(03-18-2024, 02:37 PM)mikesez Wrote:

(03-18-2024, 01:19 PM)jagibelieve Wrote: I'll answer the question.  NO.  It wasn't a "split second" decision.  The so-called "officer" had plenty of time and plenty of other options rather than pulling the trigger on an unarmed woman.  Just watch the video(s) of when it happened.

Now answer this question.  Is there any proof that some of the mostly peaceful protestors were carrying concealed weapons on Jan. 6th?  After all, you are the one that said "some of them had concealed firearms".  How many people were arrested for carrying a concealed firearm?

Anyone with a CCP knows a couple of things.

1.  It is illegal to CC in Washington DC.

2.  It is illegal to CC on Federal Property (which includes even a post office).

"Other options" don't come into play when you are defending yourself or your home.  Why would they come into play for a law enforcement officer defending a space that at the moment was housing the entirety of the elected federal government minus one person?

To answer your question, a man was found guilty in federal court of carrying a handgun while in the Capitol that day.  Do you think he was the only one?  Do you think everyone who breaks the law gets caught?

"Other options" most certainly comes into play.  Was the "police officer" afraid that the woman would overpower him?  Could she not have been stopped and detained?  What about the use of a taser?

The "police officer" escalated to deadly force when he shouldn't have.

Deadly force is and always should be the last option for a law enforcement officer.

So one man found guilty of carrying a handgun in the Capitol that day means that "some of them had concealed firearms, and with those armories, it wasn't going to stay unarmed for long"?

1.  So one man found guilty of carrying a handgun means that "some of them had concealed firearms"?  Since you like to play word games, does some=1 or does some= >1?

2.  Does one man with a firearm=an "armory"?

3.  You yourself admit that the mostly peaceful protest was done by people unarmed when you said "it wasn't going to stay unarmed for long".  So since the people doing the mostly peaceful protest were unarmed (not for long in your words) was it really an "insurrection" as you and other far left democrats like to call it?

---