Unarmed woman is shot by Police in Capitol. The People Who Scream ‘Police Brutality’ Don’t Care.

You mean an official guided tour?

 

You just admitted that the crowd she was a part of was armed !
During any criminal offense committed by a group of people, which the rioters were ALL engaged in, anyone who helps supply forced entry for an armed mob, which everyone is now a part of, is. no different then a participant in a criminal effort by a group who individually maybe unarmed.

Her actions were felonious and a part of an armed insurrection. You have this weird idea that just not displaying an arm, but aiding the forced felonious illegal entry is excusable. She was participating in a felony that represented an imminent threat to officers who were sworn to prevent .


The officer was immediately protecting congress people from rioters who were armed that she was aiding and abetting. It was a justifiable shooting from the POV of any evidence anyone has seen. You can say nothing that proves differently. NOTHING.

I would argue, that there easily could have been many more justifiable shootings by the officers who were ultimately beaten by the armed mob.....the rioters were lucky more weren’t legally fired upon and KILLED.

 

It was unknown that it was within the rules of engagement until it was investigated. Media did not care or ask question of it, and neither did you. However, if it was a left wing group who invaded the Capitol Building and an unarmed black person was shot, it would have been a VERY different story!

 

You have no evidence it was a left wing inspired group at the capital, NONE. THE ONLY evidence available shows the rioters supported TRUMP. IF And BUT’s and making up crappolla means nothing and has no place in protecting a felonious assault by a woman aiding an armed insurrection. I know of no armed situation in any-other circumstance involving breaking and entering by an armed group where a duley sworn officer protecting innocent people would not have been justified in shooting. You can’t justify the actions of this woman what so ever.

 

All the media did was SUPPLY EVIDENCE. Even the participants supplied evidence with cell phones . There is nothing you have posted that supports anything else then this woman was a participant in an armed insurrection and tried to violently aid in putting congressional peoples at risk of being hurt or killed themselves. You don’t seem to have looked at any publically available video.

 

That’s not the media’s job. They are suppose to record and produce evidence.

In an interview of one cop at the scene of the shooting said he had 31 more rounds at his disposal and was prepared to use all of them to defend the lives of Congress people who were hunkered down just feet away from the shooting. It seems to me the capital police were unwilling to use their fire arms to defend themselves or public property....just the Congress people in their charge.

Geesus, the SS had full automatic weapons too. All things considered, the rioters were freaken lucky as the training of those in charged of protection saved a lot of rioters lives.

 

Your moving goalpost is not relevant to my point.
My point stands.

Already sourced that PB listened to Donald in the past.

 

Your point? Your entire point is that the two situations are identical!

And that means that Trump is part of Proud Boys?

 

I 100% agree with you. So do you acknowledge that the media ask questions about unarmed BLACK shootings?

Yeah, likely to do with police procedure. But I agree that it's rather astounding that the cops didn't kill more of those pieces of human waste.

Why "the training?"

 

Make your own argument instead of questioning me.

Source that the beating away of peaceful protesters had to do with extending the perimeter.

Make your own argument instead of questioning me.

The person is presenting his biased opinion, while you're unable to prove with any kind of evidence that the protesters were violent before the cops showed up.
Everything cops do is taped. The independent press was there. And you got nothing.

 

Since it's your argument in post 1135 prior to anything I stated, means it's your problem to prove it, not mine.

Since it's your argument in post 1135 prior to anything I stated, means it's your problem to prove it, not mine.

Your source reads: THE FACTS: Trump's speech was a call to action — a call to fight and save the country.

You remain unable to prove what Donald meant or did not mean.

So you admit that he also was expressing his love to the fascists who attacked the capitol.

 

There are two parts to the media. Factual reporting on the story then commentary on those facts.....that’s the opinion pages in print and and talk show affiliates on air. IMO, The media is welcome to do both......as long as the initial reporting is factual and they refer to the facts and don’t make up crapola.

 

It’s unusual they did not defend themselves and each other with firearms. Their training must be more stringent then what most law enforcement gets. The secrete service won’t arbitrarily defend an innocent bystander at any risk to their designated person they are protecting.


At first, I thought it was highly unusual, but realized, for them, human life is more important then property.....any human life.

A far cry from the Trumpism, “ when the looting starts, the shooting starts.”

 

So you acknowledge that the commentary is left wing?

 

Did I say left or right ?

 

Yeah, but surely you don't think that their training involves treating minority rioters differently, do you?

Well it wasn't just about property was it? It was about protecting the lives of cops and Congress people.

Yes absolutely. Certainly by Trump's own standard, there should have been ALOT more shooting on January 6! And I agree with Trump's standard.

 

It may be hard to understand , but the secrete service has a primary mission(s) that take preference over general law enforcement

 

How was Secret Service involved on January 6?

 

Absolutely they can initially. There are plenty of accounts of the capital police initially swapping war stories with some Trumpies BEFORE the overt rioting begins to occurred.

 

Sources?

 

You’re welcome to use yours saying other wise.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/c...rioters-entering-capitol-building/ar-BB1cxWXB

Imagine the blood shed if those chanting to Lynch Pense had confronted him with the SS...pretend you don’t know Pense with SS protection wasn’t there.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/13670797/mike-pence-rushed-capitol-hill-chamber/

 

When did I say that it was a "left wing inspired group" or anything even remotely along those lines?

Okay, so you're not aware of the storming of the Minneapolis Police station?

When did I justify her actions?

 

Still waiting for that rogue cop to be brought to justice!!!!!!

And waiting to find out who he was, and what he has to say about that murder.

 

You gave an example of another situation you said was. i reminded you that THIS WAS NOT.

I believe I answer the question. If there is no immediate personal or private endangerment, firearm use by police for destruction of property is not advisable. That was with respect to your example of burning of a police station.

Btw, arson is a big state crime in many states. It has big penalties. Police are much more likely to arrest and want prosecution if there is no immediate endangerment.

 

In your intro post. You say you’re not justifying it, then you go on trying to justifying it for the rest of the post...funny.