Impeach Part 2

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
PREMO Member
Patron
(sigh) Really wanted to move on to other topics but I evidently am not adequately explaining my point.
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. :jet:
 

Will99

Active Member
(sigh) Really wanted to move on to other topics but I evidently am not adequately explaining my point.

The story circulating IS - a cop was beaten to death with a FE (I keep messing up typing fire extinguisher repeatedly).
It is not true. Let us for the sake of argument work with my definition - that if you are "beaten to death" - you don't walk home from work and suffer from injuries incurred earlier. You die fairly soon afterward OR at least, you are hit repeatedly with an FE.

And I use this definition because it is clear from what I read online that THIS is the image the writers wish to convey.

One cop died - so ANY story claiming any cop was killed pertains to that person. That person - was Sicknick.
To my knowledge - one instance of FE use occurred - we saw it. An eight pound FE was tossed at someone with a helmet on and bounced off.
Whomever it was they clearly shrug it off.

Other persons in videos are clearly being BEATEN. (Unless any of them were Sicknick, none of those persons died. Even the man being crushed in the doorway is identified, and he is thankfully recovering). But not with an FE. No one died on the scene. Hence, no one "beaten to death".

So only two ways is the story true - one is, Sicknick IS the cop in the FE video and somehow he died later from that injury. You and I both believe that is unlikely - and the writer can't know it either.

The other is that somehow Sicknick was beaten in a completely different incident involving an FE. To my knowledge - there isn't one and again - the writer can't know that.

____

MY WHOLE POINT is - the writer is promoting a story which according to evidence is utterly false no matter how you define anything and not supported by any facts that anyone knows. It's a lie. If this were fact-checked by Politifact, they'd be close to Pants On Fire.
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.
 

Will99

Active Member
Whether a prosecutor would prosecute isn't germane to the issue. The issue is that there was no imminent threat from the woman as no life was in danger from her being there, thus the use of deadly force was not authorized.

As I seem to recall you are a LEO in St. Mary's, if this is correct are you familiar with the Sheriff's Department policy on Use Of Force, B6.01 and do you know what the Deadly Force Defense Standard is (6.01.006)? Which by the way is pretty much the standard throughout LE.
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.
 

Kyle

Having a Beer while the world burns!
PREMO Member
I know there are other stories of officers being beaten, but they aren’t caught on video.
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.
 

Ken King

A little rusty but not crusty
PREMO Member
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.
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.
 

Will99

Active Member
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.
 

Will99

Active Member
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.
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.
 

Ken King

A little rusty but not crusty
PREMO Member
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.
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.
 

Kyle

Having a Beer while the world burns!
PREMO Member
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"
 

Will99

Active Member
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.
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.
 

Ken King

A little rusty but not crusty
PREMO Member
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.
 

Will99

Active Member
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.
 

Ken King

A little rusty but not crusty
PREMO Member
That is not my view.
Sure it is, as evidenced by your comment
Will99 said:
I don’t think that woman posed no danger. I saw her attempting to get into an area which was secure. I saw a police officer...pointing a gun at her telling her to stand down and get back and I saw her refuse and continue to try to breach a secure area.
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

Active Member
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.
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?
 

Ken King

A little rusty but not crusty
PREMO Member
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.
 

Will99

Active Member
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.
 

Will99

Active Member
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.
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?
 
Top