(01-08-2021, 10:17 AM)KingIngram052787 Wrote: [ -> ]I guess I just can't find the compassion deep down in me to care about any rioter/protestor/looter/destruction causer no matter what the cause. Call me heartless, but whether it's these folks in this thread or people during the BLM riots, I just look at them and think just maybe society is better off without them. Same goes for SOME of the folks killed by police violence that has caused some of this.
With no personal connection to any of these people, I guess I just don't get why anyone cares all that much. They're all brainwashed idiots that have been supercharged by social media.
I just popped your rep cherry..
I agree with ya.. There's consequences for all of our actions. Whether you agree with those consequences or not, if you don't put yourself in these certain situations, you likely won't reap the rewards..
(01-08-2021, 10:13 AM)Lucky2Last Wrote: [ -> ]They rarely shoot protesters. What is wrong with you people?
Protestors don’t attack Congress. Traitors and terrorists do that.
(01-08-2021, 10:50 AM)TJBender Wrote: [ -> ] (01-08-2021, 10:13 AM)Lucky2Last Wrote: [ -> ]They rarely shoot protesters. What is wrong with you people?
Protestors don’t attack Congress. Traitors and terrorists do that.
Protesters also don't set fires, kill police officers, tear down statues and property that doesn't belong to them.. Those are terrorists..
(01-08-2021, 10:50 AM)TJBender Wrote: [ -> ] (01-08-2021, 10:13 AM)Lucky2Last Wrote: [ -> ]They rarely shoot protesters. What is wrong with you people?
Protestors don’t attack Congress. Traitors and terrorists do that.
Do state Capitol buildings count?
(01-08-2021, 11:30 AM)WingerDinger Wrote: [ -> ] (01-08-2021, 10:50 AM)TJBender Wrote: [ -> ]Protestors don’t attack Congress. Traitors and terrorists do that.
Protesters also don't set fires, kill police officers, tear down statues and property that doesn't belong to them.. Those are terrorists..
No, those are rioters.
Part of the definition of terrorism is that terrorism has a political goal.
If you spin off from a peaceful BLM protests and ransack a Nike store, you're no longer acting with a political goal in mind. Your violent act is rioting. If you spin off from a peaceful BLM protest and violently take over Fox News headquarters or plant a bomb at police headquarters, that's terrorism.
(01-08-2021, 11:39 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (01-08-2021, 11:30 AM)WingerDinger Wrote: [ -> ]Protesters also don't set fires, kill police officers, tear down statues and property that doesn't belong to them.. Those are terrorists..
No, those are rioters.
Part of the definition of terrorism is that terrorism has a political goal.
If you spin off from a peaceful BLM protests and ransack a Nike store, you're no longer acting with a political goal in mind. Your violent act is rioting. If you spin off from a peaceful BLM protest and violently take over Fox News headquarters or plant a bomb at police headquarters, that's terrorism.
Yes or no, are they terrorizing?
ter·ror·ism
/ˈterəˌrizəm/
noun
the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.
"the fight against terrorism"
Definitions from Oxford Languages
I wish words still had meaning. Insert any word you want.... rioter, looter, traitor. Doesn't make a difference to me. We have a good track record of police responding to protesters, rioters, and looters over the course of this last year. Many, many, many of them were black. How many black people were shot by police this year during protests, riots, or looting? Say their names. I'll wait.
I really don't care that the lady was shot. It really sucks for her and her family, but I think people who take risks have to deal with the consequences. That said, an unarmed white woman, arguably the most protected class in this country, was shot just for being in a place she wasn't supposed to be. If anything, this instance shows that white people also get shot when they disregard orders from the police. Who knew? Is there a narrative you won't repeat without being critical of it? Please stop being stupid.
(01-08-2021, 11:40 AM)WingerDinger Wrote: [ -> ] (01-08-2021, 11:39 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]No, those are rioters.
Part of the definition of terrorism is that terrorism has a political goal.
If you spin off from a peaceful BLM protests and ransack a Nike store, you're no longer acting with a political goal in mind. Your violent act is rioting. If you spin off from a peaceful BLM protest and violently take over Fox News headquarters or plant a bomb at police headquarters, that's terrorism.
Yes or no, are they terrorizing?
ter·ror·ism
/ˈterəˌrizəm/
noun
the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.
"the fight against terrorism"
Definitions from Oxford Languages
We've seen plenty of examples of domestic terrorism in the past year from right and left oriented groups and individuals alike.
Most sane folks condemn those who cross the line of protesting over to rioting and even terrorism regardless of those rioters political affiliation.
The Capitol riots involved elements that one could easily encompass to identify the act as terrorism, but why all the semantics? Call it whatever you want.
Storming a session that serves to certify an election result and killing/hospitalizing police in the process is a despicable act that should never have been encouraged or protected against so casually.
Comparing this act to others seems pretty pointless to me right now.
Here is what I am wondering..
The cop clearly aimed for a head shot. He had the firearm aimed at her for a good period of time. Was there a less lethal shot he could have taken?
(01-08-2021, 12:02 PM)NYC4jags Wrote: [ -> ] (01-08-2021, 11:40 AM)WingerDinger Wrote: [ -> ]Yes or no, are they terrorizing?
ter·ror·ism
/ˈterəˌrizəm/
noun
the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.
"the fight against terrorism"
Definitions from Oxford Languages
We've seen plenty of examples of domestic terrorism in the past year from right and left oriented groups and individuals alike.
Most sane folks condemn those who cross the line of protesting over to rioting and even terrorism regardless of those rioters political affiliation.
The Capitol riots involved elements that one could easily encompass to identify the act as terrorism, but why all the semantics? Call it whatever you want.
Storming a session that serves to certify an election result and killing/hospitalizing police in the process is a despicable act that should never have been encouraged or protected against so casually.
Comparing this act to others seems pretty pointless to me right now.
Not comparing, just calling it what it is.. If The Oxford Definition of Languages defines an orange as a sectional citrus fruit with a tangy, sweet flavor, I'm sure as hell ain't going to call it an apple..
Did he consider shooting her in the leg?
(01-08-2021, 12:03 PM)StroudCrowd1 Wrote: [ -> ]Here is what I am wondering..
The cop clearly aimed for a head shot. He had the firearm aimed at her for a good period of time. Was there a less lethal shot he could have taken?
The police officers had cordoned of an area where members of Congress were being sheltered and protected from a rioting mob of violent trespassers.
She attempted to enter that cordoned area through a broken window.
That's all you need to know. Would a less lethal shot have been preferred? Sure. Do you know where the officer was aiming? No.
Wondering where all the folks that so fervently promoted and defended deadly force against rioters and looters earlier this year are right now? This is a clear example of the action they championed repeatedly.
(01-08-2021, 12:02 PM)NYC4jags Wrote: [ -> ] (01-08-2021, 11:40 AM)WingerDinger Wrote: [ -> ]Yes or no, are they terrorizing?
ter·ror·ism
/ˈterəˌrizəm/
noun
the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.
"the fight against terrorism"
Definitions from Oxford Languages
We've seen plenty of examples of domestic terrorism in the past year from right and left oriented groups and individuals alike.
Most sane folks condemn those who cross the line of protesting over to rioting and even terrorism regardless of those rioters political affiliation.
The Capitol riots involved elements that one could easily encompass to identify the act as terrorism, but why all the semantics? Call it whatever you want.
Storming a session that serves to certify an election result and killing/hospitalizing police in the process is a despicable act that should never have been encouraged or protected against so casually.
Comparing this act to others seems pretty pointless to me right now.
People love hyperbole, bro. It's human nature. I try to discount it as much as possible except when it starts to offend my sensibility. However, comparing this act to others is entirely relevant, if only to show that the left doesn't have any standards. Either protests can be rowdy and violent or they can't. Which is it? I say they can't. That's consistent. What do you say? What does the MSM say? What do other politicians say? Show me the people who are consistent with their record on these positions, and we will be able to differentiate those with values from those who put power and ideology over anything else.
(01-08-2021, 12:11 PM)Lucky2Last Wrote: [ -> ]Did he consider shooting her in the leg?
The hypocrisy has no bounds. There also appeared to be a team come up right behind them after the shooting.
She shouldn't have been there in the first place. I don't want people to confuse me attacking their hypocrisy with me defending her or attacking the police. Their double standard needs to be on trial.
(01-08-2021, 12:03 PM)StroudCrowd1 Wrote: [ -> ]Here is what I am wondering..
The cop clearly aimed for a head shot. He had the firearm aimed at her for a good period of time. Was there a less lethal shot he could have taken?
Probably.
As I have been lectured here many times, police officers are trained to take head and torso shots because those are bigger targets. While letting the aggressor live is a noble intention, aiming for the legs and missing is the worst possible outcome.
I'd still like to change the way officers are trained, but until the training changes, officers shouldn't be held liable for neutralizing real threats according to their training.
Shooting her caused her companions to fall back and allowed some of the good guys to come through and attempt to render assistance and call for EMS.
How often do you see an immediate call for EMS in a police shooting video? How often do you see an immediate attempt at assistance?
(01-08-2021, 12:15 PM)Lucky2Last Wrote: [ -> ] (01-08-2021, 12:02 PM)NYC4jags Wrote: [ -> ]We've seen plenty of examples of domestic terrorism in the past year from right and left oriented groups and individuals alike.
Most sane folks condemn those who cross the line of protesting over to rioting and even terrorism regardless of those rioters political affiliation.
The Capitol riots involved elements that one could easily encompass to identify the act as terrorism, but why all the semantics? Call it whatever you want.
Storming a session that serves to certify an election result and killing/hospitalizing police in the process is a despicable act that should never have been encouraged or protected against so casually.
Comparing this act to others seems pretty pointless to me right now.
People love hyperbole, bro. It's human nature. I try to discount it as much as possible except when it starts to offend my sensibility. However, comparing this act to others is entirely relevant, if only to show that the left doesn't have any standards. Either protests can be rowdy and violent or they can't. Which is it? I say they can't. That's consistent. What do you say? What does the MSM say? What do other politicians say? Show me the people who are consistent with their record on these positions, and we will be able to differentiate those with values from those who put power and ideology over anything else.
Protests can always get rowdy, then violent.
That doesn't mean every protestor was bad.
Nor does it mean the cause was bad. Maybe they want something bad like seizing rich people's homes and distributing them to the poor. Maybe they want something OK like police body cameras.
You have to look at it case by case, person by person, and, fortunately, the people closest to it, the actual local cops, are usually able to do that. Us jabronies on an anonymous forum, not so much.
This was an insurrection.
Everyone who breached the Capitol had the intent and result of making members of Congress feel unsafe.
They all participated in the violence,
And their cause was bad.
(01-08-2021, 12:03 PM)StroudCrowd1 Wrote: [ -> ]Here is what I am wondering..
The cop clearly aimed for a head shot. He had the firearm aimed at her for a good period of time. Was there a less lethal shot he could have taken?
As JIB has said many times, “Two in the chest, one in the head.”
(01-08-2021, 12:51 PM)TJBender Wrote: [ -> ] (01-08-2021, 12:03 PM)StroudCrowd1 Wrote: [ -> ]Here is what I am wondering..
The cop clearly aimed for a head shot. He had the firearm aimed at her for a good period of time. Was there a less lethal shot he could have taken?
As JIB has said many times, “Two in the chest, one in the head.”
Or one in the head in this case?