Almost 140 serious injuries to Capitol Cops

[martybegan]

No, you are playing the goalpost game, and poorly.

I'm not moving any goal posts. You're acting like an idiot (not a new thing). I've clearly stated the justification for the shooting in many posts before. If you can't remember, you can go back and look.

You stated bullshit trying to justify it, nothing more.

 

[Faun]

A "violent" mob that had armed police officers mingling with it just on the other side of the door, being breached by an unarmed woman.

No need for quotations. The fact that they were violent is evidence in the damage and destruction they were doing in order to breach the barricaded doors.

You're also avoiding the question, probably because you know the answer.

No, just watching you jump through hoops to blow things out of proportion for political gain.

Nothing's been blown out of proportion just because you're a faithful idiot. That woman was a threat to lawmakers when attempted to gain access to where they were hiding.

an unarmed woman was a threat....

You're an idiot, Marty. The cop protecting law makers had no idea if she was personally armed or not. He also had no way of knowing if had he let her gain access to the House chamber, the mob wouldn't have followed her.

It was a good shoot. That's why he won't be charged with a crime.

He wasn't in immediate risk, shown by the other cops being interspersed with the protesters on the one side of the door.

What makes me think they know it's a bad shoot is the length of time it's taking to come up with a result of the investigation, and the complete dropping of the matter by the media.

And why hasn't his name been released yet? Any other officer in any other shooting under investigation would have been identified.

Of course he was as were the lawmakers behind him. That mob was smashing through the doors and began to enter the Speaker's Lobby. It was his duty to keep them out. He did a fine job as not one single Trump cultist got into the House chamber until all the lawmakers inside were safely escorted out.

By shooting an unarmed woman, pour encouragement les autres.

Don't think that's in the use of deadly force guidelines.

She was the only one shot because she was the only one who tried to enter. Had she not been shot, the rest of the mob behind her would have followed, just as they had throughout the Capitol. That cop deserves a medal.

Still not justified via use of deadly force protocols.

You're an idiot, Marty. Such protocols permit the use of lethal force if such force is reasonably believed necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm. Given that lunatic mob stormed the Capitol and was hunting for politicians to murder, that's a reasonable belief.

Immediate threat, not maybe threat.

Reasonable threat.

Not even close to reasonable.

Again, if this was an easy clean shoot, they would have come out with the report already, the time taken shows they are either trying to spin as hard as they can to justify it, or don't want to throw the guy to the wolves until months have passed and they can get their agenda passed in the house.

LOL

You're ******* insane, Marty. A massive violent mob breaks in and storms the Capitol and then attempts to breach the House chamber with lawmakers still trapped inside.

That's a reasonable fear of death or freat bodily harm.

Your denial of such does nothing other than to reveal you're not playing with a full deck. If ya know what I mean.

Then why was he the ONLY officer who opened fire?

Nutcase, he wasn't the only cop who had his gun out. But he was the closest and he was the one with the best angle to avoid hitting someone else by accident and he was the one who fired first. No one else attempted to breach the Speaker's Lobby so no other cop had to shoot.

Nice attempt to move goalposts there, I said he was the only one to fire, you lying ******* hack-****.

All not justifications for deadly force.

LOL

You're truly fucked in the head as I too agreed he was the only one to open fire and I explained why.

 

[martybegan]

A "violent" mob that had armed police officers mingling with it just on the other side of the door, being breached by an unarmed woman.

No need for quotations. The fact that they were violent is evidence in the damage and destruction they were doing in order to breach the barricaded doors.

You're also avoiding the question, probably because you know the answer.

No, just watching you jump through hoops to blow things out of proportion for political gain.

Nothing's been blown out of proportion just because you're a faithful idiot. That woman was a threat to lawmakers when attempted to gain access to where they were hiding.

an unarmed woman was a threat....

You're an idiot, Marty. The cop protecting law makers had no idea if she was personally armed or not. He also had no way of knowing if had he let her gain access to the House chamber, the mob wouldn't have followed her.

It was a good shoot. That's why he won't be charged with a crime.

He wasn't in immediate risk, shown by the other cops being interspersed with the protesters on the one side of the door.

What makes me think they know it's a bad shoot is the length of time it's taking to come up with a result of the investigation, and the complete dropping of the matter by the media.

And why hasn't his name been released yet? Any other officer in any other shooting under investigation would have been identified.

Of course he was as were the lawmakers behind him. That mob was smashing through the doors and began to enter the Speaker's Lobby. It was his duty to keep them out. He did a fine job as not one single Trump cultist got into the House chamber until all the lawmakers inside were safely escorted out.

By shooting an unarmed woman, pour encouragement les autres.

Don't think that's in the use of deadly force guidelines.

She was the only one shot because she was the only one who tried to enter. Had she not been shot, the rest of the mob behind her would have followed, just as they had throughout the Capitol. That cop deserves a medal.

Still not justified via use of deadly force protocols.

You're an idiot, Marty. Such protocols permit the use of lethal force if such force is reasonably believed necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm. Given that lunatic mob stormed the Capitol and was hunting for politicians to murder, that's a reasonable belief.

Immediate threat, not maybe threat.

Reasonable threat.

Not even close to reasonable.

Again, if this was an easy clean shoot, they would have come out with the report already, the time taken shows they are either trying to spin as hard as they can to justify it, or don't want to throw the guy to the wolves until months have passed and they can get their agenda passed in the house.

LOL

You're ******* insane, Marty. A massive violent mob breaks in and storms the Capitol and then attempts to breach the House chamber with lawmakers still trapped inside.

That's a reasonable fear of death or freat bodily harm.

Your denial of such does nothing other than to reveal you're not playing with a full deck. If ya know what I mean.

Then why was he the ONLY officer who opened fire?

Nutcase, he wasn't the only cop who had his gun out. But he was the closest and he was the one with the best angle to avoid hitting someone else by accident and he was the one who fired first. No one else attempted to breach the Speaker's Lobby so no other cop had to shoot.

Nice attempt to move goalposts there, I said he was the only one to fire, you lying ******* hack-****.

All not justifications for deadly force.

LOL

You're truly fucked in the head as I too agreed he was the only one to open fire and I explained why.

And your explanation was bullshit.

 

[Faun]

No, you are playing the goalpost game, and poorly.

I'm not moving any goal posts. You're acting like an idiot (not a new thing). I've clearly stated the justification for the shooting in many posts before. If you can't remember, you can go back and look.

He's not acting.

 

[colfax_m]

I answered the question, you just don't care.

FCC has regulatory powers, they can say if you want 231 protections, you can't discriminate based on viewpoint.

If you want to discriminate based on viewpoint, you own the viewpoints and can be sued for them.

Ah, so you are going to use the government to come down on people you disagree with. Thanks for proving my point.

It's 230, not 231.

The regulations do not say what you think. There's nothing about not "discriminating based on viewpoint" in order to qualify for anything. If they didn't qualify for protections, none of these assholes would ever have had access to the platform in the first place.

Don't like it? Go somewhere else on the internet. You have plenty of options.

 

[colfax_m]

You stated bullshit trying to justify it, nothing more.

I didn't. You just believed I did because it fit your narrative.

That's because you hate me so much you're willing to bend reality to suit your purposes. That's part of what's wrong with the country.

 

[martybegan]

I answered the question, you just don't care.

FCC has regulatory powers, they can say if you want 231 protections, you can't discriminate based on viewpoint.

If you want to discriminate based on viewpoint, you own the viewpoints and can be sued for them.

Ah, so you are going to use the government to come down on people you disagree with. Thanks for proving my point.

It's 230, not 231.

The regulations do not say what you think. There's nothing about not "discriminating based on viewpoint" in order to qualify for anything. If they didn't qualify for protections, none of these assholes would ever have had access to the platform in the first place.

Don't like it? Go somewhere else on the internet. You have plenty of options.

I am asking them to be fair when using a regulated resource, i.e. the bandwidths used for the internet.

Off by one number, big whoop, I'm not designing a bridge here.

"go somewhere else" and let progressives control the messages everyone sees. How ******* convenient.

Your side can't win on the merits, so you have to play dirty,

 

[martybegan]

You stated bullshit trying to justify it, nothing more.

I didn't. You just believed I did because it fit your narrative.

That's because you hate me so much you're willing to bend reality to suit your purposes. That's part of what's wrong with the country.

The only one ignoring reality is you, SJW soi boi cuckwad.

When was the last time you took a piss standing up?

 

[colfax_m]

I am asking them to be fair when using a regulated resource, i.e. the bandwidths used for the internet.

Off by one number, big whoop, I'm not designing a bridge here.

"go somewhere else" and let progressives control the messages everyone sees. How ******* convenient.

Your side can't win on the merits, so you have to play dirty,

What? Bandwidths used for the internet? No. That's does not give the government regulatory power over Twitter and Facebook. You must be confusing this with FCC regulation of radio and TV which do use a limited public resource, but internet is not regulated that way.

"Go somewhere else" doesn't let progressives control the message everyone sees given everyone is perfectly capable of logging onto whatever website they want. Fail.

 

[colfax_m]

The only one ignoring reality is you, SJW soi boi cuckwad.

When was the last time you took a piss standing up?

When all else fails, resort to act like a child.

Babbitt was shot because she made herself an immediate threat to lawmakers by participating in a violent riot that was encroaching on the place where lawmakers were sheltering in place. The fact that she was the only one that was shot is because the rest of the people behind her didn't have a death wish.

 

[martybegan]

I am asking them to be fair when using a regulated resource, i.e. the bandwidths used for the internet.

Off by one number, big whoop, I'm not designing a bridge here.

"go somewhere else" and let progressives control the messages everyone sees. How ******* convenient.

Your side can't win on the merits, so you have to play dirty,

What? Bandwidths used for the internet? No. That's does not give the government regulatory power over Twitter and Facebook. You must be confusing this with FCC regulation of radio and TV which do use a limited public resource, but internet is not regulated that way.

"Go somewhere else" doesn't let progressives control the message everyone sees given everyone is perfectly capable of logging onto whatever website they want. Fail.

Foot in the door. What's to stop the FCC from regulating?

So everyone sees nothing but progressive messaging on facebook and twitter, and progressives point to that to show their views are the most popular.

Yeah no impact on non progressive access for their viewpoints.

You are a dictator loving simp.

 

[martybegan]

The only one ignoring reality is you, SJW soi boi cuckwad.

When was the last time you took a piss standing up?

When all else fails, resort to act like a child.

Babbitt was shot because she made herself an immediate threat to lawmakers by participating in a violent riot that was encroaching on the place where lawmakers were sheltering in place. The fact that she was the only one that was shot is because the rest of the people behind her didn't have a death wish.

My insults of you are earned by you, and entertainment for me. Om nom nom nom.

She was no immediate threat to anyone, and deadly force was not justifed.

 

[colfax_m]

Foot in the door. What's to stop the FCC from regulating?

So everyone sees nothing but progressive messaging on facebook and twitter, and progressives point to that to show their views are the most popular.

Yeah no impact on non progressive access for their viewpoints.

You are a dictator loving simp.

It's not "foot in the door" because they don't have anything to do with each other. If people don't want to see the messaging on Facebook or Twitter, they're free to go somewhere else. Let the market decide.

Oh wait, you want the government to decide and you all me the dictator lover.

Jesus, the way you idiots talk about social media is pathetic, it's as if being kicked off Twitter is about the same as the holocaust. This is why no one gives a shit about you idiots.

 

[colfax_m]

My insults of you are earned by you

They weren't. It's just what you do when you run out of bullshit excuses for your stupid statements. If you had a better argument, you'd make it but you just aren't that smart.

 

[martybegan]

Foot in the door. What's to stop the FCC from regulating?

So everyone sees nothing but progressive messaging on facebook and twitter, and progressives point to that to show their views are the most popular.

Yeah no impact on non progressive access for their viewpoints.

You are a dictator loving simp.

It's not "foot in the door" because they don't have anything to do with each other. If people don't want to see the messaging on Facebook or Twitter, they're free to go somewhere else. Let the market decide.

Oh wait, you want the government to decide and you all me the dictator lover.

Jesus, the way you idiots talk about social media is pathetic, it's as if being kicked off Twitter is about the same as the holocaust. This is why no one gives a shit about you idiots.

View attachment 460366

I want a fair and level playing field, you want ideas you don't like swept under the rug.

 

[martybegan]

My insults of you are earned by you

They weren't. It's just what you do when you run out of bullshit excuses for your stupid statements. If you had a better argument, you'd make it but you just aren't that smart.

Actually when it comes to miserable cucks like you the insults start right out the door, you pathetic wanna be Hoxha asshole.

 

[colfax_m]

I want a fair and level playing field, you want ideas you don't like swept under the rug.

You want a pony too?

Who give a shit what you want?

 

[colfax_m]

Actually when it comes to miserable cucks like you the insults start right out the door, you pathetic wanna be Hoxha asshole.

Right. I’m the dictator because I don’t want government forcing Twitter to propagate shit posts against their will.

Jesus, can you be any more disconnected from reality?

 

[martybegan]

I want a fair and level playing field, you want ideas you don't like swept under the rug.

You want a pony too?

Who give a shit what you want?

Talk about someone losing their shit. lol

 

[martybegan]

Actually when it comes to miserable cucks like you the insults start right out the door, you pathetic wanna be Hoxha asshole.

Right. I’m the dictator because I don’t want government forcing Twitter to propagate shit posts against their will.

Jesus, can you be any more disconnected from reality?

You are a wanna-be dictator because you want control of information, and don't care how you get it.