Rockdoc said:

---

BBRex said:

---

Rockdoc said:

---

BBRex said:

---

Apparently so. How many folks are in prison now over this?

---

Who's DOJ put them in prison?
The same DOJ that gave the BurnersLootersMurderers a pass? Even taking care of their bail?

---

How many folks who stayed outside are in prison?

The BLM riots didn't happen at the Capitol Building. And I would have supported law enforcement stopping those protests when they turned into riots, too.

---

I go with Jonathan Turleys explanation that this was not an insurrection. He's a constitutional lawyer. But perhaps you are too.

---

Someone else said it was an insurrection, and I was just saying apparently so. I'm not a lawyer. I'm also not the one prosecuting the rioters for what happened on Jan. 6. I'm just pointing out that everyone who crossed the barricade and entered the building was taking a risk.

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

The BLM riots didn't happen at the Capitol Building. And I would have supported law enforcement stopping those protests when they turned into riots, too.

---

So rioting near the gates of the WH don't count?

---

Sure, I would support law enforcement stopping those riots, too. I don't see why that would be any different.

BBRex said:

---

Rockdoc said:

---

BBRex said:

---

Rockdoc said:

---

BBRex said:

---

Apparently so. How many folks are in prison now over this?

---

Who's DOJ put them in prison?
The same DOJ that gave the BurnersLootersMurderers a pass? Even taking care of their bail?

---

How many folks who stayed outside are in prison?

The BLM riots didn't happen at the Capitol Building. And I would have supported law enforcement stopping those protests when they turned into riots, too.

---

I go with Jonathan Turleys explanation that this was not an insurrection. He's a constitutional lawyer. But perhaps you are too.

---

Someone else said it was an insurrection, and I was just saying apparently so. I'm not a lawyer. I'm also not the one prosecuting the rioters for what happened on Jan. 6. I'm just pointing out that everyone who crossed the barricade and entered the building was taking a risk.

---

Biden's DOJ is the one doing the dems prosecuting. The bias is not even up for debate.

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

Again, if she were a liberal, nobody on here would care that she was shot.

---

I disagree completely, why inject bs opinion based on thin air. Are you just trying to instigate controversy?

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

BoerneGator said:

---

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

Again, if she were a liberal, nobody on here would care that she was shot.

---

Again?

Once was a straw man. Twice is just hubris.

It's a Sap-headed take.

---

No, it's accurate as hell. Nobody cared when looters were shot or killed because they were on the wrong team. If liberals had tried to force themselves through a broken window and gotten shot, everyone would agree that it was a FAFO situation.

---

You make this bull**** opinion based on absolutely nothing.

aggiehawg said:

---

2040huck said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

2040huck said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

If she wasn't a white woman, this would be different

---

No it would not. The legal analysis of whether it was justifiable homicide would remain the same.

---

Close your eyes and imagine it was a few hundred black people chanting hang Ted Cruz And then one broke into the inter chamber

---

Not analogous at all.

---

Yes it is. And you would have been singing the praises of the officer who saved the day from the rioters.

---

That's a lie. I defended Chauvin because he was not the cause of Floyd's death. Kim Potter believed she had pulled her taser not her service weapon.(Both went to jail.)

I defended Rittenhouse because he didn't shoot until presented with a deadly threat.

The standards for justifiable homicide remain the same. Avoidance or duty to retreat is the only element that varies by jurisdiction.

---

While I understand your point, defense of Chauvin would still be viewed by many as coming from a political bias rather than the facts of the situation. Though I agree Chauvin was not fully responsible, there were still some bad choices made in hindsight. I'm not sure what LOE training is regarding avoidance or duty to retreat. Seems like that's what they did in the Summer of 2020, but then the mob wasn't trying to violently disrupt the certification of electors at our nations capitol.

I think the capitol police officers should have been better trained, and I think Ashlii shouldn't have joined in the mob mentality. I think most people on this board would not have thought it a bright idea to breach the capitol that day with hordes of people, some of which did have ill intent. Wrong place, wrong time.

Foreverconservative said:

---

Anonymous Source said:

---

Trying to diffuse while standing right next to someone with a gun who would shoot the first person to come through that door.

I don't think you get to ask why Byrd didn't try to diffuse when you've got someone next to you willing to do what Byrd did, but revisionist history and all.

---

You sure assume a whole lot. You have zero idea whether the other officers would have reacted just like Byrd did. In fact if they were going to act like Byrd they would have shot this guy in the face for sticking his head in, that's what Byrd did to Babbit, she had just stuck her head through when Byrd killed her.

---

Clearly, that guy's got some work to do before he can come through that door. Ashli was coming in through the window she was in when shot.

And yeah, I'm sure he's got it ready and pointed, but has no intent on firing it at this random tourist.

BBRex said:

---

Rockdoc said:

---

BBRex said:

---

Rockdoc said:

---

BBRex said:

---

Apparently so. How many folks are in prison now over this?

---

Who's DOJ put them in prison?
The same DOJ that gave the BurnersLootersMurderers a pass? Even taking care of their bail?

---

How many folks who stayed outside are in prison?

The BLM riots didn't happen at the Capitol Building. And I would have supported law enforcement stopping those protests when they turned into riots, too.

---

I go with Jonathan Turleys explanation that this was not an insurrection. He's a constitutional lawyer. But perhaps you are too.

---

Someone else said it was an insurrection, and I was just saying apparently so. I'm not a lawyer. I'm also not the one prosecuting the rioters for what happened on Jan. 6. I'm just pointing out that everyone who crossed the barricade and entered the building was taking a risk.

---

Right. And it's a risk that those who descended on the Capitol building along with Rashida Talib and shut things down for the Palestinian argument didn't take, as well as those who attacked Federal buildings across the nation for BLM. They also weren't at risk. Not with this DOJ.

And that should be a problem for anyone who believes in free speech. Or not. But be consistent. Don't rationalize BLM and other discretions under the flimsy argument that "it wasn't the Capitol."

Anonymous Source said:

---

Foreverconservative said:

---

Anonymous Source said:

---

Trying to diffuse while standing right next to someone with a gun who would shoot the first person to come through that door.

I don't think you get to ask why Byrd didn't try to diffuse when you've got someone next to you willing to do what Byrd did, but revisionist history and all.

---

You sure assume a whole lot. You have zero idea whether the other officers would have reacted just like Byrd did. In fact if they were going to act like Byrd they would have shot this guy in the face for sticking his head in, that's what Byrd did to Babbit, she had just stuck her head through when Byrd killed her.

---

Clearly, that guy's got some work to do before he can come through that door. Ashli was coming in through that window.

And yeah, I'm sure he's got it ready and pointed, but has no intent on firing it at this random tourist.

---

Except she wasn't coming in that window. See the post HERE.

That picture is the YELLOW box on the map. She was shot at the RED box.

TravelAg2004 said:

---

Anonymous Source said:

---

Foreverconservative said:

---

Anonymous Source said:

---

Trying to diffuse while standing right next to someone with a gun who would shoot the first person to come through that door.

I don't think you get to ask why Byrd didn't try to diffuse when you've got someone next to you willing to do what Byrd did, but revisionist history and all.

---

You sure assume a whole lot. You have zero idea whether the other officers would have reacted just like Byrd did. In fact if they were going to act like Byrd they would have shot this guy in the face for sticking his head in, that's what Byrd did to Babbit, she had just stuck her head through when Byrd killed her.

---

Clearly, that guy's got some work to do before he can come through that door. Ashli was coming in through that window.

And yeah, I'm sure he's got it ready and pointed, but has no intent on firing it at this random tourist.

---

Except she wasn't coming in that window. See the post HERE.

That picture is the YELLOW box on the map. She was shot at the RED box.

---

I meant the window she was coming in through.

Quote:

---

While I understand your point, defense of Chauvin would still be viewed by many as coming from a political bias rather than the facts of the situation.

---

Then those "many" would be absolute morons who don't understand facts.

Why do you insist on being considered a conservative despite every shred of evidence to the contrary?

Quote:

---

While I understand your point, defense of Chauvin would still be viewed by many as coming from a political bias rather than the facts of the situation. Though I agree Chauvin was not fully responsible, there were still some bad choices made in hindsight. I'm not sure what LOE training is regarding avoidance or duty to retreat. Seems like that's what they did in the Summer of 2020, but then the mob wasn't trying to violently disrupt the certification of electors at our nations capitol.

I think the capitol police officers should have been better trained, and I think Ashlii shouldn't have joined in the mob mentality. I think most people on this board would not have thought it a bright idea to breach the capitol that day with hordes of people, some of which did have ill intent. Wrong place, wrong time.

---

Including the jury in Minneapolis. I watched voir dire. Even jurors who said they would "try" to be "impartial" but attended multiple BLM/Antifa protests were seated on the jury because the Judge refused to strike them for cause. That put the defense counsel (yes, singular) in a very bad spot having to use peremptory challenges when by all rights, he should not have had to do that.

Also, during the days of voir when a few jurors had already been seated, the City announced a 25 million dollar settlement with the Floyd family and their lawyers. Should have been a mistrial right then and there. The jurors nor the panel were ever sequestered. And the panel was not instructed to avoid all news reports, cell phone feeds, etc. until the final jury was seated. Even the jurors already selected had heard the news of the settlement but said they would "try" to give the presumption of innocence and impartiality to Chauvin.

That criminal trial was all about politics not facts, from the second AG Ellis took it away from the Hennepin County DA's office.

Psycho Bunny said:

---

---

Can't be shot on Jan 6th if Byrd had been fired or reassigned to desk duties after his history of firing into vehicles and somehow striking private homes, instead, either.

Bad shoot by an incompetent cop who should have had his firearm taken away during his work hours.

Please note I am not saying he should have been banned from owning a firearm, just that he was not authorized to use one as an officer while on duty.

richardag said:

---

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

BoerneGator said:

---

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

Again, if she were a liberal, nobody on here would care that she was shot.

---

Again?

Once was a straw man. Twice is just hubris.

It's a Sap-headed take.

---

No, it's accurate as hell. Nobody cared when looters were shot or killed because they were on the wrong team. If liberals had tried to force themselves through a broken window and gotten shot, everyone would agree that it was a FAFO situation.

---

You make this bull**** opinion based on absolutely nothing.

---

How often do we read on here that liberalism is a mental illness? Or that liberals should take a one way helicopter ride? Or any other repugnant things said about libs?

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

richardag said:

---

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

BoerneGator said:

---

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

Again, if she were a liberal, nobody on here would care that she was shot.

---

Again?

Once was a straw man. Twice is just hubris.

It's a Sap-headed take.

---

No, it's accurate as hell. Nobody cared when looters were shot or killed because they were on the wrong team. If liberals had tried to force themselves through a broken window and gotten shot, everyone would agree that it was a FAFO situation.

---

You make this bull**** opinion based on absolutely nothing.

---

How often do we read on here that liberalism is a mental illness? Or that liberals should take a one way helicopter ride? Or any other repugnant things said about libs?

---

That brand of liberalism is completely divorced from reality and any semblance of law and order.

I am old enough to remember 1968. Multiple political assassinations or attempted assassinations. Riots at universities, DNC Convention, etc. Only a few years after the entire nation was shaken after JFK was killed.

Those were radical Dems protesting the war in Vietnam but kept having mission creep into a Marxist/Communist direction. Then 9-11 happened. That knee jerk reaction gave the federal government powers that few understood could be perverted in such a manner and how far that envelope could be pushed as technology advanced. I was fooled, I know.

Partriot Act was not only misnomered, it had no effective limits...and still does not.

In the first photo, Officer Byrd appears to be waving his weapon around. (It is hard to tell from a still photo.) His finger may be on the trigger. My seven, nine, and eleven year old nieces are better trained than that.

The officer in the second photo has firm control of his weapon, and his trigger finger is extended, not on the trigger.

Officer Byrd is a danger to all around him, the other Officer is a danger to anyone who breaches that door.

aggiehawg said:

---

Can't be shot on Jan 6th if Byrd had been fired or reassigned to desk duties after his history of firing into vehicles and somehow striking private homes, instead, either.

Bad shoot by an incompetent cop who should have had his firearm taken away during his work hours.

Please note I am not saying he should have been banned from owning a firearm, just that he was not authorized to use one as an officer while on duty.

---

Rare I disagree with you, but this strikes me as you being biased. What an officer does prior to an incident does not determine if the incident is legal. Take a good cop, put him in the same incident with the same outcome. The legality is the same for both officers, regardless of their backgrounds or prior incidents.

By bad shoot, I assume you mean awful but lawful. If not, how would this be unlawful by the graham factors?

pic.twitter.com/2YyaXXeyNO

— Declaration of Memes (@LibertyCappy) January 9, 2024

InfantryAg said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Psycho Bunny said:

---

---

Can't be shot on Jan 6th if Byrd had been fired or reassigned to desk duties after his history of firing into vehicles and somehow striking private homes, instead, either.

Bad shoot by an incompetent cop who should have had his firearm taken away during his work hours.

Please note I am not saying he should have been banned from owning a firearm, just that he was not authorized to use one as an officer while on duty.

---

Rare I disagree with you, but this strikes me as you being biased. What an officer does prior to an incident does not determine if the incident is legal. Take a good cop, put him in the same incident with the same outcome. The legality is the same for both officers, regardless of their backgrounds or prior incidents.

By bad shoot, I assume you mean awful but lawful. If not, how would this be unlawful by the graham factors?

---

Not being be biased at all. Just stating a fact that, if you don't go protesting you don't have to worry about being harmed. Like the saying goes, nothing good happens after midnight.

Foreverconservative said:

---

My opinion is based on training and personal experience. I re-cert every two years. Secondly use of the term ROE isn't the actual proper term, but it's easier to describe than spelling ou the proper terms fully. Police forces primarily operate within civilian communities to enforce local laws, maintain public order, and protect individuals and property. Their rules of engagement are defined by local and national laws, department policies, and the term I should have used, protocols for the use of force. But I'm sure you get my drift. Also State and local police generally swear an oath to the US Constitution, as a civil servant. I never said the CHPD was part of the DOJ, however on their own website, i posted a link earlier, they abide by the protocols and guidelines set forth by the DOJ. That's what it says in their actual policy. Being that they are an actual government entity and not an individual municipality or State organization, it makes perfect sense they would follow the guidelines and protocols of the DOJ, since the DOJ is the head of all federal law enforcement. That was made whole when the US Marshal Service was moved from the Judiciary Branch to the DOJ and the executive branch. People sometime confuse the US Secret Service for LEO when in fact now since they were removed out from under the US Treasury are considered strictly protection, not enforcement. They can detain you but have to turn you over to the DOJ (FBI/USMS, etc) and the CHPD gets it's training at the FLETC like all the other FLEOs. SO like I said earlier it makes perfect since their Policies and Protocols regarding use of lethal force are in line with the DOJ.

And we agree that the shoot was tragic and Babbitt is deceased as a result of it. We just differ on justification and that's okay, that's what opinions are for. I apologize for using the simpler term ROE instead of typing out all the other mess each time, I'm lazy and I don't think an acronym changes the facts.

---

Training and experience in what, cell device link analysis? My opinion is based on UoF case law. ROE is used by the military in war zones. Maybe CHPD follows DOJ guidelines, but the agency here, US Capitol Police have their own UoF policy they follow. I didn't see any link you posted showing USCP following DOJ Policy, that would be strange. Again, policy is not law. An agency can have a policy that their cars can only drive 55mph tops. If the cop drives 60mph in a 70mph zone, he violated policy. He may be punished for violating policy, but he isn't going to have any legal implications.

DOJ is not the head of all fed LE, not even close. It only has 30% of LE and no authority over other Federal Departments. DHS alone has more sworn LE than DOJ. USCP isn't even part of the executive branch, they fall directly under congress.

US Secret Service, both Criminal investigators and uniformed division are LE. Their uniformed division does the full scope of uniformed police duties, including making traffic stops, detaining people for investigations and making arrests. FBI does not attend FLETC, they have their own FLETA accredited academy.

Not sure where you're getting your info but your combined posts are about 99% wrong.

Psycho Bunny said:

---

InfantryAg said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Psycho Bunny said:

---

---

Can't be shot on Jan 6th if Byrd had been fired or reassigned to desk duties after his history of firing into vehicles and somehow striking private homes, instead, either.

Bad shoot by an incompetent cop who should have had his firearm taken away during his work hours.

Please note I am not saying he should have been banned from owning a firearm, just that he was not authorized to use one as an officer while on duty.

---

Rare I disagree with you, but this strikes me as you being biased. What an officer does prior to an incident does not determine if the incident is legal. Take a good cop, put him in the same incident with the same outcome. The legality is the same for both officers, regardless of their backgrounds or prior incidents.

By bad shoot, I assume you mean awful but lawful. If not, how would this be unlawful by the graham factors?

---

Not being be biased at all. Just stating a fact that, if you don't go protesting you don't have to worry about being harmed. Like the saying goes, nothing good happens after midnight.

---

was directed at Hawg!

Do have to say though, although I disagree with 95% of what people protest I love their right to protest.

I myself went to the protest in Richond, VA for gun rights a few years ago. It was thousands of people, armed with rifles pistols etc, outside the VA capitol. Loud and peaceful, a great protest.

When protesters start using violence, it is no longer a protest, but instead a riot. Crowds need to (and often do) police themselves. If you are protesting and people start rioting, you should leave. That's pretty much every left wing/ blm event the last few years. Many people at the Capitol left when the rioting started. Many were pissed at the people who were breaking windows and assaulting police.

InfantryAg said:

---

Psycho Bunny said:

---

InfantryAg said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Psycho Bunny said:

---

---

Can't be shot on Jan 6th if Byrd had been fired or reassigned to desk duties after his history of firing into vehicles and somehow striking private homes, instead, either.

Bad shoot by an incompetent cop who should have had his firearm taken away during his work hours.

Please note I am not saying he should have been banned from owning a firearm, just that he was not authorized to use one as an officer while on duty.

---

Rare I disagree with you, but this strikes me as you being biased. What an officer does prior to an incident does not determine if the incident is legal. Take a good cop, put him in the same incident with the same outcome. The legality is the same for both officers, regardless of their backgrounds or prior incidents.

By bad shoot, I assume you mean awful but lawful. If not, how would this be unlawful by the graham factors?

---

Not being be biased at all. Just stating a fact that, if you don't go protesting you don't have to worry about being harmed. Like the saying goes, nothing good happens after midnight.

---

was directed at Hawg!

---

My apologies

Psycho Bunny said:

---

InfantryAg said:

---

Psycho Bunny said:

---

InfantryAg said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Psycho Bunny said:

---

---

---

---

---

---

My apologies

---

none needed, I don't disagree with your meme