Oldestyle
Diamond Member
It's a simple question...where was the explanation given in this thread? I've read it.Re read the thread then.
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.
It's a simple question...where was the explanation given in this thread? I've read it.Re read the thread then.
So do we agree that the Police let some protestors into the building? I ask the question again...WHY?Moron, you compared police letting some protesters into the building while shooting Ashli Targetpractice. But Benedict Babbitt wasn't shot for entering the building. She was already in the building and not shot for being in it. She was shot for trying to lead a mob to get into the House chamber.
Which is why I pointed out no one was let into the House chamber. To highlight the absurdity of your comparison.
The Capital Police weren't surprised by it...they were warned days in advance that it might take place yet nothing was done to up security even though the Chief of the Capital Police REPEATEDLY asked for National Guard troops to assist them and was ignored! Why was that?I don't understand this line here.
So, are you saying they should have seen it coming? And then what..gas em and whack em? Or are you saying they should have shot more of them? What are you suggesting about their incompetence? Not that i am saying they are 100% competent. I am just curious what you think should have been different? I was surprised by the riot. Werent you?
"I have yet to see the video..."
asked for National Guard troops to assist them and was ignored! Why was that?
The explanation was that the door that was opened was opened because a wave of people were about to smash through it anyway. That was not the case for the windows and doors that were broken.It's a simple question...where was the explanation given in this thread? I've read it.
What should they have done? Had more officers and gassed and whacked the shit out of people? Yes? They did seem ill-prepared. But again .. .so was I. I did not see that one coming. But ya kind of get the forced resignation.Why was the Capital Police Chief forced to resign by Nancy Pelosi if they did indeed do their jobs as they should have? What's up with that?
Ok...I don't understand this line here.
So, are you saying they should have seen it coming? And then what..gas em and whack em? Or are you saying they should have shot more of them? What are you suggesting about their incompetence? Not that i am saying they are 100% competent. I am just curious what you think should have been different? I was surprised by the riot. Werent you?
It seems they were faaaar outnumbered.Sure the police had on riot gear...but their ineffective use of it when encountering such a violent crown (usually it's just a few of the many) was rather disturbing.
Where were the bullhorns?
Where was their supervision?
What is embarrassing is you people playing up a bunch of toothless hicks from bumfuck as a serious threat to peaceful transfer of power while you scoff and downplay Leftist terrorists blowing up the entire Capitol and a deranged Bernie Sanders supporter not happy with the election and shooting up Republican Congressional Reps. How peaceful is that?Ah yes, put on your little drama queen act. See how far it gets you.
You can put on your little act (not very convincing). But people generally understand what a serious and embarrassing event it was for this country when 100s of hillbillies tried to prevent our peaceful transition of power.
So embarrass yourself all you like.
Again...they were warned days before the protest and the Capital Police Chief repeatedly asked for National Guard help for what he rightly foresaw could get ugly! So why did Nancy Pelosi ask for his resignation?What should they have done? Had more officers and gassed and whacked the shit out of people? Yes? They did seem ill-prepared. But again .. .so was I. I did not see that one coming. But ya kind of get the forced resignation.
Asked and answered.So do we agree that the Police let some protestors into the building? I ask the question again...WHY?
You think a congressional investigation might help answer that?The Capital Police weren't surprised by it...they were warned days in advance that it might take place yet nothing was done to up security even though the Chief of the Capital Police REPEATEDLY asked for National Guard troops to assist them and was ignored! Why was that?
I didn't downplay any of that, you desperate weirdo. And their spectacular failure does not excuse their intent. And the obvious fact that literally everyone in the world not in the American right seems to understand: Trump's Big Lie -- which he continues to perpetuate -- was the cause.What is embarrassing is you people playing up a bunch of toothless hicks from bumfuck as a serious threat to peaceful transfer of power while you scoff and downplay Leftist terrorists blowing up the entire Capitol and a deranged Bernie Sanders supporter not happy with the election and shooting up Republican Congressional Reps.
It seems they were faaaar outnumbered.
With all due respect, Fort...there is a progression of force that should be used in dealing with a protest that's gotten out of hand. You don't start shooting unarmed people UNTIL you've employed tear gas...or batons. To jump all the way to shooting someone is an issue.What should they have done? Had more officers and gassed and whacked the shit out of people? Yes? They did seem ill-prepared. But again .. .so was I. I did not see that one coming. But ya kind of get the forced resignation.
Not if it's a congressional investigation by the people that Nancy Pelosi wants asking the questions! It will NEVER be asked!You think a congressional investigation might help answer that?
They did both of those things, apparently. Didn't work.You don't start shooting unarmed people UNTIL you've employed tear gas...or batons.
Pre-emptive excuses. flying everywhere. Everybody duck.Not if it's a congressional investigation by the people that Nancy Pelosi wants asking the questions! It will NEVER be asked!
I'm going to let your comment about my intelligence or perceived lack thereof go because I understand you're especially distraught over the loss of Ashli's life. Nonetheless being distraught is no excuse for refusing to understand what has been so patiently explained to you by several individuals on this thread. People exercising their 1st Amendment rights by marching in the streets is DIFFERENT than individuals unlawfully invading the Capital especially when our Congressional members were occupying it. The laws are slightly different when on federal government property.With all due respect, Mary...if you're not intelligent enough to grasp what hanging someone in "effigy" means then I'm wasting my time debating you! The "gallows" that you show a picture of isn't real. It wouldn't hold Mike Pence because it's actually rather small hence it's not a REAL gallows! It represents anger and frustration by the protestors over what they perceived as an election that smelled to high heavens of voter fraud.
Criminal Threats
Communication
A criminal threat involves one person threatening someone else with physical harm. The threat must be communicated in some way, though it doesn't necessarily have to be verbal. A person can make a threat through email, text message, or even through non-verbal body language such as gestures or movements. However, some states require written or verbal threats, and in those states gestures are not enough.
Fear and Intent
Criminal threats are made with the intention to place someone in fear of injury or death. However, it isn't necessary for a victim to actually experience fear or terror. Rather, it's the intention of the person making the threat that matters. The intent of a person who makes threats is usually determined by the circumstances surrounding the case.
Specificity and Reasonableness
You cannot commit a criminal threat if the threat is vague or unreasonable. The threat must be capable of making the people who hear it feel as if they might be hurt, and conclude that the threat is credible, real, and imminent. If, for example, you threaten to blow up the world unless your bartender doesn't bring your drink to you immediately, no reasonable person hearing it would believe the threat was real. On the other hand, if you walk into a store with a gun and threaten to shoot the clerk unless she gives you a refund, such a threat is credible and specific.
Criminal Threats