Invading the Capitol to protest the electoral vote certification (2016 edition)

[Keith&Co.]

If I was calling the shots there would have been a warning shot fired.

first off, by MY training, we don't do warning shots.
The firing of a gun is the use of lethal force. We don't fire unless we intend to take someone down.
Second, they were inside a building made of marble. A warning shot would put everyone at risk from a ricochet.
Third, to get go the spot where she was shot, she passed at least two barricades, police cordons, and locked doors. All served as warnings that she was not going to be welcomed inside.

Or a barrage of warning shots by a squad of police from several vantage points.

Jesus fuck. A barrage of bullets? Three dead, and the cops claim thdy were all 'warning shots?

Basically the policy for officers carrying guns should be that lethal force is allowed after a a clear warning has been issued and the perp has demonstrated that they don't care whether they are killed.

That's the conditions for deadly force, yes. What do you want, a signed release by the perpetrator collected at the entry?
You saw the video? Where someone in the mob shouted "GUN!" three or four times?
Lesser means were applied before the shot. They failed. The barricade outside failed. The locked doors failed. The cops standing there failed. The improvised barricade failed. Shouting, 'you have to leave' failed. Pointing a gun at them failed.

For instance, way before they got to the inner hallways they could have been met by security who fired a few rounds over their heads.

no, no, no, no, no, no, no.

If that didn't dissuade them then I wouldn't have a problem with using as much force as necessary to get them to turn around.

Well, he shot once, and they stopped climbing over the barricade. He did not fire wildly into the crowd once they backed off.

 

[ZiprHead]

I just think we need to change the protocols on when to initiate lethal force. The rioters smashing the doors in knew there was a gun pointed at them. The longer the situation went on without it being used the more they came to assume it never would. If I was calling the shots there would have been a warning shot fired. Or a barrage of warning shots by a squad of police from several vantage points. Basically the policy for officers carrying guns should be that lethal force is allowed after a a clear warning has been issued and the perp has demonstrated that they don't care whether they are killed. For instance, way before they got to the inner hallways they could have been met by security who fired a few rounds over their heads. If that didn't dissuade them then I wouldn't have a problem with using as much force as necessary to get them to turn around.

The problem with warning shots is they come down... somewhere no one knows.

A shot in the face of one of those who tried and succeeded in dragging that officer off to be beaten, possibly to death, would have been a fine use of a warning shot.

 

[Treedbear]

first off, by MY training, we don't do warning shots.
The firing of a gun is the use of lethal force. We don't fire unless we intend to take someone down.

Yeah. That's the problem I was talking about. Fuck shit piss why do you think I mentioned it?

Second, they were inside a building made of marble. A warning shot would put everyone at risk from a ricochet.

Then they could have used flash bangs. Firing with intent to kill is one step beyond where I'd go. The cops had to do something. If they'd done nothing at all to intervene then the woman wouldn't have gotten trampled either. But the rioters placed themselves in a hazardous situation and if they got hit by a ricochet it would have been by accident and unavoidable.

Third, to get go the spot where she was shot, she passed at least two barricades, police cordons, and locked doors. All served as warnings that she was not going to be welcomed inside.

One warning shot might have saved her life. I guess you just don't think it was worth the effort.

Jesus fuck. A barrage of bullets? Three dead, and the cops claim thdy were all 'warning shots?

Basically the policy for officers carrying guns should be that lethal force is allowed after a a clear warning has been issued and the perp has demonstrated that they don't care whether they are killed.

That's the conditions for deadly force, yes. What do you want, a signed release by the perpetrator collected at the entry?
You saw the video? Where someone in the mob shouted "GUN!" three or four times?
Lesser means were applied before the shot. They failed. The barricade outside failed. The locked doors failed. The cops standing there failed. The improvised barricade failed. Shouting, 'you have to leave' failed. Pointing a gun at them failed.

So I take it the phrase "warning shot" has no meaning to you. You're a Navy man, right? Does firing a "shot across the bow" ever make sense? You know, in order to save lives by making it clear what the next step will be?

For instance, way before they got to the inner hallways they could have been met by security who fired a few rounds over their heads.

no, no, no, no, no, no, no.

You are right. Why didn't I think of that?

If that didn't dissuade them then I wouldn't have a problem with using as much force as necessary to get them to turn around.

Well, he shot once, and they stopped climbing over the barricade. He did not fire wildly into the crowd once they backed off.

I get it. Shoot to kill and everything works out for the best. And it didn't waste a lot of bullets.

I just think we need to change the protocols on when to initiate lethal force. The rioters smashing the doors in knew there was a gun pointed at them. The longer the situation went on without it being used the more they came to assume it never would. If I was calling the shots there would have been a warning shot fired. Or a barrage of warning shots by a squad of police from several vantage points. Basically the policy for officers carrying guns should be that lethal force is allowed after a a clear warning has been issued and the perp has demonstrated that they don't care whether they are killed. For instance, way before they got to the inner hallways they could have been met by security who fired a few rounds over their heads. If that didn't dissuade them then I wouldn't have a problem with using as much force as necessary to get them to turn around.

The problem with warning shots is they come down... somewhere no one knows.

A shot in the face of one of those who tried and succeeded in dragging that officer off to be beaten, possibly to death, would have been a fine use of a warning shot.

The same goes for you ZiprHead. I love ya but there are other solutions than shoot to kill.

Sorry fellas. I can't deal with the attitude that the first shot fired by law enforcement needs to be fatal, apparently just because.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Yeah. That's the problem I was talking about. Fuck shit piss why do you think I mentioned it?

Because you seem to know next to nothing zbout it?

Then they could have used flash bangs.

Did they have any?

Firing with intent to kill is one step beyond where I'd go.

Then you very possibly would be dead, right now, as well as any congressman the mob reached.

The cops had to do something. If they'd done nothing at all to intervene then the woman wouldn't have gotten trampled either. But the rioters placed themselves in a hazardous situation and if they got hit by a ricochet it would have been by accident and unavoidable.

Accidentsl deaths from guns discharged before the conditions of deadly force are met ARE fucking avoidable. They are avoided because we don't shoot warning rounds.

One warning shot might have saved her life. I guess you just don't think it was worth the effort.

Ah. You can take this appeal to emotions and shove it up your ass.
Ashli was military, just like me. I have stood security guard just like she did. And just like the guard did.
I do think her death was a tragedy.
As was the death of the two cops.
And today's cop that suicided.
Taserballs, not as much, but some.
i place a lot of the blame on Trump and his enablers.

But i still do not think warning goddamned shots are worth considering.

So I take it the phrase "warning shot" has no meaning to you.

are you not paying attention? I am arguing exactly because 'warning shot' HAS meaning for me. It means making the situation worse all too often. It means a bullet fired with no idea who or what will be hit. It means other people in the area will hear a shot, not know if conditions of deadly force are met, or we're still inthe 'warning' phase, and their reactions will be the worse for the confusion.

You're a Navy man, right? Does firing a "shot across the bow" ever make sense? You know, in order to save lives by making it clear what the next step will be?

Not a valid comparison. A shot across the bow hits the ocean.
We do not fire warning shots over the bridge.

no, no, no, no, no, no, no.

You are right. Why didn't I think of that?

How odd you were not persuaded by something that was not posted to be persuasive. Just a reaction to your further disconnect from the realities involved.

I get it. Shoot to kill and everything works out for the best. And it didn't waste a lot of bullets.

yes, exactly. Six dead is, indeed, my idea of 'for the best.'

 

[Keith&Co.]

The same goes for you ZiprHead. I love ya but there are other solutions than shoot to kill.

There surely fucking are.
Walls, barricades, locked doors, posted guards, bulletproof glass, signs that say 'Authorized Personnel Only'.... all of which failed.

Sorry fellas. I can't deal with the attitude that the first shot fired by law enforcement needs to be fatal, apparently just because.

All you get out of the entire discussion is that we're saying 'just because'? And 'not worth the effort'?
Well, then fuck.

Toodles.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I just think we need to change the protocols on when to initiate lethal force. The rioters smashing the doors in knew there was a gun pointed at them. The longer the situation went on without it being used the more they came to assume it never would. If I was calling the shots there would have been a warning shot fired.

There is almost no situation in which a warning shot is legal.

If you aren't in a situation where you would be justified in using lethal force then you're not supposed to be pulling the trigger at all. And if you put a round somewhere other than on target you're basically saying you did not believe your life was at risk and thus you showed you weren't allowed to pull the trigger.

The only case I see where it could possibly be justified is when you have a completely safe place to send the round (something that's very unlikely in an urban setting) and need to convince an attacker that there is armed defense.

Or a barrage of warning shots by a squad of police from several vantage points. Basically the policy for officers carrying guns should be that lethal force is allowed after a a clear warning has been issued and the perp has demonstrated that they don't care whether they are killed. For instance, way before they got to the inner hallways they could have been met by security who fired a few rounds over their heads. If that didn't dissuade them then I wouldn't have a problem with using as much force as necessary to get them to turn around.

Everyone knows cops are armed. There's no reason to demonstrate it.

Your suggestion of firing a few rounds over their heads shows your utter ignorance of the realities of guns. That would at minimum get you several years in jail.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

So I take it the phrase "warning shot" has no meaning to you. You're a Navy man, right? Does firing a "shot across the bow" ever make sense? You know, in order to save lives by making it clear what the next step will be?

1) A shot across the bow is a round clearly aimed in a safe direction, something that simply didn't exist in this situation. Warning shots can only be fired into something you know can harmlessly absorb the round.

2) You forgot what he did--if he had fired a shot across the bow the ship he did it to would have been smashed beyond recognition and partially vaporized.

 

[Elixir]

Yeah, there probably were some Antifa agitators..

Lol! They're so clever... you can't really see them, they don't show up on video, but you just know they're probably there! It's like, the hair on the back of your neck stands up.
And you know they're the ones who pulled off the nationwide vote rigging scheme that gave Biden the popular vote without leaving any witnesses, evidence or trace of themselves. Very slick.

 

[ZiprHead]

Then they could have used flash bangs. Firing with intent to kill is one step beyond where I'd go.

Apparently you need to watch the videos more closely. Dozens of flash bangs were used, to no effect.

 

[Keith&Co.]

So I take it the phrase "warning shot" has no meaning to you. You're a Navy man, right? Does firing a "shot across the bow" ever make sense? You know, in order to save lives by making it clear what the next step will be?

1) A shot across the bow is a round clearly aimed in a safe direction, something that simply didn't exist in this situation. Warning shots can only be fired into something you know can harmlessly absorb the round.

2) You forgot what he did--if he had fired a shot across the bow the ship he did it to would have been smashed beyond recognition and partially vaporized.

The task force, really....

I just found it odd that Tree feels shooting the person who pushed him to deadly force was a tragedy, but if the warning shot hits someone else that's their fault for being there... that's cold, man.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Yeah, there probably were some Antifa agitators..

Lol! They're so clever... you can't really see them, they don't show up on video, but you just know they're probably there! It's like, the hair on the back of your neck stands up.
And you know they're the ones who pulled off the nationwide vote rigging scheme that gave Biden the popular vote without leaving any witnesses, evidence or trace of themselves. Very slick.

Then made sure to threaten the process they already won....

 

[Elixir]

Yeah, there probably were some Antifa agitators..

Lol! They're so clever... you can't really see them, they don't show up on video, but you just know they're probably there! It's like, the hair on the back of your neck stands up.
And you know they're the ones who pulled off the nationwide vote rigging scheme that gave Biden the popular vote without leaving any witnesses, evidence or trace of themselves. Very slick.

Then made sure to threaten the process they already won....

Had to cover their tracks somehow!

 

[Angra Mainyu]

A police officer fired at the mob, killing a woman. I do not know whether it was justified, but it is clear that it's not a death due to mob violence. It's a death due to a police officer firing at the mob.




That is a common theory, but it is not true. For example, these particular deaths also would not have happened if Biden had not won the elections. But it is not the case that by definition, they are attributable to Biden's victory. So, no the fact that the deaths would not have happened if there had been no mob violence does not mean, by definition, that they can be attributable to mob violence.

Oh my goodness! Are you auditioning to be a Jr attorney on Giuliani's team?

No. Are you blinded by ideology?

 

[Elixir]

A police officer fired at the mob, killing a woman. I do not know whether it was justified, but it is clear that it's not a death due to mob violence. It's a death due to a police officer firing at the mob.




That is a common theory, but it is not true. For example, these particular deaths also would not have happened if Biden had not won the elections. But it is not the case that by definition, they are attributable to Biden's victory. So, no the fact that the deaths would not have happened if there had been no mob violence does not mean, by definition, that they can be attributable to mob violence.

Oh my goodness! Are you auditioning to be a Jr attorney on Giuliani's team?

No. Are you blinded by ideology?

Not as much as you are blinded by tautology. There is nothing that ever happened or ever will happen that cannot be dismissed that way.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

The police fired at the mob because of the violence. Or do you think the police just opened fire for the hell of it?

A police officer fired at the mob, killing a woman. I do not know whether it was justified, but it is clear that it's not a death due to mob violence. It's a death due to a police officer firing at the mob.

And why did the officer fire into a mob of people?

I do not know the details, but probably he reckoned that the threat merited the use of lethal force. I do not know whether he was correct. However, you are asking the wrong question. It should be obvious that I am not challenging your account of the motivation of the police officer who fired. I am challenging your theory of attributability.

For example, if a Chinese military force attacks Taiwan, some Taiwanese forces shoot back and kill some of the Chinese military personnel involved in the attack, it is not the case that the death of Chinese military personnel is attributable to Chinese military action. Rather, it is attributable to Taiwanese military action.

I do not have the patience to deal with such pedantic obtuseness.

I feel free to challenge your theories, which in this case they get the wrong attribution.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

No. Are you blinded by ideology?

Not as much as you are blinded by tautology. There is nothing that ever happened or ever will happen that cannot be dismissed that way.

On the contrary, the theory of attribution I am challenging gets - for example - that the deaths are attributable to Biden's electoral win, because without it, they would not have happened. And it gets other false results. Because it is a false theory.

On the other hand, my method is to use our intuitive assessment to see what is attributable to whom. Obviously, any theory of attributability has to be tested against that assessment, otherwise how could you distinguish between false and true theories of attributability? What I am doing is testing laughing dog's theory and showing that it is not true. But that has nothing to do with Harry Bosch's question, and his "Oh my goodness! " reaction. Clearly it is out of place. I said nothing supporting Giuliani's ridiculous pro-Trump conspiracy theories, or suggesting I support them. Rather, I challenge a false theory that got the attributions wrong.

 

[Keith&Co.]

For example, if a Chinese military force attacks Taiwan, some Taiwanese forces shoot back and kill some of the Chinese military personnel involved in the attack, it is not the case that the death of Chinese military personnel is attributable to Chinese military action. Rather, it is attributable to Taiwanese military action.

I remember thsst. Invaders don't start wars. Defenders do. If an army comes into your country and stakes out some land, and says, 'this is ours, now,' that's not a war. Still peaceful.
It's when the defenders say, 'fuck that' and start shooting, that's when the war starts
Of course, invaders usually shoot on the way in, but this is self-defense, based on the very likely possibility the defenders will start a war.
I forget the formal name of the theory, something about siblings and who first saw the toy that has blood on it.

Funny, Mom never bought this logic when my sister clearly started the fight by hitting me back.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

For example, if a Chinese military force attacks Taiwan, some Taiwanese forces shoot back and kill some of the Chinese military personnel involved in the attack, it is not the case that the death of Chinese military personnel is attributable to Chinese military action. Rather, it is attributable to Taiwanese military action.

I remember thsst. Invaders don't start wars. Defenders do. If an army comes into your country and stakes out some land, and says, 'this is ours, now,' that's not a war. Still peaceful.
It's when the defenders say, 'fuck that' and start shooting, that's when the war starts
Of course, invaders usually shoot on the way in, but this is self-defense, based on the very likely possibility the defenders will start a war.
I forget the formal name of the theory, something about siblings and who first saw the toy that has blood on it.

Funny, Mom never bought this logic when my sister clearly started the fight by hitting me back.

Obviously that is not even related to what I said. If the Chinese military invade, the people they kill is attributable to Chinese military action. Even some deaths of Chinese military personnel might be so, in cases of the so-called "friendly fire". But the deaths of the invaders at the hands of the defenders are obviously attributable to the military action of the defenders, not the invaders. Also, clearly, they are justified in fighting back, and in causing those deaths. Your post indicates you are confusing causal attributability with moral guilt.

 

[Elixir]

Obviously that is not even related to what I said. If the Chinese military invade, the people they kill is attributable to Chinese military action. Even some deaths of Chinese military personnel might be so, in cases of the so-called "friendly fire". But the deaths of the invaders at the hands of the defenders are obviously attributable to the military action of the defenders, not the invaders. Also, clearly, they are justified in fighting back, and in causing those deaths. Your post indicates you are confusing causal attributability with moral guilt.

Rationally, attribution would follow intent.
Technical attribution is not necessarily accurate and useful for human purposes nor is it quantifiable in ways that are predictive. It produces useless declaratives such as "guns don't kill people, people kill people".

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Rationally, attribution would follow intent.

That theory is not true, either. However, if it were true, it would support in this particular instance what I said. For example, in my Taiwan example, surely Chinese forces did not intend to kill Chinese forces. Taiwanese forces did, so causal attribution would go to them - which is correct (your theory would get it wrong in cases of friendly fire, though).

In the case of the capitol rioters, the members of the mob did not intend to kill one of their own as far as one can tell, or to shoot one. The police officer did intend to shoot and shot, though it's unclear to me whether he intended to kill. So, by the theory you propose now, the death of a member of the mob shot by a police officer would not be attributable to the other members of the mob or to herself, but to the person who shot her, or to no one depending on what he actually intended.

At any rate, it is not a true theory, either.

Technical attribution is not necessarily accurate and useful for human purposes nor is it quantifiable in ways that are predictive. It produces useless declaratives such as "guns don't kill people, people kill people".

I do not know what you mean by "technical", but that is not what I'm doing. Rather, I'm using human intuitive assessments to test attributability theories.

 

[Treedbear]

Because you seem to know next to nothing zbout it?

Your point that you were also given training to shoot to kill or not at all was pointless except as an indication that you have some emotional baggage attached to the idea.

Did they have any?

If they didn't have a flash bang or tear gas she could have been wounded in the arm or somewhere it was less likely she would have died. That's my basic objection. If you're worried about the ricochet then aim for a non-lethal area. As you say that's not what police are trained to do.

Firing with intent to kill is one step beyond where I'd go.

Then you very possibly would be dead, right now, as well as any congressman the mob reached.

Using that reasoning they should have shot them all.

The cops had to do something. If they'd done nothing at all to intervene then the woman wouldn't have gotten trampled either. But the rioters placed themselves in a hazardous situation and if they got hit by a ricochet it would have been by accident and unavoidable.

Accidentsl deaths from guns discharged before the conditions of deadly force are met ARE fucking avoidable. They are avoided because we don't shoot warning rounds.

How is an act guaranteeing someone dies better than one where it's less probable or even highly improbable?

One warning shot might have saved her life. I guess you just don't think it was worth the effort.

Ah. You can take this appeal to emotions and shove it up your ass.

I'm appealing to reason. You're the one getting all emotional. That's your issue. Not what I'm here for.

Ashli was military, just like me. I have stood security guard just like she did. And just like the guard did.
I do think her death was a tragedy.
As was the death of the two cops.
And today's cop that suicided.
Taserballs, not as much, but some.
i place a lot of the blame on Trump and his enablers.

But i still do not think warning goddamned shots are worth considering.

Fine. We agree on some things at least. I didn't serve in the military. Got a 4F in '71. So I missed out in the brothers-in-arms experience. Vietnam is another tragedy as far as I'm concerned. It turned this country inside out and destroyed a lot of father-son relationships. And it fractured the respect that once existed between law enforcement and the community. I think in this case the security forces at the Capitol acted admirably and should be commended. Hopefully congress gets to that after some issues of administrative oversight are cleared up. It's wrong to blame them for being unprepared. I'm not blaming the officer for killing that woman. I'm blaming the law enforcement community for not having the attitude that life needs to be preserved unless there is a clear and present danger. In this case I think more should have been done to make sure that was completely clear.

So I take it the phrase "warning shot" has no meaning to you.

are you not paying attention? I am arguing exactly because 'warning shot' HAS meaning for me. It means making the situation worse all too often. It means a bullet fired with no idea who or what will be hit. It means other people in the area will hear a shot, not know if conditions of deadly force are met, or we're still inthe 'warning' phase, and their reactions will be the worse for the confusion.

A warning shot means talking is over and the next step will be lethal. It means if they don't stop with the shit immediately they get to be dead. It means we mean business. If I was in the area it would mean I'm looking for an exit real quick. And if police protocol included the use of a warning shot then most perps would give it up rather than shoot it out. A policy of always shoot to kill tells them they've got nothing to lose. And if some of the rioters there had guns there's no telling what they would have done. That officer took a huge chance if he was the only one who was armed.

You're a Navy man, right? Does firing a "shot across the bow" ever make sense? You know, in order to save lives by making it clear what the next step will be?

Not a valid comparison. A shot across the bow hits the ocean.
We do not fire warning shots over the bridge.

But it's still a good option when available, right?

no, no, no, no, no, no, no.

You are right. Why didn't I think of that?

How odd you were not persuaded by something that was not posted to be persuasive. Just a reaction to your further disconnect from the realities involved.

I get it. Performance art. Playing to the audience. Whatever. Continue.

I get it. Shoot to kill and everything works out for the best. And it didn't waste a lot of bullets.

yes, exactly. Six dead is, indeed, my idea of 'for the best.'

You say tomato, I say tornado. We'll never see eye to eye.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Oh dear. Some silly rioters who attacked the Capitol building have been recognized, ID'd and put on a terrorist no-fly list. They are now stuck at airports unable to get on a plane and apparently, are awaiting arrest.

https://www.rawstory.com/rioter-kicked-off-plane-nofly/...

...

A video found on TikTok showed a sobbing man at the airport who found out that he'd been put on the no-fly list created and maintained by the Terrorist Screening Center (TSC).

Stopping the man from being able to go back to their home states can help local and federal law enforcement find the men before they flee or go into hiding.
...


It just keeps getting better. Did these morons really think they could do this and just walk away from this all free as a bird with no repercussions? Maybe they can get Trump to pay their legal bills?...

...

"This is what they do to us," the man sobbed as he walked past a gate. "They kicked me off the plane. They called me a f*cking terrorist! And they f*ckin' want to ruin my life!"

...

 

[Keith&Co.]

"This is what they do to us," the man sobbed as he walked past a gate. "They kicked me off the plane. They called me a f*cking terrorist! And they f*ckin' want to ruin my life!"

There, there. Maybe you can write a book in prison. Lots'a people do. I think "They Kicked Me Off The Plane!" is a wonderful title.

"My story begins in row 33, seat A. First time in my life i scored a window seat, and this bitch come up and says, 'Mr. Parmenter? I'm afraid the liberals have added your name to the Terrorist Screening Center's No-Fly List. Could you come with me, please?'
"And every swinging dick in rows 32 to 1 pops up their phones to film me being frog-marched to the terminal.
"So there i am at Dulles, no plane home, no REFUND, and do you think anyone wants to loan me a car to drive back to Austin? Fuvk that noise."

 

[laughing dog]

And why did the officer fire into a mob of people?

I do not know the details, but probably he reckoned that the threat merited the use of lethal force. I do not know whether he was correct. However, you are asking the wrong question. It should be obvious that I am not challenging your account of the motivation of the police officer who fired. I am challenging your theory of attributability.

I understand. The officer fired because of the mob violence, so your challenge is based on some sort of obtuseness or the need to troll or a misconception on what that attribution requires monocausality.

For example, if a Chinese military force attacks Taiwan, some Taiwanese forces shoot back and kill some of the Chinese military personnel involved in the attack, it is not the case that the death of Chinese military personnel is attributable to Chinese military action. Rather, it is attributable to Taiwanese military action.

I am sorry, that is idiotic. According to you, if I pick a ball up and let it go, its falling to ground is not attributable to gravity but my letting go.

I feel free to challenge your theories, which in this case they get the wrong attribution.

No one said you could not challenge anything. I simply said I do not have the patience to deal with such obtuseness - which is evidenced by that sentence of yours.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

I understand. The officer fired because of the mob violence, so your challenge is based on some sort of obtuseness or the need to troll or a misconception on what that attribution requires monocausality.

No, the officer fired because he reckoned the mob (or part of it) was dangerous enough to justify the use of lethal force. You used the word 'attributable', without qualifications to suggest anything but ordinary usage. It's not about monocausality. It's about what is attributable to "mob violence" in ordinary usage.

For example, if a Chinese military force attacks Taiwan, some Taiwanese forces shoot back and kill some of the Chinese military personnel involved in the attack, it is not the case that the death of Chinese military personnel is attributable to Chinese military action. Rather, it is attributable to Taiwanese military action.

I am sorry, that is idiotic. According to you, if I pick a ball up and let it go, its falling to ground is not attributable to gravity but my letting go.

First, no, it is not idiotic. It is accurate. For example, in a war, sometimes military personnel have a certain number of confirmed enemy kills, whether it's individual enemy combatantants or enemy ships or planes. That does not depend on which side started the war. The kills are attributed to those who, well, kill their enemies. They're not attributed to an enemy attack, which would clearly be a mistake.

Second, no, that is not according to me. I never said anything about falling balls. If you ask, I would intuitively assess the claim, as I always do. And I would say that whether it's attributable to gravity or to you depends on what we are focusing on, in context. For example, it's not the same if we are studying physics or trying to figure who damaged the car parked below, and on which a ball fell.

No one said you could not challenge anything. I simply said I do not have the patience to deal with such obtuseness - which is evidenced by that sentence of yours.

Well, your lack of patience to think about things through is evidenced in your posts. There is no obtuseness in my sentences, but just mistaken charges of it in yours.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Reports are now coming out that the NYPD and FBI (and who knows who else) were monitoring the right wing extremist gangs, the usual suspects, Proud Boys, 3 Percenters, and Oath Keepers and passed on information to the Washington DC Capitol Police Department, that there was big trouble brewing. And the Capitol Police Department did not prepare.

Utter and total incompetence. Criminal negligence.

 

[Patooka]

Reports are now coming out that the NYPD and FBI (and who knows who else) were monitoring the right wing extremist gangs, the usual suspects, Proud Boys, 3 Percenters, and Oath Keepers and passed on information to the Washington DC Capitol Police Department, that there was big trouble brewing. And the Capitol Police Department did not prepare.

Utter and total incompetence. Criminal negligence.

It gets better. Capitol Police turnded down the offer of support even though it was offered several times.

US Capitol Police rejected offers of backup on two occasions, senior defence officials and two people familiar with the matter say

 

[Gospel]

There were also some disruptions in state legislatures, such as these.




But somehow they weren't accused of insurgency, treason and trying to overthrow democracy itself ...

Derec, you let me down man. I was expecting to see some:

Breaking and entering
Provocation & support from the sitting President of the USA
Flag's representing the enemy of the state being waved around
Attacks on law enforcement
Guns and Molotov cocktails

I didn't even see anyone taking cover or having to us barricades to protect themselves from protesters. It hurts me to have to give you a 5% rotten tomato rating. 5% because I partially blame my own expectations else it would be 0%.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Reports are now coming out that the NYPD and FBI (and who knows who else) were monitoring the right wing extremist gangs, the usual suspects, Proud Boys, 3 Percenters, and Oath Keepers and passed on information to the Washington DC Capitol Police Department, that there was big trouble brewing. And the Capitol Police Department did not prepare.

Utter and total incompetence. Criminal negligence.

Or some trumper was deliberately downplaying it. We know the nuts had some police help, having some more would be no surprise.

 

[laughing dog]

No, the officer fired because he reckoned the mob (or part of it) was dangerous enough to justify the use of lethal force.

And why do you think the officer thought the mob was dangerous enough? From your responses, it seems you do think it is routine for US police to fire at will at people for whatever reason.

You used the word 'attributable', without qualifications to suggest anything but ordinary usage. It's not about monocausality. It's about what is attributable to "mob violence" in ordinary usage.

Apparently not, since your argument is not based on ordinary usage. I did not say "solely" or "only" attributable - which is ordinary usage in that context.

First, no, it is not idiotic.

We disagree.

It is accurate. For example, in a war, sometimes military personnel have a certain number of confirmed enemy kills, whether it's individual enemy combatantants or enemy ships or planes. That does not depend on which side started the war. The kills are attributed to those who, well, kill their enemies. They're not attributed to an enemy attack, which would clearly be a mistake.

For some inexplicable reason, you think some war context is relevant - it is not.

Second, no, that is not according to me. I never said anything about falling balls.

More obtuseness - I used an example and applied your "reasoning".

If you ask, I would intuitively assess the claim, as I always do. And I would say that whether it's attributable to gravity or to you depends on what we are focusing on, in context. For example, it's not the same if we are studying physics or trying to figure who damaged the car parked below, and on which a ball fell.

What caused the ball to fall is independent of what the ball ends up doing, so I conclude your response is nonsense. Balls falling are necessarily due to gravity. Without gravity, the ball would not necessarily fall, even if hurled down.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

And why do you think the officer thought the mob was dangerous enough? From your responses, it seems you do think it is routine for US police to fire at will at people for whatever reason.

That is not remotely related to any of my responses. As I have been telling you, I was not challenging your claims about the motivation of the police officer. I was challenging your account of attributability.
Why did the police officer thought that?
I do not know the specifics. Obviously, some of the actions of some of the members of the mob prompted his assessment. Maybe he was right. Or maybe not. I am not in a position to ascertain that. It doesn't matter though. Stipulate any reason you want, and my argument remains the same.

Apparently not, since your argument is not based on ordinary usage. I did not say "solely" or "only" attributable - which is ordinary usage in that context.

But for that matter:

Let us take a look:

That does not excuse their violence and destruction. And we know that 5 deaths are attributable to this mob violence - one law enforcement officer, one at the hands of law enforcement and apparently three due to some sort of health problem.

And:

Sure, the deaths would not have happened without the mob violence.

Then by definition, the deaths can be attributable to them.

First, you say "That does not excuse their violence and destruction. ". The word "excuse" indicates you are making a moral assessment. And it is in that context where you want to make an attribution. One problem with that is that blameworthiness depends on the minds of the perpetrator, not on results. One could try a loose interpretation assuming results are just a way of indicating intent, but then we run into the problem that this is not attributable to them in that sense.



Second, again, by the wide definition of attributabiliy you give above, the those 5 deaths are attributable to Biden's electoral victory, as they would not have happened without it. But surely that is not what you wanted to say, right? You were implicitly limiting the scope of attributability, right?

If I'm wrong, why then, attribute the deaths to mob violence? What is the goal of it?

For some inexplicable reason, you think some war context is relevant - it is not.

It's an analogy involving attributions. It's funny that you say war context is not relevant, but then dropping a ball context is relevant.

More obtuseness - I used an example and applied your "reasoning".

1. No obtuseness.
2. You misapplied it, as you did not use my reasoning.
3. Actually, that is what I did with the war context. We were giving examples, and you claimed that mine was idiotic. I pointed out it was not, and gave a relevant example. You dismiss it, but give an irrelevant ball example.

What caused the ball to fall is independent of what the ball ends up doing, so I conclude your response is nonsense. Balls falling are necessarily due to gravity. Without gravity, the ball would not necessarily fall, even if hurled down.

Your conclusion is confused. Of course the ball would not have fallen without gravity. But then, also it would not have fallen without you dropping it. When we ask for the causes, or to what/whom we attribute the fall of the ball, we intuitively consider context. If we are studying physics, the relevant cause is gravity. If we are trying to figure who damaged the car parked below the window (and on which a ball fell), the relevant cause it the person dropping it.

 

[Jarhyn]

And why do you think the officer thought the mob was dangerous enough? From your responses, it seems you do think it is routine for US police to fire at will at people for whatever reason.
Apparently not, since your argument is not based on ordinary usage. I did not say "solely" or "only" attributable - which is ordinary usage in that context.

First, no, it is not idiotic.

We disagree.

It is accurate. For example, in a war, sometimes military personnel have a certain number of confirmed enemy kills, whether it's individual enemy combatantants or enemy ships or planes. That does not depend on which side started the war. The kills are attributed to those who, well, kill their enemies. They're not attributed to an enemy attack, which would clearly be a mistake.

For some inexplicable reason, you think some war context is relevant - it is not.

Second, no, that is not according to me. I never said anything about falling balls.

More obtuseness - I used an example and applied your "reasoning".

If you ask, I would intuitively assess the claim, as I always do. And I would say that whether it's attributable to gravity or to you depends on what we are focusing on, in context. For example, it's not the same if we are studying physics or trying to figure who damaged the car parked below, and on which a ball fell.

What caused the ball to fall is independent of what the ball ends up doing, so I conclude your response is nonsense. Balls falling are necessarily due to gravity. Without gravity, the ball would not necessarily fall, even if hurled down.

Like, I don't see how hard it is for such a "master debator" like AM to understand that the ball, on account of it's elevation, will fall. It is not a matter of if, it is a matter of when. So sayeth Newton.

The agency of the person who holds it merely has control over *when*. So if you want to split a hair of technicality, you are the reason for WHEN the ball fell, not for the falling itself.

 

[Shadowy Man]

So, to sum up:

The woman died because the officer shot her. The officer shot her because a mob had stormed the Capitol. The mob stormed the Capitol because Biden won the election. Biden won the election because he ran for President. Biden ran for President because Trump is a raging asshole.

Ok. So Trump's fault the woman died. Got it.

 

[Jarhyn]

So, to sum up:

The woman died because the officer shot her. The officer shot her because a mob had stormed the Capitol. The mob stormed the Capitol because Biden won the election. Biden won the election because he ran for President. Biden ran for President because Trump is a raging asshole.

Ok. So Trump's fault the woman died. Got it.

Yes. With more "because Trump is a raging asshole" endpoints. But yes

 

[Angra Mainyu]

So, to sum up:

The woman died because the officer shot her. The officer shot her because a mob had stormed the Capitol. The mob stormed the Capitol because Biden won the election. Biden won the election because he ran for President. Biden ran for President because Trump is a raging asshole.

Ok. So Trump's fault the woman died. Got it.

Good one. Here's another one: Biden ran because Trump is the POTUS. But Trump would not be the POTUS if he did not exist. And he would not have existed if his parents had not had sex. So, the deaths are attributable to Trump's parents.

 

[laughing dog]

I do not know the specifics. Obviously, some of the actions of some of the members of the mob prompted his assessment. Maybe he was right. Or maybe not. I am not in a position to ascertain that. It doesn't matter though. Stipulate any reason you want, and my argument remains the same.

I agree - it remains wrong.

But for that matter:

Let us take a look:

That does not excuse their violence and destruction. And we know that 5 deaths are attributable to this mob violence - one law enforcement officer, one at the hands of law enforcement and apparently three due to some sort of health problem.

And:

Sure, the deaths would not have happened without the mob violence.

Then by definition, the deaths can be attributable to them.

First, you say "That does not excuse their violence and destruction. ". The word "excuse" indicates you are making a moral assessment. And it is in that context where you want to make an attribution. One problem with that is that blameworthiness depends on the minds of the perpetrator, not on results. One could try a loose interpretation assuming results are just a way of indicating intent, but then we run into the problem that this is not attributable to them in that sense.

I did not make any moral judgment with "attributable". If I had meant blameworthy, I would have used blameworthy.

Second, again, by the wide definition of attributabiliy you give above, the those 5 deaths are attributable to Biden's electoral victory, as they would not have happened without it. But surely that is not what you wanted to say, right? You were implicitly limiting the scope of attributability, right?

I am sorry I assumed that any reader would take the context to be what happened at the Capitol. But your conclusion is confused. Biden's electoral victory may have been the impetus for the protest but a protest does not require violence.

It's an analogy involving attributions. It's funny that you say war context is not relevant, but then dropping a ball context is relevant.

I didn't say it was relevant. I used the example to show the fallacy in your "reasoning".

1. No obtuseness.
2. You misapplied it, as you did not use my reasoning.

Nope to both.

3. Actually, that is what I did with the war context. We were giving examples, and you claimed that mine was idiotic. I pointed out it was not, and gave a relevant example. You dismiss it, but give an irrelevant ball example.

We disagree.

Your conclusion is confused. Of course the ball would not have fallen without gravity. But then, also it would not have fallen without you dropping it. When we ask for the causes, or to what/whom we attribute the fall of the ball, we intuitively consider context. If we are studying physics, the relevant cause is gravity. If we are trying to figure who damaged the car parked below the window (and on which a ball fell), the relevant cause it the person dropping it.

First, the ball will not fall if one is in zero gravity. With gravity, the ball would fall because it was released and because of gravity. And as Jarhyn pointed out, the ball will fall eventually (due to physics). Hence your conclusion is very confused.

 

[Keith&Co.]

So, to sum up:

The woman died because the officer shot her. The officer shot her because a mob had stormed the Capitol. The mob stormed the Capitol because Biden won the election. Biden won the election because he ran for President. Biden ran for President because Trump is a raging asshole.

Ok. So Trump's fault the woman died. Got it.

If you give a mouse a term, he'll want a second term.
If it looks like you won't give him a second term,
...Yada, yada, yada....
he kills three followers.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

I agree - it remains wrong.

No, it remains correct.

I did not make any moral judgment with "attributable". If I had meant blameworthy, I would have used blameworthy.

You used the attribution to in the context of making such an judgment, clearly. You would not have said something like 'That does not excuse Biden's running for office. And we know that 5 deaths are attributable to his running for office', even though by your own account 'by definition' the deaths can be attributable to his running for office - and even to him -, as per your theory of attributability, namely:

Sure, the deaths would not have happened without the mob violence.

Then by definition, the deaths can be attributable to them.

Rather, you were making a point about the mob violence that you were morally condemning. That is why you said

That does not excuse their violence and destruction. And we know that 5 deaths are attributable to this mob violence - one law enforcement officer, one at the hands of law enforcement and apparently three due to some sort of health problem.

Otherwise, why would you make such a claim? Why would you say it's "attributable" to mob violence but not, say, to Biden's victory, or Biden's run, or to people who voted for Biden, or to Trumps parents for having sex, or whatever other causes? No, you said that because you were saying not that it was just attributable by that theory - which is absurdly broad in this case -, but rather, because you considered it attributable in the relevant sense in context, namely in the context of morally condemning the protesters.

I am sorry I assumed that any reader would take the context to be what happened at the Capitol. But your conclusion is confused. Biden's electoral victory may have been the impetus for the protest but a protest does not require violence.

That is irrelevant. It would not have happened without it. I'm going by your own theory of attributability. Now you are saying it's in the context of what happened at the Capitol. But if it's attributable to any number of other things, why limit it there? No, the context is a moral judgment. Your theory of attribution 'by definition' does not include a definition limited to the Capitol, which would not make sense anyway. Moreover, you also did not say "That does not excuse the police using live ammo. And we know that 1 death is attributable to this use of live ammo'. You did not say 'This does not excuse resisting the mob. And we know of at least 1 death attributable to this resistence', or anything like that.

I didn't say it was relevant. I used the example to show the fallacy in your "reasoning".

There was no fallacy. I was debunking your claims that it was idiotic by using similar examples.

We disagree.

Sure. And for good reason I disagree with your claims, as explained.

Your conclusion is confused. Of course the ball would not have fallen without gravity. But then, also it would not have fallen without you dropping it. When we ask for the causes, or to what/whom we attribute the fall of the ball, we intuitively consider context. If we are studying physics, the relevant cause is gravity. If we are trying to figure who damaged the car parked below the window (and on which a ball fell), the relevant cause it the person dropping it.

First, the ball will not fall if one is in zero gravity. With gravity, the ball would fall because it was released and because of gravity. And as Jarhyn pointed out, the ball will fall eventually (due to physics). Hence your conclusion is very confused.

Actually, your reply does not even address my assessment. You're attacking a position that has nothing to do with mine - as you should understand reading my posts.

So, yes, your reply is confused.

 

[Swammerdami]

Rex Huppke does a pretty good caricature of Republican "thought."

 

[laughing dog]

No, it remains correct.


You used the attribution to in the context of making such an judgment, clearly....

As I have said already, I did not. Yet you continue to claim that you know my intent and meaning. You have misinterpreted my post. Nothing shameful about that. It happens to everyone at one time or another. Get over it.

The entire foundation for your argument is your demonstrated unfounded confidence in your infallibility in divining the intent of a post. I am not insisting that you mean something different from your intentions by the use of the term "attributable". Nor am I insisting your usage is wrong. I am simply disputing your invalid claims about my reasoning and post. Instead of insisting that some poster agree with your unilateral and idiosyncratic interpretation, let it go. I know I am.

 

[TomC]

I've not bothered reading this whole thread, so maybe I'm repeating someone.
I hope so.

In 2016, the EC was preparing to install the second place finisher in the election as POTUS. Considering how much true blue Americans tout democracy as our ideal, it's a mistake to think it's true, but an understandable mistake.

2020 was completely different. Biden won by ~7,000,000 votes. Two months and multiple court cases going all the way to SCOTUS produced no credible evidence to the contrary. What Congress was doing was certifying the results from the state legislatures. The state legislatures are the elected officials in charge of deciding who to send to the EC.
The EC was installing the candidate who The People voted for.

Trying to stop that from happening isn't just unConstitutional. It's undemocratic. It's anti-American.
It's flat out treason.
Tom

 

[Loren Pechtel]

So, to sum up:

The woman died because the officer shot her. The officer shot her because a mob had stormed the Capitol. The mob stormed the Capitol because Biden won the election. Biden won the election because he ran for President. Biden ran for President because Trump is a raging asshole.

Ok. So Trump's fault the woman died. Got it.

You're missing the much more direct path that His Flatulence encouraged the coup attempt.

 

[Shadowy Man]

So, to sum up:

The woman died because the officer shot her. The officer shot her because a mob had stormed the Capitol. The mob stormed the Capitol because Biden won the election. Biden won the election because he ran for President. Biden ran for President because Trump is a raging asshole.

Ok. So Trump's fault the woman died. Got it.

You're missing the much more direct path that His Flatulence encouraged the coup attempt.

I was just trying to follow the logical machinations being presented in this thread.

 

[ideologyhunter]

I've not bothered reading this whole thread, so maybe I'm repeating someone.
I hope so.

In 2016, the EC was preparing to install the second place finisher in the election as POTUS. Considering how much true blue Americans tout democracy as our ideal, it's a mistake to think it's true, but an understandable mistake.

2020 was completely different. Biden won by ~7,000,000 votes. Two months and multiple court cases going all the way to SCOTUS produced no credible evidence to the contrary. What Congress was doing was certifying the results from the state legislatures. The state legislatures are the elected officials in charge of deciding who to send to the EC.
The EC was installing the candidate who The People voted for.

Trying to stop that from happening isn't just unConstitutional. It's undemocratic. It's anti-American.
It's flat out treason.
Tom

Yes. UnConstitutional. Undemocratic. Anti-American. Yes. And it's also OBVIOUS. Obvious to anyone who hasn't absorbed decades of poisonous right wing rhetoric. You really can't reason with anyone who accepted "Stop the Steal". They have walled themselves off from rational discussion. Most of them are sated on a diet of Fox News and crazy-ass social media. They believe only certain sources: radical Republicans, Q, bloated horrors like Trump and Lindsey Graham and Rudy Giuliani, bloated broadcasters like Limbaugh and Sean and Tucker. And all those entities are now chained to the stupidest chunk of the American electorate, whom they can no longer control. Talk about fucked! Some of the more violent among them will no doubt commit cowardly crimes, and some may force a situation where they are shot dead.
Agreeing with everything you said, and said well. Not able to see a short-term improvement in the USA. We have a beautiful country (the parts we haven't stripped mined or overly urbanized.) We have a vibrant culture. We have diversity and some of the best universities in the world. And yet, increasingly in my life span, we are a society of inequity and radicalized politics. If Trumpism turns out to be a big beached whale in the next year or so, that will be some kind of turnaround. Who knows. This is a traumatized moment, and it's hard to make good predictions.

 

[Jarhyn]

I've not bothered reading this whole thread, so maybe I'm repeating someone.
I hope so.

In 2016, the EC was preparing to install the second place finisher in the election as POTUS. Considering how much true blue Americans tout democracy as our ideal, it's a mistake to think it's true, but an understandable mistake.

2020 was completely different. Biden won by ~7,000,000 votes. Two months and multiple court cases going all the way to SCOTUS produced no credible evidence to the contrary. What Congress was doing was certifying the results from the state legislatures. The state legislatures are the elected officials in charge of deciding who to send to the EC.
The EC was installing the candidate who The People voted for.

Trying to stop that from happening isn't just unConstitutional. It's undemocratic. It's anti-American.
It's flat out treason.
Tom

Yes. UnConstitutional. Undemocratic. Anti-American. Yes. And it's also OBVIOUS. Obvious to anyone who hasn't absorbed decades of poisonous right wing rhetoric. You really can't reason with anyone who accepted "Stop the Steal". They have walled themselves off from rational discussion. Most of them are sated on a diet of Fox News and crazy-ass social media. They believe only certain sources: radical Republicans, Q, bloated horrors like Trump and Lindsey Graham and Rudy Giuliani, bloated broadcasters like Limbaugh and Sean and Tucker. And all those entities are now chained to the stupidest chunk of the American electorate, whom they can no longer control. Talk about fucked! Some of the more violent among them will no doubt commit cowardly crimes, and some may force a situation where they are shot dead.
Agreeing with everything you said, and said well. Not able to see a short-term improvement in the USA. We have a beautiful country (the parts we haven't stripped mined or overly urbanized.) We have a vibrant culture. We have diversity and some of the best universities in the world. And yet, increasingly in my life span, we are a society of inequity and radicalized politics. If Trumpism turns out to be a big beached whale in the next year or so, that will be some kind of turnaround. Who knows. This is a traumatized moment, and it's hard to make good predictions.

Like, I don't even get it... It's like the Skeksi from The Dark Crystal. Not only are these disgusting horrors barely resembling homosapiens, but their evil inside matches the disgusting, bloated exteriors. Yet people worship them as nigh upon gods.

I just don't get who would look at Cheeto and Darth Turtle and say "yeah, that's my ticket".

 

[Angra Mainyu]

So, to sum up:

The woman died because the officer shot her. The officer shot her because a mob had stormed the Capitol. The mob stormed the Capitol because Biden won the election. Biden won the election because he ran for President. Biden ran for President because Trump is a raging asshole.

Ok. So Trump's fault the woman died. Got it.

You're missing the much more direct path that His Flatulence encouraged the coup attempt.

I was just trying to follow the logical machinations being presented in this thread.

Actually, the "logical machinations" in that context were a way of debunking a claim about attributability "by definition" (see laughing dog's posts).

 

[Angra Mainyu]

As I have said already, I did not. Yet you continue to claim that you know my intent and meaning. You have misinterpreted my post. Nothing shameful about that. It happens to everyone at one time or another. Get over it.

But that did not happen. Rather, I debunked some of your claims about attributability (see the exchange for details).

The entire foundation for your argument is your demonstrated unfounded confidence in your infallibility in divining the intent of a post.

Not at all. I use the content of the post and reason.

 

[Keith&Co.]

So, we have hundreds of people in this riot.
They brought their own phones.
They took their own pictures, published them published their plans
Travel yyo and from the site under their own names, using their own credit cards.
Being identified right and left by being all over the 'Net and television, being picked up in droves...
And not one, to my knowledge, would have gotten away with it except for a microchip planted in their vaccine...

 

[Jarhyn]

View attachment 31374
So, we have hundreds of people in this riot.
They brought their own phones.
They took their own pictures, published them published their plans
Travel yyo and from the site under their own names, using their own credit cards.
Being identified right and left by being all over the 'Net and television, being picked up in droves...
And not one, to my knowledge, would have gotten away with it except for a microchip planted in their vaccine...

Attack. Seditious terrorist attack.

 

[bilby]

View attachment 31374
So, we have hundreds of people in this riot.
They brought their own phones.
They took their own pictures, published them published their plans
Travel yyo and from the site under their own names, using their own credit cards.
Being identified right and left by being all over the 'Net and television, being picked up in droves...
And not one, to my knowledge, would have gotten away with it except for a microchip planted in their vaccine...

Attack. Seditious terrorist attack.

Putsch.