protest. No British harmed or killed.

Although it's relevant to note that some of the Founding Fathers DID condemn it at the time, feeling that destruction of other people's property was inappropriate to their cause. Notably, Benjamin Franklin insisted that the British East India Company should be reimbursed for the loss of their cargo.

Correct.

"
LONDON, Feb. 2, 1774

Gentlemen: I received the Honour of your Letter dated Decr. 21, containing a distinct Account of the Proceedings at Boston relative to the Tea imported there, and of the Circumstances that occasioned its Destruction. I communicated the same to Lord Dartmouth, with some other Advices of the same import. It is yet unknown what Measures will be taken here on the Occasion; but the Clamour against the Proceedings is high and general. I am truly concern’d, as I believe all considerate Men are with you, that there should seem to any a Necessity for carrying Matters to such Extremity, as, in a Dispute about Publick Rights, to destroy private Property; This (notwithstanding the Blame justly due to those who obstructed the Return of the Tea) it is impossible to justify with People so prejudiced in favour of the Power of Parliament to tax America, as most are in this Country.

As the India Company however are not our Adversaries, and the offensive Measure of sending their Teas did not take its Rise with them, but was an Expedient of the Ministry to serve them and yet avoid a Repeal of the old Act, I cannot but wish & hope that before any compulsive Measures are thought of here, our General court will have shewn a Disposition to repair the Damage and make Compensation to the Company. This all our Friends here wish with me; and that if War is finally to be made upon us, which some threaten, an Act or violent injustice on our part, unrectified, may not give a colourable Pretence for it. A speedy Reparation will immediately set us right in the Opinion of all Europe. And tho’ the Mischief was the Act of Persons unknown, yet as probably they cannot be found or brought to answer for it, there seems to be some reasonable Claim on the Society at large in which it happened. Making voluntarily such Reparation can be no Dishonour to us or Prejudice to our Claim or Rights, since Parliament here has frequently considered in the same Light similar Cases; and only a few Years since, when a valuable Saw-mill, which had been destroyed by a Number of Persons supposed to be Sawyers, but unknown, a Grant was made out of the Publick Treasury of Two Thousand Pounds to the Owner as a Compensation—I hope in thus freely (and perhaps too forwardly) expressing my Sentiments & Wishes, I shall not give Offence to any. I am sure I mean well; being over with sincere Affection to my native Country, and great Respect to the Assembly and yourselves,

Gentlemen, Your most obedient and most humble Servant

B. FRANKLIN,

Honble Thomas Cushing, Sam’l Adams, John Hancock, William Phillips, Esquires."

More likely is that Franklin was doing double speak.
He likely supported and encouraged the Boston Tea Party, but was keeping open negotiation channels with the wealthy elite by sounding supportive of their losses.

Franklin was well aware of the value of economic warfare, and supported it whenever there was an advantage to it.

Cecilie1200

Is there any evidence to back this claim up?

 

[jc456]

Shooting an unarmed suspect in the back as he's running away, is not only a violation of their training, it's against the law. Even for a cop.

The same could be said for Babbit, but since you disagree with her, she isn't deserving of the same type of veneration of say George Floyd for example.

Or that wannabe murderer Makiyah Bryant, perhaps.

Babbit was attacking the Capitol in violation of her oath to defend the Constitution, and threatening the lives of both the police officers there, and the people in the House Chamber.

George Floyd threatened no one and was murdered in public for the crime of being too big to fit into the back of the cruiser.


Makiyah was defended herself when the police rolled up and shot her without hesitation.

I generally agree, but Babbitt mistakenly thought she was defending democracy.
Her motives can not be impugned.
Being wrong does not equate to being criminal.

funny, but floyd was in the right. can't make it up.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Oh come on. Would you condemn the Boston Tea Party because it was rioting and looting, or would you say it was justified due to the unfair taxation without representation?

No. Because that was a victimless form of protest. No British harmed or killed.

Although it's relevant to note that some of the Founding Fathers DID condemn it at the time, feeling that destruction of other people's property was inappropriate to their cause. Notably, Benjamin Franklin insisted that the British East India Company should be reimbursed for the loss of their cargo.

Correct.

"
LONDON, Feb. 2, 1774

Gentlemen: I received the Honour of your Letter dated Decr. 21, containing a distinct Account of the Proceedings at Boston relative to the Tea imported there, and of the Circumstances that occasioned its Destruction. I communicated the same to Lord Dartmouth, with some other Advices of the same import. It is yet unknown what Measures will be taken here on the Occasion; but the Clamour against the Proceedings is high and general. I am truly concern’d, as I believe all considerate Men are with you, that there should seem to any a Necessity for carrying Matters to such Extremity, as, in a Dispute about Publick Rights, to destroy private Property; This (notwithstanding the Blame justly due to those who obstructed the Return of the Tea) it is impossible to justify with People so prejudiced in favour of the Power of Parliament to tax America, as most are in this Country.

As the India Company however are not our Adversaries, and the offensive Measure of sending their Teas did not take its Rise with them, but was an Expedient of the Ministry to serve them and yet avoid a Repeal of the old Act, I cannot but wish & hope that before any compulsive Measures are thought of here, our General court will have shewn a Disposition to repair the Damage and make Compensation to the Company. This all our Friends here wish with me; and that if War is finally to be made upon us, which some threaten, an Act or violent injustice on our part, unrectified, may not give a colourable Pretence for it. A speedy Reparation will immediately set us right in the Opinion of all Europe. And tho’ the Mischief was the Act of Persons unknown, yet as probably they cannot be found or brought to answer for it, there seems to be some reasonable Claim on the Society at large in which it happened. Making voluntarily such Reparation can be no Dishonour to us or Prejudice to our Claim or Rights, since Parliament here has frequently considered in the same Light similar Cases; and only a few Years since, when a valuable Saw-mill, which had been destroyed by a Number of Persons supposed to be Sawyers, but unknown, a Grant was made out of the Publick Treasury of Two Thousand Pounds to the Owner as a Compensation—I hope in thus freely (and perhaps too forwardly) expressing my Sentiments & Wishes, I shall not give Offence to any. I am sure I mean well; being over with sincere Affection to my native Country, and great Respect to the Assembly and yourselves,

Gentlemen, Your most obedient and most humble Servant

B. FRANKLIN,

Honble Thomas Cushing, Sam’l Adams, John Hancock, William Phillips, Esquires."

I'm thinking if poor ol' Ben could see what American citizens consider acceptable protest NOW, he'd faint and fall back in it.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Oh come on. Would you condemn the Boston Tea Party because it was rioting and looting, or would you say it was justified due to the unfair taxation without representation?

No. Because that was a victimless form of protest. No British harmed or killed.

Although it's relevant to note that some of the Founding Fathers DID condemn it at the time, feeling that destruction of other people's property was inappropriate to their cause. Notably, Benjamin Franklin insisted that the British East India Company should be reimbursed for the loss of their cargo.

Correct.

"
LONDON, Feb. 2, 1774

Gentlemen: I received the Honour of your Letter dated Decr. 21, containing a distinct Account of the Proceedings at Boston relative to the Tea imported there, and of the Circumstances that occasioned its Destruction. I communicated the same to Lord Dartmouth, with some other Advices of the same import. It is yet unknown what Measures will be taken here on the Occasion; but the Clamour against the Proceedings is high and general. I am truly concern’d, as I believe all considerate Men are with you, that there should seem to any a Necessity for carrying Matters to such Extremity, as, in a Dispute about Publick Rights, to destroy private Property; This (notwithstanding the Blame justly due to those who obstructed the Return of the Tea) it is impossible to justify with People so prejudiced in favour of the Power of Parliament to tax America, as most are in this Country.

As the India Company however are not our Adversaries, and the offensive Measure of sending their Teas did not take its Rise with them, but was an Expedient of the Ministry to serve them and yet avoid a Repeal of the old Act, I cannot but wish & hope that before any compulsive Measures are thought of here, our General court will have shewn a Disposition to repair the Damage and make Compensation to the Company. This all our Friends here wish with me; and that if War is finally to be made upon us, which some threaten, an Act or violent injustice on our part, unrectified, may not give a colourable Pretence for it. A speedy Reparation will immediately set us right in the Opinion of all Europe. And tho’ the Mischief was the Act of Persons unknown, yet as probably they cannot be found or brought to answer for it, there seems to be some reasonable Claim on the Society at large in which it happened. Making voluntarily such Reparation can be no Dishonour to us or Prejudice to our Claim or Rights, since Parliament here has frequently considered in the same Light similar Cases; and only a few Years since, when a valuable Saw-mill, which had been destroyed by a Number of Persons supposed to be Sawyers, but unknown, a Grant was made out of the Publick Treasury of Two Thousand Pounds to the Owner as a Compensation—I hope in thus freely (and perhaps too forwardly) expressing my Sentiments & Wishes, I shall not give Offence to any. I am sure I mean well; being over with sincere Affection to my native Country, and great Respect to the Assembly and yourselves,

Gentlemen, Your most obedient and most humble Servant

B. FRANKLIN,

Honble Thomas Cushing, Sam’l Adams, John Hancock, William Phillips, Esquires."

I'm thinking if poor ol' Ben could see what American citizens consider acceptable protest NOW, he'd faint and fall back in it.

Hey, it's free tea. Not even he could pass up something like that.

(Sorry, I had to.)

 

[Rigby5]

...

However, in the case of the cop who shot Ashli Babbitt, well, who knew she was 'unarmed'? Did the cop? Did her compatriots on the other side of the barricaded door? She and they battered it down, she jumped into the breach despite being warned by the cops --and her compatriots. She still jumped.

It's on her.

...

Its the other way around.
You can't legally shoot unless you know for sure she WAS armed.
And no, Ashli had no part in battering doors or windows.
We hear no warning from the cop who shot, but the gun was pointed for a long time and people were pointing out the gun.
But a warning is where you shoot into the floor or something.
Never happened.
So then legally its murder.
Police do not have the authority to shoot unless they for sure see a deadly weapon.

You're FOS, police all around the country do it all the time.

And Smokin' lies again. It's actually incredibly rare. It's your exploitation that isn't rare because you're a racist

You're FOS.

Cops have no more legal authority to shoot than anyone does.
Can you shoot someone unarmed over a deliberate trespass protest?
No, you can't.
So then police legally can't either.
Whether or not police do it all the times is a good reason for more protests and lawsuits, not less.

Actually, there are hundreds of millions of interactions between police and people of all races every year and virtually all of them are uneventful. Cops rarely shoot anyone. Our media is just Pravda reporting that they do

that dude knows every interaction, he said so. his claim.

Wrong.
What I said is that I have seen enough illegal interactions by police to know they are endemic.
Which means it has to be coming from illegal training, illegal department instructions, illegal decisions by prosecutors, illegal judicial rulings, etc.
For example, Chauvin kept insisting choke holds are legal.
And it is obvious they never are unless deadly forces is warranted.
So it is an example of how all the police departments are universally out of touch with reality.
The number of shots at each shooting is another example.
Like with M'Khia being shot 4 times at close range.
She was turned into hamburger.
Even the use of .40S&W with hollow points is an indication of deliberate excessive force with an illegal deadly intent.
The rest of the world standardized on .380 FMJ in comparison.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Oh come on. Would you condemn the Boston Tea Party because it was rioting and looting, or would you say it was justified due to the unfair taxation without representation?

No. Because that was a victimless form of protest. No British harmed or killed.

Although it's relevant to note that some of the Founding Fathers DID condemn it at the time, feeling that destruction of other people's property was inappropriate to their cause. Notably, Benjamin Franklin insisted that the British East India Company should be reimbursed for the loss of their cargo.

Correct.

"
LONDON, Feb. 2, 1774

Gentlemen: I received the Honour of your Letter dated Decr. 21, containing a distinct Account of the Proceedings at Boston relative to the Tea imported there, and of the Circumstances that occasioned its Destruction. I communicated the same to Lord Dartmouth, with some other Advices of the same import. It is yet unknown what Measures will be taken here on the Occasion; but the Clamour against the Proceedings is high and general. I am truly concern’d, as I believe all considerate Men are with you, that there should seem to any a Necessity for carrying Matters to such Extremity, as, in a Dispute about Publick Rights, to destroy private Property; This (notwithstanding the Blame justly due to those who obstructed the Return of the Tea) it is impossible to justify with People so prejudiced in favour of the Power of Parliament to tax America, as most are in this Country.

As the India Company however are not our Adversaries, and the offensive Measure of sending their Teas did not take its Rise with them, but was an Expedient of the Ministry to serve them and yet avoid a Repeal of the old Act, I cannot but wish & hope that before any compulsive Measures are thought of here, our General court will have shewn a Disposition to repair the Damage and make Compensation to the Company. This all our Friends here wish with me; and that if War is finally to be made upon us, which some threaten, an Act or violent injustice on our part, unrectified, may not give a colourable Pretence for it. A speedy Reparation will immediately set us right in the Opinion of all Europe. And tho’ the Mischief was the Act of Persons unknown, yet as probably they cannot be found or brought to answer for it, there seems to be some reasonable Claim on the Society at large in which it happened. Making voluntarily such Reparation can be no Dishonour to us or Prejudice to our Claim or Rights, since Parliament here has frequently considered in the same Light similar Cases; and only a few Years since, when a valuable Saw-mill, which had been destroyed by a Number of Persons supposed to be Sawyers, but unknown, a Grant was made out of the Publick Treasury of Two Thousand Pounds to the Owner as a Compensation—I hope in thus freely (and perhaps too forwardly) expressing my Sentiments & Wishes, I shall not give Offence to any. I am sure I mean well; being over with sincere Affection to my native Country, and great Respect to the Assembly and yourselves,

Gentlemen, Your most obedient and most humble Servant

B. FRANKLIN,

Honble Thomas Cushing, Sam’l Adams, John Hancock, William Phillips, Esquires."

I'm thinking if poor ol' Ben could see what American citizens consider acceptable protest NOW, he'd faint and fall back in it.

Hey, it's free tea. Not even he could pass up something like that.

(Sorry, I had to.)

I'm assuming you were referring to the water in Boston Harbor.

 

[Rigby5]

Oh come on. Would you condemn the Boston Tea Party because it was rioting and looting, or would you say it was justified due to the unfair taxation without representation?

No. Because that was a victimless form of protest. No British harmed or killed.

Although it's relevant to note that some of the Founding Fathers DID condemn it at the time, feeling that destruction of other people's property was inappropriate to their cause. Notably, Benjamin Franklin insisted that the British East India Company should be reimbursed for the loss of their cargo.

Correct.

"
LONDON, Feb. 2, 1774

Gentlemen: I received the Honour of your Letter dated Decr. 21, containing a distinct Account of the Proceedings at Boston relative to the Tea imported there, and of the Circumstances that occasioned its Destruction. I communicated the same to Lord Dartmouth, with some other Advices of the same import. It is yet unknown what Measures will be taken here on the Occasion; but the Clamour against the Proceedings is high and general. I am truly concern’d, as I believe all considerate Men are with you, that there should seem to any a Necessity for carrying Matters to such Extremity, as, in a Dispute about Publick Rights, to destroy private Property; This (notwithstanding the Blame justly due to those who obstructed the Return of the Tea) it is impossible to justify with People so prejudiced in favour of the Power of Parliament to tax America, as most are in this Country.

As the India Company however are not our Adversaries, and the offensive Measure of sending their Teas did not take its Rise with them, but was an Expedient of the Ministry to serve them and yet avoid a Repeal of the old Act, I cannot but wish & hope that before any compulsive Measures are thought of here, our General court will have shewn a Disposition to repair the Damage and make Compensation to the Company. This all our Friends here wish with me; and that if War is finally to be made upon us, which some threaten, an Act or violent injustice on our part, unrectified, may not give a colourable Pretence for it. A speedy Reparation will immediately set us right in the Opinion of all Europe. And tho’ the Mischief was the Act of Persons unknown, yet as probably they cannot be found or brought to answer for it, there seems to be some reasonable Claim on the Society at large in which it happened. Making voluntarily such Reparation can be no Dishonour to us or Prejudice to our Claim or Rights, since Parliament here has frequently considered in the same Light similar Cases; and only a few Years since, when a valuable Saw-mill, which had been destroyed by a Number of Persons supposed to be Sawyers, but unknown, a Grant was made out of the Publick Treasury of Two Thousand Pounds to the Owner as a Compensation—I hope in thus freely (and perhaps too forwardly) expressing my Sentiments & Wishes, I shall not give Offence to any. I am sure I mean well; being over with sincere Affection to my native Country, and great Respect to the Assembly and yourselves,

Gentlemen, Your most obedient and most humble Servant

B. FRANKLIN,

Honble Thomas Cushing, Sam’l Adams, John Hancock, William Phillips, Esquires."

I'm thinking if poor ol' Ben could see what American citizens consider acceptable protest NOW, he'd faint and fall back in it.

I doubt it.
Franklin in reality wanted to escalate to deadly rebellion much sooner than most people.
He was just the consummate diplomat, who says one thing to one person and something else to another.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Oh come on. Would you condemn the Boston Tea Party because it was rioting and looting, or would you say it was justified due to the unfair taxation without representation?

No. Because that was a victimless form of protest. No British harmed or killed.

Although it's relevant to note that some of the Founding Fathers DID condemn it at the time, feeling that destruction of other people's property was inappropriate to their cause. Notably, Benjamin Franklin insisted that the British East India Company should be reimbursed for the loss of their cargo.

Correct.

"
LONDON, Feb. 2, 1774

Gentlemen: I received the Honour of your Letter dated Decr. 21, containing a distinct Account of the Proceedings at Boston relative to the Tea imported there, and of the Circumstances that occasioned its Destruction. I communicated the same to Lord Dartmouth, with some other Advices of the same import. It is yet unknown what Measures will be taken here on the Occasion; but the Clamour against the Proceedings is high and general. I am truly concern’d, as I believe all considerate Men are with you, that there should seem to any a Necessity for carrying Matters to such Extremity, as, in a Dispute about Publick Rights, to destroy private Property; This (notwithstanding the Blame justly due to those who obstructed the Return of the Tea) it is impossible to justify with People so prejudiced in favour of the Power of Parliament to tax America, as most are in this Country.

As the India Company however are not our Adversaries, and the offensive Measure of sending their Teas did not take its Rise with them, but was an Expedient of the Ministry to serve them and yet avoid a Repeal of the old Act, I cannot but wish & hope that before any compulsive Measures are thought of here, our General court will have shewn a Disposition to repair the Damage and make Compensation to the Company. This all our Friends here wish with me; and that if War is finally to be made upon us, which some threaten, an Act or violent injustice on our part, unrectified, may not give a colourable Pretence for it. A speedy Reparation will immediately set us right in the Opinion of all Europe. And tho’ the Mischief was the Act of Persons unknown, yet as probably they cannot be found or brought to answer for it, there seems to be some reasonable Claim on the Society at large in which it happened. Making voluntarily such Reparation can be no Dishonour to us or Prejudice to our Claim or Rights, since Parliament here has frequently considered in the same Light similar Cases; and only a few Years since, when a valuable Saw-mill, which had been destroyed by a Number of Persons supposed to be Sawyers, but unknown, a Grant was made out of the Publick Treasury of Two Thousand Pounds to the Owner as a Compensation—I hope in thus freely (and perhaps too forwardly) expressing my Sentiments & Wishes, I shall not give Offence to any. I am sure I mean well; being over with sincere Affection to my native Country, and great Respect to the Assembly and yourselves,

Gentlemen, Your most obedient and most humble Servant

B. FRANKLIN,

Honble Thomas Cushing, Sam’l Adams, John Hancock, William Phillips, Esquires."

I'm thinking if poor ol' Ben could see what American citizens consider acceptable protest NOW, he'd faint and fall back in it.

I doubt it.
Franklin in reality wanted to escalate to deadly rebellion much sooner than most people.
He was just the consummate diplomat, who says one thing to one person and something else to another.

Curiouser and curiouser...