Bullshit.
These people literally halted the peaceful transition of power. I can’t image a more vicious attack on democracy.
How would they have known for certain she was unarmed? The mob stormed the Capitol. They didn’t file through metal detectors. She could have had a concealed weapon of some kind on her person. She ignored orders to stop and approached the hallway where definitely unarmed U.S. senators were sheltering.
The tragedy is that she didn’t listen. The tragedy is that she thought she didn’t have to listen.
You also denied they were insurgents, and seem to ignore the need for safety for anyone. So you’re not working with the facts the occurred.
As I pointed out before, your logic means that we can just walk in your house, and you can’t call the police, so we get a free house. It’s not a viable way for the world to work.
These people broke the law. They put people in danger. They tried to install a dictator and subvert the rule of law.
And one person, despite being told to keep back or she would be shot, chose to step forward, and was shot because she put someone as risk and was part of an insurrection.
We would not have had a vote without the police being there and stopping the insurrectionists.
And continuing to pretend they weren’t is just defending Trump and his attempt to overturn our democracy through force, w, giving your posting history. It allows them free reign with nothing to stop them.
Answer me this: if the police didn’t stop them, then who would have?
You’re moving the goal posts here. That was never part of what started this.
do you have so little faith in American Democracy that you think it was threatened by the events of today. Yes, a building was attacked. Yes they tried to stop the certification process. They even succeeded for a while. So what? So what if they even had managed to burn the Capitol to the ground?
Our Democracy was never in peril. Our Democracy is stronger than a bunch of wannabe revolutionaries.
Strictly speaking, you are assuming facts not (yet) in evidence. None of these are needed to counter mikecurtis.
~Max
Where is the line drawn for you?
How far is too far?
Self defense, I assume.
~Max
i draw the line at killing unarmed civilians.
That answer does not make sense. It needs context.
Well best case scenario, a new convention emerges not to concede until January the 6th.
And the protest violently to express severe displeasure at the outcome:
Worst case scenario, fuck me, no limits.
Does that apply to BLM protesters too? Or only to white right-wingers?
You expect people to find a minutes-long speech by blindly dragging around the time bar for a (by now) twelve-hour video? Could you at least give us the approximate time index?
it applies to all. have I ever said otherwise?
You may not be aware, but I am one of this board’s far far leftists.
7:16:00
~Max
“Never shoot an unarmed person, ever” is a moral position. I don’t agree with it but it is a position.
~Max
Here it is (this link is queued to just before Pence starts speaking):
Thank you both!
It was a building with people inside it, including people against whom the invaders’ sponsoring organizations had expressed a lot of vehement anger.
I don’t think it’s unreasonable to consider an invading mob a potential serious threat in that situation.
Sure, if the building was empty and the mob were just vandalizing things, I could see a case for saying “let them wreck the building and then arrest them but shooting at them is right off limits”. But the situation was more critical than that, due to the presence of other people.
I’m not saying I’m glad the invader was killed; I wish she hadn’t been. But I don’t think it’s automatically unreasonable or tyrannical for a cop to think that an anti-government mob violently forcing its way in to an occupied government chamber was a potential serious threat.