The Statement
-
For some reason, the name of the office who shot her
Ouch.
-
For some reason, the name of the office who shot her
Ouch.
@aqua-letifer said in The Statement:
For some reason, the name of the office who shot her
Ouch.
That's been talked about here for a while. @jon-nyc pointed out that other people shot by the Secret Service have not had the names of the shooter revealed.
I simply want to know what the protocol/guidelines are. Presumably there's a departmental policy regarding that.
"Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... " - Mik, 6/14/08
The saying, "Lite is just one damn thing after another," is a gross understatement. The damn things overlap.
-
-
This wasn’t a traffic stop. The officer was protecting Congress from a violent mob.
He did the Lord’s work stopping that mob. The family should invite the officer to the funeral and give him an apology and a hug.
"You never know what worse luck your bad luck has saved you from."
-Cormac McCarthy -
It was not a spontaneous riot for several of the mob. Also for the police officers it must have been very real. It’s not just physical property they are protecting. Could you imagine yourself as an officer in real time evaluating the situation and having no command structure providing orders?
-
@aqua-letifer said in The Statement:
For some reason, the name of the office who shot her
Ouch.
That's been talked about here for a while. @jon-nyc pointed out that other people shot by the Secret Service have not had the names of the shooter revealed.
I simply want to know what the protocol/guidelines are. Presumably there's a departmental policy regarding that.
@george-k said in The Statement:
@aqua-letifer said in The Statement:
For some reason, the name of the office who shot her
Ouch.
That's been talked about here for a while. @jon-nyc pointed out that other people shot by the Secret Service have not had the names of the shooter revealed.
I simply want to know what the protocol/guidelines are. Presumably there's a departmental policy regarding that.
I was just pointing out the glaring grammar error.
-
This wasn’t a traffic stop. The officer was protecting Congress from a violent mob.
He did the Lord’s work stopping that mob. The family should invite the officer to the funeral and give him an apology and a hug.
@jon-nyc said in The Statement:
This wasn’t a traffic stop. The officer was protecting Congress from a violent mob.
He did the Lord’s work stopping that mob. The family should invite the officer to the funeral and give him an apology and a hug.
Then why didn't the other officers standing almost next to her, shoot her?
-
Seems like an unrelated question but you’d have to ask them. Other cops that were standing among the invaders are on record saying they were afraid of being outgunned if they used their weapons, since the were overwhelm3d numerically.
The hero that stopped the mob was behind a barricade, along with the people it was his duty to protect.
-
Sorry, but I do not have any sympathy. She was illegally breaking into the Capitol for unknown purposes.
@lufins-dad said in The Statement:
Sorry, but I do not have any sympathy. She was illegally breaking into the Capitol for unknown purposes.
That is my feeling as well. Just what was her purpose of being there? Surely she knew it was unlawful.
-
@lufins-dad said in The Statement:
Sorry, but I do not have any sympathy. She was illegally breaking into the Capitol for unknown purposes.
That is my feeling as well. Just what was her purpose of being there? Surely she knew it was unlawful.
@renauda said in The Statement:
@lufins-dad said in The Statement:
Sorry, but I do not have any sympathy. She was illegally breaking into the Capitol for unknown purposes.
That is my feeling as well. Just what was her purpose of being there? Surely she knew it was unlawful.
I agree.
-
Being in the Capitol is not at question, being present in the Capitol as an active participant in mob violence on 6 January as Ms Babbitt was, is unlawful and therefore very much in question.
@renauda said in The Statement:
Being in the Capitol is not at question, being present in the Capitol as an active participant in mob violence on 6 January as Ms Babbitt was, is unlawful and therefore very much in question.
Worth killing her for it?
-
@renauda said in The Statement:
Being in the Capitol is not at question, being present in the Capitol as an active participant in mob violence on 6 January as Ms Babbitt was, is unlawful and therefore very much in question.
Worth killing her for it?
@jolly said in The Statement:
@renauda said in The Statement:
Being in the Capitol is not at question, being present in the Capitol as an active participant in mob violence on 6 January as Ms Babbitt was, is unlawful and therefore very much in question.
Worth killing her for it?
Hell yeah. Choot 'er twice.
-
@jolly said in The Statement:
@renauda said in The Statement:
Being in the Capitol is not at question, being present in the Capitol as an active participant in mob violence on 6 January as Ms Babbitt was, is unlawful and therefore very much in question.
Worth killing her for it?
Hell yeah. Choot 'er twice.
@aqua-letifer said in The Statement:
@jolly said in The Statement:
@renauda said in The Statement:
Being in the Capitol is not at question, being present in the Capitol as an active participant in mob violence on 6 January as Ms Babbitt was, is unlawful and therefore very much in question.
Worth killing her for it?
Hell yeah. Choot 'er twice.
As long as we apply the same standard in Portland...
“Cry havoc and let slip the DOGE of war!”
Those who cheered as J-6 American prisoners were locked in solitary for 18 months without trial, now suddenly fight tooth and nail for foreign terrorists’ "due process". — Buck Sexton
-
@aqua-letifer said in The Statement:
@jolly said in The Statement:
@renauda said in The Statement:
Being in the Capitol is not at question, being present in the Capitol as an active participant in mob violence on 6 January as Ms Babbitt was, is unlawful and therefore very much in question.
Worth killing her for it?
Hell yeah. Choot 'er twice.
As long as we apply the same standard in Portland...
@jolly said in The Statement:
@aqua-letifer said in The Statement:
@jolly said in The Statement:
@renauda said in The Statement:
Being in the Capitol is not at question, being present in the Capitol as an active participant in mob violence on 6 January as Ms Babbitt was, is unlawful and therefore very much in question.
Worth killing her for it?
Hell yeah. Choot 'er twice.
As long as we apply the same standard in Portland...
Fine by me.
-
@jolly said in The Statement:
@aqua-letifer said in The Statement:
@jolly said in The Statement:
@renauda said in The Statement:
Being in the Capitol is not at question, being present in the Capitol as an active participant in mob violence on 6 January as Ms Babbitt was, is unlawful and therefore very much in question.
Worth killing her for it?
Hell yeah. Choot 'er twice.
As long as we apply the same standard in Portland...
Fine by me.
@aqua-letifer said in The Statement:
@jolly said in The Statement:
@aqua-letifer said in The Statement:
@jolly said in The Statement:
@renauda said in The Statement:
Being in the Capitol is not at question, being present in the Capitol as an active participant in mob violence on 6 January as Ms Babbitt was, is unlawful and therefore very much in question.
Worth killing her for it?
Hell yeah. Choot 'er twice.
As long as we apply the same standard in Portland...
Fine by me.
Nooooooooooooo!!!!!!!!
-
@aqua-letifer said in The Statement:
@jolly said in The Statement:
@renauda said in The Statement:
Being in the Capitol is not at question, being present in the Capitol as an active participant in mob violence on 6 January as Ms Babbitt was, is unlawful and therefore very much in question.
Worth killing her for it?
Hell yeah. Choot 'er twice.
As long as we apply the same standard in Portland...
@jolly said in The Statement:
@aqua-letifer said in The Statement:
@jolly said in The Statement:
@renauda said in The Statement:
Being in the Capitol is not at question, being present in the Capitol as an active participant in mob violence on 6 January as Ms Babbitt was, is unlawful and therefore very much in question.
Worth killing her for it?
Hell yeah. Choot 'er twice.
As long as we apply the same standard in Portland...
Absolutely not. The Portland rabble deserves nothing less than a whiff or two of grapeshot.
-
Pelosi Galore wants crew-served weapons. At least in Washington.
Ain't nuthin' like a Ma Deuce chugging along...That 750 grain bullet will make a red mist out of whoever it touches, along with five or six critters behind the target.
You'll be able to go out afterwards and pick up pieces of arms, legs, and skull fragments. Nothing says power, like human offal in the streets.
By God, that'll show 'em!
