Again that is a false equivalence, my assertion was based on the overwhelming majority of DemoKKKrats, yours is not.
Not at all, time after time we see these thugs attack police and before the DemoKKKrat cult even knows the full story they declare the cop a racist murderer and the thug who tried to kill him is some kind of victim and they are usually wrong (Michael Brown, Trayvon Martin, etc.)
LOL Ashli didn’t initiate anything, she walked into a building, you can only use deadly force to protect against deadly force, that is how self defense laws work you dumbass. Walking into a building isn’t deadly force, shit for brains. The fact that you seem to be threatened by a couple of largely peaceful protestors trespassing into a building just shows your own immaturity and cowardice.
Doesn’t matter at all, just because you are around people acting inappropriately (and FYI it wasn’t a mob, it was a couple of idiots walking into a building) that doesn’t mean that it’s open season on you and they can just shoot you. When you have a gun you have a huge responsibility and you are responsible for every shot you fire. That’s why I understand why the cop who says she mistook her gun for a taser is somewhat liable. If Ashli Babbit’s murder was justified then so was George Floyd’s he was attempting to undermine democracy with his counterfeit bills, see how easy that was?
As for the “mob could have easily overpowered law enforcement”, you don’t get to just make that assumption, again you cannot use deadly force until you are threatened with deadly force. You can’t just assume that someone will kill you so you’d better kill them first. You don’t have the first damn clue what you’re talking about.
You seem to be confused with the castle doctrine which says that if someone I don’t know breaks into my house and I can say that I reasonably fear for my life then I can protect myself with deadly force, TWO huge problems with this: 1) The Capitol building isn’t anyone’s home, it’s a tax payer funded government building so the castle doctrine doesn’t apply, 2) Ashli was not posing a threat to anyone, she was unarmed and at the very worst she was peacefully protesting where she shouldn’t. She wasn’t attacking the cops, she was trying to walk past them which isn’t deadly force. You have no idea what you are talking about.
No hypocrisy by me at all, TONS of hypocrisy and logical fallacies on your part, shit for brains.
EDIT: Since the BLM and Antifa mobs often burn cities down and kill innocent people I guess by your logic the next time they riot the police can just open fire into the crowd and just try to kill as many as they can. However I know exactly what your reaction will be: You will pull a complete 180 and all of a sudden criminals rights will matter and the police will again be a bunch of racist murderers. You are a very sick person and you need help.
reply
share
beermonkey70 (282)
3 years ago
so much wrong in your post its probably futile here but this
"Ashli didn’t initiate anything,"
How could anything you say be taken seriously with such an idiotic statement?
Were they at HER house?? Did they pull HER over?? Of course she fucking initiated the confrontation. Did you forget that SHE broke a fucking window and was trying to breach a secure area?
"you can only use deadly force to protect against deadly force, that is how self defense laws work " '
First, this is wrong any lawyer can tell you that.
also, that is beside the point since I never said "self defense". This was a case of law enforcement legally using deadly force which isn't limited to "self defense" It's far more complicated than that
https://www.talksonlaw.com/briefs/when-can-police-use-deadly-force
reply
share
MovieChatUser497 (18943)
3 years ago
Because it’s true numb nuts, all she did was trespass and as far as I know trespassing isn’t a justification to pull out your gun and shoot someone, also I have proven that you don’t know dick about self defense laws or rules of engagement so it’s quite hard to take you seriously.
I never said they were at HER house, I said that if she invaded someone else’s HOUSE then it would be a different matter, but she didn’t, she trespassed into a publicly owned, tax payer funded building and she did not threaten a single person. If she had been a BLM thug you would be bitching nonstop about how much of a victim she is and how RayCest the cops are or whatever. Your cult’s behavior is my justification for that conclusion.
Actually that’s not wrong, I know what I’m talking about and just saying “any lawyer will tell you that’ is not a convincing rebuttal.
It wasn’t legal deadly force, in order for that to be used the person has to be posing an immediate and deadly threat, again she walked into a building, that is not an immediate and deadly threat. Hell, BLM thugs who get shot when they are posing an immediate and deadly threat your cult flips their shit and cries about how much of a victim they are.
You have no idea what you’re talking about, kiddo. Educate yourself.
reply
share
beermonkey70 (282)
3 years ago
You repeatedly misrepresent the pertinent facts and ignore key facts
She broke a fucking window and was attempting to breach a secure area, She disobeyed a legal order.
She fucked around and found out.
"Actually that’s not wrong, I know what I’m talking about and just saying “any lawyer will tell you that’ is not a convincing rebuttal."
Not the main point which is why I didn't rehash it but again its way more complicated than your simplified version
this directly refutes your over simplified rule of self defense https://www.findlaw.com/criminal/criminal-law-basics/self-defense-overview.html
reply
share
MovieChatUser497 (18943)
3 years ago
OK so breaking a window means you now deserve to be killed? BLM has broken more than enough windows so the same logic applies to them correct? And “breaching a secure” area is not an imminent threat, walking into a “secure area” doesn’t put anyones life in danger, yet you seem to think that if you support Trump then its OK to just make assumptions about what people are going to do and then twist the facts in the direction you have to to justify killing them. You would never apply that logic to anyone associated with your cult, hell the police kill a black girl who is trying to kill another black girl and BLM immediately cries that the police are RayCest and killed her because she was black. You people are not serious, you have selective moral outrage based on what is best for you politically because your cult doesn’t care about the truth or anyones life, it’s all about pushing your false narratives.
Also there is nothing in your link that backs up your radical, far left assertions, in fact if anything it proves my point. It even says that before using deadly force you have a “duty to retreat”, that kind of obliterates your narrative now doesn’t it?
reply
share
MovieChatUser497 (18943)
3 years ago
Also your link says that Police can use deadly force when: they have probable cause to believe a suspect poses an imminent threat of serious bodily harm. The key word is SUSPECT, not the people around the suspect. Walking into a building is not an “imminent threat of serious bodily harm”. I am so glad you’re not a lawyer, you would fuck over your clients so badly with your obvious ignorance about the law.
As I said before you don't get to just assume that someone is going to pose an imminent danger in the future so you use that as an excuse to shoot them, that is a violation of that person's rights. The suspect has to actually be a threat to someone else. Ashli Babbit did not, she was just in the wrong place at the wrong time and because of that you feel it's OK to just kill her which not only exposes your own bias, hypocrisy and ignorance, but it exposes a layer of evil that is within you and the rest of the DemoKKKrat cult.
reply
share
beermonkey70 (282)
3 years ago
more bullshit . It's not just "assuming" . They have to act based on the available information. The mob was attacking law enforcement all over the capital. There is plenty of video supporting this. There is plenty of testimony supporting this.
By you bullshit logic if an unarmed mob (also, they didn't know if she was unarmed) was surrounding a lone police officer he couldn't shoot any of them since no individual member of the mob posed a deadly threat.
The link literally says "generally speaking" it is not the be all end all doctrine of when a LEO can use deadly force.
You would fail as a lawyer because you a simple minded interpretation of the law of have no clue as to the complexity of the American legal system
reply
share
MovieChatUser497 (18943)
3 years ago
The available information has to show the person posing an imminent threat, you are assuming, you are assuming she would have posed an imminent threat had she not been shot merely because of who was around her. That is not how deadly force laws work, numb nuts. You have to wait to use deadly force until you are threatened with deadly force you idiot.
If they didn’t know she was armed then they shouldn’t have shot her, when you fire a gun you are responsible for every bullet you fire and if you shoot an unarmed woman it doesn’t matter if you even thought she had a gun, if the fact of the matter is she didn’t then you are in deep shit. That’s why you do not point your gun at anyone until you are sure that you have a justification to kill them, that’s why you have to be careful about who you fire your gun at, if you accidentally kill the wrong person then you are now on the hook for manslaughter, I’m not making this up, shit for brains that is how the law works. And of course we all know if she had been BLM the media and the DemoKKKrat cult would be pitching a fit.
Yes the police cannot shoot anyone until the individual becomes an imminent threat, you don’t get to just make assumptions that everyone in a crowd is a threat. If individuals of the “mob” start posing an imminent threat then you can defend yourself against those individuals. It’s like if someone robs my house and I have a justification to shoot them but I miss and the bullet goes through my wall and shoots my neighbors kid then I am now going to be charged with manslaughter. Guns are a huge responsibility and you own every bullet you fire.
Libtards act like they know all about guns yet the truth is they don’t know dick about them, you don’t have the first clue how self defense laws work. You would be the worst lawyer ever and your clients would probably sue you for incompetence.
reply
share
beermonkey70 (282)
3 years ago
She was leading a mob into a SECURE AREA where elected officials were near. Those lives were clearly threatened.
No matter what you lose this exchange. The fact is that his kill was reviewed and declared a legal use of deadly force.
reply
share
MovieChatUser497 (18943)
3 years ago
Again your link says the SUSPECT has to pose an imminent threat, being associated with someone else who is is not a justification to shoot them, that is why the cops who shot Breonna Taylor should face manslaughter charges, they shot the wrong person, someone who wasn’t posing a threat. And all she did was WALK INTO A BUILDING, that’s not an imminent threat, if someone trespasses you get them to leave or arrest them, you don’t shoot them.
Kid, I own you, I beat you a long time ago with a little thing called logic and reason, you are just making up your own rules and you haven’t shown anything resembling consistency.
reply
share
beermonkey70 (282)
3 years ago
sorry I'm 100% consistent and the law agreed with me not you.
Was he charged ?????????
You're assumption of "inconsistency" is based on your assumption on how I judge other incidents but those assumptions are wrong.
You even admit they are assumptions.
You haven't owned anything. You are arguing against a straw man.
"And all she did was WALK INTO A BUILDING"
Flat out WRONG. She was BREACHING A SECURE AREA. You keep ignoring this critical fact.
reply
share
MovieChatUser497 (18943)
3 years ago
Whether he was charged or not is another non sequitur. There has to be evidence to charge someone and there are many times that we know the person is guilty but they aren't charged because of lack of evidence.
I gave you a chance to prove me wrong about my claim that you are inconsistent and so far all you've done is deflect and run away like a coward. I totally own you.
Whether it's a secure area or not is IRRELEVANT you dumbass. She was not posing a threat to anyone's life, sure she was breaking the law but that doesn't mean you can just kill someone. Whether you are trespassing into the Capitol or trespassing into a Wendy's doesn't matter, neither incident threatens anyone's life. If the police shoot a BLM protestor who is near someone rioting but they aren't rioting themselves then that is not a justified killing either. Again your justification for killing her is based solely on assumptions that she would have done something had she not been shot. You know I typically am not for gun control but dickheads like yourself should not be allowed to own guns because you are blatantly ignorant on gun laws and when it's OK to use them.
reply
share
beermonkey70 (282)
3 years ago
"I gave you a chance to prove me wrong about my claim that you are inconsistent and so far all you've done is deflect and run away like a coward. I totally own you.
"
You have not ESTABLISHED any inconsistency. What have done is make assumptions and then present ridiculous hoops to disprove these assumptions that were never established. That is the opposite of ownage. You "own" the straw man that you constructed nothing more
"Whether it's a secure area or not is IRRELEVANT"
Its not IRRELEVANT thats utter fucking nonsense. The area is secure for a reason. Breaching that area would put lives in danger as it would be too late too control them. The window and beyond was a strategic point that had to be held
reply
share
MovieChatUser497 (18943)
3 years ago
I absolutely have ESTABLISHED your inconsistencies, I have asked you multiple times for you to show me evidence of your standing up to your cult for glorifying thugs and criminals while vilifying an unarmed veteran who was gunned down by Capitol police. You have provided no
evidence therefore my point stands.
It absolutely is IRRELEVANT!!! Trespassing into a secure or unsecured area is not an imminent threat. Show me evidence of Ashli Babbit doing one of the following: A) Pointing a gun at someone, B) Assaulting something, C) Shouting that she is going to kill someone. Unless you are able to do that you have not established that she was an imminent threat meaning her death wasn't justified.
As I said before you have to wait until someone is an imminent threat before you use deadly force, as I said if the person starts yelling at the Subway Employee and I think they may kill the Employee I can't just pull my gun out and shoot them, I have to wait until they actually are an imminent threat. Castle Doctrine laws only apply to private citizens defending their own property, it doesn't apply in this scenario. You are either beyond stupid or beyond brainwashed by the DemoKKKrat cult, which is it?
reply
share
beermonkey70 (282)
3 years ago
"Show me evidence of Ashli Babbit doing one of the following: A) Pointing a gun at someone, B) Assaulting something, C) Shouting that she is going to kill someone. Unless you are able to do that you have not established that she was an imminent threat meaning her death wasn't justified."
lol that's not how that works . Imminent threat does not have to be one of those 3 specific things.
Go to Fort Knox unarmed and try to break in and test that theory. You will be shot and no one will question the shooting.
Go to Gitmo, unarmed and try to climb a barbed wire fence. Let me know how that goes. Actually put me in your will first lmao
reply
share
MovieChatUser497 (18943)
3 years ago
So therefore you can't provide any evidence? I'll take that as your concession.
Your second paragraph is nothing more than baseless speculation and it's not even a valid comparison. Your cult seems to love false equivalences.
EDIT: Do a quick google search of "what happens if you sneak onto a military base" and this is the response: Under federal law, trespassing on a military base can get you 6 months in jail and/or a $500 fine under 18 USC 1382. Nice try dickhead.
Also now you're moving the goalpost, first your premise was she deserved to die because she was "part of a mob" now it's she deserved to die just because she walked into the Capitol, so which one is it?
reply
share
beermonkey70 (282)
3 years ago
Not talking about the military base. I grew up near Ft Knox . I'm talking about the gold repository. It's common knowledge that if you were to approach the lawn in front of the vault you would be shot before you got anywhere near the building. They have snipers posted outside the building
reply
share
MovieChatUser497 (18943)
3 years ago
“It’s common knowledge” isn’t going to cut it numb nuts. Also the Capitol isn’t the gold repository so even if you do somehow prove your point that wouldn’t justify the murder of Ashli Babbit. Your premise is loaded with logical fallacies.
reply
share
beermonkey70 (282)
3 years ago
"Also now you're moving the goalpost, first your premise was she deserved to die because she was "part of a mob" now it's she deserved to die just because she walked into the Capitol, so which one is it?"
I said neither of those things
Also bullshit on multiple levels. The previous post was a refutation of your made up list of what constitutes imminent threat "A) Pointing a gun at someone, B) Assaulting something, C) Shouting that she is going to kill someone"
reply
share
MovieChatUser497 (18943)
3 years ago
It’s not a made up list at all, you cannot shoot someone unless deadly force is necessary to prevent deadly force. Those are 3 legitimate reasons to use deadly force (none of which apply to Ashli Babbit) and I also never said the reasons were limited to A-C, if there are other reasons to use deadly force I am happy to entertain them but walking into a building isn’t one of them, shit for brains.
EDIT: I’m sure there are snipers at Fort Knox, that doesn’t mean they are authorized to shoot whoever they want you fucking idiot.
reply
share
beermonkey70 (282)
3 years ago
regarding fort knox. What I said was true regardless of whhether you believe. I'm from the area. EVERYONE around there knows this
..
https://www.quora.com/What-would-happen-if-I-tried-breaking-into-Fort-Knox
in case you didnt bother to look
"Todd Brewer
, former Truck Driver (1996-2016)
Answered Mar 14, 2018
You would be shot the moment you attempted to access any unauthorized area. They take security extremely seriously with that much gold in the vaults."
"
Bill Nichols
, former Director, 96 MDSS/SGSFL at Eglin Air Force Base, Florida (1997-2008)
Answered Oct 16
I worked at Ft Knox (the post) for 18 years. You wouldn’t get in; at the *out*side fence of the Bullion Depository there’s a very large speaker with microphone, & a sign that says, “State your name & business.” If you tried to get inside the gate when it didn’t open, Very Bad Things would happen to you."
reply
share
MovieChatUser497 (18943)
3 years ago
LOL you are citing quora, where anyone can post whatever they want. You’d might as well cite what some fuck on moviechat said. “Very Bad things” hahahahahaha so what constitutes “very bad things”, I would consider 6 months in jail to be “very bad things”, yet I’m sure Auric Goldfinger wouldn’t think 6 months in jail to be that big of a deal.
Even if you end up wining the Ft. Knox argument you still will be nowhere close to winning the “Ashli Babbit deserved to die for trespassing” argument. Also you are still nowhere close to proving that even if someone attempted to invade the gold repository the first action would be to shoot them on site, that doesn’t even make sense not to mention that it goes against just about everything this country stands for.
Seriously, kid just give it up because you are getting your ass kicked here.
EDIT: Read the very first comment on quora: You wouldn’t even be able to make it to the gold repository, someone would have stopped you long before you got anywhere close. That 100% proves my point because the first reaction of Ft. Knox security is not to shoot you, it’s to stop you which is not what happened to Ashli Babbit. Also the person who said you could get shot was under the assumption that you yourself were “heavily armed” (which was not the case with Ashli Babbit) and that would constitute an “imminent threat”. Therefore you are contemplating a scenario that would never happen and if it were able to happen it would be under completely different circumstances making your Ft. Knox analogy a false equivalence and another logical fallacy. Your own link literally proved my point. Your parents must be embarrassed by you.
reply
share
beermonkey70 (282)
3 years ago
lol I'm not claiming Quora as a source just demonstrating that this isn't something I just made up. I was showing one example of something that I know of personally that refutes your made up A/B/C which you have already back tracked on
reply
share
MovieChatUser497 (18943)
3 years ago
And yet Quora backed up my claim because the only way to even get close to the Repository would be if you were heavily armed and if that’s the case then that changes things completely because now you are an imminent threat. You lose dickhead.
I also never said A-C were the only reasons, those were however legitimate reasons none of which applied to Ashli Babbit.
Now kid, are you willing to engage in an intelligent conversation or do I need to dismiss your claim right now? So far all you’ve done is babble like an incoherent nincompoop.
reply
share
beermonkey70 (282)
3 years ago
As far as your' "kicking my ass" proclamation. People who make these claims are almost always someone who are failing to make a coherent argument and are attempting to distract from that fact y declaring "victory"
People who make logical arguments will usually e content to allow the arguments they have made to speak for themselves
You have repeatedly made a straw man argument and have admitted this several times
reply
share
MovieChatUser497 (18943)
3 years ago
Also you ignored my point about how by your logic when BLM and Antifa pose imminent threats of serious bodily harm when they burn cities down that means that the cops can just shoot them correct?
reply
share
beermonkey70 (282)
3 years ago
If they pose imminent threats of serious bodily harm then law enforcement can absolutely use deadly force. Sorry that attempted gotcha didn't work out the way you'd hoped
reply
share
MovieChatUser497 (18943)
3 years ago
OK so next time BLM and Antifa are burning cities down I guess you'll stand by your principals and give the cops the OK to just mow them down with automatic weapons. Let's just cut the bullshit out and admit that you will never do that, if that did happen you know damn well you will be bitching nonstop about racism, civil rights, blah blah blah.
reply
share
beermonkey70 (282)
3 years ago
I didn't fucking stutter . Yes they can shoot anyone who is posing an imminent threat to human lives, whether they are actual "BLM/Anifa" or they are part of operation boogaloo or they are just opportunists taking advantage of a previously peaceful protest.
reply
share
MovieChatUser497 (18943)
3 years ago
So then stand up to your cult and tell them to quit making martyrs out of thugs and criminals who are posing an imminent threat. Example: The case where the cops shot a girl who was trying to stab another girl, your cult threw a fit and called the cops RayCest.
Until you stand up to your cult then I don’t believe you are sincere.
reply
share
beermonkey70 (282)
3 years ago
I have, you idiot, You dont know me
You live in a bubble and have a distorted view of what anyone outside of your bubble talks about.
I talk to people on the left right and middle.
Most on the left do NOT support the violence associated with the protest and riots. In fact I've only talked to ONE perspn who admitted to being OK with SOME of the violence.
But will you jump out of your glass house and denounce those that call Chauvin a hero?
reply
share
MovieChatUser497 (18943)
3 years ago
Then show me evidence that you did. In the words of Van Halen: "I'll Wait"
I have already denounced those who called Chauvin a "hero" but I'll do it again if it makes you feel better: "CHAUVIN IS NOT A HERO"
reply
share
MovieChatUser497 (18943)
3 years ago
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/ohio-police-fatally-shoot-teen-girl-after-call-about-knife-n1264731
Here you go dickhead, your cult threw a fit after this because the cops shot her, are you saying they were wrong? And if so show me where you stood up to them with the same enthusiasm in which you are justifying Ashli Babbit’s murder. Until you can then you are just talking out of your anus.
reply
share
beermonkey70 (282)
3 years ago
I'm not in any cult. That looks like a legit kill but I don't remember hearing outrage over this particular incident. Not saying there wasn't
But more importantly you have no idea what I've ever said about that or any other incident. You just talk out of your ass and make baseless assumptions.
reply
share
MovieChatUser497 (18943)
3 years ago
You are clearly part of the DemoKKKrat cult, your behavior makes it obvious. Then show me evidence of you calling out other DemoKKKrats who called the cop racist for killing her.
And you are the only one making assumptions, you assumed that Ashli Babbit was going to kill someone so therefore it's OK to kill her. You don't get to do that. To kill someone in self defense they have to actually pose a threat to you or to public safety. Walking into a building and breaking a window isn't a threat to public safety.
reply
share
beermonkey70 (282)
3 years ago
"You are clearly part of the DemoKKKrat cult, your behavior makes it obvious. Then show me evidence of you calling out other DemoKKKrats who called the cop racist for killing her."
This is you admitting to making baseless assumptions. NO I will not jump through your specific hoops just to make a point. I've already made a statement about that incident.
"ohh you have to jump through this hoop I constructed or you're in a cult" .. fuck off with that bullshit
"you assumed that Ashli Babbit was going to kill someone so therefore it's OK to kill her."
NOPE never said that.
First the "assumptions" are about how I would react in other incidents made by you about me , not about the people involved in the actual incidents. What kind of bs logic is that??
"You are clearly part of the DemoKKKrat cult, your behavior makes it obvious. Then show me evidence of you calling out other DemoKKKrats who called the cop racist for killing her."
There was an imminent threat to human lives. Should they have waited until the entire mob breached the secure area and had members of congress surrounded???
You have a childish view of this incident
reply
share
MovieChatUser497 (18943)
3 years ago
It's not a baseless assumption, it's a logical conclusion based on your behavior and your cults behavior.
Yes you did, you said that because she was a part of a "mob" she deserved to die because that means the cops can logically conclude they will kill someone. That is you making an assumption shit for brains.
Yes, before you shoot someone you have to confirm that they actually do pose an imminent threat. If you shoot before you know that and you end up being wrong then you can be charged with murder. That's why if you see an altercation and you have a gun you have to wait to use it until someone in the altercation actually uses deadly force and even then you have to make sure you are aiding the right person, if the person using deadly force was defending themselves from deadly force and you shoot them then can still be charged with murder. If I'm in subway and someone runs up to the counter and starts yelling at the person behind the counter I can't just say "this person may have a gun and might shoot the person behind the counter, I'd better shoot them just to be safe", NO you have to wait until the person actually pulls out a gun, Ashli Babbit didn't even have a gun you moron and even if she did she still would have had to have pulled it out first.
You don't know dick about guns or gun laws so just stop embarrassing yourself.
reply
share
beermonkey70 (282)
3 years ago
"It's not a baseless assumption, it's a logical conclusion based on your behavior and your cults behavior."
bullshit . You have no comments from me to base that on NONE. Every comment I HAVE made runs contrary to your assumption but you steadfastly stick to your false assumption because I didnt jump through some hoop you constructed.
I'm not even a (D) . I'm just not in the Trump cult
reply
share
MovieChatUser497 (18943)
3 years ago
I have clearly pointed out your selective moral outrage, hypocrisy and inconsistencies. Your moral standards fluctuate based on what suits your false political narrative. Your entire premise is based on assumptions and you being too stupid to realize it is not my problem, pal.
reply
share
beermonkey70 (282)
3 years ago
No you haven't. Give me two statements made by ME that are inconsistent
1.
2.
GO
reply
share
MovieChatUser497 (18943)
3 years ago
I don't have to, your lack of moral outrage (along with your cult's), when the situation is reversed is all the evidence I need.
reply
share
beermonkey70 (282)
3 years ago
you can't .. exactly . Game ... set ... match
reply
share
MovieChatUser497 (18943)
3 years ago
I gave you sufficient evidence, numb nuts.
Game....Set...Match for me.
Now go back to your safe space, little man.
reply
share
beermonkey70 (282)
3 years ago
your "evidence" is what you ASSUME my position to based on your ASSUMPTION of my ideology even though my direct statements contradict your assumption. 3 levels of fail
reply
share
TrentnQuarantino (9187)
3 years ago
Collateral damage tucker ... try it again and there will be a lot more. They should have opened fired on those scum because next time it's only going to get worse.
reply
share
TrentnQuarantino (9187)
3 years ago
Collateral damage tucker ... try it again and there will be a lot more. They should have opened fired on those scum because next time it's only going to get worse.
reply
share
MovieChatUser497 (18943)
3 years ago
So then the same logic applies to BLM? If it’s OK to kill a couple of idiots trespassing into the Capitol then the same should apply to far left terrorists who are literally burning down cities, looting businesses and killing cops.
FYI: I don’t think cops should kill anyone just for being in the wrong place at the wrong time, I think they should defend themselves against individuals who pose an imminent threat.
reply
share
TrentnQuarantino (9187)
3 years ago
It's just not the same level of threat and crime or permanence.
reply
share
MovieChatUser497 (18943)
3 years ago
You’re right, the BLM riots are far worse. At the Capitol all they really did was just walk into the building and may have caused a little bit of damage, BLM however murdered people, destroyed federal buildings, assaulted thousands of cops, threatened to burn the country down, blocked entrances to hospitals so ambulances carrying wounded police officers couldn't enter and caused billions of dollars of damage. The BLM riots were a clear assault on our democracy and they even invaded the Oklahoma Capitol in an attempt to destroy the democratic process, pretty much in the same context as 1/6, so yes BLM is far worse than the left claims the 1/6 protestors were.
reply
share
TrentnQuarantino (9187)
3 years ago
Sounds like this is your confession to being involved in the Capital Insurgency? You can't imagine you are worse than Black Lives Matter thugs who were not even with BLM.
reply
share