#1 |
#2 |
#3 |
Paste this URL into an email or IM: |
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
|
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
|
DC Capital Police shot and killed one of the rioters. Was it a lawful shoot?
Yes
Side Score: 57
|
 |
No
Side Score: 72
|
|
3
points
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
2
points
Certainly not in all cases. A legal standard must be met to use lethal force. But you aren't that legal standard. You're some sneering fascist douchebag who still thinks the Iraq War was legal. You're some delusional cretin who doesn't see a problem with assembling a makeshift jury on a backend internet site and asking them to make a ruling without hearing the facts of the case. That's who you are. Side: Yes
I told you before not to interrupt my thread with others. That's why you're banned now. You have consistently confused "legal" with "right". The Iraq war was legal. The opinion not some guy at the UN does not apply to US law. I'll also tell you that abortion is legal. I don't think anyone here is under the impression that I think abortion nis right. Of course it is perfectly fine for people on the internet to discuss the legal aspects of current events. Actual Fascists may think otherwise. Side: No
1
point
I told you before not to interrupt my thread with others. That's why you're banned now. I'm not banned you halfwit. You forgot to do it. You have consistently confused "legal" with "right". The Iraq war was legal. No, you have consistently invented your own facts. I have consistently referenced the actual facts:- Iraq war was illegal and breached UN charter https://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/ Chilcot report: John Prescott says Iraq War was illegal The war in Iraq was not a blunder or a mistake. It was a crime https://www.theguardian.com/ The experts agree with me because they are the ones I have taken my opinion from in the first place. I don't simply invent my own facts and then attempt to warp reality around them like you do. I'll also tell you that abortion is legal. Ahahaha! Stop you raging imbecile. What does abortion have to do with the War in Iraq? Deflect much, do we? Lol. đ Side: Yes
You forgot to do it. Thanks. Most relevant nothing you've ever said. The UN does not determine US legality. The UN is a disfunctional diplomatic apparatus. It pretends to have enforcement ability only when the US decides to act as it's teeth. Your favorite experts can all call it criminal. But the UN can arrest a US citizen if, and only if, the US allows them to. The UN doesn't dictate a damn thing. Least of all US law. Side: No
No of course. I am not a law expert, butFrom my understanding law enforcement can use deadly force when they believe that the person is lethal threat others. You can be an lethal threat to others when police believe you are be armed. Even if you werenât armed, the officer can judge the possibility as a threat. I find that completely absurd being that the only real lethal threat is the officer holding a gun at your face. But I assume we arenât here to judge the morality of the shoot or the law in the debate. If we were I would be on the other side. Where is the debate here? Side: Yes
1
point
Yes! Thatâs like saying â a man WILLINGLY walked into a lion den and started chaos, the lion attacked the man, the mad died. Was it the lions fault?â It wasnât the lions just just like it wasnât writing for the cop to shoot the man, he was trying to protect all the residents in the capitol. The rioters were looking for violence and chaos. So yes itâs fine that the guy got shot. All I know is the same people saying it was unlawful better have had the same energy in defending George Floydâs death because he didnât do ANYTHING. Side: Yes
It's a bit off topic, but Floyd was being investigated for the counterfeit bill he apparently passed. He likely died due to the high levels of a highly dangerous opioid that he had consumed. The level to which his medical circumstances were exasperated by police will be hashed out in court. If you look up Walter Scott, you will find a black man who was known to be unarmed and was shot in the back while running from police. This is all on camera. I am curious to know if you recognize the name. Side: Yes
|
2
points
DC Capital Police shot and killed one of the rioters. Was it a lawful shoot? That you expect anybody to answer that question on the basis of the single ten word sentence of information you have given them is just simply beyond my ability to even fathom. Mahatma Gandhi went on a walk. Did his legs get tired? Side: No
2
points
Oh, look at that. What a surprise. You're fucking lying again. The rioter shot dead by police was female. You can also see in the video that the glass around her was intact, not smashed like it was in the incident at 6.09 in the other video:- https://www.military.com/video/ And here is the other video, so others can check the 6.09 mark and see for themselves what a dishonest piece of shit you are:- You're a total fucking liar, Amarel. On top of being a sneering idiot, you're also a goddamned liar. Side: No
It's the same video, you're just an idiot. Ask the Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/ Side: Yes
1
point
It's the same video No it isn't you reprehensible fucking liar. There is live commentary against the incident in my video and nowhere does it mention this ended in a rioter being killed. It simply calls it a "disturbing video". The person fired at in my video is male, wearing different clothing and the condition of the surrounding glass is clearly much different. https://www.washingtonpost.com/ How does dropping this link support your lie that these two clearly separate incidents are one and the same? Fuck off Amarel. You're literally a retard. Side: No
You never have been very capable of fallacy identification. Case in point. At least you realize how stupid it would be to continue arguing that Nom didn't have the shooting in his own posted video. Nom realized it too, but he never said so. He just slinked away and hoped I didn't notice that he gave up that fight Side: Yes
You never have been very capable of fallacy identification. Case in point. Which is why I pointed out 5 of yours in your gun debate where you attempted to hold two positions at once and thought you were being rational đ At least you realize how stupid it would be to continue arguing that Nom didn't have the shooting in his own posted video. Nom realized it too, but he never said so. He just slinked away and hoped I didn't notice that he gave up that fight Your problem regards formulating coherent questions is yours , when two people point out your post is vague the problem lies with you not with them ......maybe thatâs something you can work on Side: No
1
point
When the two worst shit posters are posting the same shit, the fact that there's two of them doesn't give it merit. Do you know that you sound precisely like Donald Trump? A) Does something wrong or says something stupid. B) Looks around for someone he can blame to make it all go away. Side: No
1
point
1
point
If you don't know anything about the subject matter and aren't comfortable presenting your opinion, then why would you bother engaging in the discussion? You wouldn't need to know the circumstances to know that you aren't a legal expert, so why bitch about vagueness? you're not even worth responding to. I wish you thought so Side: Yes
1
point
If you don't know anything about the subject matter and aren't comfortable presenting your opinion, then why would you bother engaging in the discussion? I didn't engage in any discussion you pointless imbecile. I told you that your question was vague to the point of absurdity. You provided no supporting information to familiarise people with the facts of the subject matter, and when challenged on this you blamed me and deflected to a lie you invented about a video I posted three days ago. You are a fucking IDIOT Amarel. Get it through your head that you're a fucking dummy. Side: Yes
There's only one person who the police shot and killed in the DC riots. Everyone else seems to know what I was referring to. You certainly should have since it was literally in your own debate. No, that's not a lie. WaPo uses the same video you used because it shows the only fatal police shooting in the DC riot. You saw a video from a different angle and got confused. It happens. https://www.washingtonpost.com/ Side: Yes
1
point
There's only one person who the police shot and killed in the DC riots. Watching those two videos shows clearly that they are not the same incident. In my video, the glass is visibly shattered and smashed, and the person shot at is male. Anybody can watch those two videos and see what I am talking about so you gain nothing by continuously lying and deflecting to completely irrelevant statements like the one above when you are called out on it. Nobody died in the incident in my video otherwise the commentator obviously would have mentioned it. Side: No
1
point
In your video is a clip that was used by the Washington Post to discuss the lethal shooting. The exact same video. It doesn't matter if it's the same video or not. What the fuck does a ten minute video I posted three days ago have to do with you asking a deliberately vague question with no surrounding context? Am I the only person you intended to solicit an answer from? Does a video of the shooting taken from a poorly recorded angle help me interpret whether or not it was legal? Side: No
You're the only one who found this topic vague. Jody just follows suit. There was only one rioter that the DC police shot and killed. There is no other circumstance that anyone could reasonably guess I am referring to unless they were completely unaware of the DC riot. No one here is unaware of the DC riotm Side: Yes
1
point
You're the only one who found this topic vague. Jody just follows suit. It isn't a topic you retard. You didn't give us any background information to help us determine an answer. You didn't even give us the name of the victim, let alone what they were doing which might have gotten them shot. Side: No
Were you unsure if f I was referring to the most recent riots in DC as opposed to some earlier riot? Because "when" is the only thing not covered in my title. It's DC police and the one rioter they killed. That's who what and where. It's funny that you have to pretend to be completely oblivious and stupid just to accuse me of being stupid. Side: Yes
1
point
Were you unsure if f I was referring to the most recent riots in DC as opposed to some earlier riot? Because "when" is the only thing not covered in my title. I don't understand why you are still pretending you can't see the problem with the total lack of information you gave us. The SS shot and killed a fleeing Jew. Was it a lawful shoot? Side: No
1
point
Whatever you believe it is. Other people didn't find it vague. A) The very first two people who came in here both ridiculed you for exactly the same thing you completely delusional retard. We didn't confer. We both arrived at the precise same conclusion independently. B) You don't get to decide what other people think and then use what you have told them they think as an argument. That's stupid. C) Your question is objectively vague. It is not a matter of opinion. Side: No
A) Jody followed your lead and you ridicule everything all the time. B) You always claim that I believe something other than what I am saying and then use what you think I believe against me. C) If it's vague to you and not to Have them it's not objectively vague. D) Find me one other circumstance of the DC Capital police shooting and killing one in a riot and I will concede that you might have confused this occurence with the other, less relevant one. Side: Yes
1
point
Jody followed your lead Jody doesn't follow anybody's lead. Everything you write is absurd, false, and backed up by nothing except your own empty rhetoric. We both came in here and pointed out the obvious fact that your question can't be answered objectively because you haven't provided any relevant information or context. It's like calling a murder squad detective, pointing to a body and asking him who did it you ridiculous idiot. Side: No
1
point
Jody followed your lead and you ridicule everything all the time. Translation from Amarel - speak to english.... That's your way of avoiding admitting you were being deliberately vague and it has been pointed out by Nom and I Perhaps in future take time to think and correctly formulate a question all this hurt pride is not helping your cause .... What Amarel is really saying is he does not know how to form a question without being vague ,this gives him a perfect opportunity of resorting to Amarel speak if things get tricky later Side: No
Yeah, it's not vague. There is only one possible circumstance I could be referring to. This topic could only appear vague to someone who is unfamiliar with the topic altogether. The only other possibility is that you couldn't tell which time I was referring to when the DC Capital Police shot and killed one of the rioters. So find me another time when the DC Capital Police shot and killed one of the rioters. Otherwise the idea that this title is too vague is baseless. Side: Yes
Yeah, it's not vague. Yeah, it was There is only one possible circumstance I could be referring to. Youâve since amended your debate to give âclarityâ I know This topic could only appear vague to someone who is unfamiliar with the topic altogether. Itâs incredible the way you always make these sweeping generalizations The only other possibility is that you couldn't tell which time I was referring to when the DC Capital Police shot and killed one of the rioters. So find me another time when the DC Capital Police shot and killed one of the rioters. Otherwise the idea that this title is too vague is baseless. Again another example of you thinking because you say something itâs true the reverse being nearly always the case Anyway I think you have the whole mystery solved to your satisfaction Poirot Side: No
I added the video clip that nom had in his own debate. I didn't change the title of the debate. You attempted to clear up the vagueness of your poorly formed debate I went through this entire conversation with Nom already. No you didnât as usual you made several unfounded assertions I guess I can go through it with his pup as well. But Iâve just corrected you ....again You posted up an incoherent debate topic deliberately because youâre a prize jack ass always spoiling for fight BTW donât get all butt hurt because you got thrashed in the gun debate then shoot your fool mouth off regards Trump and got owned again , Jace may still let you be his bitch if you plead 𼳠Side: No
I posted some stats you didn't like, so Nom posted some stats too and you both pretended I didn't post any stats. If that made you feel good, then good for you. But the stats didn't change, and I've still got a gun. As for the rest, I just don't think you know how you come across. Side: Yes
I posted some stats you didn't like, so Nom posted some stats too and you both pretended I didn't post any stats. Incorrect you posted stats and were called on your dishonesty regarding such, and you got all butt hurt If that made you feel good, then good for you It should make you feel good as correction can help you develop coherent arguments moving forward . But the stats didn't change, and I've still got a gun. They sure did when what you left out was included. Sure you still have your gun as you need it for safety as you admitted has your bitch still got her mace just in case ? As for the rest, I just don't think you know how you come across. Thatâs the difference with you and me you actually care.......tragic Side: No
Nom always says I'm dishonest. Very often that's the sum of his response to me. You follow suit is kind of your thing so this interaction makes sense without saying anything at all about my actual argument. Which you almost never do anyway. It's true though. I do care how I come across. Even online to strangers if my conduct and comments could be mistaken for that of a cognitively delayed ill-mannered child, like yours, I would be embarrassed. Most people would. But not you. Side: Yes
Nom always says I'm dishonest. A pretty accurate assessment Very often that's the sum of his response to me. You follow suit is kind of your thing so this interaction makes sense without saying anything at all about my actual argument. Yet you were the one beaten in the gun debate and then the Trump debate seeing absolutely no blame on Trumps part Which you almost never do anyway. Which is why you took a whipping in the two arguments cited It's true though. I do care how I come across. Well youâve âachieved â that as you come across as a complete prick đđđ Even online to strangers if my conduct and comments could be mistaken for that of a cognitively delayed ill-mannered child, So why arenât you embarrassed as you spout out your usual ire? Do you ever actually debate? l would be embarrassed. So would I if I was a hate filled runt like you who is so deluded he sees no wrongdoing on Trumps part Is your bitch ok for mace or running low yet ? Side: No
1
point
Nom always says I'm dishonest. Very often that's the sum of his response to me. You follow suit is kind of your thing Yes, because obviously you are the victim when you mislead people, lie and omit information. Except no, you're a pathological narcissist looking to blame everybody else for your own faults. without saying anything at all about my actual argument. Which you almost never do anyway. Listen you persistently stupid fucking idiot: you were criticised legitimately for asking a vague question with no context. You could have chosen to accept that legitimate criticism but you did not. Instead you dove right into your usual behaviour and began blaming other people for your own stupid mistakes. You are still doing that a full 24 hours later. Side: No
1
point
I added the video clip that nom had in his own debate. To clarify the situation, I posted a completely different debate three days ago which contained a ten minute video, 6 minutes into which is (according to Amarel) a 15 second clip of the shooting. In Amarel's disturbing world of right wing pseudo-logic, this justifies him asking the entire world a question which it cannot answer because of a complete absence of relevant context. I've seen the video and I still can't answer the question, so as red herrings go he's really making a meal out of this one. Side: No
Others 𤣠You mean gender issues Jace ? hp there is only one circumstance I could possibly be referring to. đ¤ That must be it everyone else is to blame for your vaugeness đđđđ Youâre having a rough time today I have corrected you , Nom has , Excon , and Al face it mate youâre one thick cunt Side: No
Jo, Jace, and Al all knew that there were rioters that engaged with police in DC. They were able to respond to this debate like normal aware people. Excon isn't in this debate. See, I didn't blame anyone for vagueness, I demonstrated that this title is not vague. You have nothing but Burrito's accusations to repeat. What authority did you consult to determine Nom would be a good one to follow? Side: Yes
Jo, Jace, and Al all knew that there were rioters that engaged with police in DC. Not what I said .... Youâre having a rough time today I have corrected you , Nom has , Excon , and Al face it mate youâre one thick cunt They were able to respond to this debate like normal aware people. Excon isn't in this debate. Read above See, I didn't blame anyone for vagueness, I demonstrated that this title is not vague. You didnât which is why in a fury you amended your debate and are sulking like a child that you were called on your vagueness You have nothing but Burrito's accusations to repeat. I made my own ...... What authority did you consult to determine Nom would be a good one to follow? None , unlike you as in the 7 you cited on your failed gun debate and your 9 on your failed defence of Trump as in â he did nothing wrong sir â I know whatâs coming next you will start bragging again you own â loads of guns â and your â slut has mace â ......please donât shoot me I didnât mean it đ¤Łđ¤Łđ¤Łđ¤Łđ¤Łđ¤Łđ¤Łđ¤Ł Youâre having a rough time today I have corrected you , Nom has , Excon , and Al face it mate youâre one thick cunt Side: No
This debate is exactly as originally posted. I removed the "clarifying" videos since those were so obviously a petty jab at yours and Noms stupidity. You seemed to think that only Jace understood perfectly clearly what this debate was, so I listed the others. Not surprisingly, you got confused by that. Kinda vague I suppose. Side: Yes
This debate is exactly as originally posted. Itâs not and you know it .....please donât shoot me 𤣠removed the "clarifying" videos since those were so obviously a petty jab at yours and Noms stupidity. You removed your video because you were called on it You seemed to think that only Jace understood perfectly clearly what this debate was, Why donât you suck his cock? You must be thrilled someone takes you seriously so I listed the others. Not surprisingly, you got confused by that. Kinda vague I suppose. Yes you specialise in vagueness youâve posted 31 times now saying otherwise .......âthe lady doth protest to much â ....... Side: No
2
points
đ¤Łđ¤Łđ¤Ł You cannot ask Jace or Amarel a question without getting a long winded piece of utter bullshit ......I better not say to much about Amarel as he keeps telling me he owns â loads of guns â and his bitch âalways carries mace â together they must form a very âscary â double act ......not 𤣠Side: No
2
points
I said my wife doesn't often carry mace. Yes she has gun in reserve I know I have never threatened anyone and would certainly not talk tough to someone over the internet. Right ,which is why you boasted "I own loads of guns " I'm not impressed why do Jack asses like you always think everyone is terrified because you keep saying " I own loads of guns " I jump on people's case for that. No you don't you never stop glorifying guns and gun culture Europeans laugh at this juvenile typical American bravado which is all wind and piss .......a " superpower " that got thrashed in Vietnam by emaciated rice farmers and who won one war in Grenada which is the size of my back garden ......Yes Amarel you're Rambo we are all terrified:" 15mins ago Side: No
I believe I said I have 6, not loads. That's not bravado, it's a matter of fact. It's not a threat. Guns aren't tough, they just are. And yeah I talk up guns and gun ownership. That's not internet tough talk. I jump on people for making physical threats over the internet. Or trying to be physically intimidating online. It's well and good to criticize American Military when your own country remained neutral in world war 2. "Nazism? We'll take it or leave it, just let us know who's ass to kiss when it's over" Side: Yes
I believe I said I have 6, not loads. Sure đ That's not bravado, it's a matter of fact. Sure sounds like it It's not a threat It sure is when you keep telling everyone about it you want everyone to say " wow ! best not fuck with Amarel he owns 6 guns " . guns aren't tough, they just are. And yeah I talk up guns and gun ownership. Constantly boasting about them you presume makes you tough ...it doesn't That's not internet tough talk. Yet here you are talking guns up as you concede I jump on people for making physical threats over the internet. Or trying to be physically intimidating online. Of course do , most likely by mentioning you have 6 guns it's well and good to criticize American Military when your own country remained neutral in world war 2. If you had a basic education you would know the whys We'll take it or leave it, just let us know who's ass to kiss when it's over" Yet Americans put Hitler on the front page of time magazine at one stage đ Moving forwards Americans of your type cheered like demented clowns when your hero Trump signed a 330 billion arms deal with the king of Saudi a country that has the worst human rights history in the world ....I guess it's an American thing Side: No
It sure is when you keep telling everyone about it you want everyone to say " wow ! best not fuck with Amarel he owns 6 guns " We were talking about guns dumbass. The fact that they scare you is not my problem. The fact that you'd like me not to have them is reason enough to throw it in your face. If you had a basic education you would know the whys There's always an excuse. But the reason is that all the Irishmen worth a damn are Americans now. Side: Yes
We were talking about guns dumbass. No , youâre bragging about guns Rambo The fact that they scare you is not my problem. Seem to scare Americans also which is why you need armed guards in your schools The fact that you'd like me not to have them is reason enough to throw it in your face. More threats , how very American There's always an excuse. But the reason is that all the Irishmen worth a damn are Americans now. Well I wouldnât expect any more from an ignoramus like you who only respects people who are white , wealthy and religious Side: No
No , youâre bragging about guns Yeah, and gun statistics. I was bragging about relative causes of accidental death too. Then I bragged about suicide around the world. I'm such a braggart. I even boast in the vaguest possible terms about whatever this debate topic might possibly be about, we may never know! Lol More threats , how very American Jesus christ everything is a threat to you! Is this space unsafe? Do Irish snowflakes produce yellow snow? Well I wouldnât expect any more from an ignoramus like you who only respects people who are white , wealthy and religious You just pull bullshit out of thin air don't you. I insulted secular white you for being Irish and you pretend that's an extension of classism, racism, and religiosity. Ok get why you follow burrito, his shit posts at least maintain the appearance of relevance. Fuckin idiot. Well, this is getting kind of boring. I think I'll ban you now. Side: Yes
1
point
Jo, Jace, and Al all knew that there were rioters that engaged with police in DC. They were able to respond to this debate like normal aware people. Normal aware people who you happen to also believe are both mind readers and qualified legal experts. Mind readers with full access to subsequent investigations which are still ongoing, and legal experts able to navigate the maze of legislation in the United States to make a definitive ruling about the legality or non-legality of an event they were not even present at. Good one, retard. Good one. Side: No
I guess they are mind readers. They knew from a few vague words that I was referring to the only situation nowhere the DC Police shot and killed a rioter. Weird. That's a lot of pressure for a little website with a few anonymous users. With so much riding on it, we really outhjt to mind what we discuss here Side: Yes
2
points
Yeah, it's not vague. Lol. You laughably retarded nincompoop. You asked us to make a legal judgement about an incident you gave us no information about. You gave us no information about the incident you are asking us to judge, and no information about how US law works in the circumstances specific to that incident. You're so stupid and irrational it really gets on my nerves. Side: No
1
point
2
points
In your riot debate video, the windows are busted up, and then ripped out. In the video you know to be the shooting, the windows are cleared out. Amarel, you are doing your usual trick of hoping the point gets lost somewhere in your pseudo-babble. None of that footage is sufficient on its own to determine whether the shooting was legal. Side: Yes
The point of that particular post was to further demonstrate where you got confused about the video. The larger about legality is something you don't feel equipped to discuss given you're not a legal expert. Unless your opinion on the legal matter is that these videos are inconclusive as to whether the officer was justified. Side: No
2
points
The point of that particular post was to further demonstrate where you got confused about the video. No, the point is that you are desperately projecting your own responsibility to provide context onto me because you have a serious narcissistic personality disorder which inhibits you from addressing any form of legitimate criticism. Side: Yes
based upon the footage, the person did not reasonably pose a clear and immediate danger to another person. unless the footage is seriously misleading or the law is different on capitol grounds or concerning federal officials (which it may well be), then the shoot does not appear lawful. Side: No
2
points
My understanding is that this was the last barrier between rioters calling for blood and representatives. Congressman were in the room behind the officers who fired. Stop it Amarel. You jumped to a conclusion and it was wrong again. Even if you'd been right it still doesn't excuse asking such a vague question, providing no accompanying context, and then acting like it's my responsibility to provide that context. The rioter who died was shot because she was climbing through an open window. Side: Yes
You're jumping into a thread where the person knew exactly what I was talking about to tell me that I was wrong to be vague. All because you didn't know that you had already posted the relevant video to this supposedly vague topic, providing the context ahead of time. I fixed the debate for you by the way. Don't interrupt my thread with Jace Side: Yes
based upon the footage these particular protesters do not appear to have been making explicit threats against the well-being or lives of the congressional representatives. nor do they appear to be armed. there is an implicit threat of violence against the officers on the door by one individual asking them to step aside (which im not confident would have been audible though the doors), but that individual is not the one who was breaching the door. given my understanding of the usual legal parameters for justified use of lethal force, this seems like an unlawful shot to me. that being said, ive already acknowledge that i don't know whether the law is different when the jurisdiction is the congressional grounds and where the defense of federal elected officials is concerned. the threshold for lethal force may well be lower than would otherwise be the case. my familiarity also concerns isolated individuals in confrontation with law enforcement, rather than groups of individuals in confrontation with law enforcement. so it's possible im missing something there as well. regardless of the legality, i do not think the action was necessarily unreasonable. certainly, it was entirely predictable. idfk what they thought was going to happen. you attempt to infiltrate a secure facility by force amongst people calling for blood and it doesn't matter how white or female you are. bunch of fucking surprised pikachus. Side: Yes
Everything here sounds reasonable to me. I'm also jnfsmt with special lethal force issues on the capital. I would say the large, aggressive crowd is a relevant factor. That woman wasn't working alone. Alone, she could be apprehended with ease. But if they tried to apprehend here, they would be overrun by the mob which is a lethal threat. I also don't know what other police experienced and communicated leading up to this. The man at the door said he saw ugly things outside and warned the officers away. If those ugly things included the fatal beating of an officer, then comms should have conveyed the threat to others. On the other hand, there is the question of whet a reasonable officer in the same circumstances would take lethal action. There were other officers there, but only one fired and only one time. In the end, even if cleared of charges, the officer is probably in out of a job. Side: Yes
i would imagine that the mob factors in, but as i said i have no good idea as to how it factors in legally. id just be speculating wildly at this point. capitol police may have been under a general order not to draw or use their firearms on protestors (idk if that has been confirmed). this would explain the officers on the side of the door with the protestors not using lethal force. presumably, capitol police on the last line of defense will have had different orders. the officers on the side of the door with the protestors also would have been in serious danger had they opened fire, as they were seriously outnumbered and had no barrier between themselves and the crowd. which could also explain why they moved aside under duress but without shooting. it also makes the shooting officer's decision to shoot all the more complicated; presuming that they did believe the protestors to pose a threat then they made that shot knowing they were further endangering the other officers. that can't have been an easy decision, and i dont envy them their position at all (though its a position they put themselves in by taking the job). i rather doubt that the officer will be charged at all, much less let go. the protestors have been broadly labeled as domestic terrorists engaged in violent sedition. there is likely little political interest in seeing this officer prosecuted by most anyone other than an extreme right faction which is not liable to be appeased by the gesture anyways. and, lawful or not, that shot appears to have held the line until the evacuation was complete. i see this officer being shuffled around agencies as a valuable asset well before seeing them retired altogether. Side: Yes
If the mob was a factor in the officers decision, then it would factor into the case. He needs to show that his actions were an appropriate response to what a reasonable person would perceive as a lethal threat. It's reasonable to me that the mob acting in concert makes any breach of the chambers a lethal threat. I think the office r has a good argument. Though can also see where investigators could find probable cause to charge him. I read that DCP were told not to use lethal force. If that's true, who ever put out that order should be fired. You can't know ahead of time whether a lethal force situation will arise. Telling officers ahead of time that lethal force is off the table can get officers killed. In this case it may have. It may be that the shooting officer won't be charged. The political climate does seem in his favor. Even so, Darren Wilson (Ferguson) was cleared of any wrongdoing by multiple investigations at the highest level. But I believe his career is over. Side: Yes
i think there is a case to be made of the order against lethal force. the officers were completely outnumbered by a crowd of people whose members were broadly known to be 2A proponents. opening fire into an armed crowd that outnumbers you is a good way to get yourself killed. wilson is a disanalogous case and im not interested in revisiting it now. Side: Yes
If getting killed isn't an issue, then firing your gun is usually not an option. But if you are ordered not to use it at all, then failing to use it when necessary gets people killed. It's not an appropriate order when future circumstances cannot be known. If that order is sincere, how can you justify having the police armed at all? It needs to be an option non the table. On the other hand, if capital buildings allow for lethal force in defense not specific property, they could reasonably issue an order against that. Side: Yes
i imagine the idea is that it would get fewer people killed, which it arguably did. one officer was killed by rioters. i can easily imagine that death toll having been higher had an officer opened fire into those rioters. not only might it have provoked return fire, but it would likely have incited even more people to violence (while also discouraging the counter-violence protestors who interceded). a higher civilian death toll due to officer shootings would also be more likely to further radicalize individuals and galvanize extremist militias. this would be particularly the case if protestors (not rioters) were caught in any kind of crossfire. it would also be exacerbated if the shootings occurred where the msm were present. additionally, the shooting which transpired on a last line of defense has already raised questions about the legality of the shoot; a shooting which transpired on the outside capitol grounds, potentially involving strictly legit 1A protestors, would be far more controversial. so there's also optics and its practical implications to consider. finally, officers using lethal force away from the last line of defense and among larger numbers of people could have endangered legitimate 1A folks whom law enforcement are sworn to protect and serve. endangering those individuals would be questionable and the officers also commit to risking their lives for the well-being of those individuals as part of the job. im dubious that this factored seriously, but i think it would be one of the more plausible defenses of the order. i don't think the order being sincere illegitimates having them armed. the order can be changed as circumstances change, over coms. that may even have been what transpired. if they are not armed, then the order cannot be changed and adaptive commanding is removed from the table. Side: Yes
That know me of command and control may make sense in a military action, but not a police/civilian interaction. By the time command knows the situation has changed and can in turn adjust, multiple officers (and they were too few), would have already faced the lethal scenario. There was a situation a few years back where a female officer was attacked by a man who overpowered her and beat her head into the pavement. She luckily survived. In the moments she had to decide to use lethal force, she stopped herself, knowing that shooting an unarmed black man would bring a public shit storm to her family and department. The reason I believe this is analogous is because she opted against lethal force when she should not have, much as an officer might do if ordered that lethal force is off-limits. Her status of living is mere luck. (Parta Huff incident) If officers follow orders and it means their own death, that's a bad order. They aren't soldiers at war. Police choose a dangerous profession knowing the risks, but they don't owe their lives to their shift commander. There shouldn't be the potential situation of saving one's own life vs obeying an order. Side: Yes
disagree. crowd and riot control logistics involve commensurate tactics to small scale military ops. intermediate ranked officers will have been responsible for and trained in monitoring conditions on the ground from the front line. regardless and as i suspected, officers on the ground apparently recognized that lethal force would not have protected them under the circumstances. i presume a co would have recognized that. im not familiar with the huff case and not really interested in familiarizing myself with it. i'll take ur explanation of it on its face. seems like poor decision making to risk ur life to avoid even highly likely non-lethal consequences. regardless, i don't stand with the blue line and don't really care. that's rather simplistic. in some circumstances, any order will likely endanger officers and result in officer fatality. if there is reason to believe that not giving the order would have lead to higher casualties among the officers then the order was a good order. that seems to have been the case here, given that the officers were overwhelmingly outnumbered by a rioting crowd whose members were plausibly presumed to be armed themselves. when u voluntarily and knowingly elect to submit to someone else's orders in potentially life-threatening circumstances then yeah someone else absolutely does own ur life. one of the many reasons that 'service' is daf. Side: Yes
Tactics concerning general response to general crowd movements may be commensurate with small scale military ops, but this does not remove from the officer his right to self defense. If an order unnecessarily puts the officers life on the line, it's not a lawful order and the officer is not obliged to obey said order. Consider that if one of those armed in the crowd decided to start shooting at someone, officers would undoubtedly use lethal force in response. That could cause other issues and it could be against an order, but the police cannot be expected to allow an active shooter without intervening. And no reasonable person would expect them to wait for the CO in the office to tell them to shoot the shooter. That's an individual decision. Due to the nature of the city, DC police are at the top of their class for riot and crowd control. You must have read, as I have, some of these accounts from officers who believes they were in a lethal force situation, but also believed that the use of said force at that moment would not save them. This could be the difference between being on this vs that side of a barrier. That's got to be an individual decision. The officers have the training and need to be trusted to make that decision. Side: Yes
extra-legally they of course remain autonomous individuals, and under particular circumstances they will act accordingly. legally, however, they have forfeit that autonomy to their cos. although an order may endanger the lives of officers that does not automatically make it unlawful. i have already elaborated at length what that might look like, and why. Side: Yes
unrelated to the legality and shooting issue, but have you seen the footage of the protestors interposing themselves to protect the second officer (or perhaps the first one who later died?) who was dragged out and beaten. imagine those folks didn't show up expecting to be in that position. same with the scaffolding passers and the orange sweater news defender. those scattered moments of inter-protestor tension and violence were fascinating. some of those folks rolled up and did not know who they were mixing with lol. also the awkward moments b/w the blue line flag protestors and police. lmfao. Side: Yes
I have heard estimates of the crowd vary from thousands to tens of thousands. I doubt many of them had this in mind. I don't think that fact warrants discussing the matter as mostly peaceful, and I hope that kind of mitigating rhetoric is now understood to be the wrong approach to mob violence. I didn't see the blue line video. You've got to wonder what they are thinking in this moment. I heard that Alex Jones was outside telling rioters to stop. Alex Jones was a voice of reason here? Reasonable Alex Jones and Blue Liners rioting against police? Side: Yes
i think describing the protesters as largely peaceful is accurate, not rhetorical. i think describing them as violent when the overwhelming majority were not involved in the violence is rhetorical, and dangerously so because it furthers a pro-state narrative against people exercising their 1A while making militarized extremists seem less remarkable. yeah, id heard about alex jones as well. there were a number of protestors telling the violent rioters to stop. some of them interceded and put their own lives at risk. but there were quite a few blue liners who clearly expected the police to back them and were startled to discover that police belong to and serve the state. Side: Yes
i agree. ideally, id distinguish between three groups: protestors, rioters, and terrorists. i would reserve 'protestors' to those peaceably exercising 1A, 'rioters' for those engaging in non-violent destruction (i.e. property damage), and 'terrorists' for those committing or attempting to commit violence against other beings (typically, but not necessarily humans). im not totally set on the particular word choices, but the gist is i want to grade it to three degrees rather than two. i think it's objectionable to cast people smashing windows or even burning down unoccupied buildings as the same as people deliberately seeking out others to murder them. the exaggeration of non-violent crime (literally, in every other circumstance regarded as non-violent) as violent is misleading, polarizing, and serves state and extremist interests. i hate it. i agree that the conflation, and id add exaggeration, has been happening heavily over the past year (at least). and also that it's been happening for various political reasons. the partisanship of these semantic games is fucking infuriating. Side: Yes
Yeah, there's probably a better word than terrorist, as that's got so much other baggage. I spoke to a man from a town that rioted. In his situation, the rioters were regularly intimidating regular folks, even pointing guns at them, though they didn't kill anyone. Where do you categorize people who violently defend their property from property destroyers? Side: Yes
any word which would adequately cover violent intent will be loaded with baggage. my primary hesitation in using 'terrorist' is merely that it entails a further intent of meaning to inspire terror in others, which i think is frequently but not always entailed with people who intend violence as a part of a political movement. idk what riot ur talking about and i obviously don't have access to that person's testimony. all of the protests ive been present for and/or watched independent coverage of (on both 'sides') have shown predominantly peaceable people. during blm protests, the only people i observed to be threatening and assaulting others on their private property where the federal forces. during the capitol protest, the only people i observed to be threatening and assaulting others were a minority of those on the protester side of the line and the officer who used lethal force. defending property which is non-essential to one's survival with violence, particularly lethal violence, is indefensible. it's stuff at the end of the day. i wouldn't classify someone using this force under any of the three categories mentioned before because they're not part of a protest. i guess i'd classify them as indefensibly violent, to varying degrees. Side: Yes
no, i find violent physical defense of property which is non-essential to one's survival to be indefensible. those are substantively different positions. i presume u r alluding to the property destruction which transpired during some of the blm protests over the past year. whether i find it defensible depends upon the property in question and the motivations of the particular participants. for instance: destroying a public police station, an international corporation's storefront, and a local business storefront are all quite different acts. i think the first is circumstantially defensible, the second is possibly defensible or else trivially indefensible, and the latter is almost always substantively indefensible. Side: Yes
Are you familiar with the long lasting negative effects that a riot has on local economies? No one wants to do business in a place where riots occur. I don't have a source handy, but from what I recall it takes around ten years to see an area begin to come back economically. I mention this because the destruction of even maga corporate buildings is detrimental to the people in that area. As for violent physical defense of property, I would like clarification. Is it defensible to violently defend your personal business? Your home? Neither? I ask because we got along for centuries with less than a house. If survival is the standard, we need relatively little to accomplish it. And if survival is the standard, then any protection of any property seems out of bounds. Side: Yes
yeah, im aware of that. im also aware that riots are among the long lasting negative effects of systemic violence and oppression, and im inclined to look upstream as well as downstream. it also matters what gets destroyed and whom is discouraged; the destruction in question primarily targeted state agencies and parasitic multinationals and the like while leaving local businesses intact. so i think the effects are gonna be fairly trivial, and if it ultimately forces decentralized economies and self-sufficient local communities then thats a positive as far as im concerned. regardless, i also don't think any individual is beholden to preserving the local economy or community so it doesn't factor into my considerations of defensibility (i.e. im rather radically anti-collectivist). the relationship of defensibility scales with the relative value a thing has for owns survival. i also construe survival more broadly than most might. id include personal businesses and ur home under most circumstances (i.e. excluding businesses that aren't a significant part of ur livelihood, second homes, etc.). most people don't have the skills to live off the land and would struggle to survive without conventional modern shelter and a livelihood that participates in the local economy, even if their ancestors who were adapted to a different human ecosystem would have been fine. Side: Yes
It couldn't have been a lawful shoot, She was white ....... and a Trump supporter! Shooting mentally deranged people is NEVER lawful! Not like 12 year-olds with toy guns, or when you shoot some angry guy in the back or some black woman in bed. They, somehow, deserve it! But a healthy QAnon "patriot" attacking our capitol with intentions of killing the VP!? No! NO WAY :-( The right is SO SICK! Side: No
|
