Yeah, it definitely seems like you are trying to persecute the hero officer that shot the MAGA rioter trying to breach the secure area, while minimizing the vicious attack on officers by another MAGA rioter. With a fire extinguisher, while the officers’ backs were turned. Why is that?
Video Shows MAGA Rioter Throwing Fire Extinguisher At Capitol Police, Striking One In The Head
- Thread starter versitile1
- Start date
If you want to ask a question based on premises, you have to take care to get the premises correct, otherwise there is no point to your question. I haven't suggested any criminal charges be laid against the capitol police officer who killed one of the protesters. Is it persecuting the officer to observe that the person he shot was an an unarmed woman who happened to be a veteran? As to your video, it is what it is. Is it a video of someone being fatally injured? We don't even know. Would shot putting a fire extinguisher at a riot cop dressed in riot gear and partially protected by a barrier likely be calculated to kill that officer or even seriously injure him or her? I think that's unlikely. More likely, in my mind, that the protester did it to annoy or distract the officers. That's still a criminal offence, but I don't view it as fitting the narrative of a band of rebels looking to kill any cops or legislators they came across and take control of the capitol, which is the political narrative the Democrats are trying to spin.
Why I'm trying to define the accurate characterization of events, besides the obvious reason that the truth is always more useful than a fabrication when it involves a matter of any substance, is because it appears to me that Washington politicians are about to use an inaccurate description of events to justify ignoring the genuinely held concerns of half the country. That's a mistake. I don't have to be Kreskin to foresee the negative consequences of that, and an unstable US is bad for Canada.
Why are you calling for the hero officer’s name to be released immediately? What does the MAGA rioter being a veteran have to do with the fact that they were trying to breach a secure area with an angry mob following? How would the hero officer know the rioter was unarmed? The rioter was carrying a backpack that could have had anything in it.
Why do you try to minimize the fire extinguisher attack on officers by the MAGA rioter? You went from light, underhand throw to light shot put, and then invented this “cloth covered” BS narrative. Wearing riot gear doesn’t make the attack by the MAGA rioter any less disgusting. By your “logic“, then it would be okay to shoot them in the chest because they were wearing bullet-proof vests.
How about the second officer who wasn’t wearing a helmet that was struck? You think that throwing a fire extinguisher at police officer’s heads was to “annoy or distract” them? You really don’t want to be taken seriously.
Why mention the barrier? It had no effect on the cowardly attack, as the fire extinguisher was thrown clearly over it by the MAGA rioter. At police officers, while their backs were turned. The barrier even emboldened this coward MAGA rioter because he knew he could get away before they could respond to his cowardly attack.
Because all of these are needed to establish the political narrative Dutch Oven wants to establish. Part of that is his false "I am just being a detached observer" "I'm just asking questions" pose. All of it is of a piece to establish the narrative he wants to establish.
Yeah, I know. It’s just more of the “unarmed tourist vet just trying to voice their concerns”, to the “light underhand throw meant to distract and occupy police” BS that he tries to pass off.
Have to counter the narrative somehow. Right now, each new piece of information makes it look worse, so gotta cut that off.
I mean honestly, “a light shot put meant to annoy and distract” or whatever BS. Could you imagine their reaction if it was BLM or antifa throwing a fire extinguisher at police officers’ heads?
Bud, I just won that last argument without saying a single word.
All I did was post you whining about attacks on intelligence followed by your own attack on intelligence.
Don't tell me you're not bright enough to have picked that up.
You haven't won an argument on this board ever.
Your record is about the same as leaky Rudy's record on electoral cases.
Everyone knows why you are arguing that hitting cops with fire extinguishers isn't attempted murder or aggravated assault with a weapon.
Its the exact same reason you argued over and over again that James Fields' killing of Heather Heyes wasn't murder.
If you recall, your record in that case was the exact same as it was for election litigations.
You were wrong.
You're late to the Dutch Oven party. The rest of us have endured the never-ending torture for months.
He was arguing what he felt were the "legal merits" of Trump's 0-63 election litigation train wreck until last week.
The MAGAT has been arrested.
A retired Pennsylvania firefighter was charged yesterday and arrested today in Pennsylvania in connection with the riots at the U.S. Capitol last week.
Robert Sanford, 55, of Boothwyn, PA, was charged by criminal complaint with knowingly entering or remaining in any restricted building or grounds without lawful authority, disorderly or disruptive conduct on capitol grounds, civil disorder, and assaulting, resisting, or impeding certain officers while engaged in the performance of official duties.
It is alleged that during the events at the U.S. Capitol, Sanford struck three U.S. Capitol Police (USCP) officers with a fire extinguisher. A video, recorded by an individual who was present in the crowd, captures when a man throws what appears to be a fire extinguisher at a group of USCP officers protecting the lower west terrace of the Capitol.
The fire extinguisher struck one officer, who was wearing a helmet, in the head; then, the fire extinguisher ricochets striking a second officer, who was not wearing a helmet, in the head; and ricochets a third time and strikes a third officer, wearing a helmet, in the head. After throwing the fire extinguisher at USCP, Sanford leaves the area in the opposite direction. Federal authorities were able to identify Sanford, after receiving a tip on January 12.
A retired Pennsylvania firefighter was charged yesterday and arrested today in Pennsylvania in connection with the riots at the U.S. Capitol last week.
Robert Sanford, 55, of Boothwyn, PA, was charged by criminal complaint with knowingly entering or remaining in any restricted building or grounds without lawful authority, disorderly or disruptive conduct on capitol grounds, civil disorder, and assaulting, resisting, or impeding certain officers while engaged in the performance of official duties.
It is alleged that during the events at the U.S. Capitol, Sanford struck three U.S. Capitol Police (USCP) officers with a fire extinguisher. A video, recorded by an individual who was present in the crowd, captures when a man throws what appears to be a fire extinguisher at a group of USCP officers protecting the lower west terrace of the Capitol.
The fire extinguisher struck one officer, who was wearing a helmet, in the head; then, the fire extinguisher ricochets striking a second officer, who was not wearing a helmet, in the head; and ricochets a third time and strikes a third officer, wearing a helmet, in the head. After throwing the fire extinguisher at USCP, Sanford leaves the area in the opposite direction. Federal authorities were able to identify Sanford, after receiving a tip on January 12.
That has to be an outrage. Dutch assured us it was only good fun.
In fairness to Dutch: When I pointed out that "it was just in good fun" wasn't a defence to murder, he told me that he was "presenting a political narrative and not a courtroom defence".
I'm not sure wtf Dutch meant by that btw.
Its not a defence its a CHARGE do you know the difference? A legal defense would be - "Someone yelled fire!! so I threw him a fire extinguisher"
