|
|
Post by johneaztec on Aug 17, 2021 9:28:57 GMT -8
Ok. But, to clarify, what I meant when I said that he had help from both sides of tbe door, I meant that there were armed officers on both sides of the door. I get your point, I just wanted to clarify what I meant. Sorry you went through that experience, 20 years ago. I remember that. There were three armed officers on the other side of the broken glass, protecting an area where members of Congress were being evacuated. I don't know what you're referring to. Beyond that, hard questions need to be asked here. In the video I saw, there were also armed officers near the shooting on the side where the rioters were. Maybe they came in simultaneously as the shooting occured? Also, the luxury of having a gun is that only one shot can stop a lot of people in their tracks. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecryan on Aug 17, 2021 9:50:36 GMT -8
There were three armed officers on the other side of the broken glass, protecting an area where members of Congress were being evacuated. I don't know what you're referring to. Beyond that, hard questions need to be asked here. In the video I saw, there were also armed officers near the shooting on the side where the rioters were. Maybe they came in simultaneously as the shooting occured? Also, the luxury of having a gun is that only one shot can stop a lot of people in their tracks. That's possible, I haven't seen that. I will say that with the number of people in the crowd that were current/former LEO's, the confusion had to be sky high amongst the chaos. More than one officer has said they did not discharge their weapon because they wouldn't have made it out alive. |
|
|
|
Post by johneaztec on Aug 17, 2021 10:17:13 GMT -8
In the video I saw, there were also armed officers near the shooting on the side where the rioters were. Maybe they came in simultaneously as the shooting occured? Also, the luxury of having a gun is that only one shot can stop a lot of people in their tracks. That's possible, I haven't seen that. I will say that with the number of people in the crowd that were current/former LEO's, the confusion had to be sky high amongst the chaos. More than one officer has said they did not discharge their weapon because they wouldn't have made it out alive. I do understand. |
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Aug 18, 2021 11:09:45 GMT -8
My position is that Ashli Babbit should not have been shot. I am not saying that she was a great person or was blameless in this case.
I have said and will repeat here that, so far as I can tell, shooting Babbit MADE NO CONTRIBUTION TO THE PEACEFUL RESOLUTION OF THIS PARTICULAR PHASE OF THE JAN. 6TH RIOT!!! If I am wrong, please explain how her death helped the situation? You cannot do that because it is obvious that her death made no positive contribution.
Okay, let's assume (which I do not) that some good came from Ashli's death. If shooting her was such a good idea, why did the other officers present not start blazing away as well? My guess is that the other officers did not in any way think it was time to start killing rioters.
As I have also posted, I am willing to consider the shooter's motives. I very much doubt that he was thinking, Oh, boy, here's a chance to knock off at least one Trump supporter! He may have seriously thought his life was in danger. But in the light of the events of the next few minutes after the shooting, it's hard to justify the use of deadly force in this case.
But let's not just shrug off the use of deadly force by implying that she had it coming. And that is exactly what your posts on this topic suggest.
(I wonder whether the House committee will explore the charges that the security around the Capitol was woefully inadequate, and that ample warning had been given that more security needed to be provided. And who, ultimately, has the responsibility to provide such security? Oh, that's right? The name of that person is Nancy Pelosi. Does the buck stop with her or not?)
AzWm
|
|
|
|
Post by aztecryan on Aug 18, 2021 11:23:16 GMT -8
My position is that Ashli Babbit should not have been shot. I am not saying that she was a great person or was blameless in this case. I have said and will repeat here that, so far as I can tell, shooting Babbit MADE NO CONTRIBUTION TO THE PEACEFUL RESOLUTION OF THIS PARTICULAR PHASE OF THE JAN. 6TH RIOT!!! If I am wrong, please explain how her death helped the situation? You cannot do that because it is obvious that her death made no positive contribution. Okay, let's assume (which I do not) that some good came from Ashli's death. If shooting her was such a good idea, why did the other officers present not start blazing away as well? My guess is that the other officers did not in any way think it was time to start killing rioters. As I have also posted, I am willing to consider the shooter's motives. I very much doubt that he was thinking, Oh, boy, here's a chance to knock off at least one Trump supporter! He may have seriously thought his life was in danger. But in the light of the events of the next few minutes after the shooting, it's hard to justify the use of deadly force in this case. But let's not just shrug off the use of deadly force by implying that she had it coming. And that is exactly what your posts on this topic suggest. (I wonder whether the House committee will explore the charges that the security around the Capitol was woefully inadequate, and that ample warning had been given that more security needed to be provided. And who, ultimately, has the responsibility to provide such security? Oh, that's right? The name of that person is Nancy Pelosi. Does the buck stop with her or not?) AzWm Jesus. Christ. Your position is nonsense and your focus is equally nonsensical. First and foremost, other officers have said in testimony they feel like they would not have survived if they started shooting insurrectionists. That doesn't mean in ANY sense that the shooting was not justified. She. Broke. The. Law. I don't understand why this is so hard to grasp, unless you're intentionally being dishonest? Trying to put officers on trial who have been cleared of a crime is extremely poor taste. And guess what, you're wrong again. NANCY PELOSI HAS NO OVERSIGHT INTO CAPITOL POLICE. That is the purview of the Capitol Police Board. BOTH chambers of Congress have budget responsibilities, but day-to-day operations are controlled by the Capitol Police, not by the Speaker of the House. Period. I don't know where you're absorbing mistruths, but you should actually try to find accurate information. Also, in an actual moment of reality, who is in charge of the National Guard that was delayed in being sent to the Capitol? Oh, yeah, that would be Donald Trump! (And that's actually a real thing, unlike this fabrication you're trying to weave) |
|
|
|
Post by aztecryan on Aug 18, 2021 16:48:54 GMT -8
My position is that Ashli Babbit should not have been shot. I am not saying that she was a great person or was blameless in this case. I have said and will repeat here that, so far as I can tell, shooting Babbit MADE NO CONTRIBUTION TO THE PEACEFUL RESOLUTION OF THIS PARTICULAR PHASE OF THE JAN. 6TH RIOT!!! If I am wrong, please explain how her death helped the situation? You cannot do that because it is obvious that her death made no positive contribution. Okay, let's assume (which I do not) that some good came from Ashli's death. If shooting her was such a good idea, why did the other officers present not start blazing away as well? My guess is that the other officers did not in any way think it was time to start killing rioters. As I have also posted, I am willing to consider the shooter's motives. I very much doubt that he was thinking, Oh, boy, here's a chance to knock off at least one Trump supporter! He may have seriously thought his life was in danger. But in the light of the events of the next few minutes after the shooting, it's hard to justify the use of deadly force in this case. But let's not just shrug off the use of deadly force by implying that she had it coming. And that is exactly what your posts on this topic suggest. (I wonder whether the House committee will explore the charges that the security around the Capitol was woefully inadequate, and that ample warning had been given that more security needed to be provided. And who, ultimately, has the responsibility to provide such security? Oh, that's right? The name of that person is Nancy Pelosi. Does the buck stop with her or not?) AzWm I have a very simple question: Why do you care more about Ashli Babbitt's life than you do the lives of the officers who died? |
|
|
|
Post by aztecryan on Aug 19, 2021 10:15:08 GMT -8
Yes, please do go on about the massive threat the Democratic Party presents in executing a hostile takeover to a one-party state and how that represents a greater danger than people threatening to blow up the Capitol. And you may ask what the tie-in is? Yep.
|
|
|
|
Post by johneaztec on Aug 19, 2021 11:44:01 GMT -8
Yes, please do go on about the massive threat the Democratic Party presents in executing a hostile takeover to a one-party state and how that represents a greater danger than people threatening to blow up the Capitol. And you may ask what the tie-in is? Yep. Mentally ill, idiotic people from both sides, do idiotic things. Despicable. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecryan on Aug 19, 2021 12:06:09 GMT -8
Yes, please do go on about the massive threat the Democratic Party presents in executing a hostile takeover to a one-party state and how that represents a greater danger than people threatening to blow up the Capitol. And you may ask what the tie-in is? Yep. Mentally ill, idiotic people from both sides, do idiotic things. Despicable. Nope. No both sides BS here. No whataboutism. Full, emphatic, complete stop. This is about an ideological belief that the election was stolen from the previous idiot and the lengths people will go to to pledge their allegiance to....Donald Trump. Imagine even thinking that. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecryan on Aug 19, 2021 12:07:35 GMT -8
This isn't worth oxygen, but this is the depravity that has infiltrated Congress.
|
|
|
|
Post by johneaztec on Aug 19, 2021 12:23:46 GMT -8
Mentally ill, idiotic people from both sides, do idiotic things. Despicable. Nope. No both sides BS here. No whataboutism. Full, emphatic, complete stop. This is about an ideological belief that the election was stolen from the previous idiot and the lengths people will go to to pledge their allegiance to....Donald Trump. Imagine even thinking that. I'm going to denounce these types of actions from both sides all day, every day. Both sides should be ashamed of themselves. There's cocoo's on both sides. This guy falls exactly in that category. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecryan on Aug 19, 2021 12:35:08 GMT -8
Nope. No both sides BS here. No whataboutism. Full, emphatic, complete stop. This is about an ideological belief that the election was stolen from the previous idiot and the lengths people will go to to pledge their allegiance to....Donald Trump. Imagine even thinking that. I'm going to denounce these types of actions from both sides all day, every day. Both sides should be ashamed of themselves. There's cocoo's on both sides. This guy falls exactly in that category. No, he does not. He falls into one category on one side, from video evidence provided. And you blaming both sides is a symptom of a larger problem and a microcosm of the lack of accountability and responsibility that had been festering for way too long, generally speaking. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecryan on Aug 19, 2021 13:07:27 GMT -8
Kinzinger, a Republican, nails it.
|
|
|
|
Post by mayham81 on Aug 19, 2021 13:09:35 GMT -8
This is becoming so tiresome. A large percentage on the right has become radicalized and we are just ignoring it to our detriment. You have people like Mo Brooks tweeting out that he understands why people are doing these things because of "socialism", the all encompassing dirty word that is used for everything these days. Scream Antifa and BLM all you want to distract. You have an insurrection on one side being equated with those radical leftists who want free daycare and relief for the poor and middle class. It's all so silly and is only getting worse.
|
|
|
|
Post by aztecryan on Aug 19, 2021 13:59:36 GMT -8
This is becoming so tiresome. A large percentage on the right has become radicalized and we are just ignoring it to our detriment. You have people like Mo Brooks tweeting out that he understands why people are doing these things because of "socialism", the all encompassing dirty word that is used for everything these days. Scream Antifa and BLM all you want to distract. You have an insurrection on one side being equated with those radical leftists who want free daycare and relief for the poor and middle class. It's all so silly and is only getting worse. And then you have people disingenuously trying to argue that both sides are bad and it somehow means something. |
|
|
|
Post by azson on Aug 19, 2021 15:11:29 GMT -8
This is becoming so tiresome. A large percentage on the right has become radicalized and we are just ignoring it to our detriment. You have people like Mo Brooks tweeting out that he understands why people are doing these things because of "socialism", the all encompassing dirty word that is used for everything these days. Scream Antifa and BLM all you want to distract. You have an insurrection on one side being equated with those radical leftists who want free daycare and relief for the poor and middle class. It's all so silly and is only getting worse. We don't even need to look as far as Washington - the moderator and owner of this very board has written as much right here. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecryan on Aug 19, 2021 15:18:18 GMT -8
This is becoming so tiresome. A large percentage on the right has become radicalized and we are just ignoring it to our detriment. You have people like Mo Brooks tweeting out that he understands why people are doing these things because of "socialism", the all encompassing dirty word that is used for everything these days. Scream Antifa and BLM all you want to distract. You have an insurrection on one side being equated with those radical leftists who want free daycare and relief for the poor and middle class. It's all so silly and is only getting worse. We don't even need to look as far as Washington - the moderator and owner of this very board has written as much right here. Still waiting for answers on a number of fronts there, but I'm guessing I'll get "What were the questions again?" If we can't agree on things beyond just "This should be investigated" then something is seriously broken. |
|
|
|
Post by sdsuball on Aug 28, 2021 20:54:00 GMT -8
I just don't know. I think we in CA have a huge, I mean HUGE unfunded debt. That would be the very, very generous pension plans. Sooner or later that will have to be paid for. I don't think government can just tax its way out of the problem. As for California's cast-offs, you can't be serious. We all know some of those. They are solid people who have worked hard to have enough resources to be able to move. That would also include many in their 20s and 30s who simply cannot afford to buy a house. My wife's grandson, a terrific , hard working guy wants to get married, but he and his fiancé can't find anything they can afford.
I will bet that almost all of those who are leaving or are thinking about leaving would rather stay here, but the financial situation is getting so tough that they feel they must move. My wife and I are like many folks. Too old (78 and 85) to be able to withstand a serious move, but not happy about what is happening in this state. More and more, this state is looking like a feudal society, with an small upper tier (investors and hi-tech) with enough money to afford the astronomical cost of living and a huge mass of poor people who can barely get by and have very little to look forward to in the future. Does anyone really think that what is happening in San Francisco and Los Angeles (homeless encampments, cast-off needles, etc.) bodes well for this state? Can anyone point to trends that will turn this sad situation around? AzWm This was a really good point that AzWm made that was never really addressed. I'll add to it. California has an enormous housing crisis. There is way too much wealth disparity in California. Property values have skyrocketed, and people are getting priced out of living here. People are living in their cars, homeless, to survive. Plenty of good people end of moving due to the economics of living here. People love to tout the unbridled growth of California's economy. Well, growth can be good, but so has the cost of living grown. Personally, I would prefer if other states would step it up so more growth can occur there, then here. Everyone likes to tout growth economics, but too much growth can actually be a bad thing, and lead to increased inequality and higher cost of living. CA politicians have failed to answer the housing crisis. How long have the Democrats controlled the CA state legislature/governor and done nothing??
This criticism FWIW is coming from me, a Democrat. I'm extremely unhappy that more action has not been taken to address this enormous issue within the state. |
|
|
|
Post by azson on Sept 1, 2021 15:54:00 GMT -8
Banning mask mandates, dictating what educators can teach in schools, stripping voter’s rights - and now outlawing abortions…but yes William, tell me more about how Dems are the party of overreaching government.
|
|
|
|
Post by ptsdthor on Sept 2, 2021 16:22:53 GMT -8
Banning mask mandates, dictating what educators can teach in schools, stripping voter’s rights - and now outlawing abortions…but yes William, tell me more about how Dems are the party of overreaching government. Banning mandates...Oh the horrors! |
|
