MAGA—More Are Getting Arrested.

[Faun]

You are comparing apples to oranges. YOu are purposefully comparing one cherry picked example to the 1/6 riot, ignoring that there have been HUNDREDS of radical lefty riots, where various people were threatened and the police did not shoot down the rioters.

Indeed, there were a lot of other cops there that day. Why did only one of them fire? If the need for lethal force was so clear, why was there not dozens of cops firing hundreds of rounds?

You cherry picked Babbitt, not me.

The vast majority of the protestors were peaceful and unarmed. THe woman that was killed was unarmed.

Why did only one of them fire? Because as I stated earlier, the other cops were treating the protestors with kid gloves and retreating. This cop couldn't retreat any further as the violent mob had reached their last line of defense before reaching members of Congress.

It's utterly bizarre how the cult refuses to accept Benedict Babbitt put herself into a lethal situation.

Based on the norms set by you fucktards over the last 4 years, it would be completely understandable, how she could have though that breaking and entering would have been acceptable behavior, perhaps with some minor judicial implications.

Who over the last four years threatened to attack members of Congress and got feet away from them?

Your moral compass is broken and unrepairable.

Well, James T. Hodgkinson for one.....

But you all already threw that one down the old memory hole, didn't ya'll?

No, I'm not only aware of him. I was hoping a cultist would point him out.

How did police treat him?

And thanks for making my point!

What was he doing when they shot him?
Firing a rifle at multiple people.

And what was she doing when she was killed?
Trying to enter a room in a public building, unarmed.



Not the same. Not even close.

Granted, the situation with Hodgkinson was more dire, but both were threatening lawmakers and both got dangerously close. Another difference is Hodgkinson wasn't stopped until after he started injuring lawmakers while Ashli Targetpractice was stopped before she and the violent mob behind her could.

 

[freyasman]

Well, James T. Hodgkinson for one.....

But you all already threw that one down the old memory hole, didn't ya'll?

Not really a useful example in context of the ongoing discussion. Hodgkinson died when police (including Capitol police) returned fire.

The other poster has been arguing that police oil don’t have shot a leftist protestor in a similar circumstance, but they seem to ignore a lot of details about the circumstance in which Babbitt died.

No, he tried to claim no one else had ever attacked Congress personnel before and that's clearly bullshit.
A hardcore leftist tried to murder several Republicans.

You really should have looked more at the context of the conversation.

It's Faun ....... literally the most dishonest and stupid partisan hack poster here.
It's really hard to look closely at that level of lying and stupidity.

If I'm so stupid, how did I snare you into making my point??

Do you think that comparison makes your point?
How, stupid?





They are nothing alike; one was an actual physical attack by an armed man intent on murder, and the other was an unarmed woman trying to enter a room and confront the public servants her taxes pay for, about the obvious fraud during the election.

 

[Mustang]

Active-Duty Marine Corps Major Charged In Capitol Riot

Officials say Maj. Christopher Warnagiris is believed to be the first active-duty military service member to be charged in connection with the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol.

www.npr.org

Love it.

Why are some rioters being gone after with both barrels while others are given a pass or just low priority?


Because the dems are on the side of lefty rioters.



THus, these prosecutions are political.


Anyone convicted, will be a political prisoner.


That is the country you are making.


View attachment 489381

I lose track of it . What anniversary of you guys promising a civil war is it ? 15th, 20th? Are you guys registered anywhere?

Funny, this thread is based on the premise that the 1/6 riot was a serious and real threat to our democracy, because it delayed the formal recognition of the count, by HOURS.

Yet, here you are, acting as though, any talk of civil war from US, is laughable.


Why do you support the extra aggressive prosecution of the 1/6 rioters if it was not a serious insurrection?


lol. All these questions are rhetorical. We both know that you will not give serious or honest answers to ANY of them.


I am constantly amazed at the way you libs can hold completely contradictory ideas AT THE SAME TIME, without a hint of self awareness, no matter how much it is rubbed in your face.

Their goal wasn't to delay it, it was to "stop the steal." You're literally giving them credit for failing to pull off their coup.

Wow. Did you just become aware that intents and actual outcomes are sometimes different? What a big day for you.

Run along retard.

No worries, keep defending sedition. Be even louder about that during election season next year.

Who has been charged with sedition, shit for brains?

Who said they've been charged with sedition yet, fucking moron?

Their actions violate the sedition conspiracy law.

And Chaz didn't? And the Autonomous Zone didn't? And ordering the cops to not protect ICE so the rioters could attack the building didn't?

You are supporting a massive violation of civil rights of your enemies. Those that are convicted will be political prisoners.

View attachment 490040

Sure skippy...bring it on.

I hope you enjoy the results of your labors. I hope I am still here, when you are here whining like a fag, because of how it is blowing up in your face.

Sure thing skippy. In 10 years two things will still be true. There would have been no civil war and you guys will still be threatening to start one.

Do me a favor. State your position on the 1/6 "insurrection, how bad it was, in a compound sentence, with your position that there is nothing to fear from the Right re: "Civil War".


I want to see your two positions side by side. It should be GREAT.

There is nothing to fear from the right (or the left) on a civil war.

Your attempted insurrection is a different topic, junior.

Whatever your child-like hoping for a war because you have some bizarre fantasy about how cool it would be...just know 2 things... If you INCELs ever tried it, you'd be slaughtered....and....you INCELs will never try it. Because you are a coward.

Hence your continued threats with absolutely no follow up.

So, you don't care about the people supposedly killed by the mob on 1/6? People dying is "nothing to fear"?


Are you longing for the sweet release that Death will bring?


I do not want Civil War, I am warning where you hatred and oppression and keeping of political prisoners could lead this once great nation.

Your hatred is based on abject ignorance. Aside from the reality that any such uprising will be utterly squashed by a military sworn to protect the Constitution, you won't gain much support from a country because your civil war will be based upon hate, not principle.

I doubt it will be based on hate. It will be based on their simply being a failure in life and trying to bring everyone else down to their level.

You are supporting a violation of civil rights. You are the hater here, not me.

Where, whiner?

Federal Civil Rights Statutes | Federal Bureau of Investigation

The FBI is able to investigate civil rights violations based on a series of federal laws.

www.fbi.gov

Unequal application of justice, you faggot.

Uh oh, I touched a nerve with the whiner. Had to break out the F word. Good luck proving that when so many of the white Trump mob are being released...after being allowed to riot, go home, and roam free for weeks. The guy that, with premeditated intent, brought a 950,000 watt stun gun into the Speaker's office? Some Arkansas judge tried to let him go.

Judge blocks release of man pictured with feet on desk in Pelosi's office

Richard Barnett won permission from a judge in Arkansas to return home to await trial, but a judge in D.C. blocked that decision.

www.politico.com

People being released on bail, is not the same as not being looked for or having charges dropped.

You are supporting a gross violation of the human rights of hundreds of people based on political reasons.


You are supporting the policy of holding political prisoners here in the United States of America.


Your obsession with race, sounds somewhat racist too.

Show me an article that says he was released on bail. None of them say that, they all just say he was released. I'm sure a BLM protester that walked into, say Kevin McCarthy's office carrying a 950,000 watt stun gun would just be let go to await trial. Puhleese!

Lot's of women carry stun guns in their purses, moron. It's not illegal.

Is it a weapon or not? You apologists keep making the incorrect claim that Trump’s mob wasn’t armed. They were.

The key to your car can be a weapon. You obviously have a very narrow understanding of reality.

A 950,000 volt walking stick designed to stop a wild animal isn’t a key in your purse, princess.

Wow. 400 storm the capitol in a supposed coup attempt and you got a TAZER as the star example of how dangerously armed they were?

LOL!!!!

It was 800.

Prove it, asshole

I don't have to. The FBI is on it. They have 15,000 hours of video, and they've received something like 200,000+ tips from patriotic citizens. I hope they televise some of the trials and put the video evidence right up on the screen for all to see. Then let's see conservatives say it was a peaceful protest or that it was like a regular day of tourists showing up.

if they don't do that with Antifa and BLM trials, then this will be a political prosecution and anyone convicted with be political prisoners.

That's what conservatives always say when they get prosecuted for crimes. It doesn't even matter what the crime is.

As you people become more and more abusive and tyrannical, it might become fairly commonplace.


My point stands. The 1/6 riots are being targeted for extra aggressive investigation and prosecution for political reasons.


That is a violation of their Right to Equal Application of Justice.

Would you like a little cheese with that whine?

Conservatives are SUCH big babies. You cry about justice, but you don't want justice; you want preferential treatment. And when some legal entity actually holds you to account, you throw a fit.

What happened to our Capitol on 1/6 hasn't happened in over 200 years, and when it was done then, it was done by a foreign power, not by our fellow citizens who were trying to overturn a free and fair election. That's what I call political.

Most Americans don't give a damn if you don't like the prosecutions. Hell, they're all getting off pretty easy from everything I can tell because in some other countries, they'd be rounded up and summarily shot.

Wrong YOU asshats want preferential treatment for your favored black criminals and rioters. Gee, when Americans try to hold you leftards accountable for your murder of cops, attempted mass murder in Portland, robbing of businesses and hundreds of cases of arson, you whine and cry “wacist!!”. News flash: nobody gives a shit about your whining.

I'm fine with prosecuting people who commit crimes, regardless of who they are. But, like I said, conservatives want preferential treatment. That's not fine with me.

Except that is clearly not what ANY of us are saying, so why you you talking such complete bullshit?

Look at the sheer number of conservatives who are downplaying 1/6 as if it was little more than a group of tourists or law-abiding peaceful protests. If you were REAL law and order conservatives, you would demand that they be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. But that's not what you want. You just want to 'move on' as if it was little more than some kind of disorderly conduct or an inadvertent trespassing charge like someone walking on someone else's lawn only because he's taking a short cut to get to his car.

I want equality of justice.

Breaking and entering, trespassing, fighting with cops, I am comfortable calling it a riot. People who were arrested for specific criminal acts, I have no problem with them being prosecuted.

My point has been that going above and beyond normal investigation efforts, is a violation of their Civil Rights.

And it is.

That's a new one on me. Now people have a civil right not to be investigated when there's probable cause to believe they've committed a crime.

malicious investigations are a violation of your rights. That's why the government needs a warrant to search your house or go through your personal information.

A warrant requires probable cause. However, the gov't can access your personal information without a warrant.

No it can't, moron.

Sure it can. Plenty of personal information is a matter of public record and can be accessed by pretty much anyone.

They can get public information, no personal information. They can't even get your address without your permission.

You clearly don't know what you're talking about. Certain sensitive personal information requires a warrant like tapping your phone to listen to your calls, or searching your home without your consent. But other information like your driving record, vehicle registration, auto insurance, credit record, phone call logs of who you called and when you called them, Facebook information, and any public records like real estate holdings do not require a warrant. And clearly the gov't does not need a warrant to get your address.

Then of course, you can always grant the police the permission to search your car or your home.

You need to educate yourself.

Actually, that's wrong. Most of that information is privileged. They only Facebook information they can view is what the user has made public. I believe the government does require a warrant to get your address

You don't have a clue what you're talking about which means you're making a fool of yourself. When I was in the Army, we called guys like you barracks lawyers because they gave out bad information because they didn't know that the UCMJ superseded constitutional rights. Consequently, what you believe is irrelevant. Like I said, you need to educate yourself.

Start with the 1979 Supreme Court Case of Smith v Maryland. It's a 4th Amendment case about a legitimate expectation to privacy regarding a warrantless installation of a pen register to record the numbers being called from a phone.

The ruling was that "the installation and use of the pen register was not a "search" within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment, and hence no warrant was required."

You don't even know what the meaning of the word, "privileged" is.

Privileged information is special, confidential information. which is to be only shared between specific parties and not admissible in court and protected from a subpoena. That would include Doctor/Patient records and Lawyer/Client records, and Priest/Parishioner confidences.

That definition means that what I listed in my earlier post is not privileged information by even the most liberal definition.

The gov't does NOT need a warrant to get your address. Your address is (or should be) on your drivers license and vehicle registration, and you are required by law to update your address with the state if and when you move. The state generally gives a person a specific period of time to update the information after moving.

Another example of information that would require a warrant is email correspondence but only for emails that are less than 180 days old.

 

[freyasman]

You are comparing apples to oranges. YOu are purposefully comparing one cherry picked example to the 1/6 riot, ignoring that there have been HUNDREDS of radical lefty riots, where various people were threatened and the police did not shoot down the rioters.

Indeed, there were a lot of other cops there that day. Why did only one of them fire? If the need for lethal force was so clear, why was there not dozens of cops firing hundreds of rounds?

You cherry picked Babbitt, not me.

The vast majority of the protestors were peaceful and unarmed. THe woman that was killed was unarmed.

Why did only one of them fire? Because as I stated earlier, the other cops were treating the protestors with kid gloves and retreating. This cop couldn't retreat any further as the violent mob had reached their last line of defense before reaching members of Congress.

It's utterly bizarre how the cult refuses to accept Benedict Babbitt put herself into a lethal situation.

Based on the norms set by you fucktards over the last 4 years, it would be completely understandable, how she could have though that breaking and entering would have been acceptable behavior, perhaps with some minor judicial implications.

Who over the last four years threatened to attack members of Congress and got feet away from them?

Your moral compass is broken and unrepairable.

Well, James T. Hodgkinson for one.....

But you all already threw that one down the old memory hole, didn't ya'll?

No, I'm not only aware of him. I was hoping a cultist would point him out.

How did police treat him?

And thanks for making my point!

What was he doing when they shot him?
Firing a rifle at multiple people.

And what was she doing when she was killed?
Trying to enter a room in a public building, unarmed.



Not the same. Not even close.

Granted, the situation with Hodgkinson was more dire, but both were threatening lawmakers and both got dangerously close. Another difference is Hodgkinson wasn't stopped until after he started injuring lawmakers while Ashli Targetpractice was stopped before she and the violent mob behind her could.

I don't know if you believe the utter nonsense you post here, but just so you know, no one else does.

I'm not really sure why you keep doing it, except that maybe you just enjoy humiliating yourself.

 

[Faun]

Well, James T. Hodgkinson for one.....

But you all already threw that one down the old memory hole, didn't ya'll?

Not really a useful example in context of the ongoing discussion. Hodgkinson died when police (including Capitol police) returned fire.

The other poster has been arguing that police oil don’t have shot a leftist protestor in a similar circumstance, but they seem to ignore a lot of details about the circumstance in which Babbitt died.

No, he tried to claim no one else had ever attacked Congress personnel before and that's clearly bullshit.
A hardcore leftist tried to murder several Republicans.

You really should have looked more at the context of the conversation.

It's Faun ....... literally the most dishonest and stupid partisan hack poster here.
It's really hard to look closely at that level of lying and stupidity.

If I'm so stupid, how did I snare you into making my point??

Do you think that comparison makes your point?
How, stupid?





They are nothing alike; one was an actual physical attack by an armed man intent on murder, and the other was an unarmed woman trying to enter a room and confront the public servants her taxes pay for, about the obvious fraud during the election.

They are very much alike in that it's the Capitol Police's job to protect Congressmen/women, among others. I pointed out the differences but the similarities are Hodgkinson was a deadly threat to lawmakers and that mob was a deadly threat to lawmakers. And despite your idiotic attempt to trivialize Ashli Targetpractice's boneheaded move, she wasn't merely "trying to enter a room in a public building, unarmed."She was actually trying to break into a restricted area with a violent mob where members of Congress were holed up in the House chamber just feet away from her. And the point about her being unarmed is nonsensical because the cops had no way of knowing if she was armed or not and it mattered not that she wasn't because there was a mob of people with her seeking to get at lawmakers.

In both cases, cops took out a threat. Shooting Hodgkinson stopped the shooting and shooting AshliTargetpractice stopped the mob who was in the process of breaking down doors and windows, secured by a police barricade.

 

[Faun]

You are comparing apples to oranges. YOu are purposefully comparing one cherry picked example to the 1/6 riot, ignoring that there have been HUNDREDS of radical lefty riots, where various people were threatened and the police did not shoot down the rioters.

Indeed, there were a lot of other cops there that day. Why did only one of them fire? If the need for lethal force was so clear, why was there not dozens of cops firing hundreds of rounds?

You cherry picked Babbitt, not me.

The vast majority of the protestors were peaceful and unarmed. THe woman that was killed was unarmed.

Why did only one of them fire? Because as I stated earlier, the other cops were treating the protestors with kid gloves and retreating. This cop couldn't retreat any further as the violent mob had reached their last line of defense before reaching members of Congress.

It's utterly bizarre how the cult refuses to accept Benedict Babbitt put herself into a lethal situation.

Based on the norms set by you fucktards over the last 4 years, it would be completely understandable, how she could have though that breaking and entering would have been acceptable behavior, perhaps with some minor judicial implications.

Who over the last four years threatened to attack members of Congress and got feet away from them?

Your moral compass is broken and unrepairable.

Well, James T. Hodgkinson for one.....

But you all already threw that one down the old memory hole, didn't ya'll?

No, I'm not only aware of him. I was hoping a cultist would point him out.

How did police treat him?

And thanks for making my point!

What was he doing when they shot him?
Firing a rifle at multiple people.

And what was she doing when she was killed?
Trying to enter a room in a public building, unarmed.



Not the same. Not even close.

Granted, the situation with Hodgkinson was more dire, but both were threatening lawmakers and both got dangerously close. Another difference is Hodgkinson wasn't stopped until after he started injuring lawmakers while Ashli Targetpractice was stopped before she and the violent mob behind her could.

I don't know if you believe the utter nonsense you post here, but just so you know, no one else does.

I'm not really sure why you keep doing it, except that maybe you just enjoy humiliating yourself.

Of course I believe it -- it's true.

But again, what does that say about you? I expected bripat, the biggest fucking moron on this site, to get snared by my post. But even he didn't -- you did.

 

[freyasman]

Well, James T. Hodgkinson for one.....

But you all already threw that one down the old memory hole, didn't ya'll?

Not really a useful example in context of the ongoing discussion. Hodgkinson died when police (including Capitol police) returned fire.

The other poster has been arguing that police oil don’t have shot a leftist protestor in a similar circumstance, but they seem to ignore a lot of details about the circumstance in which Babbitt died.

No, he tried to claim no one else had ever attacked Congress personnel before and that's clearly bullshit.
A hardcore leftist tried to murder several Republicans.

You really should have looked more at the context of the conversation.

It's Faun ....... literally the most dishonest and stupid partisan hack poster here.
It's really hard to look closely at that level of lying and stupidity.

If I'm so stupid, how did I snare you into making my point??

Do you think that comparison makes your point?
How, stupid?





They are nothing alike; one was an actual physical attack by an armed man intent on murder, and the other was an unarmed woman trying to enter a room and confront the public servants her taxes pay for, about the obvious fraud during the election.

They are very much alike in that it's the Capitol Police's job to protect Congressmen/women, among others. I pointed out the differences but the similarities are Hodgkinson was a deadly threat to lawmakers and that mob was a deadly threat to lawmakers. And despite your idiotic attempt to trivialize Ashli Targetpractice's boneheaded move, she wasn't merely "trying to enter a room in a public building, unarmed."She was actually trying to break into a restricted area with a violent mob where members of Congress were holed up in the House chamber just feet away from her. And the point about her being unarmed is nonsensical because the cops had no way of knowing if she was armed or not and it mattered not that she wasn't because there was a mob of people with her seeking to get at lawmakers.

In both cases, cops took out a threat. Shooting Hodgkinson stopped the shooting and shooting AshliTargetpractice stopped the mob who was in the process of breaking down doors and windows, secured by a police barricade.

Except no, not really.

 

[freyasman]

You are comparing apples to oranges. YOu are purposefully comparing one cherry picked example to the 1/6 riot, ignoring that there have been HUNDREDS of radical lefty riots, where various people were threatened and the police did not shoot down the rioters.

Indeed, there were a lot of other cops there that day. Why did only one of them fire? If the need for lethal force was so clear, why was there not dozens of cops firing hundreds of rounds?

You cherry picked Babbitt, not me.

The vast majority of the protestors were peaceful and unarmed. THe woman that was killed was unarmed.

Why did only one of them fire? Because as I stated earlier, the other cops were treating the protestors with kid gloves and retreating. This cop couldn't retreat any further as the violent mob had reached their last line of defense before reaching members of Congress.

It's utterly bizarre how the cult refuses to accept Benedict Babbitt put herself into a lethal situation.

Based on the norms set by you fucktards over the last 4 years, it would be completely understandable, how she could have though that breaking and entering would have been acceptable behavior, perhaps with some minor judicial implications.

Who over the last four years threatened to attack members of Congress and got feet away from them?

Your moral compass is broken and unrepairable.

Well, James T. Hodgkinson for one.....

But you all already threw that one down the old memory hole, didn't ya'll?

No, I'm not only aware of him. I was hoping a cultist would point him out.

How did police treat him?

And thanks for making my point!

What was he doing when they shot him?
Firing a rifle at multiple people.

And what was she doing when she was killed?
Trying to enter a room in a public building, unarmed.



Not the same. Not even close.

Granted, the situation with Hodgkinson was more dire, but both were threatening lawmakers and both got dangerously close. Another difference is Hodgkinson wasn't stopped until after he started injuring lawmakers while Ashli Targetpractice was stopped before she and the violent mob behind her could.

I don't know if you believe the utter nonsense you post here, but just so you know, no one else does.

I'm not really sure why you keep doing it, except that maybe you just enjoy humiliating yourself.

Of course I believe it -- it's true.

But again, what does that say about you? I expected bripat, the biggest fucking moron on this site, to get snared by my post. But even he didn't -- you did.

No, not even close...... are you telling me you are actually this stupid and brainwashed?

This whole dumb as fuck thing you do here isn't just an act?

 

[Faun]

Well, James T. Hodgkinson for one.....

But you all already threw that one down the old memory hole, didn't ya'll?

Not really a useful example in context of the ongoing discussion. Hodgkinson died when police (including Capitol police) returned fire.

The other poster has been arguing that police oil don’t have shot a leftist protestor in a similar circumstance, but they seem to ignore a lot of details about the circumstance in which Babbitt died.

No, he tried to claim no one else had ever attacked Congress personnel before and that's clearly bullshit.
A hardcore leftist tried to murder several Republicans.

You really should have looked more at the context of the conversation.

It's Faun ....... literally the most dishonest and stupid partisan hack poster here.
It's really hard to look closely at that level of lying and stupidity.

If I'm so stupid, how did I snare you into making my point??

Do you think that comparison makes your point?
How, stupid?





They are nothing alike; one was an actual physical attack by an armed man intent on murder, and the other was an unarmed woman trying to enter a room and confront the public servants her taxes pay for, about the obvious fraud during the election.

They are very much alike in that it's the Capitol Police's job to protect Congressmen/women, among others. I pointed out the differences but the similarities are Hodgkinson was a deadly threat to lawmakers and that mob was a deadly threat to lawmakers. And despite your idiotic attempt to trivialize Ashli Targetpractice's boneheaded move, she wasn't merely "trying to enter a room in a public building, unarmed."She was actually trying to break into a restricted area with a violent mob where members of Congress were holed up in the House chamber just feet away from her. And the point about her being unarmed is nonsensical because the cops had no way of knowing if she was armed or not and it mattered not that she wasn't because there was a mob of people with her seeking to get at lawmakers.

In both cases, cops took out a threat. Shooting Hodgkinson stopped the shooting and shooting AshliTargetpractice stopped the mob who was in the process of breaking down doors and windows, secured by a police barricade.

Except no, not really.

 

[Faun]

You are comparing apples to oranges. YOu are purposefully comparing one cherry picked example to the 1/6 riot, ignoring that there have been HUNDREDS of radical lefty riots, where various people were threatened and the police did not shoot down the rioters.

Indeed, there were a lot of other cops there that day. Why did only one of them fire? If the need for lethal force was so clear, why was there not dozens of cops firing hundreds of rounds?

You cherry picked Babbitt, not me.

The vast majority of the protestors were peaceful and unarmed. THe woman that was killed was unarmed.

Why did only one of them fire? Because as I stated earlier, the other cops were treating the protestors with kid gloves and retreating. This cop couldn't retreat any further as the violent mob had reached their last line of defense before reaching members of Congress.

It's utterly bizarre how the cult refuses to accept Benedict Babbitt put herself into a lethal situation.

Based on the norms set by you fucktards over the last 4 years, it would be completely understandable, how she could have though that breaking and entering would have been acceptable behavior, perhaps with some minor judicial implications.

Who over the last four years threatened to attack members of Congress and got feet away from them?

Your moral compass is broken and unrepairable.

Well, James T. Hodgkinson for one.....

But you all already threw that one down the old memory hole, didn't ya'll?

No, I'm not only aware of him. I was hoping a cultist would point him out.

How did police treat him?

And thanks for making my point!

What was he doing when they shot him?
Firing a rifle at multiple people.

And what was she doing when she was killed?
Trying to enter a room in a public building, unarmed.



Not the same. Not even close.

Granted, the situation with Hodgkinson was more dire, but both were threatening lawmakers and both got dangerously close. Another difference is Hodgkinson wasn't stopped until after he started injuring lawmakers while Ashli Targetpractice was stopped before she and the violent mob behind her could.

I don't know if you believe the utter nonsense you post here, but just so you know, no one else does.

I'm not really sure why you keep doing it, except that maybe you just enjoy humiliating yourself.

Of course I believe it -- it's true.

But again, what does that say about you? I expected bripat, the biggest fucking moron on this site, to get snared by my post. But even he didn't -- you did.

No, not even close...... are you telling me you are actually this stupid and brainwashed?

This whole dumb as fuck thing you do here isn't just an act?

You didn't answer my question. So why are you asking questions of me?

 

[freyasman]

You are comparing apples to oranges. YOu are purposefully comparing one cherry picked example to the 1/6 riot, ignoring that there have been HUNDREDS of radical lefty riots, where various people were threatened and the police did not shoot down the rioters.

Indeed, there were a lot of other cops there that day. Why did only one of them fire? If the need for lethal force was so clear, why was there not dozens of cops firing hundreds of rounds?

You cherry picked Babbitt, not me.

The vast majority of the protestors were peaceful and unarmed. THe woman that was killed was unarmed.

Why did only one of them fire? Because as I stated earlier, the other cops were treating the protestors with kid gloves and retreating. This cop couldn't retreat any further as the violent mob had reached their last line of defense before reaching members of Congress.

It's utterly bizarre how the cult refuses to accept Benedict Babbitt put herself into a lethal situation.

Based on the norms set by you fucktards over the last 4 years, it would be completely understandable, how she could have though that breaking and entering would have been acceptable behavior, perhaps with some minor judicial implications.

Who over the last four years threatened to attack members of Congress and got feet away from them?

Your moral compass is broken and unrepairable.

Well, James T. Hodgkinson for one.....

But you all already threw that one down the old memory hole, didn't ya'll?

No, I'm not only aware of him. I was hoping a cultist would point him out.

How did police treat him?

And thanks for making my point!

What was he doing when they shot him?
Firing a rifle at multiple people.

And what was she doing when she was killed?
Trying to enter a room in a public building, unarmed.



Not the same. Not even close.

Granted, the situation with Hodgkinson was more dire, but both were threatening lawmakers and both got dangerously close. Another difference is Hodgkinson wasn't stopped until after he started injuring lawmakers while Ashli Targetpractice was stopped before she and the violent mob behind her could.

I don't know if you believe the utter nonsense you post here, but just so you know, no one else does.

I'm not really sure why you keep doing it, except that maybe you just enjoy humiliating yourself.

Of course I believe it -- it's true.

But again, what does that say about you? I expected bripat, the biggest fucking moron on this site, to get snared by my post. But even he didn't -- you did.

No, not even close...... are you telling me you are actually this stupid and brainwashed?

This whole dumb as fuck thing you do here isn't just an act?

You didn't answer my question. So why are you asking questions of me?

I don't really know...... you have already proven you will never answer anything honestly.

You're a liar and a hack and nothing you post is ever anything but bullshit, so why am I wasting my time talking to you?

 

[Correll]

You are comparing apples to oranges. YOu are purposefully comparing one cherry picked example to the 1/6 riot, ignoring that there have been HUNDREDS of radical lefty riots, where various people were threatened and the police did not shoot down the rioters.

Indeed, there were a lot of other cops there that day. Why did only one of them fire? If the need for lethal force was so clear, why was there not dozens of cops firing hundreds of rounds?

You cherry picked Babbitt, not me.

The vast majority of the protestors were peaceful and unarmed. THe woman that was killed was unarmed.

Why did only one of them fire? Because as I stated earlier, the other cops were treating the protestors with kid gloves and retreating. This cop couldn't retreat any further as the violent mob had reached their last line of defense before reaching members of Congress.

It's utterly bizarre how the cult refuses to accept Benedict Babbitt put herself into a lethal situation.

Based on the norms set by you fucktards over the last 4 years, it would be completely understandable, how she could have though that breaking and entering would have been acceptable behavior, perhaps with some minor judicial implications.

Who over the last four years threatened to attack members of Congress and got feet away from them?

Your moral compass is broken and unrepairable.

Are you pretending to not be aware of the massive wave of riots that have been raging unchecked for years in this country, or are you actually retarded?

You didn't answer ... who among them threatened to attack members of Congress and got within feet of them?

They firebombed a federal courthouse while people were inside of it, you fucking NAZI.

Show the cop standing there who did nothing...

Police near the courthouse doing nothing while it's being firebombed:

He asked for it. You gave it. Now he will show that his asking for it, was shit, because no information will change his position because he is a mindless ideological zealot.

Dumbfuck, he posted an image where no one's life was being threatened.

Now stop lying. He didn't prove what I asked for.

If I show a picture of people being attacked and cops not shooting the rioters, would you admit it?

Possibly. If it shows the rioters were a threat to someone's life and I can find the news describing the event of the photo which confirms it, then sure.

Possibly? LOL!!!

Yes, possibly. Or are you so retarded, you'd think I'd accept your claim as fact before you post your evidence.

Errr, are you pretending to be so retarded that you don't understand the concept of a IF/THEN question?

You like IF/THEN questions? If Trump had not told his mob to be at the capital on January 6th and expect a "wild time", would the riot have occured?

Nope. It would not have.


See how easy that was?

 

[Correll]

Your lack of concern for the lives and property of American Citizens notwithstanding, it is worth noting that there were plenty of attacks on government buildings and agents that also did not get this type of response.

What type of response? The police at the Capitol fell back over and over again.

The difference, and the one that you really never acknowledge, is that the Capitol police were defending members of Congress. Give me any analogous situation from any other riot. I don't know of any, do you?

You are inventing excuses for the differences in response during and after.

Talking shit does not change the facts that of the differences, OR that it is a violation of equal application of justice and thus a massive violation of civil rights.

 

[Correll]

Your lack of concern for the lives and property of American Citizens notwithstanding, it is worth noting that there were plenty of attacks on government buildings and agents that also did not get this type of response.

What type of response? The police at the Capitol fell back over and over again.

The difference, and the one that you really never acknowledge, is that the Capitol police were defending members of Congress. Give me any analogous situation from any other riot. I don't know of any, do you?

Good luck. He keeps fomenting about an unequal application of justice but can't find an analogous situation of a BLM member, whose identity was known, that tased a Police officer in the neck and walked free for weeks.

Your attempt to pretend that the 1/6 riot was unique and thus not comparable to the hundreds of riots over the previous 4 years is just you talking shit.


Talking shit does not change the fact of the massive violation of civil rights you are supporting.

 

[Faun]

You are comparing apples to oranges. YOu are purposefully comparing one cherry picked example to the 1/6 riot, ignoring that there have been HUNDREDS of radical lefty riots, where various people were threatened and the police did not shoot down the rioters.

Indeed, there were a lot of other cops there that day. Why did only one of them fire? If the need for lethal force was so clear, why was there not dozens of cops firing hundreds of rounds?

You cherry picked Babbitt, not me.

The vast majority of the protestors were peaceful and unarmed. THe woman that was killed was unarmed.

Why did only one of them fire? Because as I stated earlier, the other cops were treating the protestors with kid gloves and retreating. This cop couldn't retreat any further as the violent mob had reached their last line of defense before reaching members of Congress.

It's utterly bizarre how the cult refuses to accept Benedict Babbitt put herself into a lethal situation.

Based on the norms set by you fucktards over the last 4 years, it would be completely understandable, how she could have though that breaking and entering would have been acceptable behavior, perhaps with some minor judicial implications.

Who over the last four years threatened to attack members of Congress and got feet away from them?

Your moral compass is broken and unrepairable.

Well, James T. Hodgkinson for one.....

But you all already threw that one down the old memory hole, didn't ya'll?

No, I'm not only aware of him. I was hoping a cultist would point him out.

How did police treat him?

And thanks for making my point!

What was he doing when they shot him?
Firing a rifle at multiple people.

And what was she doing when she was killed?
Trying to enter a room in a public building, unarmed.



Not the same. Not even close.

Granted, the situation with Hodgkinson was more dire, but both were threatening lawmakers and both got dangerously close. Another difference is Hodgkinson wasn't stopped until after he started injuring lawmakers while Ashli Targetpractice was stopped before she and the violent mob behind her could.

I don't know if you believe the utter nonsense you post here, but just so you know, no one else does.

I'm not really sure why you keep doing it, except that maybe you just enjoy humiliating yourself.

Of course I believe it -- it's true.

But again, what does that say about you? I expected bripat, the biggest fucking moron on this site, to get snared by my post. But even he didn't -- you did.

No, not even close...... are you telling me you are actually this stupid and brainwashed?

This whole dumb as fuck thing you do here isn't just an act?

You didn't answer my question. So why are you asking questions of me?

I don't really know...... you have already proven you will never answer anything honestly.

You're a liar and a hack and nothing you post is ever anything but bullshit, so why am I wasting my time talking to you?

Now why are you asking me questions that only you know the answer to?

I'll ask again, but I doubt I'll get an answer...

I expected bripat, the biggest fucking moron on this site, to get snared by my post. But even he didn't -- you did. What does that say about you?

 

[Correll]

You are comparing apples to oranges. YOu are purposefully comparing one cherry picked example to the 1/6 riot, ignoring that there have been HUNDREDS of radical lefty riots, where various people were threatened and the police did not shoot down the rioters.

Indeed, there were a lot of other cops there that day. Why did only one of them fire? If the need for lethal force was so clear, why was there not dozens of cops firing hundreds of rounds?

You cherry picked Babbitt, not me.

The vast majority of the protestors were peaceful and unarmed. THe woman that was killed was unarmed.

Why did only one of them fire? Because as I stated earlier, the other cops were treating the protestors with kid gloves and retreating. This cop couldn't retreat any further as the violent mob had reached their last line of defense before reaching members of Congress.

It's utterly bizarre how the cult refuses to accept Benedict Babbitt put herself into a lethal situation.

Based on the norms set by you fucktards over the last 4 years, it would be completely understandable, how she could have though that breaking and entering would have been acceptable behavior, perhaps with some minor judicial implications.

Who over the last four years threatened to attack members of Congress and got feet away from them?

Your moral compass is broken and unrepairable.

Are you pretending to not be aware of the massive wave of riots that have been raging unchecked for years in this country, or are you actually retarded?

You didn't answer ... who among them threatened to attack members of Congress and got within feet of them?

They firebombed a federal courthouse while people were inside of it, you fucking NAZI.

Show the cop standing there who did nothing...

Police near the courthouse doing nothing while it's being firebombed:

He asked for it. You gave it. Now he will show that his asking for it, was shit, because no information will change his position because he is a mindless ideological zealot.

Dumbfuck, he posted an image where no one's life was being threatened.

Now stop lying. He didn't prove what I asked for.

If I show a picture of people being attacked and cops not shooting the rioters, would you admit it?

Possibly. If it shows the rioters were a threat to someone's life and I can find the news describing the event of the photo which confirms it, then sure.

Possibly? LOL!!!

Yes, possibly. Or are you so retarded, you'd think I'd accept your claim as fact before you post your evidence.

Errr, are you pretending to be so retarded that you don't understand the concept of a IF/THEN question?

You like IF/THEN questions? If Trump had not told his mob to be at the capital on January 6th and expect a "wild time", would the riot have occured?

Here's another. If Trump hadn't lied about the election being stolen, would his mob have stormed the capital screaming for Mike Pence's death?

what a fun game!

It is your opinion that Trump lied. That is meaningless.

 

[Concerned American]

Active-Duty Marine Corps Major Charged In Capitol Riot

Officials say Maj. Christopher Warnagiris is believed to be the first active-duty military service member to be charged in connection with the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol.

www.npr.org

Love it.

I'm not exactly thrilled that it was an active duty Marine...

 

[Faun]

You are comparing apples to oranges. YOu are purposefully comparing one cherry picked example to the 1/6 riot, ignoring that there have been HUNDREDS of radical lefty riots, where various people were threatened and the police did not shoot down the rioters.

Indeed, there were a lot of other cops there that day. Why did only one of them fire? If the need for lethal force was so clear, why was there not dozens of cops firing hundreds of rounds?

You cherry picked Babbitt, not me.

The vast majority of the protestors were peaceful and unarmed. THe woman that was killed was unarmed.

Why did only one of them fire? Because as I stated earlier, the other cops were treating the protestors with kid gloves and retreating. This cop couldn't retreat any further as the violent mob had reached their last line of defense before reaching members of Congress.

It's utterly bizarre how the cult refuses to accept Benedict Babbitt put herself into a lethal situation.

Based on the norms set by you fucktards over the last 4 years, it would be completely understandable, how she could have though that breaking and entering would have been acceptable behavior, perhaps with some minor judicial implications.

Who over the last four years threatened to attack members of Congress and got feet away from them?

Your moral compass is broken and unrepairable.

Are you pretending to not be aware of the massive wave of riots that have been raging unchecked for years in this country, or are you actually retarded?

You didn't answer ... who among them threatened to attack members of Congress and got within feet of them?

They firebombed a federal courthouse while people were inside of it, you fucking NAZI.

Show the cop standing there who did nothing...

Police near the courthouse doing nothing while it's being firebombed:

He asked for it. You gave it. Now he will show that his asking for it, was shit, because no information will change his position because he is a mindless ideological zealot.

Dumbfuck, he posted an image where no one's life was being threatened.

Now stop lying. He didn't prove what I asked for.

If I show a picture of people being attacked and cops not shooting the rioters, would you admit it?

Possibly. If it shows the rioters were a threat to someone's life and I can find the news describing the event of the photo which confirms it, then sure.

Possibly? LOL!!!

Yes, possibly. Or are you so retarded, you'd think I'd accept your claim as fact before you post your evidence.

Errr, are you pretending to be so retarded that you don't understand the concept of a IF/THEN question?

You like IF/THEN questions? If Trump had not told his mob to be at the capital on January 6th and expect a "wild time", would the riot have occured?

Here's another. If Trump hadn't lied about the election being stolen, would his mob have stormed the capital screaming for Mike Pence's death?

what a fun game!

It is your opinion that Trump lied. That is meaningless.

Nope, that's not opinion. Had Trump not lied, he would have been able to prove his claims and he would still be president.

 

[colfax_m]

You are inventing excuses for the differences in response during and after.

Talking shit does not change the facts that of the differences, OR that it is a violation of equal application of justice and thus a massive violation of civil rights.

Nothing I said is invented. It's all facts, none of which you've even bothered to challenge.

Protecting members of Congress is a huge difference.

 

[colfax_m]

It's @Faun ....... literally the most dishonest and stupid partisan hack poster here.
It's really hard to look closely at that level of lying and stupidity.

I don't care who it is. You completely missed the context of the conversation.