Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
During the BLM protests, Cops made a barricade of a human wall to prevent the protesters to cross. If unarmed protesters ignore the order and come to the faces of cops to scream and use their free speech, is it a good kill if the cops shoot them in the head? is that a good kill?
Every case is different. Enough diversions. Let's talk 1/6.
Maybe the other cops thought better of shooting any of the rioters. I'm glad more were not shot. Did you even see those folks in the well of the Senate? Those people in the gallery had to lie down and the doors were barricaded to keep out the rioters. Behind the barricades stood security with drawn guns!
Why she breaking into the Capitol to attack? Yes.
Those questions can only be answered on a case by case basis. There is 'disobeying orders' and there is also 'storming barricades to break in by force'.
Can the cops now shoot BLM protesters? According to the WY GOP, it was probably BLM or antifa who invaded the Capitol!
Protesters trespass government buildings and disobey police orders all the time, ask the BLM crowd. Have you heard protesters trespass military bases to stop the daily bombings and secret operations? They don't get shot in the head especially when cameras around.
Wasn't the BLM protests trespassing of private property and government buildings? So it's now protocol to shoot to kill in the head the moment they don't stop by orders of the police????
Make up your minds liberal. You want a trigger happy cops?
Every case is different. Enough diversions. Let's talk 1/6.
so you can't tell me what is a bad kill after a cop gives an order to stop? It's simple, can a cop shoot to kill an unarmed black person for disobeying an order or resisting arrest? yes or no?
You say, it's a good kill for this case only but not for the rest. I find it funny.
Protesters trespass government buildings and disobey police orders all the time, ask the BLM crowd. Have you heard protesters trespass military bases to stop the daily bombings and secret operations? They don't get shot in the head especially when cameras around.
Wasn't the BLM protests trespassing of private property and government buildings? So it's now protocol to shoot to kill in the head the moment they don't stop by orders of the police????
Make up your minds liberal. You want a trigger happy cops?
Maybe the other cops thought better of shooting any of the rioters. I'm glad more were not shot. Did you even see those folks in the well of the Senate? Those people in the gallery had to lie down and the doors were barricaded to keep out the rioters. Behind the barricades stood security with drawn guns!
Why she breaking into the Capitol to attack? Yes.
Those questions can only be answered on a case by case basis. There is 'disobeying orders' and there is also 'storming barricades to break in by force'.
Can the cops now shoot BLM protesters? According to the WY GOP, it was probably BLM or antifa who invaded the Capitol!
Referring back to post # 8381.
Be like a train and stay on track. This is the Jan 6 hearing thread.
You are like a child that walks in the middle of a movie. People here opened the can of worms about police force in 1/6th and calling it "act of war" and "being traitors". You don't tell me how to respond. Cool?
Same party in power. AG Garland was appointed by Biden. That's his boss. To say the Legislative branch and the Executive Branch of the same party doesn't talk to each or work hand in hand politically is really naive.
The Executive branch has to make the legislative branch look legit by saying they are really, really, really looking hard into this. What you expected Garland to say: "No, nothing here to see. We will look into it when We get a chance. We have so many cases before this" It will make the legislative branch look more political than they already are.
I have a question for you. Do you feel that it's impossible for any US Attorney General to execute his or her job in a nonpartisan way? Or are they all tainted from the start just by the fact that they are nominated by a politician?
It's very disheartening if half the country is completely unable to count on the operations of the Department of Justice to be fair. If you trust that Republican-appointed AGs are worthy of respect, why is it impossible to think that one appointed by a Democrat would also be?
... I mean, are you self-conscious about your status or something?
Nice dig. I'm 100% proud American with ancestors who fought with Washington at Valley Forge, and immigrants who pulled handcarts westward without a penny in their pocket, and didn't require freebies.
Sorry for off topic, being a proud American. But do I have to apologize anyway.
I have a question for you. Do you feel that it's impossible for any US Attorney General to execute his or her job in a nonpartisan way? Or are they all tainted from the start just by the fact that they are nominated by a politician?
It's very disheartening if half the country is completely unable to count on the operations of the Department of Justice to be fair. If you trust that Republican-appointed AGs are worthy of respect, why is it impossible to think that one appointed by a Democrat would also be?
I have no reason or evidence to believe that the DOJ can't be impartial, can't protect due process and protect the rights of citizens. Isn't that their constitutional duty? to not leak or get political and protect due process?
My point again, the legislative branch shouldn't be doing criminal investigations on private citizens and publicly accusing citizens of crimes to use public opinion to force the DOJ to act. That is an abuse of power.
That's like Newt in 1998 before the mid-terms and after Bill Clinton was already impeached and acquitted to make a "hearing" to find out what really happened and put only people in the committee that already voted to impeached him and found him guilty (5 Democrats) and made up their minds about his guilt and ignore the oppostion. Then use that hearing to publicly accuse Clinton of crimes to sway public opinion for the DOJ to act. That would be an abuse of power. If you still don't see the huge problem here then We as a country have a bigger problem and this is a point of no return.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
