The J6 tapes finally released

[Reynolds]

I don't know. Looks like they are not armed. Guess they were standing there thinking "Hey, why are we not armed?!!".

I actually don't know what role they had and to be fair they were not directly at her. I guess they were content to allow idiots to bash windows.


If you climb the fence at the road where I work you will likely be shot. You might be pulled away and survive, but you might be shot as well.

I can't say the officer overreacted because the Senators were in that area and their primary job was to protect those Senators.

He could have picked up one of those chairs and bashed her knee. But in the end the officer had a job to do and given the situation I can't say what was running through his mind.


My main concern is she has become another George Floyd. I hate propaganda and lies.

You watched the video. How can anybody say that she was not entering but was trying to prevent people from entering???

I mean, how can we be Monday morning quarterbacks if we haven't watched the game????

I think she was entering. I disagree with being able to use deadly force when. Means, Opportunity, and jeopardy do not exist at the same time. My objection is to "dead lines". Officer was legally justified, but the legal justification is flawed at its root. We are not a monarchy. A senators life is no more valuable than the life of Joe the street sweeper operator.

 

[JonC]

I think she was entering. I disagree with being able to use deadly force when. Means, Opportunity, and jeopardy do not exist at the same time. My objection is to "dead lines". Officer was legally justified, but the legal justification is flawed at its root. We are not a monarchy. A senators life is no more valuable than the life of Joe the street sweeper operator.

It depends on the criteria set forth by the Capitol.

I don't know.

But I do know that if somebody stormed towards the US President they will likely be shot.

And I know if you try to enter certain places at a secured facility you will be shot even though you may not present a danger to the one doing the shooting.

Trump was not more valuable than a street sweeper. BUT I doubt his security detail would allow somebody to break into his home while waiting to see if they would be an immediate threat.


The whole thing should have been squashed as soon as those people entered the Capitol (that was the moment they ceased being protesters and became criminals). They should have used more tear gas and more non-lethal force. If they did then perhaps her death could have been avoided.

BUT at the moment you are a police officer separated by a mob breaking out windows by a door and a pile of chairs, warning people to stay out of you'll shoot....well, that's too late. It is too late to react. It is too late to adequately think through the situation.

You have to remember that they had already beaten police officers. The mob was outside the door. You are charged with protecting the area.

Would I have made the same decision? I don't know. I doubt it. But I can't say 100% because I was not there.


Goes back to George Floyd. Would I have ignored his cries and held him down? I don't know. Probably not. I probably would have let him up because his crime was not worth the risk to his life.


BUT what if she got through and seeing that the mob followed. What if the mob killed somebody? That would be on the officers.

It's the same with claims the government ignored threats prior to 9-11. With so many threats how do you know which ones to address? Often you only know in hindsight.

Americans question police officers judgment too much when it comes to the amount of force against criminals. They are in a situation most never will experience, yet somehow those civilians know what they would have done.

 

[Reynolds]

It depends on the criteria set forth by the Capitol.

I don't know.

But I do know that if somebody stormed towards the US President they will likely be shot.

And I know if you try to enter certain places at a secured facility you will be shot even though you may not present a danger to the one doing the shooting.

Trump was not more valuable than a street sweeper. BUT I doubt his security detail would allow somebody to break into his home while waiting to see if they would be an immediate threat.


The whole thing should have been squashed as soon as those people entered the Capitol (that was the moment they ceased being protesters and became criminals). They should have used more tear gas and more non-lethal force. If they did then perhaps her death could have been avoided.

BUT at the moment you are a police officer separated by a mob breaking out windows by a door and a pile of chairs, warning people to stay out of you'll shoot....well, that's too late. It is too late to react. It is too late to adequately think through the situation.

You have to remember that they had already beaten police officers. The mob was outside the door. You are charged with protecting the area.

Would I have made the same decision? I don't know. I doubt it. But I can't say 100% because I was not there.


Goes back to George Floyd. Would I have ignored his cries and held him down? I don't know. Probably not. I probably would have let him up because his crime was not worth the risk to his life.


BUT what if she got through and seeing that the mob followed. What if the mob killed somebody? That would be on the officers.

It's the same with claims the government ignored threats prior to 9-11. With so many threats how do you know which ones to address? Often you only know in hindsight.

Americans question police officers judgment too much when it comes to the amount of force against criminals. They are in a situation most never will experience, yet somehow those civilians know what they would have done.

Federal courts established the MOJ doctrine for Law enforcement shootings. Why do capital police get exceptions to the universal doctrine of when deadly force is appropriate? The lady shot had no confirmed means. She did not have opportunity. She had not demonstrates capability to put anyone in jeopardy of death.
The whole guard line garbage is just murder. She was murdered.

 

[JonC]

Federal courts established the MOJ doctrine for Law enforcement shootings. Why do capital police get exceptions to the universal doctrine of when deadly force is appropriate? The lady shot had no confirmed means. She did not have opportunity. She had not demonstrates capability to put anyone in jeopardy of death.
The whole guard line garbage is just murder. She was murdered.

Why can security shoot an unarmed man climbing the fence to our facility?

The reason for us is the security officer cannot guarantee the guy does not pose a danger (he could be carrying explosives, for example). He will never get close to any nuclear material. But he could still pose a danger.

I don't know, but I guess the same reason applies to protecting officials like the US President.



I'll give an example in the form of an exercise:

Wear a shirt that says "I am unarmed". DO NOT carry any weapon.

Get a group together, storm the White House, have one of them beat a guard outside and another yell "get the President".

Then break a window and climb on in.

See if your shooting is considered justified.

 

[Revmitchell]

Federal courts established the MOJ doctrine for Law enforcement shootings. Why do capital police get exceptions to the universal doctrine of when deadly force is appropriate? The lady shot had no confirmed means. She did not have opportunity. She had not demonstrates capability to put anyone in jeopardy of death.
The whole guard line garbage is just murder. She was murdered.

She certainly was

 

[JonC]

She certainly was

But you already gave misinformation.

You said she was not entering that window. But she was.

You said she was trying to prevent a guy from entering the window. But she wasn't.

The key to whether it is justifiable to shoot a criminal entering an area closed to the public (the Senate Lobby) which has direct access to the House Floor. A part of this key is the situation (the mob had beaten officers, they had broken out windows, they had yelled to get Pence).

The answer lies in the purpose of the Capitol police (probably all police officers).

What is the acceptable risk to put innocent persons at in order to protect criminals? That is the question.

Police have a responsibility to the innocent - and those police were actively protecting our government leaders. BUT police also have a responsibility to consider the criminal and utilize the most non-lethal means available without compromising efficiency.

Should the woman have been stopped? Yes, of course. She was a criminal by the time she stood outside those Senate Lobby doors and an active threat when she started climbing through that window.

What was available to the officer? A gun. His hands. A few other officers. Chairs barricading the door.


I'm not saying we can't examine what occurred. BUT we have to be honest about it. She was a criminal. She was trying to enter the Senate Lobby which had access to the House Floor. The officers were concerned about the mob reaching government leaders.


What gets me are the hypocrisy we sometimes see on the alt-right. They are quick to say George Floyd's death was not murder (I agree there) but are quick to call the shooting of a criminal trying to enter the Senate Lobby with access to the House Floor through a broken window "murder".

That is why the alt-right are not trustworthy. They have absolutely no integrity and are ruled by sheer emotion. Trump did this when he said she was just protesting and police shot her in the head (both false). The alt-right does this when describing her draped in an American flag (she wasn't).

Liberals do this when they describe George Floyd as an upstanding citizen.

Contrary to feelings, facts do matter.

 

[Reynolds]

Why can security shoot an unarmed man climbing the fence to our facility?

The reason for us is the security officer cannot guarantee the guy does not pose a danger (he could be carrying explosives, for example). He will never get close to any nuclear material. But he could still pose a danger.

I don't know, but I guess the same reason applies to protecting officials like the US President.



I'll give an example in the form of an exercise:

Wear a shirt that says "I am unarmed". DO NOT carry any weapon.

Get a group together, storm the White House, have one of them beat a guard outside and another yell "get the President".

Then break a window and climb on in.

See if your shooting is considered justified.

I understand the legality. I disagree with it as unjust and in need of change.

 

[Reynolds]

But you already gave misinformation.

You said she was not entering that window. But she was.

You said she was trying to prevent a guy from entering the window. But she wasn't.

The key to whether it is justifiable to shoot a criminal entering an area closed to the public (the Senate Lobby) which has direct access to the House Floor. A part of this key is the situation (the mob had beaten officers, they had broken out windows, they had yelled to get Pence).

The answer lies in the purpose of the Capitol police (probably all police officers).

What is the acceptable risk to put innocent persons at in order to protect criminals? That is the question.

Police have a responsibility to the innocent - and those police were actively protecting our government leaders. BUT police also have a responsibility to consider the criminal and utilize the most non-lethal means available without compromising efficiency.

Should the woman have been stopped? Yes, of course. She was a criminal by the time she stood outside those Senate Lobby doors and an active threat when she started climbing through that window.

What was available to the officer? A gun. His hands. A few other officers. Chairs barricading the door.


I'm not saying we can't examine what occurred. BUT we have to be honest about it. She was a criminal. She was trying to enter the Senate Lobby which had access to the House Floor. The officers were concerned about the mob reaching government leaders.


What gets me are the hypocrisy we sometimes see on the alt-right. They are quick to say George Floyd's death was not murder (I agree there) but are quick to call the shooting of a criminal trying to enter the Senate Lobby with access to the House Floor through a broken window "murder".

That is why the alt-right are not trustworthy. They have absolutely no integrity and are ruled by sheer emotion. Trump did this when he said she was just protesting and police shot her in the head (both false). The alt-right does this when describing her draped in an American flag (she wasn't).

Liberals do this when they describe George Floyd as an upstanding citizen.

Contrary to feelings, facts do matter.

But we don't shoot criminals for being criminals. We shoot them when they present M.O.J.

 

[JonC]

I understand the legality. I disagree with it as unjust and in need of change.

Sorry ...I misunderstood your point (I thought you were addressing the legality).

I'm not sure it needs to change. But I grant if it doesn't it can...and will ..often result in the overuse of force.

Take my example - my workplace. Suppose an unarmed man dies climb the fence. The officer doesn't see a gun so he doesn't shoot. That will prevent killing an unarmed man. But what if he had an explosive device and placed it on a tank top, or at an evaporator, before he is caught. Then we could have a pretty bad nuclear contamination incident. People could die.


What if the officer didn't shoot, the woman continued into the Senate Lobby and was tackled. But because of this the mob continued through. A few were stopped but three made it to the House Floor and killed a Congressman the police were charged to protect?

If it was a Democrat many wouldn't care, I know. But that is something the officer has to consider.

The question, I believe, that should be asked when an officer confronts a criminal with lethal force is "what is the worst that could happen if I don't use lethal force". The criminal, simply by their actions, do not get the benefit of the doubt. The "err on the side of caution" goes to the ones the criminal is threatening, even if that threat is perceived.

That's my opinion, anyway. I get tired of seeing police officers slandered for shooting a criminal when it turns out the criminal didn't have the gun the officer thought he had. Or the gun was a pellet gun at night.

Police officers don't always make the best decision possible in these situations, but I believe for the most part they make the best decisions they can given the situation and what is known at that moment.

 

[JonC]

But we don't shoot criminals for being criminals. We shoot them when they present M.O.J.

No. We shoot criminals when their actions, in the judgment at the time, could be threatening to life.

I doubt the officer would have shot the woman if she had opened the door and entered the Senate Lobby on Jan 5.

The situation was a mob stormed the Capitol, beat police officers, smashed windows, yelled to get Pence, broke the left door window and was in the process of smashing the other window, one man went to the left window and moved when the officer said to stop or he would shoot, then the woman started climbing through the window into a lobby connected to the House Floor.


Are you seriously telling me that had AOC sparked a riot and a group of Muslims beat police officers, yelled "Get Trump", stormed the While House, made it to the Oval Office and busted in the door, that an officer charged with protecting the WH and POTUS would be justified in NOT shooting the guy???


I mean, look at the Conservative outcry with the riots in Democrat cities. Were those officers and officials right to do nothing?

 

[Reynolds]

No. We shoot criminals when their actions, in the judgment at the time, could be threatening to life.

I doubt the officer would have shot the woman if she had opened the door and entered the Senate Lobby on Jan 5.

The situation was a mob stormed the Capitol, beat police officers, smashed windows, yelled to get Pence, broke the left door window and was in the process of smashing the other window, one man went to the left window and moved when the officer said to stop or he would shoot, then the woman started climbing through the window into a lobby connected to the House Floor.


Are you seriously telling me that had AOC sparked a riot and a group of Muslims beat police officers, yelled "Get Trump", stormed the While House, made it to the Oval Office and busted in the door, that an officer charged with protecting the WH and POTUS would be justified in NOT shooting the guy???


I mean, look at the Conservative outcry with the riots in Democrat cities. Were those officers and officials right to do nothing?

I doubt the secret service would usher rioters into the White House the way the Cap Police waved them into the Capital. Secret Serv would not let situation happen in first place.

 

[JonC]

I doubt the secret service would usher rioters into the White House the way the Cap Police waved them into the Capital. Secret Serv would not let situation happen in first place.

People doubted they'd be ushered into the Capital as well.

But the example is exactly the same.

Should the secret service allow a woman who was in a mob that beat police officers, stormed into and trashed the WH, yelled "Get Trump!", into the Oval Office to see if she will attack the President before taking her out?

 

[percho]

What Are They Still Hiding About January 6th? | Lara Logan (bitchute.com)

 

[Reynolds]

People doubted they'd be ushered into the Capital as well.

But the example is exactly the same.

Should the secret service allow a woman who was in a mob that beat police officers, stormed into and trashed the WH, yelled "Get Trump!", into the Oval Office to see if she will attack the President before taking her out?

If they invited her in, then yes.
The ap Police invited the rioters in.
Something is majorly screwed up about the "riot". There is more going on than we have been told.

 

[JonC]

If they invited her in, then yes.
The ap Police invited the rioters in.
Something is majorly screwed up about the "riot". There is more going on than we have been told.

Actually that is not true. Some police may have (there is no evidence of any actually invited in, although we do see a few standing aside as the mob stormed past), but some had also been beaten down by the rioters.

If they believed that the police were inviting them into the Capitol to smash windows and try to enter the Senate Lobby that the police barricaded as they continued to smash windows, even after the officer who shot the woman yelled for them to get back (when the guy with the blue hat acted as if he was going to enter) or he would shoot.....well ...I hate to say it but the world isn't much worse for the loss.

We have to remember a few facts:

1. The "protestors" were not protestors. They entered the US Capitol armed with various weapons (to include guns, proper spray, stun guns, baseball bats....and an ax ).

2. How did the police usher the rioters into the US Capitol? They didn't.

Looks like some remained where they were inside the Capitol. BUT how did the rioters actually get in?

They attacked and injured over 120 police officers outside the Capitol.

They stepped through windows they had broken out.

Some, after making it through the barricade, did walk right in.

But even here we saw many police officers struggling to try and get them back out.

And I am not sure that believing a police officer is willing for you to do something illegal is enough to negate the crime itself (but I'm not a lawyer....that just seems strange).



That said we are talking about two VERY DIFFERENT things. You are talking about an area open to the public. She was entering an area closed to the public, and through barricaded doors where police with guns drawn were telling the mob to stop.

BUT we were talking about a woman shot for trying to climb in a window, through a window the mob busted out in the barricaded doors as the mob was continuing to break the other window.

You think they were inviting her in???

 

[JonC]

Actually, let's look at how the police welcomed the rioters into the Capitol.

 

[Reynolds]

Actually that is not true. Some police may have (there is no evidence of any actually invited in, although we do see a few standing aside as the mob stormed past), but some had also been beaten down by the rioters.

If they believed that the police were inviting them into the Capitol to smash windows and try to enter the Senate Lobby that the police barricaded as they continued to smash windows, even after the officer who shot the woman yelled for them to get back (when the guy with the blue hat acted as if he was going to enter) or he would shoot.....well ...I hate to say it but the world isn't much worse for the loss.

We have to remember a few facts:

1. The "protestors" were not protestors. They entered the US Capitol armed with various weapons (to include guns, proper spray, stun guns, baseball bats....and an ax ).

2. How did the police usher the rioters into the US Capitol? They didn't.

Looks like some remained where they were inside the Capitol. BUT how did the rioters actually get in?

They attacked and injured over 120 police officers outside the Capitol.

They stepped through windows they had broken out.

Some, after making it through the barricade, did walk right in.

But even here we saw many police officers struggling to try and get them back out.

And I am not sure that believing a police officer is willing for you to do something illegal is enough to negate the crime itself (but I'm not a lawyer....that just seems strange).



That said we are talking about two VERY DIFFERENT things. You are talking about an area open to the public. She was entering an area closed to the public, and through barricaded doors where police with guns drawn were telling the mob to stop.

BUT we were talking about a woman shot for trying to climb in a window, through a window the mob busted out in the barricaded doors as the mob was continuing to break the other window.

You think they were inviting her in???

John, We have video of two officers waving the "rioters" in. One officer opens a barricade.

 

[JPPT1974]

Never thought this would ever happened in our lifetime January 6 2021. But really sadly it did happen.

 

[percho]

Actually, let's look at how the police welcomed the rioters into the Capitol.

View attachment 8876 View attachment 8877 View attachment 8878 View attachment 8879 View attachment 8880 View attachment 8881 View attachment 8882 View attachment 8883 View attachment 8884 View attachment 8885

Did you watch the video?

Would like your thoughts on another topic relative to J6.

How many votes do, "YOU," think Joe Biden received on November 3 plus dates before and after November 3, 2020?

Just, "your," estimate is fine.


I do wonder if there would have been an insurrection had Trump tallied 100 million votes.

 

[JonC]

John, We have video of two officers waving the "rioters" in. One officer opens a barricade.

Post it.

I see hundreds of police trying to keep the mob out. I'd be interested in seeing your video.

What it looks like to me is that at some point the police knew they had lost the Capitol and shifted to defend the House.

But I am interested in seeing the video.

Problem is after @Revmitchell 's post about the woman not trying to go through that window. That made me look it up. The claim was because of photo "evidence" where she touches another's backpack. Turns out it was false information given by the alt-right to make a criminal a hero and villainize the police.

This makes me doubt any narrative the alt-right offers. So I have to see for myself.

But I am interested. I don't doubt officers gave up, especially if it is a couple of officers versus the mob. But I would like to see the video.

I'm kinda bored sitting at home. Can't fish because I can't drive.

Can't play disc golf because I can't walk that much (I decided to take up disc golf ... Haven't played yet but got some discs).

All I have is our discussions for entertainment.

You're my Online BFF .