Stroke?
-
@george-k Right - like I said, I had seen reports that he didn't die from it, but none contradicting the testimony that he was hit. His mother says he wasn't hit on the head. But I don't know if the original testimony was specific as to where he was hit.
She saw him Jon. You going to discount a Mom’s account??? Maybe it nearly grazed him?
-
wrote on 27 Feb 2021, 19:26 last edited by Horace
You should start hitting the bear spray aspect, jon. It's of greater rhetorical value, and probably closer to the truth.
Why? So some Trump apologist can indignantly demand an apology if they find out it was 'only' pepper spray?
Because it's closer to the truth.
Btw "demanding an apology" from you is a funny concept.
-
wrote on 27 Feb 2021, 19:35 last edited by
The CNN report was no blunt force trauma. Not just to the head, anywhere. Arms, chest, legs, no indication...
-
The CNN report was no blunt force trauma. Not just to the head, anywhere. Arms, chest, legs, no indication...
wrote on 27 Feb 2021, 19:39 last edited by@lufins-dad said in Stroke?:
The CNN report was no blunt force trauma. Not just to the head, anywhere. Arms, chest, legs, no indication...
I suspect that at best he was grazed by a fire extinguisher. (How great does "fire extinguisher" sound? What a fantastic thing to be able to relate to really drive home the point about how violent the mob was.)
-
wrote on 27 Feb 2021, 19:43 last edited by
Probably was grazed with a selfie stick.
-
wrote on 27 Feb 2021, 19:45 last edited by
-
wrote on 27 Feb 2021, 19:54 last edited by
But what if it turns out to be pepper spray? Then I’ll have to deal with triumphant posters here celebrating the crowd’s vindication.
-
But what if it turns out to be pepper spray? Then I’ll have to deal with triumphant posters here celebrating the crowd’s vindication.
wrote on 27 Feb 2021, 20:00 last edited byBut what if it turns out to be pepper spray? Then I’ll have to deal with triumphant posters here celebrating the crowd’s vindication.
Actually, bear spray is weaker than pepper spray and is legal in every state for self-defense whereas pepper spray is illegal in many places thanks to it's much higher concentration of capsicum. You would prefer to get sprayed with bear spray over pepper spray every day of the week...
-
wrote on 27 Feb 2021, 20:18 last edited by jon-nyc
See how risky this is Horace?
What if it turns out that 100 police were injured and 15 hospitalized and no spray was used at all? Do you really think I could survive such pwnage?
-
See how risky this is Horace?
What if it turns out that 100 police were injured and 15 hospitalized and no spray was used at all? Do you really think I could survive such pwnage?
wrote on 27 Feb 2021, 20:22 last edited by HoraceSee how risky this is Horace?
What if it turns out that 100 police were injured and 15 hospitalized and no spray was used at all? Do you really think I could survive such pwnage?
That would depend on the injuries to the police officers. 100 does seem like a lot. But 15:100 ratio, ok, I'll acknowledge that that does seem like a reasonable ratio between hospitalized and injured.
Maybe we should concentrate on the 15 rather than the other 85. Oh, for the data, we all must yearn.
-
See how risky this is Horace?
What if it turns out that 100 police were injured and 15 hospitalized and no spray was used at all? Do you really think I could survive such pwnage?
wrote on 27 Feb 2021, 20:32 last edited by LokiSee how risky this is Horace?
What if it turns out that 100 police were injured and 15 hospitalized and no spray was used at all? Do you really think I could survive such pwnage?
Well it’s an interesting reframe but the point I think is the media spread an untruth that everyone still believes and yet a month later the truth is hidden and still coming out. But was it simply a mistake, hell no, it was rhetorical gasoline and some of us know, that is the MO of the so called truth seekers.
-
wrote on 27 Feb 2021, 20:33 last edited by
So you do not recognize a moral difference between bludgeoning a police officer to death with a fire extinguisher and spraying an officer with what is considered a non-lethal device used for self protection?
Please note that spraying a human being with bear spray IS illegal and you are subject to arrest.
-
So you do not recognize a moral difference between bludgeoning a police officer to death with a fire extinguisher and spraying an officer with what is considered a non-lethal device used for self protection?
Please note that spraying a human being with bear spray IS illegal and you are subject to arrest.
wrote on 27 Feb 2021, 20:44 last edited by@lufins-dad said in Stroke?:
So you do not recognize a moral difference between bludgeoning a police officer to death with a fire extinguisher and spraying an officer with what is considered a non-lethal device used for self protection?
Please note that spraying a human being with bear spray IS illegal and you are subject to arrest.
I actually don’t see much of a difference in the context of an insurrection. They are both nearly equally horrible. What’s worse to me is the lying about what actually happened because people know the reaction to blunt force trauma carries rhetorical weight. This is the group that calls themselves the vanguards of the truth, the paper of record if you will. It’s propaganda on the same level they accuse the partisans on the other side of.
-
@lufins-dad said in Stroke?:
So you do not recognize a moral difference between bludgeoning a police officer to death with a fire extinguisher and spraying an officer with what is considered a non-lethal device used for self protection?
Please note that spraying a human being with bear spray IS illegal and you are subject to arrest.
I actually don’t see much of a difference in the context of an insurrection. They are both nearly equally horrible. What’s worse to me is the lying about what actually happened because people know the reaction to blunt force trauma carries rhetorical weight. This is the group that calls themselves the vanguards of the truth, the paper of record if you will. It’s propaganda on the same level they accuse the partisans on the other side of.
wrote on 27 Feb 2021, 20:47 last edited by@lufins-dad said in Stroke?:
So you do not recognize a moral difference between bludgeoning a police officer to death with a fire extinguisher and spraying an officer with what is considered a non-lethal device used for self protection?
Please note that spraying a human being with bear spray IS illegal and you are subject to arrest.
I actually don’t see much of a difference in the context of an insurrection. They are both nearly equally horrible. What’s worse to me is the lying about what actually happened because people know the reaction to blunt force trauma carries rhetorical weight. This is the group that calls themselves the vanguards of the truth, the paper of record if you will. It’s propaganda on the same level they accuse the partisans on the other side of.
Well they're both ridiculous in the context of an "insurrection" against a government with the most powerful military in the history of the world. If you have 100 people armed with bear spray, or 100 people armed with fire extinguishers, neither of them have a hope to take over the government. So in fact there is no distinction between the two in terms of coups.
-
@lufins-dad said in Stroke?:
So you do not recognize a moral difference between bludgeoning a police officer to death with a fire extinguisher and spraying an officer with what is considered a non-lethal device used for self protection?
Please note that spraying a human being with bear spray IS illegal and you are subject to arrest.
I actually don’t see much of a difference in the context of an insurrection. They are both nearly equally horrible. What’s worse to me is the lying about what actually happened because people know the reaction to blunt force trauma carries rhetorical weight. This is the group that calls themselves the vanguards of the truth, the paper of record if you will. It’s propaganda on the same level they accuse the partisans on the other side of.
Well they're both ridiculous in the context of an "insurrection" against a government with the most powerful military in the history of the world. If you have 100 people armed with bear spray, or 100 people armed with fire extinguishers, neither of them have a hope to take over the government. So in fact there is no distinction between the two in terms of coups.
wrote on 27 Feb 2021, 20:52 last edited by@lufins-dad said in Stroke?:
So you do not recognize a moral difference between bludgeoning a police officer to death with a fire extinguisher and spraying an officer with what is considered a non-lethal device used for self protection?
Please note that spraying a human being with bear spray IS illegal and you are subject to arrest.
I actually don’t see much of a difference in the context of an insurrection. They are both nearly equally horrible. What’s worse to me is the lying about what actually happened because people know the reaction to blunt force trauma carries rhetorical weight. This is the group that calls themselves the vanguards of the truth, the paper of record if you will. It’s propaganda on the same level they accuse the partisans on the other side of.
Well they're both ridiculous in the context of an "insurrection" against a government with the most powerful military in the history of the world. If you have 100 people armed with bear spray, or 100 people armed with fire extinguishers, neither of them have a hope to take over the government. So in fact there is no distinction between the two in terms of coups.
I do get your point, however, I do see violation of sacred space as a threshold moment and I do believe we are extraordinarily lucky something much bigger didn’t happen. Literally anything can happen when a mob mentality starts and is driven only by and seeking out only the next spark.
-
@lufins-dad said in Stroke?:
So you do not recognize a moral difference between bludgeoning a police officer to death with a fire extinguisher and spraying an officer with what is considered a non-lethal device used for self protection?
Please note that spraying a human being with bear spray IS illegal and you are subject to arrest.
I actually don’t see much of a difference in the context of an insurrection. They are both nearly equally horrible. What’s worse to me is the lying about what actually happened because people know the reaction to blunt force trauma carries rhetorical weight. This is the group that calls themselves the vanguards of the truth, the paper of record if you will. It’s propaganda on the same level they accuse the partisans on the other side of.
Well they're both ridiculous in the context of an "insurrection" against a government with the most powerful military in the history of the world. If you have 100 people armed with bear spray, or 100 people armed with fire extinguishers, neither of them have a hope to take over the government. So in fact there is no distinction between the two in terms of coups.
I do get your point, however, I do see violation of sacred space as a threshold moment and I do believe we are extraordinarily lucky something much bigger didn’t happen. Literally anything can happen when a mob mentality starts and is driven only by and seeking out only the next spark.
wrote on 27 Feb 2021, 20:54 last edited by@lufins-dad said in Stroke?:
So you do not recognize a moral difference between bludgeoning a police officer to death with a fire extinguisher and spraying an officer with what is considered a non-lethal device used for self protection?
Please note that spraying a human being with bear spray IS illegal and you are subject to arrest.
I actually don’t see much of a difference in the context of an insurrection. They are both nearly equally horrible. What’s worse to me is the lying about what actually happened because people know the reaction to blunt force trauma carries rhetorical weight. This is the group that calls themselves the vanguards of the truth, the paper of record if you will. It’s propaganda on the same level they accuse the partisans on the other side of.
Well they're both ridiculous in the context of an "insurrection" against a government with the most powerful military in the history of the world. If you have 100 people armed with bear spray, or 100 people armed with fire extinguishers, neither of them have a hope to take over the government. So in fact there is no distinction between the two in terms of coups.
I do get your point, however, I do see violation of sacred space as a threshold moment and I do believe we are extraordinarily lucky something much bigger didn’t happen. Literally anything can happen when a mob mentality starts and is driven only by and seeking out only the next spark.
We should lock the Capitol doors next time.
-
wrote on 27 Feb 2021, 20:54 last edited by Copper
Yup, those doofuses felt embarrassed afterward.
That can hurt.
-
@lufins-dad said in Stroke?:
So you do not recognize a moral difference between bludgeoning a police officer to death with a fire extinguisher and spraying an officer with what is considered a non-lethal device used for self protection?
Please note that spraying a human being with bear spray IS illegal and you are subject to arrest.
I actually don’t see much of a difference in the context of an insurrection. They are both nearly equally horrible. What’s worse to me is the lying about what actually happened because people know the reaction to blunt force trauma carries rhetorical weight. This is the group that calls themselves the vanguards of the truth, the paper of record if you will. It’s propaganda on the same level they accuse the partisans on the other side of.
Well they're both ridiculous in the context of an "insurrection" against a government with the most powerful military in the history of the world. If you have 100 people armed with bear spray, or 100 people armed with fire extinguishers, neither of them have a hope to take over the government. So in fact there is no distinction between the two in terms of coups.
I do get your point, however, I do see violation of sacred space as a threshold moment and I do believe we are extraordinarily lucky something much bigger didn’t happen. Literally anything can happen when a mob mentality starts and is driven only by and seeking out only the next spark.
We should lock the Capitol doors next time.
wrote on 27 Feb 2021, 20:56 last edited by@lufins-dad said in Stroke?:
So you do not recognize a moral difference between bludgeoning a police officer to death with a fire extinguisher and spraying an officer with what is considered a non-lethal device used for self protection?
Please note that spraying a human being with bear spray IS illegal and you are subject to arrest.
I actually don’t see much of a difference in the context of an insurrection. They are both nearly equally horrible. What’s worse to me is the lying about what actually happened because people know the reaction to blunt force trauma carries rhetorical weight. This is the group that calls themselves the vanguards of the truth, the paper of record if you will. It’s propaganda on the same level they accuse the partisans on the other side of.
Well they're both ridiculous in the context of an "insurrection" against a government with the most powerful military in the history of the world. If you have 100 people armed with bear spray, or 100 people armed with fire extinguishers, neither of them have a hope to take over the government. So in fact there is no distinction between the two in terms of coups.
I do get your point, however, I do see violation of sacred space as a threshold moment and I do believe we are extraordinarily lucky something much bigger didn’t happen. Literally anything can happen when a mob mentality starts and is driven only by and seeking out only the next spark.
We should lock the Capitol doors next time.
Historically security has always been the root cause. Interestingly the left wants to minimize in this case. I agree.
-
@lufins-dad said in Stroke?:
So you do not recognize a moral difference between bludgeoning a police officer to death with a fire extinguisher and spraying an officer with what is considered a non-lethal device used for self protection?
Please note that spraying a human being with bear spray IS illegal and you are subject to arrest.
I actually don’t see much of a difference in the context of an insurrection. They are both nearly equally horrible. What’s worse to me is the lying about what actually happened because people know the reaction to blunt force trauma carries rhetorical weight. This is the group that calls themselves the vanguards of the truth, the paper of record if you will. It’s propaganda on the same level they accuse the partisans on the other side of.
Well they're both ridiculous in the context of an "insurrection" against a government with the most powerful military in the history of the world. If you have 100 people armed with bear spray, or 100 people armed with fire extinguishers, neither of them have a hope to take over the government. So in fact there is no distinction between the two in terms of coups.
I do get your point, however, I do see violation of sacred space as a threshold moment and I do believe we are extraordinarily lucky something much bigger didn’t happen. Literally anything can happen when a mob mentality starts and is driven only by and seeking out only the next spark.
We should lock the Capitol doors next time.
Historically security has always been the root cause. Interestingly the left wants to minimize in this case. I agree.
wrote on 27 Feb 2021, 21:44 last edited by@lufins-dad said in Stroke?:
So you do not recognize a moral difference between bludgeoning a police officer to death with a fire extinguisher and spraying an officer with what is considered a non-lethal device used for self protection?
Please note that spraying a human being with bear spray IS illegal and you are subject to arrest.
I actually don’t see much of a difference in the context of an insurrection. They are both nearly equally horrible. What’s worse to me is the lying about what actually happened because people know the reaction to blunt force trauma carries rhetorical weight. This is the group that calls themselves the vanguards of the truth, the paper of record if you will. It’s propaganda on the same level they accuse the partisans on the other side of.
Well they're both ridiculous in the context of an "insurrection" against a government with the most powerful military in the history of the world. If you have 100 people armed with bear spray, or 100 people armed with fire extinguishers, neither of them have a hope to take over the government. So in fact there is no distinction between the two in terms of coups.
I do get your point, however, I do see violation of sacred space as a threshold moment and I do believe we are extraordinarily lucky something much bigger didn’t happen. Literally anything can happen when a mob mentality starts and is driven only by and seeking out only the next spark.
We should lock the Capitol doors next time.
Historically security has always been the root cause. Interestingly the left wants to minimize in this case. I agree.
Those idiots don't make it into that building unless they are allowed into the building.
-
wrote on 19 Apr 2021, 22:11 last edited by
While two individuals have been accused of spraying a chemical irritant at Sicknick on Jan. 6, Diaz in an interview with the Washington Post said that the autopsy did not uncover any evidence that Sicknick experienced an allergic response to chemical irritants, and he also noted that there was not any evidence of the officer having any internal or external injuries.
Diaz noted that Sicknick was involved in handling the rioters at the Capitol and said that "all that transpired played a role in his condition," according to the outlet.
"Diaz said Sicknick suffered two strokes at the base of the brain stem caused by a clot in an artery that supplies blood to that area of the body. Diaz said he could not comment on whether Sicknick had a preexisting medical condition, citing privacy laws," the outlet reported.
A press release from the D.C. Office of the Chief Medical Examiner listed Sicknick's cause of death as "acute brainstem and cerebellar infarcts due to acute basilar artery thrombosis." The manner of Sicknick's death was listed as "natural," a term that describes "when a disease alone causes death. If death is hastened by an injury, the manner of death is not considered natural," according to the release.
You really don't want a basilar artery thrombosis. Really. You don't.
