Except that's not on video, I know, I've watched it.
It's hard to find video of this anymore, so you'll forgive me linking to the NBC website
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.
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.
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.
Then there's the only police shooting that the Left has actively supported, encouraged, endorsed, and praised: the shooting of Ashley Babbit in the throat when she looked through a window.
I agree with most of what you say and your general point, but this is not true. She was climbing through the window. She was attempting to gain entry to where the politicians were. Her death was tragic but the guard was not wrong to shoot.
Complete with childish attempts to block his camera.
There are hopeful optimists who really mean well but end up supporting bad policies because they can't actually see the results.
Won't see the results. IMO pushing destructive policy because it 'feels good', and not taking two seconds to think about consequences (when sane people are telling you what those consequences will be) is extremely self serving. It's almost as evil as the people who act out of malice. Sometimes people genuinely make mistakes, but a ton of progressives act like the world exists for the sake of their ego, and turn a blind eye to what they don't want to see.
I'll concede that some people are just too brainwashed by a vast propaganda machine designed to prey on their weaknesses. Still frustrating when they won't think for themselves, but sometimes I have to remind myself that they're victims too.
they'll never be happy
This is a feature of progressivism, not a bug. Defeat? Double down. Victory? Triple down. Dominate. Marginalize.
There's no sincerity in their arguments either, if you score a point they'll just move the goalposts or ignore it completely. Sometimes, I think they don't even realize they're doing it. The NPC doublethink is just part of who they are now.
TBF, in the extremely rare case that leftists make a good point, conservatives sane people shouldn't give an inch either, because 99% of progressives operate in bad faith and are just looking for an opening in your defenses. Strategically, it's vital not to cede ground to those who will never cede ground to you.
It makes me sad to say it, but when your country has been successfully infiltrated by communists who want to destroy everything you love, you need to face reality and embrace their tactics.
Are you telling me this isn't satire? It looks like satire.
I'd agree if "the first x" wasn't a regular canard of theirs. You see it in video games and movies all the time. I thought they were just stupid and careless but now I think they're trying to dismantle the concept of objective reality.
If you ask me it's not what he's doing (threatening civil rights, as they'd put it) it's the fact that he's broken the unspoken rule and threatened the dominance of the elites. They're doing to him what they did to Trump.
Trump has his faults but he's not the establishment, and even if you disagree with that it's undeniable that he inspired a lot of anti-establishment sentiment. That's why they turned the full force of the propaganda hate machine against him. Now they're doing that with Clarence Thomas because he stepped out of line.
They do understand, but everyone is so thoroughly conditioned and fears women's wrath.
They are capable of understanding, but they don't, because their entire ideology is built on deliberately misunderstanding their opponents and misrepresenting reality.
If you want to know which companies the article refers to:
Bungie
Ubisoft
Insomniac Games
ArenaNet
The 'point' is
-
Conservatives are too stupid to recognize a human fetus so they're not entitled to an opinion
-
It's no different from animal fetuses so it's not a life worth protecting
Like most of their arguments, it's meaningless and doesn't stand up to scrutiny
For context, Count Dankula changed his handle to 'Justice Dankula', photoshopped himself into a photo of the justices, and got a flood of hate and death threats from morons who really thought he was a justice on the supreme court
I'll enjoy referring to this saga when they pull that tired "gotcha" about pro-lifers not being able to tell the difference between the fetuses of different animals that look almost exactly the same at the gestational stage
It's like expecting them to take personal responsibility for their sex life is the same as asking them to burn themselves alive
Or they're just being disproportionately vindictive in what they think is making a point but in reality is completely missing it
My money is on both, personally
what way back is there for Lefties?
Consequences.
I'm not being a tough guy, the consequences don't have to be violent or vengeful. Just 'x action = x result'. It's a simple truth that some people don't understand anything but consequences, and many leftists haven't had any meaningful ones. They're enabled at all times and from all angles. Consequences = reality, which is what they're most deficient in.
(Some people are a special breed of stupid that don't understand consequences either, the best you can do with them is make sure they're incapable of posing a threat to anyone)
If only they'd do it to improve their lives instead of in a hateful attempt to punish men
Doesn't make it right.
Yeah, I'm saying they're manipulating the polls (as always) by asking leading questions. They ask 'shouldn't it be between a woman and her doctor' (which implies a medical need and wise, expert oversight) to make it sound reasonable, then they use the poll numbers to advance their real position, which is 'a woman should able to get an abortion whenever she wants'
If they'd been honest and asked 'shouldn't a woman be able to get a abortion whenever she wants?', or maybe 'shouldn't abortions be conveniently accessible?' the numbers would be different. But now the talking point is '75% of people disagree with the supreme court's decision, they're going against the will of the overwhelming majority'
Dishonesty.
'& her doctor' automatically implies some kind of medical necessity (edit: AND implies a sensible, rational decision making process involving an authority figure)
Having no middle ground between 'all or most cases legal' and 'all or most cases illegal' means a lot of moderates who prefer limited abortion had to choose 'all or most cases legal'
You can't really say one or the other is more important. Look dude, it's not like I've just decided pro choice is the right answer and I never question it. I do. But it is a complicated issue.
More than anything I hate how casual they treat it, how they use it like birth control and an excuse to be irresponsible, and how they talk about fetuses like they're some disgusting non person of no consequence. I'm more than ready for the sick culture around abortion to change.
I'm disgusted by some of the things they've been saying over the last day. And I know how horrible the abortion process is. It's sickening.
He's white enough for their mental gymnastics. Remember a non trivial amount of these people believe he killed 3 black men.
'White women of privilege will still have access' 'Poor working class people won't'
Even when fake screaming about abortion she has to sneak in this 'white = rich and nonwhite = poor' shit. Got to hit all the intersectional talking points and be a good little leftist.
They really fucking hate that a conservative white boy was allowed to defend himself from people trying to kill him, don't they?
And yet they frame abortion (and attacking conservatives) as a self defense issue.
Completely deranged.
The people who think you get off on controlling women's bodies and want to force them to be incubator sex slaves are convinced it's a simple issue too.
Sorry, I think killing unborn babies and denying the right to bodily autonomy are both terrible things. Any issue where you have two bad options and have to choose the least bad is complicated.
Education isn't about learning information, it's about unlearning reality and feeling smart while doing it.
People who trust their eyes, their common sense and their instincts will always be better informed than a graduate of the humanities and soft sciences.