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

[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.