Tanya 93 said:

---

Secolobo said:

---

thirdcoast said:

---

It's also not helpful for the narrative for white conservatives to not be outraged by a black cop killing a white girl. It forces both sides to discuss the circumstances of the encounter and value those facts over skin color of cop or victim. That process is incredibly destructive as it would have likely led to George Floyd type cases never making it past the local news. If that happens, dems lose one of their most effective voter turnout schemes.

It sucks that she thought it wasn't dangerous to breach the floor of Congress. But now everyone from BLM to Handsmaid tale to Taliban know what is off limits. They should suffer same fate, and if not, then we should all be outraged.

---

But security opened the gates and the damn doors.

---

Do you have the right to enter any area you want once let into a building, considering the doors were barricaded and she was crawling thru a broken window?

---

armed capital security was standing right next to her on the same side as the door. Why didn't they stop her?

Anonymous Source said:

---

SB 43rd STREET OG said:

---

Anonymous Source said:

---

Secolobo said:

---

thirdcoast said:

---

It's also not helpful for the narrative for white conservatives to not be outraged by a black cop killing a white girl. It forces both sides to discuss the circumstances of the encounter and value those facts over skin color of cop or victim. That process is incredibly destructive as it would have likely led to George Floyd type cases never making it past the local news. If that happens, dems lose one of their most effective voter turnout schemes.

It sucks that she thought it wasn't dangerous to breach the floor of Congress. But now everyone from BLM to Handsmaid tale to Taliban know what is off limits. They should suffer same fate, and if not, then we should all be outraged.

---

But security opened the gates and the damn doors.

---

But not that window.

---

If she was a black female and the shooter a white male...can you at least admit that you would be saying "maybe there should have been a better warning/barricade right there, just a few feet away from cops chillaxing with the people they let in?"

Or at least that the vast majority of people would be saying this. I am not saying she should not have been shot or that shoot to kill orders (if this was the case) were out of line. However, in such a hectic situation, a reasonable person would expect a much more clear barricade or warning that clearly let's people know "right here you can ham it up with friendly police officers, but right here just a couple feet away, you will 100% be shot and killed for entry".

---

A bunch of furniture piled up against those doors and a guy screaming "HE'S GOT A GUN!!" three times should have told most "reasonable" people that here is where you stop. You can choose to go further, but your life is at stake should you do so.

**** around and find out. And she did.

---

You make it sound like there was actual LEO warning. There wasn't -- it was Sullivan himself who managed to shout it about two times split-seconds style from well to the left. She probably didn't hear it, didn't even have time to react if she did because she is climbing through at that moment and all but just stops a bullet. It is that fast. Now the shooter takes a step closer or two levelling gun then fires. That's what Sullivan saw from his position to the left. People in the crush of people on the right never saw it coming.

Secolobo said:

---

Tanya 93 said:

---

Secolobo said:

---

thirdcoast said:

---

It's also not helpful for the narrative for white conservatives to not be outraged by a black cop killing a white girl. It forces both sides to discuss the circumstances of the encounter and value those facts over skin color of cop or victim. That process is incredibly destructive as it would have likely led to George Floyd type cases never making it past the local news. If that happens, dems lose one of their most effective voter turnout schemes.

It sucks that she thought it wasn't dangerous to breach the floor of Congress. But now everyone from BLM to Handsmaid tale to Taliban know what is off limits. They should suffer same fate, and if not, then we should all be outraged.

---

But security opened the gates and the damn doors.

---

Do you have the right to enter any area you want once let into a building, considering the doors were barricaded and she was crawling thru a broken window?

---

armed capital security was standing right next to her on the same side as the door. Why didn't they stop her?

---

don't know

However, if she didn't try to climb thru a broken window into a barricaded area with national politicians, she would be alive

People are also not allowing for differences in personalities. This guy might have been a little more easily rattled. Compare to Officer Goodman, directly, right in front of him, punching distance at times, confronted a mob running up the east stairwells of the Senate to the Main Floor, and lured them from where Romney and others were evacuating, and to the hall outside the Senate chamber to the south. (The same place the Left radicals blew up in 1983 -- same vestibule).

Goodman in the same position, might not have fired his weapon. At least not as quick.

You can't account for differences in individual officers. This was an issue even in the Boston Massacre.

Tanya 93 said:

---

Secolobo said:

---

Tanya 93 said:

---

Secolobo said:

---

thirdcoast said:

---

It's also not helpful for the narrative for white conservatives to not be outraged by a black cop killing a white girl. It forces both sides to discuss the circumstances of the encounter and value those facts over skin color of cop or victim. That process is incredibly destructive as it would have likely led to George Floyd type cases never making it past the local news. If that happens, dems lose one of their most effective voter turnout schemes.

It sucks that she thought it wasn't dangerous to breach the floor of Congress. But now everyone from BLM to Handsmaid tale to Taliban know what is off limits. They should suffer same fate, and if not, then we should all be outraged.

---

But security opened the gates and the damn doors.

---

Do you have the right to enter any area you want once let into a building, considering the doors were barricaded and she was crawling thru a broken window?

---

armed capital security was standing right next to her on the same side as the door. Why didn't they stop her?

---

don't know

However, if she didn't try to climb thru a broken window into a barricaded area with national politicians, she would be alive

---

And if George Floyd didnt pound down some illegal drugs, he would be too. Yet one guy is in jail while the other...

DannyDuberstein said:

---

Tanya 93 said:

---

Secolobo said:

---

Tanya 93 said:

---

Secolobo said:

---

thirdcoast said:

---

It's also not helpful for the narrative for white conservatives to not be outraged by a black cop killing a white girl. It forces both sides to discuss the circumstances of the encounter and value those facts over skin color of cop or victim. That process is incredibly destructive as it would have likely led to George Floyd type cases never making it past the local news. If that happens, dems lose one of their most effective voter turnout schemes.

It sucks that she thought it wasn't dangerous to breach the floor of Congress. But now everyone from BLM to Handsmaid tale to Taliban know what is off limits. They should suffer same fate, and if not, then we should all be outraged.

---

But security opened the gates and the damn doors.

---

Do you have the right to enter any area you want once let into a building, considering the doors were barricaded and she was crawling thru a broken window?

---

armed capital security was standing right next to her on the same side as the door. Why didn't they stop her?

---

don't know

However, if she didn't try to climb thru a broken window into a barricaded area with national politicians, she would be alive

---

And if George Floyd didnt pound down some illegal drugs, he would be too. Yet one guy is in jail while the other...

---

Neither should be in jail

Yet one is because of his race. It's the only reason he is in jail

DannyDuberstein said:

---

Yet one is because of his race. It's the only reason he is in jail

---

Yes

And?

How does that change what she was doing that led to her being shot?

This coward shouldnt have shot her. Completely excessive and unnecessary use of force

titan said:

---

Anonymous Source said:

---

SB 43rd STREET OG said:

---

Anonymous Source said:

---

Secolobo said:

---

thirdcoast said:

---

It's also not helpful for the narrative for white conservatives to not be outraged by a black cop killing a white girl. It forces both sides to discuss the circumstances of the encounter and value those facts over skin color of cop or victim. That process is incredibly destructive as it would have likely led to George Floyd type cases never making it past the local news. If that happens, dems lose one of their most effective voter turnout schemes.

It sucks that she thought it wasn't dangerous to breach the floor of Congress. But now everyone from BLM to Handsmaid tale to Taliban know what is off limits. They should suffer same fate, and if not, then we should all be outraged.

---

But security opened the gates and the damn doors.

---

But not that window.

---

If she was a black female and the shooter a white male...can you at least admit that you would be saying "maybe there should have been a better warning/barricade right there, just a few feet away from cops chillaxing with the people they let in?"

Or at least that the vast majority of people would be saying this. I am not saying she should not have been shot or that shoot to kill orders (if this was the case) were out of line. However, in such a hectic situation, a reasonable person would expect a much more clear barricade or warning that clearly let's people know "right here you can ham it up with friendly police officers, but right here just a couple feet away, you will 100% be shot and killed for entry".

---

A bunch of furniture piled up against those doors and a guy screaming "HE'S GOT A GUN!!" three times should have told most "reasonable" people that here is where you stop. You can choose to go further, but your life is at stake should you do so.

**** around and find out. And she did.

---

You make it sound like there was actual LEO warning. There wasn't -- it was Sullivan himself who managed to shout it about two times split-seconds style from well to the left. She probably didn't hear it, didn't even have time to react if she did because she is climbing through at that moment and all but just stops a bullet. It is that fast. Now the shooter takes a step closer or two levelling gun then fires. That's what Sullivan saw from his position to the left. People in the crush of people on the right never saw it coming.

---

Was the door locked and barricaded or was it not?

Anonymous Source said:

---

titan said:

---

Anonymous Source said:

---

SB 43rd STREET OG said:

---

Anonymous Source said:

---

Secolobo said:

---

thirdcoast said:

---

It's also not helpful for the narrative for white conservatives to not be outraged by a black cop killing a white girl. It forces both sides to discuss the circumstances of the encounter and value those facts over skin color of cop or victim. That process is incredibly destructive as it would have likely led to George Floyd type cases never making it past the local news. If that happens, dems lose one of their most effective voter turnout schemes.

It sucks that she thought it wasn't dangerous to breach the floor of Congress. But now everyone from BLM to Handsmaid tale to Taliban know what is off limits. They should suffer same fate, and if not, then we should all be outraged.

---

But security opened the gates and the damn doors.

---

But not that window.

---

If she was a black female and the shooter a white male...can you at least admit that you would be saying "maybe there should have been a better warning/barricade right there, just a few feet away from cops chillaxing with the people they let in?"

Or at least that the vast majority of people would be saying this. I am not saying she should not have been shot or that shoot to kill orders (if this was the case) were out of line. However, in such a hectic situation, a reasonable person would expect a much more clear barricade or warning that clearly let's people know "right here you can ham it up with friendly police officers, but right here just a couple feet away, you will 100% be shot and killed for entry".

---

A bunch of furniture piled up against those doors and a guy screaming "HE'S GOT A GUN!!" three times should have told most "reasonable" people that here is where you stop. You can choose to go further, but your life is at stake should you do so.

**** around and find out. And she did.

---

You make it sound like there was actual LEO warning. There wasn't -- it was Sullivan himself who managed to shout it about two times split-seconds style from well to the left. She probably didn't hear it, didn't even have time to react if she did because she is climbing through at that moment and all but just stops a bullet. It is that fast. Now the shooter takes a step closer or two levelling gun then fires. That's what Sullivan saw from his position to the left. People in the crush of people on the right never saw it coming.

---

Was the door locked and barricaded or was it not?

---

That holds in other riots too. Protests by nature usually are not entering by walking in invited. (though a surprising amount were able to do just that here) It was locked and barricaded. But that is avoiding the issue posted in my 11:23 and 11:55. That was protest inertia -- that is what she did wrong and got her killed. What the issue is is whether there was wrong in how she was killed in turn. The contrast between his escalation to total lethality without warning and those right there still that hadn't gotten that `onery' is very striking.

titan said:

---

Anonymous Source said:

---

titan said:

---

Anonymous Source said:

---

SB 43rd STREET OG said:

---

Anonymous Source said:

---

Secolobo said:

---

thirdcoast said:

---

It's also not helpful for the narrative for white conservatives to not be outraged by a black cop killing a white girl. It forces both sides to discuss the circumstances of the encounter and value those facts over skin color of cop or victim. That process is incredibly destructive as it would have likely led to George Floyd type cases never making it past the local news. If that happens, dems lose one of their most effective voter turnout schemes.

It sucks that she thought it wasn't dangerous to breach the floor of Congress. But now everyone from BLM to Handsmaid tale to Taliban know what is off limits. They should suffer same fate, and if not, then we should all be outraged.

---

But security opened the gates and the damn doors.

---

But not that window.

---

If she was a black female and the shooter a white male...can you at least admit that you would be saying "maybe there should have been a better warning/barricade right there, just a few feet away from cops chillaxing with the people they let in?"

Or at least that the vast majority of people would be saying this. I am not saying she should not have been shot or that shoot to kill orders (if this was the case) were out of line. However, in such a hectic situation, a reasonable person would expect a much more clear barricade or warning that clearly let's people know "right here you can ham it up with friendly police officers, but right here just a couple feet away, you will 100% be shot and killed for entry".

---

A bunch of furniture piled up against those doors and a guy screaming "HE'S GOT A GUN!!" three times should have told most "reasonable" people that here is where you stop. You can choose to go further, but your life is at stake should you do so.

**** around and find out. And she did.

---

You make it sound like there was actual LEO warning. There wasn't -- it was Sullivan himself who managed to shout it about two times split-seconds style from well to the left. She probably didn't hear it, didn't even have time to react if she did because she is climbing through at that moment and all but just stops a bullet. It is that fast. Now the shooter takes a step closer or two levelling gun then fires. That's what Sullivan saw from his position to the left. People in the crush of people on the right never saw it coming.

---

Was the door locked and barricaded or was it not?

---

That holds in other riots too. Protests by nature usually are not entering by walking in invited. (though a surprising amount were able to do just that here) It was locked and barricaded. But that is avoiding the issue posted in my 11:23 and 11:55. That was protest inertia -- that is what she did wrong and got her killed. What the issue is is whether there was wrong in how she was killed in turn. The contrast between his escalation to total lethality without warning and those right there still that hadn't gotten that `onery' is very striking.

---

I don't think her death was wrong just unfortunate and sad.
How was the officer to know she wasn't a dangerous threat?
Yes, it could have been avoided by both parties, but her intentions were unknown.

Tanya 93 said:

---

titan said:

---

Anonymous Source said:

---

titan said:

---

Anonymous Source said:

---

SB 43rd STREET OG said:

---

Anonymous Source said:

---

Secolobo said:

---

thirdcoast said:

---

It's also not helpful for the narrative for white conservatives to not be outraged by a black cop killing a white girl. It forces both sides to discuss the circumstances of the encounter and value those facts over skin color of cop or victim. That process is incredibly destructive as it would have likely led to George Floyd type cases never making it past the local news. If that happens, dems lose one of their most effective voter turnout schemes.

It sucks that she thought it wasn't dangerous to breach the floor of Congress. But now everyone from BLM to Handsmaid tale to Taliban know what is off limits. They should suffer same fate, and if not, then we should all be outraged.

---

But security opened the gates and the damn doors.

---

But not that window.

---

If she was a black female and the shooter a white male...can you at least admit that you would be saying "maybe there should have been a better warning/barricade right there, just a few feet away from cops chillaxing with the people they let in?"

Or at least that the vast majority of people would be saying this. I am not saying she should not have been shot or that shoot to kill orders (if this was the case) were out of line. However, in such a hectic situation, a reasonable person would expect a much more clear barricade or warning that clearly let's people know "right here you can ham it up with friendly police officers, but right here just a couple feet away, you will 100% be shot and killed for entry".

---

A bunch of furniture piled up against those doors and a guy screaming "HE'S GOT A GUN!!" three times should have told most "reasonable" people that here is where you stop. You can choose to go further, but your life is at stake should you do so.

**** around and find out. And she did.

---

You make it sound like there was actual LEO warning. There wasn't -- it was Sullivan himself who managed to shout it about two times split-seconds style from well to the left. She probably didn't hear it, didn't even have time to react if she did because she is climbing through at that moment and all but just stops a bullet. It is that fast. Now the shooter takes a step closer or two levelling gun then fires. That's what Sullivan saw from his position to the left. People in the crush of people on the right never saw it coming.

---

Was the door locked and barricaded or was it not?

---

That holds in other riots too. Protests by nature usually are not entering by walking in invited. (though a surprising amount were able to do just that here) It was locked and barricaded. But that is avoiding the issue posted in my 11:23 and 11:55. That was protest inertia -- that is what she did wrong and got her killed. What the issue is is whether there was wrong in how she was killed in turn. The contrast between his escalation to total lethality without warning and those right there still that hadn't gotten that `onery' is very striking.

---

I don't think her death was wrong just unfortunate and sad.
How was the officer to know she wasn't a dangerous threat?
Yes, it could have been avoided by both parties, but her intentions were unknown.

---

Agreed. As said 11:23 and 11:55 --- security has to judge capability, not be expected to read minds.

Tanya 93 said:

---

titan said:

---

Anonymous Source said:

---

titan said:

---

Anonymous Source said:

---

SB 43rd STREET OG said:

---

Anonymous Source said:

---

Secolobo said:

---

thirdcoast said:

---

It's also not helpful for the narrative for white conservatives to not be outraged by a black cop killing a white girl. It forces both sides to discuss the circumstances of the encounter and value those facts over skin color of cop or victim. That process is incredibly destructive as it would have likely led to George Floyd type cases never making it past the local news. If that happens, dems lose one of their most effective voter turnout schemes.

It sucks that she thought it wasn't dangerous to breach the floor of Congress. But now everyone from BLM to Handsmaid tale to Taliban know what is off limits. They should suffer same fate, and if not, then we should all be outraged.

---

But security opened the gates and the damn doors.

---

But not that window.

---

If she was a black female and the shooter a white male...can you at least admit that you would be saying "maybe there should have been a better warning/barricade right there, just a few feet away from cops chillaxing with the people they let in?"

Or at least that the vast majority of people would be saying this. I am not saying she should not have been shot or that shoot to kill orders (if this was the case) were out of line. However, in such a hectic situation, a reasonable person would expect a much more clear barricade or warning that clearly let's people know "right here you can ham it up with friendly police officers, but right here just a couple feet away, you will 100% be shot and killed for entry".

---

A bunch of furniture piled up against those doors and a guy screaming "HE'S GOT A GUN!!" three times should have told most "reasonable" people that here is where you stop. You can choose to go further, but your life is at stake should you do so.

**** around and find out. And she did.

---

You make it sound like there was actual LEO warning. There wasn't -- it was Sullivan himself who managed to shout it about two times split-seconds style from well to the left. She probably didn't hear it, didn't even have time to react if she did because she is climbing through at that moment and all but just stops a bullet. It is that fast. Now the shooter takes a step closer or two levelling gun then fires. That's what Sullivan saw from his position to the left. People in the crush of people on the right never saw it coming.

---

Was the door locked and barricaded or was it not?

---

That holds in other riots too. Protests by nature usually are not entering by walking in invited. (though a surprising amount were able to do just that here) It was locked and barricaded. But that is avoiding the issue posted in my 11:23 and 11:55. That was protest inertia -- that is what she did wrong and got her killed. What the issue is is whether there was wrong in how she was killed in turn. The contrast between his escalation to total lethality without warning and those right there still that hadn't gotten that `onery' is very striking.

---

I don't think her death was wrong just unfortunate and sad.
How was the officer to know she wasn't a dangerous threat?
Yes, it could have been avoided by both parties, but her intentions were unknown.

---

What statute are you relying on for this claim?

If the authorities issued "shoot to kill" orders over the earpieces by 2:40, it should be admitted by them. It would take the pressure of this security officer if he was acting within an already set `limits lifted' order. If he is taking it upon himself to escalate, its a little different. They need to come clean about that.

gig em 02 said:

---

Tanya 93 said:

---

titan said:

---

Anonymous Source said:

---

titan said:

---

Anonymous Source said:

---

SB 43rd STREET OG said:

---

Anonymous Source said:

---

Secolobo said:

---

thirdcoast said:

---

It's also not helpful for the narrative for white conservatives to not be outraged by a black cop killing a white girl. It forces both sides to discuss the circumstances of the encounter and value those facts over skin color of cop or victim. That process is incredibly destructive as it would have likely led to George Floyd type cases never making it past the local news. If that happens, dems lose one of their most effective voter turnout schemes.

It sucks that she thought it wasn't dangerous to breach the floor of Congress. But now everyone from BLM to Handsmaid tale to Taliban know what is off limits. They should suffer same fate, and if not, then we should all be outraged.

---

But security opened the gates and the damn doors.

---

But not that window.

---

If she was a black female and the shooter a white male...can you at least admit that you would be saying "maybe there should have been a better warning/barricade right there, just a few feet away from cops chillaxing with the people they let in?"

Or at least that the vast majority of people would be saying this. I am not saying she should not have been shot or that shoot to kill orders (if this was the case) were out of line. However, in such a hectic situation, a reasonable person would expect a much more clear barricade or warning that clearly let's people know "right here you can ham it up with friendly police officers, but right here just a couple feet away, you will 100% be shot and killed for entry".

---

A bunch of furniture piled up against those doors and a guy screaming "HE'S GOT A GUN!!" three times should have told most "reasonable" people that here is where you stop. You can choose to go further, but your life is at stake should you do so.

**** around and find out. And she did.

---

You make it sound like there was actual LEO warning. There wasn't -- it was Sullivan himself who managed to shout it about two times split-seconds style from well to the left. She probably didn't hear it, didn't even have time to react if she did because she is climbing through at that moment and all but just stops a bullet. It is that fast. Now the shooter takes a step closer or two levelling gun then fires. That's what Sullivan saw from his position to the left. People in the crush of people on the right never saw it coming.

---

Was the door locked and barricaded or was it not?

---

That holds in other riots too. Protests by nature usually are not entering by walking in invited. (though a surprising amount were able to do just that here) It was locked and barricaded. But that is avoiding the issue posted in my 11:23 and 11:55. That was protest inertia -- that is what she did wrong and got her killed. What the issue is is whether there was wrong in how she was killed in turn. The contrast between his escalation to total lethality without warning and those right there still that hadn't gotten that `onery' is very striking.

---

I don't think her death was wrong just unfortunate and sad.
How was the officer to know she wasn't a dangerous threat?
Yes, it could have been avoided by both parties, but her intentions were unknown.

---

What statute are you relying on for this claim?

---

Don't even go there with her. She's just trying to "Tanya" yet another thread.

titan said:

---

If the authorities issued "shoot to kill" orders over the earpieces by 2:40, it should be admitted by them. It would take the pressure of this security officer if he was acting within an already set `limits lifted' order. If he is taking it upon himself to escalate, its a little different. They need to come clean about that.

---

How/who/why exactly would "shoot to kill" orders ever be given by 'authorities' over a minor trespassing/protest like this? That's...not how this works. That's not how any of this works.

Now, if habeas corpus were suspended by the president (a la Lincoln's April '61 order) in the event of an uprising, ok, but...let's just stipulate that's not how it all went down. This was just a case of a few stooges being egged on by antifa/blm types (like Sullivan) with the help of the Pelosi/Schumer praetorian guards.

nortex97 said:

---

titan said:

---

If the authorities issued "shoot to kill" orders over the earpieces by 2:40, it should be admitted by them. It would take the pressure of this security officer if he was acting within an already set `limits lifted' order. If he is taking it upon himself to escalate, its a little different. They need to come clean about that.

---

How/who/why exactly would "shoot to kill" orders ever be given by 'authorities' over a minor trespassing/protest like this? That's...not how this works. That's not how any of this works.

Now, if habeas corpus were suspended by the president (a la Lincoln's April '61 order) in the event of an uprising, ok, but...let's just stipulate that's not how it all went down. This was just a case of a few stooges being egged on by antifa/blm types (like Sullivan) with the help of the Pelosi/Schumer praetorian guards.

---

Not sure follow. They had instantaneous comm ability. An order like that could easily have been issued. Or its oppose "whatever you do, don't shoot one" --- that's more likely to be out there, and it would be even more a scandal.

There might even be a protocol in place. To restate simpler: if the officer was acting under orders, they need to come clean to take the pressure off him.

Unlike in some countries (generally run by communists/leftists), or books/novels, American police departments don't just have an arbitrary authority to issue 'shoot to kill' orders, absent something like "suspect has a hostage and is armed" or some other very dangerous and quite specific threat.

Exactly. But that was an extraordinary day. If such an instruction was given, nothing should be easier than saying it was -- or, in the reverse, categorically denying it. Of course that would put the pressure back on the individual.

nortex97 said:

---

gig em 02 said:

---

Tanya 93 said:

---

titan said:

---

Anonymous Source said:

---

titan said:

---

Anonymous Source said:

---

SB 43rd STREET OG said:

---

Anonymous Source said:

---

Secolobo said:

---

thirdcoast said:

---

It's also not helpful for the narrative for white conservatives to not be outraged by a black cop killing a white girl. It forces both sides to discuss the circumstances of the encounter and value those facts over skin color of cop or victim. That process is incredibly destructive as it would have likely led to George Floyd type cases never making it past the local news. If that happens, dems lose one of their most effective voter turnout schemes.

It sucks that she thought it wasn't dangerous to breach the floor of Congress. But now everyone from BLM to Handsmaid tale to Taliban know what is off limits. They should suffer same fate, and if not, then we should all be outraged.

---

But security opened the gates and the damn doors.

---

But not that window.

---

If she was a black female and the shooter a white male...can you at least admit that you would be saying "maybe there should have been a better warning/barricade right there, just a few feet away from cops chillaxing with the people they let in?"

Or at least that the vast majority of people would be saying this. I am not saying she should not have been shot or that shoot to kill orders (if this was the case) were out of line. However, in such a hectic situation, a reasonable person would expect a much more clear barricade or warning that clearly let's people know "right here you can ham it up with friendly police officers, but right here just a couple feet away, you will 100% be shot and killed for entry".

---

A bunch of furniture piled up against those doors and a guy screaming "HE'S GOT A GUN!!" three times should have told most "reasonable" people that here is where you stop. You can choose to go further, but your life is at stake should you do so.

**** around and find out. And she did.

---

You make it sound like there was actual LEO warning. There wasn't -- it was Sullivan himself who managed to shout it about two times split-seconds style from well to the left. She probably didn't hear it, didn't even have time to react if she did because she is climbing through at that moment and all but just stops a bullet. It is that fast. Now the shooter takes a step closer or two levelling gun then fires. That's what Sullivan saw from his position to the left. People in the crush of people on the right never saw it coming.

---

Was the door locked and barricaded or was it not?

---

That holds in other riots too. Protests by nature usually are not entering by walking in invited. (though a surprising amount were able to do just that here) It was locked and barricaded. But that is avoiding the issue posted in my 11:23 and 11:55. That was protest inertia -- that is what she did wrong and got her killed. What the issue is is whether there was wrong in how she was killed in turn. The contrast between his escalation to total lethality without warning and those right there still that hadn't gotten that `onery' is very striking.

---

I don't think her death was wrong just unfortunate and sad.
How was the officer to know she wasn't a dangerous threat?
Yes, it could have been avoided by both parties, but her intentions were unknown.

---

What statute are you relying on for this claim?

---

Don't even go there with her. She's just trying to "Tanya" yet another thread.

---

if she doesn't have a statute I don't care, im just trying to figure out my own stance on the situation.

Antifa/blm weren't held accountable when Republicans controlled the presidency and Senate. Any Trump supporters who protested were identified and investigated throughly. Why?

Oak Tree said:

---

Antifa/blm weren't held accountable when Republicans controlled the presidency and Senate. Any Trump supporters who protested were identified and investigated throughly. Why?

---

Read the Election thread. Apparently it is as simple as Barr was a wolf in sheep's clothing. Stunning if true, but it sure does just write off the DOJ. Its been apparent its a farce for a while for any but the Dems.

titan said:

---

Oak Tree said:

---

Antifa/blm weren't held accountable when Republicans controlled the presidency and Senate. Any Trump supporters who protested were identified and investigated throughly. Why?

---

Read the Election thread. Apparently it is as simple as Barr was a wolf in sheep's clothing. Stunning if true, but it sure does just write off the DOJ. Its been apparent its a farce for a while for any but the Dems.

---

I think it is two reasons

1) Most of the giant violent and looting riots were in states with Democrat leaders who supported much of what they were doing
2) Simple revenge for supporting Trump

neither are right or good or justified, but that is how I see it

Tanya 93 said:

---

titan said:

---

Oak Tree said:

---

Antifa/blm weren't held accountable when Republicans controlled the presidency and Senate. Any Trump supporters who protested were identified and investigated throughly. Why?

---

Read the Election thread. Apparently it is as simple as Barr was a wolf in sheep's clothing. Stunning if true, but it sure does just write off the DOJ. Its been apparent its a farce for a while for any but the Dems.

---

I think it is two reasons

1) Most of the giant violent and looting riots were in states with Democrat leaders who supported much of what they were doing
2) Simple revenge for supporting Trump

neither are right or good or justified, but that is how I see it

---

I see nothing wrong with that analysis. Sounds very likely.

titan said:

---

Oak Tree said:

---

Antifa/blm weren't held accountable when Republicans controlled the presidency and Senate. Any Trump supporters who protested were identified and investigated throughly. Why?

---

Read the Election thread. Apparently it is as simple as Barr was a wolf in sheep's clothing. Stunning if true, but it sure does just write off the DOJ. Its been apparent its a farce for a while for any but the Dems.

---

Trump appointed a swamp Republican to AG twice...Sessions and Barr.

Oak Tree said:

---

titan said:

---

Oak Tree said:

---

Antifa/blm weren't held accountable when Republicans controlled the presidency and Senate. Any Trump supporters who protested were identified and investigated throughly. Why?

---

Read the Election thread. Apparently it is as simple as Barr was a wolf in sheep's clothing. Stunning if true, but it sure does just write off the DOJ. Its been apparent its a farce for a while for any but the Dems.

---

Trump appointed a swamp Republican to AG twice...Sessions and Barr.

---

Yes. One thing can't accuse Trump of is how to differentiate posers from believers.

Sessions never really radiated strength; that seemed a foolish political reward appointment. Give the AG job to a fire-breather and `reward' your supporter another way. Barr though, was another matter and persuasive overall --- I am still waiting for final confirmation of this betrayal ----- its not quite been picked up yet even by radio that I have heard...

titan said:

---

Oak Tree said:

---

Antifa/blm weren't held accountable when Republicans controlled the presidency and Senate. Any Trump supporters who protested were identified and investigated throughly. Why?

---

Read the Election thread. Apparently it is as simple as Barr was a wolf in sheep's clothing. Stunning if true, but it sure does just write off the DOJ. Its been apparent its a farce for a while for any but the Dems.

---

Had the local state officials begged for federal help, Barr would have responded, in my view.

But when they not only did not but complained loudly about federal intervention, he got cold feet. Barr's first loyalty was to protect DOJ. Unfortunately for everybody, that desire to protect DOJ's reputation was also covering up the rot at DOJ.

Now, is Barr trying to cover his azz at this late date for some boneheaded decisions? Or is he covering his azz for being a willing participant in the rot?

IDK but will say this. His sanctimony of late is very reminiscent of Comey's similar protestations. That's a red flag to me and I loved Barr previously. Big unitary Executive advocate. Sounded as if he understood how government should work. But when theory met the road, he wiffed.

Zero DC Democrats were arrested and prosecuted during Barr's tenure...what more confirmation is needed?

aggiehawg said:

---

titan said:

---

Oak Tree said:

---

Antifa/blm weren't held accountable when Republicans controlled the presidency and Senate. Any Trump supporters who protested were identified and investigated throughly. Why?

---

Read the Election thread. Apparently it is as simple as Barr was a wolf in sheep's clothing. Stunning if true, but it sure does just write off the DOJ. Its been apparent its a farce for a while for any but the Dems.

---

Had the local state officials begged for federal help, Barr would have responded, in my view.

But when they not only did not but complained loudly about federal intervention, he got cold feet. Barr's first loyalty was to protect DOJ. Unfortunately for everybody, that desire to protect DOJ's reputation was also covering up the rot at DOJ.

Now, is Barr trying to cover his azz at this late date for some boneheaded decisions? Or is he covering his azz for being a willing participant in the rot?

IDK but will say this. His sanctimony of late is very reminiscent of Comey's similar protestations. That's a red flag to me and I loved Barr previously. Big unitary Executive advocate. Sounded as if he understood how government should work. But when theory met the road, he wiffed.

---

The AGs job is to uphold the law. I don't understand how allowing Democrat domestic terrorism organizations to destroy our cities is protecting the DOJ.

Quote:

---

The AGs job is to uphold the law. I don't understand how allowing Democrat domestic terrorism organizations to destroy our cities is protecting the DOJ.

---

When he did send in reinforcements to Portland to relieve the siege on the federal courthouse, the vans rounding them up were buried in negative press, like it was the Gestapo rounding up Jews in the 1930s.

Barr's biggest problem was that he read the press.

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

The AGs job is to uphold the law. I don't understand how allowing Democrat domestic terrorism organizations to destroy our cities is protecting the DOJ.

---

When he did send in reinforcements to Portland to relieve the siege on the federal courthouse, the vans rounding them up were buried in negative press, like it was the Gestapo rounding up Jews in the 1930s.

Barr's biggest problem was that he read the press.

---

The Democrat controlled media job is to bury Republicans in negative press. Barr is either corrupt or incompetent. Antifa should have been investigated and the Democrat leaders who funded and coordinated it should have been prosecuted.

The progressives MSM propaganda is designed to create the conservative narrative of excusing Republican failures because they are scared of the media's reaction. It's sad to see...

YellowPot_97 said:

---

Secolobo said:

---

thirdcoast said:

---

It's also not helpful for the narrative for white conservatives to not be outraged by a black cop killing a white girl. It forces both sides to discuss the circumstances of the encounter and value those facts over skin color of cop or victim. That process is incredibly destructive as it would have likely led to George Floyd type cases never making it past the local news. If that happens, dems lose one of their most effective voter turnout schemes.

It sucks that she thought it wasn't dangerous to breach the floor of Congress. But now everyone from BLM to Handsmaid tale to Taliban know what is off limits. They should suffer same fate, and if not, then we should all be outraged.

---

But security opened the gates and the damn doors.

---

She was climbing through a broken window of a barricaded door in the US Capital building.
How anyone is defending her is beyond me.

---

I think this is a fair point. It shouldn't matter the skin color, sex, etc. You can't attempt to breach the US Capital. That being said, it is odd that they have kept this under wraps. Then again, I guess its really not. We all know it would be all over the news if the cop was white and the girl was black.

WestTexasAg said:

---

YellowPot_97 said:

---

Secolobo said:

---

thirdcoast said:

---

It's also not helpful for the narrative for white conservatives to not be outraged by a black cop killing a white girl. It forces both sides to discuss the circumstances of the encounter and value those facts over skin color of cop or victim. That process is incredibly destructive as it would have likely led to George Floyd type cases never making it past the local news. If that happens, dems lose one of their most effective voter turnout schemes.

It sucks that she thought it wasn't dangerous to breach the floor of Congress. But now everyone from BLM to Handsmaid tale to Taliban know what is off limits. They should suffer same fate, and if not, then we should all be outraged.

---

But security opened the gates and the damn doors.

---

She was climbing through a broken window of a barricaded door in the US Capital building.
How anyone is defending her is beyond me.

---

I think this is a fair point. It shouldn't matter the skin color, sex, etc. You can't attempt to breach the US Capital. That being said, it is odd that they have kept this under wraps. Then again, I guess its really not. We all know it would be all over the news if the cop was white and the girl was black.

---

Who kept it under wraps? Republicans, Democrats, the media?

Oak Tree said:

---

WestTexasAg said:

---

YellowPot_97 said:

---

Secolobo said:

---

thirdcoast said:

---

It's also not helpful for the narrative for white conservatives to not be outraged by a black cop killing a white girl. It forces both sides to discuss the circumstances of the encounter and value those facts over skin color of cop or victim. That process is incredibly destructive as it would have likely led to George Floyd type cases never making it past the local news. If that happens, dems lose one of their most effective voter turnout schemes.

It sucks that she thought it wasn't dangerous to breach the floor of Congress. But now everyone from BLM to Handsmaid tale to Taliban know what is off limits. They should suffer same fate, and if not, then we should all be outraged.

---

But security opened the gates and the damn doors.

---

She was climbing through a broken window of a barricaded door in the US Capital building.
How anyone is defending her is beyond me.

---

I think this is a fair point. It shouldn't matter the skin color, sex, etc. You can't attempt to breach the US Capital. That being said, it is odd that they have kept this under wraps. Then again, I guess its really not. We all know it would be all over the news if the cop was white and the girl was black.

---

Who kept it under wraps? Republicans, Democrats, the media?

---

Pelosi and Schumer. Capitol Hill Police are not subject to FOIA. They can and do lie with impunity.