Impeach Part 2

Hijinx

Well-Known Member
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. I saw the officer take action to end that threat. Your description of the officer killing a woman who posed no danger doesn’t fit with her actions. She certainly posed a danger. She was committing a crime and trying to breach a secure area and refusing to listen to an armed policeman who was pointing a gun at her. Do you know what was going through her mind and how do you know she posed no danger?
Damn. You saw a lot more than I did. I certainly did not hear that officer say anything in any video that I saw. Would you please post a link to the video with audio? In the video I saw there were a half a dozen police standing behind the woman who could have arrested her without killing her.
A 120 lb. woman pose a danger to an armed police officer through a window she could not fit through.?

If she had murder on her mind she would have brought her own gun.
 

Kyle

Having a Beer while the world burns!
PREMO Member
Damn. You saw a lot more than I did. I certainly did not hear that officer say anything in any video that I saw. Would you please post a link to the video with audio? In the video I saw there were a half a dozen police standing behind the woman who could have arrested her without killing her.
A 120 lb. woman pose a danger to an armed police officer through a window she could not fit through.?


If she had murder on her mind she would have brought her own gun.
Barney wanted to fire his gun, bad.
 

Will99

Active Member
Damn. You saw a lot more than I did. I certainly did not hear that officer say anything in any video that I saw. Would you please post a link to the video with audio? In the video I saw there were a half a dozen police standing behind the woman who could have arrested her without killing her.
A 120 lb. woman pose a danger to an armed police officer through a window she could not fit through.?

If she had murder on her mind she would have brought her own gun.
What were her intentions then?
 

Hijinx

Well-Known Member
Probably what Sneakers just said,

ANTIFA posed as Trump Supporters at the Capitol ,and this clown Tries to pose as a Trump voter here in the Forum.
 

SamSpade

Well-Known Member
How do you know he wasn’t beaten with a fire extinguisher?
You know - I don't. I am making the somewhat logical assumption that the big deal about a fire extinguisher being used as a weapon is in the ONE TIME it is shown on video on TV. That there isn't a second, third or fourth incident where a fire extinguisher is explicit used as a weapon .




What I SEE is, a fire extinguisher being tossed at a helmeted cop and it bounces off him.
Other articles say it hit three guys.

Here's my logic -

Relevant words

Beaten to DEATH Only one cop killed - so it has to be Sicknick - and we don't know that
and
FIRE extinguisher Only time used - to my knowledge - and it's on video - and hits helmeted cops

If the narrative is correct - one of those three cops who gets hit died either instantly - a few minutes later - or hours later - because they got hit with a fire extinguisher -

But if this is the only time one was used as a weapon - no one was being beaten to death with one.
 

Ken King

A little rusty but not crusty
PREMO Member
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. I saw the officer take action to end that threat. Your description of the officer killing a woman who posed no danger doesn’t fit with her actions. She certainly posed a danger. She was committing a crime and trying to breach a secure area and refusing to listen to an armed policeman who was pointing a gun at her. Do you know what was going through her mind and how do you know she posed no danger?
And the DHS doctrine on use of force establishes that deadly force is authorized "when the LEO has a reasonable belief that the subject of such force poses an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury to the LEO or to another person."
 

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
I don’t know what happened to Sicknick other than he was beaten with a fire extinguisher. One hit...ten hits... I don’t know.
He was NOT Beaten with a Fire Extinguisher that is a FALSE Media Narrative

he took a Hit to the helmet with a mini extinguisher the size of a qt bottle thrown at him ...

Beaten to DEATH Only one cop killed - so it has to be Sicknick - and we don't know that
and
FIRE extinguisher Only time used - to my knowledge - and it's on video - and hits helmeted cops

If the narrative is correct - one of those three cops who gets hit died either instantly - a few minutes later - or hours later - because they got hit with a fire extinguisher -

But if this is the only time one was used as a weapon - no one was being beaten to death with one.

shut what a lazy toss
 

Will99

Active Member
He was NOT Beaten with a Fire Extinguisher that is a FALSE Media Narrative

he took a Hit to the helmet with a mini extinguisher the size of a qt bottle thrown at him ..
Can you post the link to where you received the information? I saw the video of a fire extinguisher hitting an officer, but I don’t know that officer to be Sicknick.
 

Will99

Active Member
You know - I don't. I am making the somewhat logical assumption that the big deal about a fire extinguisher being used as a weapon is in the ONE TIME it is shown on video on TV. That there isn't a second, third or fourth incident where a fire extinguisher is explicit used as a weapon .




What I SEE is, a fire extinguisher being tossed at a helmeted cop and it bounces off him.
Other articles say it hit three guys.

Here's my logic -

Relevant words

Beaten to DEATH Only one cop killed - so it has to be Sicknick - and we don't know that
and
FIRE extinguisher Only time used - to my knowledge - and it's on video - and hits helmeted cops

If the narrative is correct - one of those three cops who gets hit died either instantly - a few minutes later - or hours later - because they got hit with a fire extinguisher -

But if this is the only time one was used as a weapon - no one was being beaten to death with one.
Do you know if the guy in the video was Sicknick? I would be surprised to find it was. I saw another officer being beaten with the end of an American flag. I saw another officer being crushed in a doorway. I saw other officers being punched and kicked. There was another officer who said people were trying to get his gun, but that wasn’t on video. I spoke to a friend who has a son who is a MPDC officer who said there were a number of police officers assaulted. I saw one cop being struck by a fire extinguisher, but that doesn’t mean that was Sicknick.
 

Will99

Active Member
And the DHS doctrine on use of force establishes that deadly force is authorized "when the LEO has a reasonable belief that the subject of such force poses an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury to the LEO or to another person."
I guess we will see what the prosecutors think. I think if I were on a grand jury though, I would find the officers actions justified. You have a mob of people trying to get into a barricaded area while armed police officers were trying to stop them. Shame on her.
 

Ken King

A little rusty but not crusty
PREMO Member
I guess we will see what the prosecutors think. I think if I were on a grand jury though, I would find the officers actions justified. You have a mob of people trying to get into a barricaded area while armed police officers were trying to stop them. Shame on her.
Shame on him. He was/is a Lt. and would need to show that there was an imminent threat to his life or the life of others before employing deadly force, video evidence doesn't show it. Illegally entering through the window wouldn't cut it to a reasonable person.
 

Will99

Active Member
Shame on him. He was/is a Lt. and would need to show that there was an imminent threat to his life or the life of others before employing deadly force, video evidence doesn't show it. Illegally entering through the window wouldn't cut it to a reasonable person.
Again, that will be up to a prosecutor. Something tells me they are going to see it another way. If I were on a grand jury I would see it as the officer defending himself and those he is assigned to protect. If you owned a business and rioters were breaking your window and trying to climb over your barricade, I think you would shoot them as well and at least here in St. Mary’s County I am confident the SAO would not prosecute you.
 

Ken King

A little rusty but not crusty
PREMO Member
Again, that will be up to a prosecutor. Something tells me they are going to see it another way. If I were on a grand jury I would see it as the officer defending himself and those he is assigned to protect. If you owned a business and rioters were breaking your window and trying to climb over your barricade, I think you would shoot them as well and at least here in St. Mary’s County I am confident the SAO would not prosecute you.
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.
6.01.006 said:
An officer may use deadly force against an individual only when the officer reasonably believes that the action is in defense of human life, including the officer’s own life, or in defense of any person in imminent danger of serious physical injury.
 

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
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.

Sally doesn't care .. Nazi's deserve to die, haven't you been watching the news

Don Lemon ...... EVERYONE that voted for Trump is guilty of Insurrection
 

SamSpade

Well-Known Member
Do you know if the guy in the video was Sicknick? I would be surprised to find it was. I saw another officer being beaten with the end of an American flag. I saw another officer being crushed in a doorway. I saw other officers being punched and kicked. There was another officer who said people were trying to get his gun, but that wasn’t on video. I spoke to a friend who has a son who is a MPDC officer who said there were a number of police officers assaulted. I saw one cop being struck by a fire extinguisher, but that doesn’t mean that was Sicknick.
(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.
 

herb749

Well-Known Member
You know - I don't. I am making the somewhat logical assumption that the big deal about a fire extinguisher being used as a weapon is in the ONE TIME it is shown on video on TV. That there isn't a second, third or fourth incident where a fire extinguisher is explicit used as a weapon .




What I SEE is, a fire extinguisher being tossed at a helmeted cop and it bounces off him.
Other articles say it hit three guys.

Here's my logic -

Relevant words

Beaten to DEATH Only one cop killed - so it has to be Sicknick - and we don't know that
and
FIRE extinguisher Only time used - to my knowledge - and it's on video - and hits helmeted cops

If the narrative is correct - one of those three cops who gets hit died either instantly - a few minutes later - or hours later - because they got hit with a fire extinguisher -

But if this is the only time one was used as a weapon - no one was being beaten to death with one.

Sicknick returned to work.
 
Top