Even approaching the president of the US is not nearly enough to shoot someone to death.
That is not this. It's completely different when you've had a mob of people yelling and screaming about traitors and trying to gain entrance to the building, and then after they do that they approach your internal barricade, smash through the glass and one of them tries to climb through to the politicians you're charged with protecting.
The imminent lethal force was the mob's violent and persistent attempt to gain entrance. I would say exactly the same thing if it was a BLM riot, and so would you.
J6 isn't what the Dems make it out to be but don't delude yourself into thinking it was a bunch of smiling picnickers or something. They were angry, they were aggressive, they were unpredictable, and from the guard's perspective they had breached both the building and the barricade.
No, they were let into the building, didn't smash any barricades, but were pounding on the doors and someone broke some glass.
Also, there were no politicians in the room at that time, they'd already long since been evacuated. Literally none of that amounts to a need of deadly force.
The imminent lethal force was the mob's violent and persistent attempt to gain entrance. I would say exactly the same thing if it was a BLM riot, and so would you.
No, I wouldn't. I'd like you to point to me where I would. The crowd would have had to have actually demonstrated lethal intent. And specifically the the person you were shooting at. You can't shoot into crowds. Someone specific has to be doing something lethal.
BLM has done far worse than this without anyone using lethal force.
Best example comes form this. That's a police station. Do you know how many BLM & Antifa terrorists were killed in that attack? Zero. Do you know why? Because the police were never justified in killing them.
It became clear early in the night that the absolutely wide-spread rioting in Minneapolis was totally uncontrollable as multiple police stations were actually under siege by violent rioters hurling rocks and bricks at anything that moved. The 3rd Precinct called for backup, and were told that due to the level of violence in the city, no backup would be coming. They were instructed that they would either have to due their best to hold out until the next day and maybe state police or reserve police could assist, or they'd have to abandon the station. They held out until rioters broke through the fence to the motor pool, and police fired into the crowd with automatic weapons and killed 52.
Oh no wait, that last part didn't happen.
They threw flashbangs at the crowd and pelted them with pepper-ball guns until they fucked off because even in that situation where a violent, angry, mob that wants to burn down the building busts through your final static defense, you still can't just kill everyone that walks in.
It was at that point that the police decided that they had to evacuate the precinct. They stowed every weapon in the armory into any available vehicle that they could, and took whatever evidence they could secure into vehicles, crammed themselves in, and literally made a fucking break for it. They literally drove through the broken fence in a convoy streaming out of the police station as fireworks, rocks, and bricks were thrown at the cars. Some protesters even got pretty close to the cars as they drove out. As the convoy left, several officers fired their guns into the attacking protesters, and 3 were wounded.
Actually, no, I lied on that last part again.
Once again the police responded by throwing stingball grenades, flashbangs, deploying mace, and pepper-ball guns at the crowd if any attempted to approach the vehicles.
A police station, filled with armed police, was violently attacked by terrorists who tried to burn down the precinct and not one single person was killed. One person crossing a barricade is not justification to shoot them on site and it never was, and never has been, ever. At least within law enforcement.
Until I see the US military deploying kill lines and their corresponding public signs that say "ANYONE CROSSING THIS SIGN WILL BE SHOT" in multiple languages, then it wasn't legitimate.
By contrast, QAnon Shaman also entered the same room from the 2nd floor a few minutes later. No one was killed.
J6 isn't what the Dems make it out to be but don't delude yourself into thinking it was a bunch of smiling picnickers or something.
Except that was the majority of them, even the ones inside the Capitol.
In fact, since you want to be intentionally stupid, do you know how many of the violent ones were killed?
That's right, fucking zero. Because even when angry, violent, people are fighting cops in the rotunda, the correct answer is a flashbang, not a machine gun.
In fact, let's look at the crowd that Ashley Babbit was standing in. The fucking SWAT officers that came to her aide were standing amongst that exact same crowd and didn't kill anyone. In fact, at first, several people in the crowd were so surprised they were calling verbally for the police because they thought there was an active shooter. Not only that, but when some people in the crowd realized that the security staff had shot her, they began screaming at the SWAT officers. The crowd was more agitated after she'd been killed. And yet, astonishingly, against everything you believe, the SWAT team killed absolutely no one. In fact, one angry protester looked through the shattered glass where the bullet had gone through at the officer who shot her, and very explicitly told the officer that he had murdered her, and wanted to know if that made him feel like he was tough. Amazingly this same officer didn't shoot the man doing exactly the same thing Ashley Babbit did. As if he knew that he might have made a fucking mistake.
And since that isn't going to break through your cognitive dissonance, let's talk about the number of rounds fired. Police are trained to fire until the threat stops. She was shot in the chest, but she was on a window. She did't fall straight down, she actually was alive long enough to climb down after the shot. If we assume that she was such a lethal threat that she was going to bust through the window and kill all the senators that weren't there with her no weapons, it would make sense to keep shooting until she can't threaten the lives of the senators anymore. This would include drawing a weapon. If she was a real threat, she probably should have been shot several more times on the window, and on the way down, until she collapsed, but that didn't happen either.
They were angry, they were aggressive, they were unpredictable, and from the guard's perspective they had breached both the building and the barricade.
Yes, let's look at that. Why did one and only one police officer shoot her. I shouldn't have to show you a dozen police videos of cops firing an absolute fusillade of gunfire against people who present lethal threats, but you should look it up if you haven't seen it. Check out the recent shooting in Akron, OH. In that case all of the officers saw the same threat, and all of them responded to that threat. In this case, no one saw what the shooter saw, and no one else fired.
At the very least, I think there's more than enough for a proper fucking investigation... but we're not going to get that because the people on the political right aren't human to the establishment. Our murders are a moral imperative that requires celebration, as every Leftist has shown in their reaction to every murder we've seen so far.
No, they were let into the building, didn't smash any barricades, but were pounding on the doors and someone broke some glass.
They were let in, but there were also people banging on the doors and yelling. I remember watching it. Pretty sure there were people climbing to the windows ( some of them might have been Antifa?) and shouting about Mike Pence being a traitor.
Ashli Babbit and others were trying to break through an interior, barricaded door. They were chanting"break it down" as they smashed through the glass. Ashli climbed through. That is smashing a barricade.
I'm not 100% clear on how many lawmakers were left to protect, supposedly some were still sheltering nearby, but the officer's job was to protect the politicians, the location, and himself. It's not fucking relevant whether police shot at BLM during the riots. In the situation you cite it would have been completely justified. It was justified here. A credibly violent mob was breaking through a defensive barricade inside the Capitol and threatening the people within.
If we assume that she was such a lethal threat that she was going to bust through the window and kill all the senators that weren't there with her no weapons, it would make sense to keep shooting until she can't threaten the lives of the senators anymore.
Are you seriously making the point that the threat wasn't genuine because he didn't empty the whole fucking clip into her - from a very awkward angle by the way - and then keep firing at the rest of the crowd? That's complete nonsense. By your reasoning, maybe Kyle Rittenhouse wasn't really threatened because he shot each assailant once and didn't massacre everyone else? If the officer stopped firing because he realized the rest of the mob were staying put, good. At that point it no longer made sense to shoot.
But if I was guarding against an encroaching mob of unknown number, unknown arms, and presumably violent intent, I'd have done what he did. I'd have shot BLM rioters. I'd have shot Ashli Babbit or whoever else came through that window, and I'd feel sad about it but I'd also feel completely justified. Maybe you'd handle it differently. Maybe you'd walk up them and shake their hand or something.
Yes, there are horrific double standards. Yes, this deserves a proper investigation. Yes, we're not going to get one and yes the entire narrative about J6 is bogus political theater.
The shooting was still justified in the circumstances.
They were chanting"break it down" as they smashed through the glass. Ashli climbed through. That is smashing a barricade.
Except that's not on video, I know, I've watched it.
the officer's job was to protect the politicians, the location, and himself. It's not fucking relevant whether police shot at BLM during the riots.
Yes it is, and the fact that they didn't kill everyone that threw a rock, or walked through the broken down fence is an indication that you don't know what the hell you are talking about when it comes to lethal force.
A Lethal threat has to be present and it has to be specific. That imminent lethal threat didn't appear in either case. The cops in Minneapolis didn't fire, because they didn't have justification to do so.
Are you seriously making the point that the threat wasn't genuine because he didn't empty the whole fucking clip into her - from a very awkward angle by the way - and then keep firing at the rest of the crowd? That's complete nonsense.
Bullshit, it's your argument. Either the crowd and her were an ongoing lethal threat, or they fucking weren't. You've given me non-stop excuses about how the crowd was a lethal threat, and yet no one treated them like that, even the shooter. The reason no one treated them as a lethal threat is because you're wrong. If you were right, dumping rounds into both of them would have been entirely acceptable, as it was in Akron, Ohio.
But if I was guarding against an encroaching mob of unknown number, unknown arms, and presumably violent intent, I'd have done what he did. I'd have shot BLM rioters.
And you'd be a murderer in every state in the union. This is because you are ignorant of the law and self-defense, and you clearly didn't watch the videos. You're either a troll, a fed, or a Leftist. One way or another, you're fucking igonrant.
Kyle Rittenhouse fired:
At Joseph Rosenbaum for pursuing him and grabbing his gun - Ashley Babbit did neither of these things.
At Gaige Grosskruetz for pointing a gun at him - Ashley Babbit did not do this
At "Jump Kick Man" for attempting to stomp his head in while he was immobilized on the ground - Ashley Babbit did not do this.
At Anthony Huber for striking him in the head with a blunt weapon force weapon - Ashley Babbit did not do this.
Rosenbaum, Grosskruetz, Huber, and "Jump Kick" all used lethal force on Rittenhouse, to which he responded with lethal force. He did not randomly fire into a crowd, and he did not fire at everyone who approached him. That's what you are saying you would do.
That is why Rittenhouse's actions are worthy of fucking lecture in self-defense courses as one of the single best real world defensive gun uses in history, and yours would be murder. As would the Capitol Hill Shooter's if we had a justice system worth anything.
Yes, there are horrific double standards. Yes, this deserves a proper investigation. Yes, we're not going to get one and yes the entire narrative about J6 is bogus political theater.
Bullshit, faggot. What are you up to, and why are you concern trolling at people you're glad to see dead.
A Lethal threat has to be present and it has to be specific. That imminent lethal threat didn't appear in either case. The cops in Minneapolis didn't fire, because they didn't have justification to do so.
I don't care what the police think is a lethal threat. I don't care what is "legally" justified. I care about what's going through the guy's head at the time, when he's firing at people who are yelling and breaking through his barricade, who could potentially overwhelm him and his fellow officers whether armed or not.
And you'd be a murderer in every state in the union.
At least I'd be alive to be a murderer. I'm not stopping to microanalyze every facet of a threat before I decide if I need to shoot at aggressive assailants. If you knowingly present a significant threat to someone holding a gun, expect to get shot.
One way or another, you're fucking igonrant.
Sure, Mister "they shot her for looking through a window".
What are you up to, and why are you concern trolling at people you're glad to see dead.
???
Sorry dude, accuracy is important and you've been framing this dishonestly from the start. I'm not going to derail by accusing you of being a leftist/concern troll/whatever, but this "conversation" feels just like I'm arguing with one.
But I believe we should be using their own tactics against them, so congratulations for that. Maybe I should be learning from you.
That is not this. It's completely different when you've had a mob of people yelling and screaming about traitors and trying to gain entrance to the building, and then after they do that they approach your internal barricade, smash through the glass and one of them tries to climb through to the politicians you're charged with protecting.
The imminent lethal force was the mob's violent and persistent attempt to gain entrance. I would say exactly the same thing if it was a BLM riot, and so would you.
J6 isn't what the Dems make it out to be but don't delude yourself into thinking it was a bunch of smiling picnickers or something. They were angry, they were aggressive, they were unpredictable, and from the guard's perspective they had breached both the building and the barricade.
No, they were let into the building, didn't smash any barricades, but were pounding on the doors and someone broke some glass.
Also, there were no politicians in the room at that time, they'd already long since been evacuated. Literally none of that amounts to a need of deadly force.
No, I wouldn't. I'd like you to point to me where I would. The crowd would have had to have actually demonstrated lethal intent. And specifically the the person you were shooting at. You can't shoot into crowds. Someone specific has to be doing something lethal.
BLM has done far worse than this without anyone using lethal force.
Best example comes form this. That's a police station. Do you know how many BLM & Antifa terrorists were killed in that attack? Zero. Do you know why? Because the police were never justified in killing them.
It became clear early in the night that the absolutely wide-spread rioting in Minneapolis was totally uncontrollable as multiple police stations were actually under siege by violent rioters hurling rocks and bricks at anything that moved. The 3rd Precinct called for backup, and were told that due to the level of violence in the city, no backup would be coming. They were instructed that they would either have to due their best to hold out until the next day and maybe state police or reserve police could assist, or they'd have to abandon the station. They held out until rioters broke through the fence to the motor pool, and police fired into the crowd with automatic weapons and killed 52.
Oh no wait, that last part didn't happen.
They threw flashbangs at the crowd and pelted them with pepper-ball guns until they fucked off because even in that situation where a violent, angry, mob that wants to burn down the building busts through your final static defense, you still can't just kill everyone that walks in.
It was at that point that the police decided that they had to evacuate the precinct. They stowed every weapon in the armory into any available vehicle that they could, and took whatever evidence they could secure into vehicles, crammed themselves in, and literally made a fucking break for it. They literally drove through the broken fence in a convoy streaming out of the police station as fireworks, rocks, and bricks were thrown at the cars. Some protesters even got pretty close to the cars as they drove out. As the convoy left, several officers fired their guns into the attacking protesters, and 3 were wounded.
Actually, no, I lied on that last part again.
Once again the police responded by throwing stingball grenades, flashbangs, deploying mace, and pepper-ball guns at the crowd if any attempted to approach the vehicles.
A police station, filled with armed police, was violently attacked by terrorists who tried to burn down the precinct and not one single person was killed. One person crossing a barricade is not justification to shoot them on site and it never was, and never has been, ever. At least within law enforcement.
Until I see the US military deploying kill lines and their corresponding public signs that say "ANYONE CROSSING THIS SIGN WILL BE SHOT" in multiple languages, then it wasn't legitimate.
By contrast, QAnon Shaman also entered the same room from the 2nd floor a few minutes later. No one was killed.
Except that was the majority of them, even the ones inside the Capitol.
In fact, since you want to be intentionally stupid, do you know how many of the violent ones were killed?
That's right, fucking zero. Because even when angry, violent, people are fighting cops in the rotunda, the correct answer is a flashbang, not a machine gun.
In fact, let's look at the crowd that Ashley Babbit was standing in. The fucking SWAT officers that came to her aide were standing amongst that exact same crowd and didn't kill anyone. In fact, at first, several people in the crowd were so surprised they were calling verbally for the police because they thought there was an active shooter. Not only that, but when some people in the crowd realized that the security staff had shot her, they began screaming at the SWAT officers. The crowd was more agitated after she'd been killed. And yet, astonishingly, against everything you believe, the SWAT team killed absolutely no one. In fact, one angry protester looked through the shattered glass where the bullet had gone through at the officer who shot her, and very explicitly told the officer that he had murdered her, and wanted to know if that made him feel like he was tough. Amazingly this same officer didn't shoot the man doing exactly the same thing Ashley Babbit did. As if he knew that he might have made a fucking mistake.
And since that isn't going to break through your cognitive dissonance, let's talk about the number of rounds fired. Police are trained to fire until the threat stops. She was shot in the chest, but she was on a window. She did't fall straight down, she actually was alive long enough to climb down after the shot. If we assume that she was such a lethal threat that she was going to bust through the window and kill all the senators that weren't there with her no weapons, it would make sense to keep shooting until she can't threaten the lives of the senators anymore. This would include drawing a weapon. If she was a real threat, she probably should have been shot several more times on the window, and on the way down, until she collapsed, but that didn't happen either.
Yes, let's look at that. Why did one and only one police officer shoot her. I shouldn't have to show you a dozen police videos of cops firing an absolute fusillade of gunfire against people who present lethal threats, but you should look it up if you haven't seen it. Check out the recent shooting in Akron, OH. In that case all of the officers saw the same threat, and all of them responded to that threat. In this case, no one saw what the shooter saw, and no one else fired.
At the very least, I think there's more than enough for a proper fucking investigation... but we're not going to get that because the people on the political right aren't human to the establishment. Our murders are a moral imperative that requires celebration, as every Leftist has shown in their reaction to every murder we've seen so far.
They were let in, but there were also people banging on the doors and yelling. I remember watching it. Pretty sure there were people climbing to the windows ( some of them might have been Antifa?) and shouting about Mike Pence being a traitor.
Ashli Babbit and others were trying to break through an interior, barricaded door. They were chanting"break it down" as they smashed through the glass. Ashli climbed through. That is smashing a barricade.
I'm not 100% clear on how many lawmakers were left to protect, supposedly some were still sheltering nearby, but the officer's job was to protect the politicians, the location, and himself. It's not fucking relevant whether police shot at BLM during the riots. In the situation you cite it would have been completely justified. It was justified here. A credibly violent mob was breaking through a defensive barricade inside the Capitol and threatening the people within.
Are you seriously making the point that the threat wasn't genuine because he didn't empty the whole fucking clip into her - from a very awkward angle by the way - and then keep firing at the rest of the crowd? That's complete nonsense. By your reasoning, maybe Kyle Rittenhouse wasn't really threatened because he shot each assailant once and didn't massacre everyone else? If the officer stopped firing because he realized the rest of the mob were staying put, good. At that point it no longer made sense to shoot.
But if I was guarding against an encroaching mob of unknown number, unknown arms, and presumably violent intent, I'd have done what he did. I'd have shot BLM rioters. I'd have shot Ashli Babbit or whoever else came through that window, and I'd feel sad about it but I'd also feel completely justified. Maybe you'd handle it differently. Maybe you'd walk up them and shake their hand or something.
Yes, there are horrific double standards. Yes, this deserves a proper investigation. Yes, we're not going to get one and yes the entire narrative about J6 is bogus political theater.
The shooting was still justified in the circumstances.
Except that's not on video, I know, I've watched it.
Yes it is, and the fact that they didn't kill everyone that threw a rock, or walked through the broken down fence is an indication that you don't know what the hell you are talking about when it comes to lethal force.
A Lethal threat has to be present and it has to be specific. That imminent lethal threat didn't appear in either case. The cops in Minneapolis didn't fire, because they didn't have justification to do so.
Bullshit, it's your argument. Either the crowd and her were an ongoing lethal threat, or they fucking weren't. You've given me non-stop excuses about how the crowd was a lethal threat, and yet no one treated them like that, even the shooter. The reason no one treated them as a lethal threat is because you're wrong. If you were right, dumping rounds into both of them would have been entirely acceptable, as it was in Akron, Ohio.
And you'd be a murderer in every state in the union. This is because you are ignorant of the law and self-defense, and you clearly didn't watch the videos. You're either a troll, a fed, or a Leftist. One way or another, you're fucking igonrant.
Kyle Rittenhouse fired:
Rosenbaum, Grosskruetz, Huber, and "Jump Kick" all used lethal force on Rittenhouse, to which he responded with lethal force. He did not randomly fire into a crowd, and he did not fire at everyone who approached him. That's what you are saying you would do.
That is why Rittenhouse's actions are worthy of fucking lecture in self-defense courses as one of the single best real world defensive gun uses in history, and yours would be murder. As would the Capitol Hill Shooter's if we had a justice system worth anything.
Bullshit, faggot. What are you up to, and why are you concern trolling at people you're glad to see dead.
It's hard to find video of this anymore, so you'll forgive me linking to the NBC website
https://www.nbcnews.com/video/capitol-shooting-that-led-to-ashli-babbitt-s-death-captured-on-video-99180613572
I don't care what the police think is a lethal threat. I don't care what is "legally" justified. I care about what's going through the guy's head at the time, when he's firing at people who are yelling and breaking through his barricade, who could potentially overwhelm him and his fellow officers whether armed or not.
At least I'd be alive to be a murderer. I'm not stopping to microanalyze every facet of a threat before I decide if I need to shoot at aggressive assailants. If you knowingly present a significant threat to someone holding a gun, expect to get shot.
Sure, Mister "they shot her for looking through a window".
???
Sorry dude, accuracy is important and you've been framing this dishonestly from the start. I'm not going to derail by accusing you of being a leftist/concern troll/whatever, but this "conversation" feels just like I'm arguing with one.
But I believe we should be using their own tactics against them, so congratulations for that. Maybe I should be learning from you.