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

[Treedbear]

Attempts by unauthorised persons to gain access to restricted areas can be met by lethal force whether or not the guards feel threatened.

What happened to everything that the Left has been saying about police using lethal force for the last six years? Now all of a sudden lethal force threshold is lowered. ...

I'm on the left and that doesn't represent my thinking at all. Lethal force wasn't a rational next step response given the situation. But the irony of the incident doesn't escape me. We need more humane training for our police, period. Not just as it concerns minorities. But yeah, especially where it concerns minorities.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

You don't fuck with a secret service agent protecting a federal official he has been delegated to protect. If that agent points a pistol at you and tells you to stop doing what you are doing, stop. Stupid woman did not stop, being stupid. I have no sympathy for her.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/several-well-known-hate-groups-identified-at-capitol-riot

Pro Publica has been tracking far right hate groups and militias for several years now. Many of the main actors in these groups are open, well known and have long track records of violent rhetoric and activities. Viewing videos of the riot at the Capitol Building by Pro Publica researchers has found these same old faces at the scene of the crime. No Antifa here. Same violent extremists that have been building up to this for quite some time. Many of these known actors made sure their blogs and social media accounts proudly displayed their activities, some from inside the Capitol Building.

Right wingers braying the attacks were caused by Anifa are liars or are stupid people listening to liars.

...
Another person took to Parler to say that they were planning to show up, armed, in Washington for Inauguration Day. “Many of us will return on January 19, 2021 carrying Our weapons,” wrote the Parler user, who goes by the handle Colonel007. “We will come in numbers that no standing army or police agency can match.”
...

The violence may be just beginning.

 

[ZiprHead]

You don't fuck with a secret service agent protecting a federal official he has been delegated to protect. If that agent points a pistol at you and tells you to stop doing what you are doing, stop. Stupid woman did not stop, being stupid. I have no sympathy for her.

Not to mention considering her background she should have known better.

 

[ideologyhunter]

Back in 1922, Babbitt was more than just a surname. It stood for dimwitted allegiance to right wing orthodoxy. Whereas, today...well, today, that's still what it means.

 

[bilby]

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/several-well-known-hate-groups-identified-at-capitol-riot

Pro Publica has been tracking far right hate groups and militias for several years now. Many of the main actors in these groups are open, well known and have long track records of violent rhetoric and activities. Viewing videos of the riot at the Capitol Building by Pro Publica researchers has found these same old faces at the scene of the crime. No Antifa here. Same violent extremists that have been building up to this for quite some time. Many of these known actors made sure their blogs and social media accounts proudly displayed their activities, some from inside the Capitol Building.

Right wingers braying the attacks were caused by Anifa are liars or are stupid people listening to liars.

...
Another person took to Parler to say that they were planning to show up, armed, in Washington for Inauguration Day. “Many of us will return on January 19, 2021 carrying Our weapons,” wrote the Parler user, who goes by the handle Colonel007. “We will come in numbers that no standing army or police agency can match.”
...

The violence may be just beginning.

The US Army has about 1.3 million active duty personnel. As a standing army, they have a lot of 'force multipliers' when facing a less organised and less well equipped enemy. Their logistics capability alone likely makes them a match for an insurrectionist mob ten times that size, and (as Desert Storm illustrated), their air supremacy over the entire theatre makes them more than a match for any opponent lacking air support - higher numbers of enemy troops in such conditions are not an advantage to the enemy, they just create a 'target rich environment'.

To bring numbers that the US Armed Forces cannot match, they will need pretty much every American of fighting age who is not currently on active service. And even then, they probably wouldn't have a hope of winning.

If these fuckwits try to go toe-to-toe with the real military, they're all going to die or be rounded up in camps before the end of the day.

There's a reason why terrorists don't stand up on battlefields waving their rifles and challenging their opponents to fight; and instead have to hide amongst the civilian population, striking by surprise and then running away before the cops or the army show up.

 

[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.

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

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.

 

[Harry Bosch]

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.

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

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?

 

[laughing dog]

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?

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.

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

 

[Treedbear]

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.

 

[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.