postman
Diamond Member
- Feb 23, 2017
- 24,999
- 14,117
- 1,400
You clearly defended 1-6I did not defend 6-1
I clearly stated it was wrong
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
You clearly defended 1-6I did not defend 6-1
I clearly stated it was wrong
You mean all those unarmed citizens walking into the building?There you go defending the attack on the Capitol on January 6th.
Really how old are you?Totally related. Your premise is you know exactly what happened from cell phone video.
People (and likely you) thought the same thing about the Michael Brown incident from the cell phone footage.
They couldn't have been more wrong.
So you admit Pretti was a professional anarchistWhen did the constitution require amateur status?
Exactly.He tread a fine line between lawful possession and potentially being viewed as threat. He owned what could transpire.
He didn't get into a physical altercation with LE like Pretti.
If true, does that mean it’s okay to murder him?So you admit Pretti was a professional anarchist
They were attempting to prevent the person getting 306 electoral votes from taking office.It was NOT an attempt to overthrow the government.
If true, does that mean it’s okay to murder him?
Actually there were people who brought guns to the capitol. And their conviction for gun possession PROVES, they were armed, beyond a reasonable doubt.You mean all those unarmed citizens walking into the building?
So you too don’t believe your eyes.Its not true
Murder is never acceptable however Pretti was not murdered
That doesn't make your case any better.And why did he have a gun? Why? Who brings as loaded handgun to a protest? He is a grown ass man, not a kid like Rittenhouse. He had intent. I believe he would have shot an officer if he had an opportunity to do so. Anyone who doesn't - isn't paying attention.
I do believe my eyesSo you too don’t believe your eyes.
Amazing how easily the media can dupe people today.
The hypocrisy of the two sides is obvious.Actually there were people who brought guns to the capitol. And their conviction for gun possession PROVES, they were armed, beyond a reasonable doubt.
LMFAO!I do believe my eyes
I dont believe you
Okay. Those things may all be true but does that justify shooting him 9 times in the back after disarming him, while lying face down in the street surrounded by several government agents?For just blowing a whistle? What about spitting on law enforcement (assault) followed by kicking out the taillight and resisting arrest (again while carrying a firearm)? Why is being a nurse the center of the narrative? This guy was a skilled facilitator to instigate violence.
Keep watching. I have the feeling that they too will be included....Except the BCA isn't allowed to investigate.
The hypocrisy of the two sides is obvious.
Ds supported the Capitol cop who murdered an unarmed woman trying to break down a door on 1/6. Rs opposed it.
Now Rs support murdering an unarmed man lying face down, and Ds oppose it.
I opposed both murders.
What year do you suppose that will occur in?Keep watching. I have the feeling that they too will be included....