Page 79 of 79 FirstFirst ... 2969777879
Results 781 to 788 of 788

Thread: US Capitol Police Have Killed Female Protester, Deploying Tear Gas, Capitol Breached.

  1. #781
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Location
    SeattHELL, Soviet Socialist S***hole of Washington
    Posts
    8,404
    Feedback Score
    5 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by jsbhike View Post
    If the video shows someone getting shot, mangled, and so on it is fairly common to run in to the need an account for age verification issue.
    The cynic would say they also do it to keep track of Who's Doing What and add to their profiles to flag Deplorables for "special treatment."

    Interesting:
    Last edited by Diamondback; 08-29-21 at 17:07.
    <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
    Ye best start believin' in Orwellian Dystopias, mateys... yer LIVIN' in one!--after Capt. Hector Barbossa
    Psalms 109:8, 43:1
    LIFE MEMBER - NRA & SAF; FPC MEMBER Not employed or sponsored by any manufacturer, distributor or retailer.

  2. #782
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    2,860
    Feedback Score
    5 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by Sam View Post
    You're not trying hard enough.
    I am unwilling to register a Google account. Is this frame from the video or is it a different one?


  3. #783
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    7,115
    Feedback Score
    26 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by Disciple View Post
    I am unwilling to register a Google account. Is this frame from the video or is it a different one?

    Yep, that is the one.


    Riots are like sports, it's better to watch it on TV at home.

  4. #784
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    15,357
    Feedback Score
    2 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by Diamondback View Post
    Let's spitball, just for a minute assuming this is correct. I can only see one of two scenarios:

    1. Stormtrooper Byrd is being Pawn Sacrificed to cover for a High Value Asset who really did pull the trigger, and is too stupid to see or too fanatical to challenge that he's being used as a diversion.

    2. Stormtrooper Byrd is being Pawn Sacrificed as a pretext for something bigger; they're trying to MAKE him a lightning rod hoping that some evil "white supremacist Trumper" (whether real or one of theirs playing the role in False Flag), preferably with a hated AR15 (bonus if it's a braced pistol with an unserialled EPL!) gives them a flashpoint to crack down on gun owners and conservatives in general.

    3. ???

    There's gotta be more than this, these two leapt to mind WAY too readily so part of me suspects they're what they WANT us to think as smokescreens for something else.
    They took Byrd aside and laid out his retirement package, they put the icing on his cake, so he knew the deal and took reponcability.
    No Court, no charges, just an address in Florida.
    Essentially they showed him how to take one for the team one last time and he agreed to the deal.

  5. #785
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    21,836
    Feedback Score
    5 (100%)
    Even an LE pub is not backing the guy. Via their

    “USCP’s Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) determined the officer’s conduct was lawful and within Department policy, which says an officer may use deadly force only when the officer reasonably believes that action is in the defense of human life, including the officer’s own life, or in the defense of any person in immediate danger of serious physical injury.”

    Did it meet that standard? Any LEOs able to comment on that? Originally, some here were saying shooter was not Capital Police, but some similar to SS, who'd likley have a different ROE. I was unclear at the time is as BS at it was, it was allowed under their ROE. But, it was a Capital cop, their ROE is outlined above, and seems a hard pull on reality to claim taking that shot justified under their ROE.

    It was obviously a dynamic situation:

    “It was impossible for me to see what was on the other side. I could not fully see her hands or what was in the backpack or what the intentions are."

    “But they had shown violence leading up to that point.”

    But, his claims have also been shown to be false, so hard to take him seriously. He, nor anyone in the building were under "immediate danger of serious physical injury" at that time. Does one take the shot on the assumption if that pack is a bomb and takes out the building, worth the risk of being wrong? Maybe that's the ROE the SS can get away with, but the Capital Police?

    https://www.lawenforcementtoday.com/...hat-clear-him/
    Last edited by WillBrink; 08-31-21 at 09:40.
    - Will

    General Performance/Fitness Advice for all

    www.BrinkZone.com

    LE/Mil specific info:

    https://brinkzone.com/category/swatleomilitary/

    “Those who do not view armed self defense as a basic human right, ignore the mass graves of those who died on their knees at the hands of tyrants.”

  6. #786
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    9,904
    Feedback Score
    16 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by WillBrink View Post
    Even an LE pub is not backing the guy. Via their

    “USCP’s Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) determined the officer’s conduct was lawful and within Department policy, which says an officer may use deadly force only when the officer reasonably believes that action is in the defense of human life, including the officer’s own life, or in the defense of any person in immediate danger of serious physical injury.”

    Did it meet that standard? Any LEOs able to comment on that? Originally, some here were saying shooter was not Capital Police, but some similar to SS, who'd likley have a different ROE. I was unclear at the time is as BS at it was, it was allowed under their ROE. But, it was a Capital cop, their ROE is outlined above, and seems a hard pull on reality to claim taking that shot justified under their ROE.

    It was obviously a dynamic situation:

    “It was impossible for me to see what was on the other side. I could not fully see her hands or what was in the backpack or what the intentions are."

    “But they had shown violence leading up to that point.”

    But, his claims have also been shown to be false, so hard to take him seriously. He, nor anyone in the building were under "immediate danger of serious physical injury" at that time. Does one take the shot on the assumption if that pack is a bomb and takes out the building, worth the risk of being wrong? Maybe that's the ROE the SS can get away with, but the Capital Police?

    https://www.lawenforcementtoday.com/...hat-clear-him/
    It may have been a "lawful" shoot in the starkest sense of the term, but it was in no way whatsoever a "good" shoot. Byrd didn't save anyone's life that day, not even his own. All he did was take a life that didn't need taking.
    What if this whole crusade's a charade?
    And behind it all there's a price to be paid
    For the blood which we dine
    Justified in the name of the holy and the divine…

  7. #787
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    21,836
    Feedback Score
    5 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by glocktogo View Post
    It may have been a "lawful" shoot in the starkest sense of the term, but it was in no way whatsoever a "good" shoot. Byrd didn't save anyone's life that day, not even his own. All he did was take a life that didn't need taking.
    Even in the starkest sense, it seems a really long stretch, but it's also easy to say from my comp after the fact.
    - Will

    General Performance/Fitness Advice for all

    www.BrinkZone.com

    LE/Mil specific info:

    https://brinkzone.com/category/swatleomilitary/

    “Those who do not view armed self defense as a basic human right, ignore the mass graves of those who died on their knees at the hands of tyrants.”

  8. #788
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    Inland Northwest
    Posts
    1,356
    Feedback Score
    30 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by glocktogo View Post
    It may have been a "lawful" shoot in the starkest sense of the term, but it was in no way whatsoever a "good" shoot. Byrd didn't save anyone's life that day, not even his own. All he did was take a life that didn't need taking.
    Hindsight is 20/20. What's relevant from a UoF Policy perspective is what the officer thought at the time that the force was applied, not what is later learned to be true.

    To be clear, I'm not condoning the officer's actions. You are correct that lawful and "good" are not synonyms.

Page 79 of 79 FirstFirst ... 2969777879

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •