You are explaining your point just fine. The problem is that you're arguing with someone who is incapable or unwilling to acknowledge it.
And you have three kids, so I'd have thought you'd recognize this sort of thing by now.
Impeach Part 2
- Thread starter SamSpade
- Start date
And you have three kids, so I'd have thought you'd recognize this sort of thing by now.
I understand what you are saying but here is where we disagree. I think a person can be beaten to death if they are hit once with an item and die as a result of being hit with that item. If I shoot someone, and they die two days later, they were shot to death. I don’t think the video we saw of the person being hit by the fire extinguisher is Sicknick. I know there are other stories of officers being beaten, but they aren’t caught on video. So just because we see a person being hit with a fire extinguisher, I don’t think we can automatically assign that to Officers Sicknick. So in my mind, the narrative is correct.
It’s absolutely germane. A prosecutor or grand jury is going to determine if there is probable cause to believe a crime was committed or if the officer was justified in his use of force.
Since you can't scratch your ass in that building without being on at least three different cameras, I'd find that to be near impossible.
There is nothing absolute about it at all. As the investigation could lead to adverse actions not of a criminal nature, either administratively or via civil process (wrongful death suit).
Based on the "use of force" doctrine of DHS (which this officer falls under) there is no justification for deadly force unless there is an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury upon the officer or others.
That is your opinion. While your opinion has value, it doesn’t hold the same weight as the opinion of the prosecutor or a grand jury.
Maybe. But the videos haven’t been made to the public as of yet. So perhaps the incident which caused Officer Sicknick’s death was caught on camera and they can apprehend the scum that killed him.
The doctrine is not my opinion, it is explicitly stated in DHS documents as it is in most, if not all, law enforcement agency policies.
Apparently to some, things like that are just "suggestions"
I’m not arguing the doctrine. The question is if the officer had probable cause to believe that he, or someone he is in charge of were in danger of imminent death or grave bodily harm. That will be decided by a prosecutor or grand jury who will have much more information than you or I have.
Probable cause? The doctrine calls for a "reasonable belief" upon the user of deadly force as to if the threat was imminent. Under your view it seems that any and every officer in close proximity to a protestor could have "legally" shot all of them.
That is not my view.
Sure it is, as evidenced by your comment
Note that there is nothing about imminent threat of death or serious injury only that she was somewhere she wasn't allowed to be.Will99 said:
That is my view about that particular instance. Every act should be looked at and there is not a blanket answer to every one of the acts of this violent, criminal behavior of these rioters. In the incident where the woman was shot, she was attempting to climb over a highly barricaded structure, after people with whom she was aligned to were breaking the glass partially protecting that structure. From the officers perspective, he was pointing his firearm at her giving commands. As pointed out, I didn’t hear those commands but I don’t think it’s a stretch to assume he was telling her to stop and back off. If she is so unreasonable as to continue toward a person who is pointing a firearm at her ordering her to stop, then I believe a prosecutor or grand jury will determine she was a threat to the officer or those he is charged with protecting.
Your view is those officers pointing their guns at the people trying to break into the congressional chamber should be charged with first degree assault. They pointed their guns at people who were merely trying to break in right?
Ah, no. My view is that the officer that FIRED his weapon killing a woman was not under imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm. Thusly he should face consequences for unauthorized use of deadly force.
And that decision, as previously stated is not up to you, but someone who is going to have ALL of the facts such as a prosecutor or grand jury. Good day.
So let me ask you a question. If you owned a business, and a mob was rioting and attempting to get inside, you have barricaded that business and someone was climbing over the barricade to get inside, would you wait until they got in to try and stop them or if you had the ability would you stop that threat before they got in?