Impeach Part 2

MSally

Active Member
And it was just a couple weeks ago that you tards were screaming "ACAB" and defunding the police in violent ransacked cities.
I must have been in a coma, because I sure don’t remember screaming ‘acab’ or defund the police, and I never participated in or defended the violent actions Last year.
 

MSally

Active Member
And exactly what was the threat that authorized their use of deadly force?
An angry mob crashing through a window Lead by a Qtard. If the officer did something wrong, why hasn’t he been charged? That’s right, because he didn’t. Stop trying to vilify that cop. He was doing his job. That stupid woman, whose patent couldn’t spell, bears the only responsibility for her death. She chose suicide by cop and she got what she wanted.
 

Ken King

A little rusty but not crusty
PREMO Member
An angry mob crashing through a window Lead by a Qtard. If the officer did something wrong, why hasn’t he been charged? That’s right, because he didn’t. Stop trying to vilify that cop. He was doing his job. That stupid woman, whose patent couldn’t spell, bears the only responsibility for her death. She chose suicide by cop and she got what she wanted.
So you got nothing. Figures!

Why no charges, you ask? I didn't know the investigation was complete, link please? And asking what threat authorized the employment of deadly force certainly isn't vilifying. Vilifying is what you are doing to Ms. Babbitt.
 

Will99

Active Member
There are an awful lot of excuses being made for someone killing a cop in a violent riot.

that’s both sad and hypocritical considering those making the excuses.
While I disagree with some of what has been said, I don’t see anyone making excuses for someone killing a cop.
 

Will99

Active Member
And exactly what was the threat that authorized their use of deadly force?
So you got nothing. Figures!

Why no charges, you ask? I didn't know the investigation was complete, link please? And asking what threat authorized the employment of deadly force certainly isn't vilifying. Vilifying is what you are doing to Ms. Babbitt.
I think a prosecutor or grand jury will conclude that a violent mob was attempting to get into a heavily barricaded area. I think they will conclude that an officer pointed a firearm at the first person closest to breaching that barricaded area and that person refused to obey lawful instructions. I believe they will conclude the officer was in reasonable fear for his safety or that of those he is charged to protect because if the mob was allowed to proceed, the people behind the barricade were in imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury. I think it is reasonable for a person who is faced with a mob trying to enter their secure area to use appropriate force to repel that mob.
 

SamSpade

Well-Known Member
Ever notice how an "unarmed" person facing a policeman is sometimes a deadly threat and sometimes not - depending on your politics?

These past couple years "unarmed" persons were approachiing and threatening police and were shot - and the press was quick to defame the police for shooting someone as unarmed as to imply that that meant they were utterly harmless and posed no danger.

So which is it? Was Jacob Blake harmless because he had a knife? Why are cops in the same situations judged differently?
 

Will99

Active Member
Ever notice how an "unarmed" person facing a policeman is sometimes a deadly threat and sometimes not - depending on your politics?

These past couple years "unarmed" persons were approachiing and threatening police and were shot - and the press was quick to defame the police for shooting someone as unarmed as to imply that that meant they were utterly harmless and posed no danger.

So which is it? Was Jacob Blake harmless because he had a knife? Why are cops in the same situations judged differently?
Because much of the mainstream media is biased. My opinion never waivers. I look at each situation individually based on the information the officer would have had at the time he/she pulled the trigger. I think the officer was justified in shooting Jacob Blake.
 

MSally

Active Member
So you got nothing. Figures!

Why no charges, you ask? I didn't know the investigation was complete, link please? And asking what threat authorized the employment of deadly force certainly isn't vilifying. Vilifying is what you are doing to Ms. Babbitt.
Ms Babbitt vilified herself. She was literally on the bleeding edge of the insurrection and died for it. Read up on her
I think a prosecutor or grand jury will conclude that a violent mob was attempting to get into a heavily barricaded area. I think they will conclude that an officer pointed a firearm at the first person closest to breaching that barricaded area and that person refused to obey lawful instructions. I believe they will conclude the officer was in reasonable fear for his safety or that of those he is charged to protect because if the mob was allowed to proceed, the people behind the barricade were in imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury. I think it is reasonable for a person who is faced with a mob trying to enter their secure area to use appropriate force to repel that mob.
it really is pretty straightforward, isn’t it?
 

Hijinx

Well-Known Member
I think a prosecutor or grand jury will conclude that a violent mob was attempting to get into a heavily barricaded area. I think they will conclude that an officer pointed a firearm at the first person closest to breaching that barricaded area and that person refused to obey lawful instructions. I believe they will conclude the officer was in reasonable fear for his safety or that of those he is charged to protect because if the mob was allowed to proceed, the people behind the barricade were in imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury. I think it is reasonable for a person who is faced with a mob trying to enter their secure area to use appropriate force to repel that mob.
I think they will conclude that an officer pointed a firearm at the first person closest to breaching that barricaded area and that person refused to obey lawful instructions. I believe they will conclude the officer was in reasonable fear for his safety or that of those he is charged to protect because if the mob was allowed to proceed, the people behind the barricade were in imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury. I think it is reasonable for a person who is faced with a mob trying to enter their secure area to use appropriate force to repel that mob.
[/QUOTE]

I agree with you One Hundred Percent. A Democrat prosecutor and a packed Jury of Democrats will conclude that a violent mob was attempting to get into a heavily barricaded area. I think they will conclude that an officer pointed a firearm at the first person closest to breaching that barricaded area and that person refused to obey lawful instructions. Of course they will conclude the officer was in reasonable fear for his safety or that of those he is charged to protect because if the mob was allowed to proceed, the people behind the barricade were in imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury

Of course that is what will happen, that is always what happens in packed Kangaroo courts. It isn't right, but that's what is going to happen.
 

Will99

Active Member
[/QUOTE]

I agree with you One Hundred Percent. A Democrat prosecutor and a packed Jury of Democrats will conclude that a violent mob was attempting to get into a heavily barricaded area. I think they will conclude that an officer pointed a firearm at the first person closest to breaching that barricaded area and that person refused to obey lawful instructions. Of course they will conclude the officer was in reasonable fear for his safety or that of those he is charged to protect because if the mob was allowed to proceed, the people behind the barricade were in imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury

Of course that is what will happen, that is always what happens in packed Kangaroo courts. It isn't right, but that's what is going to happen.
I think they will conclude that an officer pointed a firearm at the first person closest to breaching that barricaded area and that person refused to obey lawful instructions. I believe they will conclude the officer was in reasonable fear for his safety or that of those he is charged to protect because if the mob was allowed to proceed, the people behind the barricade were in imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury. I think it is reasonable for a person who is faced with a mob trying to enter their secure area to use appropriate force to repel that mob.
I agree with you One Hundred Percent. A Democrat prosecutor and a packed Jury of Democrats will conclude that a violent mob was attempting to get into a heavily barricaded area. I think they will conclude that an officer pointed a firearm at the first person closest to breaching that barricaded area and that person refused to obey lawful instructions. Of course they will conclude the officer was in reasonable fear for his safety or that of those he is charged to protect because if the mob was allowed to proceed, the people behind the barricade were in imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury

Of course that is what will happen, that is always what happens in packed Kangaroo courts. It isn't right, but that's what is going to happen.
[/QUOTE]

You summed it up pretty well. Which part do you disagree with? Do you not think it was a violent mob attempting to get into a heavily barricaded area? Do you not believe the officer pointed his firearm at the person closest to breaching that barricade and she failed to obey lawful instruction? Do you not believe the officer felt if the mob was allowed to proceed he or the people behind the barricade were in imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury? It seems you stated it quite well.
 

Hijinx

Well-Known Member
I agree with you One Hundred Percent. A Democrat prosecutor and a packed Jury of Democrats will conclude that a violent mob was attempting to get into a heavily barricaded area. I think they will conclude that an officer pointed a firearm at the first person closest to breaching that barricaded area and that person refused to obey lawful instructions. Of course they will conclude the officer was in reasonable fear for his safety or that of those he is charged to protect because if the mob was allowed to proceed, the people behind the barricade were in imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury

Of course that is what will happen, that is always what happens in packed Kangaroo courts. It isn't right, but that's what is going to happen.


I agree with you One Hundred Percent. A Democrat prosecutor and a packed Jury of Democrats will conclude that a violent mob was attempting to get into a heavily barricaded area. I think they will conclude that an officer pointed a firearm at the first person closest to breaching that barricaded area and that person refused to obey lawful instructions. Of course they will conclude the officer was in reasonable fear for his safety or that of those he is charged to protect because if the mob was allowed to proceed, the people behind the barricade were in imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury

Of course that is what will happen, that is always what happens in packed Kangaroo courts. It isn't right, but that's what is going to happen.
[/QUOTE]

You summed it up pretty well. Which part do you disagree with? Do you not think it was a violent mob attempting to get into a heavily barricaded area? Do you not believe the officer pointed his firearm at the person closest to breaching that barricade and she failed to obey lawful instruction? Do you not believe the officer felt if the mob was allowed to proceed he or the people behind the barricade were in imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury? It seems you stated it quite well.
[/QUOTE]

I said I agree 100% I didn't say I disagreed with anything you said.
Certainly a 120Lb. woman was frightening to that Lietenant even though there were 6 other Guards standing behind her. He panicked and shot her. Now that might no be First Degree murder, but it was some sort if taking of a life for no real reason, and he should be replaced with a competent Officer. And he should be charged with her killing. I am sure that will not happen in a DC Court with a DC jury of democrats.
 

PsyOps

Pixelated
I must have been in a coma, because I sure don’t remember screaming ‘acab’ or defund the police, and I never participated in or defended the violent actions Last year.
This active participation and inactive participation. The vast majority in this country didn't avtively participate in the violence committed by ANTIFA and BLM over the summer. But where was this whole "insurrection" narrative from the left when federal courthouses were attacked, police stations lit on fire and even bombed, members of congress assaulted as they walked the streets...? Where were you in your outrage over these things that went on week after week? There a collective silence on the left. While all of this was going on, the left continued to call for defunding the very people that would stop the violence - the police.

Now, suddenly, the left is praising cops and demanding their action against this so-called "insurrection" on the right. While what happened at the Capitol was horrible, it was one incident. One incident that suddenly "woke" the left for the need of police. Federal buildings attacked, police stations attacked, businesses destroyed and many lost forever, and people murdered... and the left was silent, claiming it was all peaceful, and for the police (the bad guys) to stand down.

Yes, you have been in a coma if you don't see the hypocrisy.
 

Will99

Active Member
I agree with you One Hundred Percent. A Democrat prosecutor and a packed Jury of Democrats will conclude that a violent mob was attempting to get into a heavily barricaded area. I think they will conclude that an officer pointed a firearm at the first person closest to breaching that barricaded area and that person refused to obey lawful instructions. Of course they will conclude the officer was in reasonable fear for his safety or that of those he is charged to protect because if the mob was allowed to proceed, the people behind the barricade were in imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury

Of course that is what will happen, that is always what happens in packed Kangaroo courts. It isn't right, but that's what is going to happen.


I agree with you One Hundred Percent. A Democrat prosecutor and a packed Jury of Democrats will conclude that a violent mob was attempting to get into a heavily barricaded area.

Of course that is what will happen, that is always what happens in packed Kangaroo courts. It isn't right, but that's what is going to happen.
I said I agree 100% I didn't say I disagreed with anything you said.
Certainly a 120Lb. woman was frightening to that Lietenant even though there were 6 other Guards standing behind her. He panicked and shot her. Now that might no be First Degree murder, but it was some sort if taking of a life for no real reason, and he should be replaced with a competent Officer. And he should be charged with her killing. I am sure that will not happen in a DC Court with a DC jury of democrats.
[/QUOTE]
So you agree 100%. Then you go on to criticize. Okay.
 

Will99

Active Member
This active participation and inactive participation. The vast majority in this country didn't avtively participate in the violence committed by ANTIFA and BLM over the summer. But where was this whole "insurrection" narrative from the left when federal courthouses were attacked, police stations lit on fire and even bombed, members of congress assaulted as they walked the streets...? Where were you in your outrage over these things that went on week after week? There a collective silence on the left. While all of this was going on, the left continued to call for defunding the very people that would stop the violence - the police.

Now, suddenly, the left is praising cops and demanding their action against this so-called "insurrection" on the right. While what happened at the Capitol was horrible, it was one incident. One incident that suddenly "woke" the left for the need of police. Federal buildings attacked, police stations attacked, businesses destroyed and many lost forever, and people murdered... and the left was silent, claiming it was all peaceful, and for the police (the bad guys) to stand down.

Yes, you have been in a coma if you don't see the hypocrisy.
I was appalled by the BLM movement this summer and the violence which erupted in so many cities. I applauded the federal law enforcement officers who were actively trying to stop those protesters in Portland and hoped the criminals would serve federal time which is far worse than state time. I am equally appalled at the actions of those rioters at the capitol. Maybe this was specifically meant for Msally, but it seems you don’t think people can have the same opinion as to the violent acts this summer as they can to what happened at the Capitol. There were fifty police officers hurt and one killed during that riot at the capitol. I think anyone who considers themselves a person who believes in the rule of law should be outraged.
 

PsyOps

Pixelated
I was appalled by the BLM movement this summer and the violence which erupted in so many cities. I applauded the federal law enforcement officers who were actively trying to stop those protesters in Portland and hoped the criminals would serve federal time which is far worse than state time. I am equally appalled at the actions of those rioters at the capitol. Maybe this was specifically meant for Msally, but it seems you don’t think people can have the same opinion as to the violent acts this summer as they can to what happened at the Capitol. There were fifty police officers hurt and one killed during that riot at the capitol. I think anyone who considers themselves a person who believes in the rule of law should be outraged.
Fair people will condemn any form of such violence. But, the left has shown their true colors in their biased application of the law. While BLM was destroying our cities, banners were painted on our city's streets praising this group. Bowser even dedicated an entire block to the terrorist group. That speak volumes as to how the left believes some forms of violence are justified, while others are criminal.
 
Top