I don't know why only one of the violent insurrectionists was shot. Arguably, it was the duty of the capital police to use all means to protect the capital, the occupants AND themselves, even to the extent of using firearms - assuming they were armed.
Restraint on the part of law enforcement. Lethal force used as a last resort.
Would you have preferred more fatalities? I suspect I would have accepted more fatalities to the degree it would have deterred the violent actions. Hard to know if that would have been possible.
Most of the people demonstrating before the break in were peaceful, I do believe. To me, it does not matter what the percentage is, when major violence and damage occur. But it does seem to be relevant to many in the MSM.
The use of the term mostly peaceful was suspended that day, as it did not fit the narrative used to explain damages done by, for example, people destroying monuments to Confederate officials and the like.
"Restraint on the part of law enforcement. Lethal force used as a last resort."
Although Congressmen and their staffs (barely) escaped physically harm, scores of Capital police were beaten, many severely. Obviously, the last resort was warranted.
What if when Neil Gorsuch was being sworn in as a SCOTUS justice, a mob had broken away from a demo declaring that his swearing in was unconstitutional and what if they breached the WH grounds and headed for the WH, many brandishing weapons and combat gear? Under this circumstance, do you really believe that the mob would have been allowed to enter the WH, deface it and head for President Trump, Mr. Gorsuch and GOP heads? Chances are that there'd be a lot more shooting.
"The use of the term mostly peaceful was suspended that day, as it did not fit the narrative used to explain damages done by, for example, people destroying monuments to Confederate officials and the like."
I don't understand what you're saying. Please explain. When, where and who were destroying monuments?
You have to have lived on Mars to not know about the efforts to remove Confederate monuments, especially after the George Floyd killing.
You love to play your little childish "prove it" game.
Prove that obviously the last resort was warranted.
And, prove the Representatives barely escaped. I want proof on how many.
We will never know exactly what would have happened about Gorsuch and your what if speculation on stuff that did not happen.
What if Bob Hadley knew something about the violence against Confederate monuments that was prominent in the news a few years ago?
Some examples for you:
JEB Stuart monument in Richmond, defaced. Removed July 2020.
Christopher Columbus statue in Minneapolis, pulled from its pedestal. Hadley technicality, it was not a confederate monument.
Axios, June 7 2020:
Protests against police violence and racism have sharpened the focus of a long-standing debate about the place for and relevance of Confederate-era monuments and iconography.
What's happening: In some cities, monuments have become a hub for demonstrations, while others have been vandalized or toppled by protesters. In some instances, government officials have ordered them to be removed altogether.
Protesters in Richmond on Sunday pulled down a statue of Williams Carter Wickham, a Confederate general during the Civil War.
Having to provide this information to you on things that were prominently in the news a few years ago proves either an intellectual laziness on your part, or a juvenile desire to make me support prominently publicized events.
I see, you were stooping to whataboutism. I suspected that, but I was giving you the benefit of the doubt. The mob destruction of monuments, while totally unacceptable, is a far cry from badly beating Capital police in a riot - and maybe there was an instance in these )former) cases where the police would be justified to use lethal force. Not only is whataboutism a copout, using it in a false equivalency is stupid or dishonest or both.
While we don't know what would have happened in my hypothetical of Mr.. Gorsuch's swearing-in ceremony at the WH, it's safe to say that the SS would have shot more than one person. They have men, sharpshooters, stationed on the WH roof ready to shoot down any plane invading WH airspace and to mow down any land incursions, even by a single individual. If they allowed armed and angry rioters, hell-bent on disrupting the ceremony and "calling to justice" President Trump and other high-up GOP members entry into the WH they would not have done their job. And YOU would probably applaud them for shooting the violent rioters.
You let your emotions cloud your thinking. Good luck next time bucko.
You did not, apparently, know about the destruction of the monuments, or you just stooped to your normal "prove it" tactic. You did not understand what I was saying, or so you claimed. You provided no proof, in your statement that the Congressional Representatives and staff "barely" escaped harm.
You clearly ignored these statements, in my first post, which I copy and paste as follows:
"I suspect I would have accepted more fatalities to the degree it would have deterred the violent actions".
"Most of the people demonstrating before the break in were peaceful, I do believe. To me, it does not matter what the percentage is, when major violence and damage occur".
After clearly and unequivocally stating my willingness to see more demonstrators face violent security resistance, I then discussed the absence of the mostly peaceful term to describe the demonstrators before the break in.
The difference in MSM terminology merits addressing, on a website of a respected, former journalist.
White House security is massive, always, and quick to react. Capitol security is well below the WH level. Amazing there is not more January 6 type violence The security in normal daily activity is not ready for a sudden surge of violence.
The same hypothetical WH reaction would have occurred if the hypothetical Gorsuch protestors had been against the nomination of any SC Justice.
I knew about the unauthorized removal and defacement of the Confederate statues at the time. I think I said on this website that the statues should be removed only at the behest of the appropriate political body - Conty, State or Federal - and only by authorized people. I said that those defacing or removing the statues without official authorization should be prosecuted.
I didn't ask you to prove anything. We were having a discussion about the riot in DC on 1/6/21 and about when the use of lethal force by the Capital police was warranted or even mandated. Seemingly out of the blue, you made some kind of reference to destruction of monuments. I thought you might be referring to the unauthorized removal of Confederate status, but that reference was not comparable to the mayhem and serious bodily harm in the riot on 1/6. So I asked you to explain what you were referring to, NOT for proof of anything.
As for the reference of "mostly peaceful," the protest at the DC ellipse on 1/6 was mostly peaceful. The protesters who broke away and stormed the Capital were part of a riot and were not, in my opinion, mostly peaceful - although I guess you could say that those who "merely" joined with the mob and "merely" entered the Capital and went along with the rioters were peaceful. The BLM demonstrations were mostly peaceful. But so what? The destruction and defacement needed to be addressed, and it was. Resulting were hundreds of arrests and convictions.
"I suspect I would have accepted more fatalities to the degree it would have deterred the violent actions."
Lethal force might have been warranted as deterrence, but it was definitely warranted to prevent the serious bodily harm rioters did the Capitol police.
You want proof that Congressmen and staff barely escaped physical harm? Did you see the footage of Congressmen scurrying or of the SS hurrying VP Pense and Speaker Pelosi away? Did you listen to the testimony of Capitol police officers?
"The same hypothetical WH reaction would have occurred if the hypothetical Gorsuch protestors had been against the nomination of any SC Justice."
Of course! The reaction would probably be much the same if a lone, unauthorized, armed, angry person breached the WH grounds and was racing toward the WH, esp. if the POTUS and VPOTUS were there at the time.
I was giving you a hypothetical that would be analogous to the riot on the 1/6 but involving Democrats and leftists. I though in that case you would see the issue or law and order differently.
I thought the Capital police performed at their very best. They were denied resources and national guard support for hours even though the chief reached out through his channels for support. It was surprising more people were not shot. Babbitt was the first to attempt entry into the chamber through a broken window. I have friends that say she just poked her head through a window which is bull. After watching the video, the officer was justified and stopped the insurgents in their tracks from entering the chamber.
John: The left has moved from celebrating the accomplishments of actual black women of substance to erecting a large statue in New York's Central Park of a generic, overweight, angry black woman with her hands on her hips and attitude in her posture. This is what the progressive left has devolved into. Do they deserve all of the cultural relevance they are losing?
Conrad, the great thing about having consistent principles, and just being honest with people, is that it doesn't matter which category or sub-category of people likes or dislikes what you're saying on any given day or topic.
I'm a conservative who's concerned about the country. You're a tribalist who's mostly concerned about Trump's feelings, and him getting whatever he wants, regardless of how leftist his agenda is, or what it does to our country. What I say will rarely please you.
I don't know why only one of the violent insurrectionists was shot. Arguably, it was the duty of the capital police to use all means to protect the capital, the occupants AND themselves, even to the extent of using firearms - assuming they were armed.
Restraint on the part of law enforcement. Lethal force used as a last resort.
Would you have preferred more fatalities? I suspect I would have accepted more fatalities to the degree it would have deterred the violent actions. Hard to know if that would have been possible.
Most of the people demonstrating before the break in were peaceful, I do believe. To me, it does not matter what the percentage is, when major violence and damage occur. But it does seem to be relevant to many in the MSM.
The use of the term mostly peaceful was suspended that day, as it did not fit the narrative used to explain damages done by, for example, people destroying monuments to Confederate officials and the like.
"Restraint on the part of law enforcement. Lethal force used as a last resort."
Although Congressmen and their staffs (barely) escaped physically harm, scores of Capital police were beaten, many severely. Obviously, the last resort was warranted.
What if when Neil Gorsuch was being sworn in as a SCOTUS justice, a mob had broken away from a demo declaring that his swearing in was unconstitutional and what if they breached the WH grounds and headed for the WH, many brandishing weapons and combat gear? Under this circumstance, do you really believe that the mob would have been allowed to enter the WH, deface it and head for President Trump, Mr. Gorsuch and GOP heads? Chances are that there'd be a lot more shooting.
"The use of the term mostly peaceful was suspended that day, as it did not fit the narrative used to explain damages done by, for example, people destroying monuments to Confederate officials and the like."
I don't understand what you're saying. Please explain. When, where and who were destroying monuments?
You have to have lived on Mars to not know about the efforts to remove Confederate monuments, especially after the George Floyd killing.
You love to play your little childish "prove it" game.
Prove that obviously the last resort was warranted.
And, prove the Representatives barely escaped. I want proof on how many.
We will never know exactly what would have happened about Gorsuch and your what if speculation on stuff that did not happen.
What if Bob Hadley knew something about the violence against Confederate monuments that was prominent in the news a few years ago?
Some examples for you:
JEB Stuart monument in Richmond, defaced. Removed July 2020.
Christopher Columbus statue in Minneapolis, pulled from its pedestal. Hadley technicality, it was not a confederate monument.
Axios, June 7 2020:
Protests against police violence and racism have sharpened the focus of a long-standing debate about the place for and relevance of Confederate-era monuments and iconography.
What's happening: In some cities, monuments have become a hub for demonstrations, while others have been vandalized or toppled by protesters. In some instances, government officials have ordered them to be removed altogether.
Protesters in Richmond on Sunday pulled down a statue of Williams Carter Wickham, a Confederate general during the Civil War.
Having to provide this information to you on things that were prominently in the news a few years ago proves either an intellectual laziness on your part, or a juvenile desire to make me support prominently publicized events.
Hadley playing his prove it game. His pastime.
You're a petulant petunia
I see, you were stooping to whataboutism. I suspected that, but I was giving you the benefit of the doubt. The mob destruction of monuments, while totally unacceptable, is a far cry from badly beating Capital police in a riot - and maybe there was an instance in these )former) cases where the police would be justified to use lethal force. Not only is whataboutism a copout, using it in a false equivalency is stupid or dishonest or both.
While we don't know what would have happened in my hypothetical of Mr.. Gorsuch's swearing-in ceremony at the WH, it's safe to say that the SS would have shot more than one person. They have men, sharpshooters, stationed on the WH roof ready to shoot down any plane invading WH airspace and to mow down any land incursions, even by a single individual. If they allowed armed and angry rioters, hell-bent on disrupting the ceremony and "calling to justice" President Trump and other high-up GOP members entry into the WH they would not have done their job. And YOU would probably applaud them for shooting the violent rioters.
You let your emotions cloud your thinking. Good luck next time bucko.
You did not, apparently, know about the destruction of the monuments, or you just stooped to your normal "prove it" tactic. You did not understand what I was saying, or so you claimed. You provided no proof, in your statement that the Congressional Representatives and staff "barely" escaped harm.
You clearly ignored these statements, in my first post, which I copy and paste as follows:
"I suspect I would have accepted more fatalities to the degree it would have deterred the violent actions".
"Most of the people demonstrating before the break in were peaceful, I do believe. To me, it does not matter what the percentage is, when major violence and damage occur".
After clearly and unequivocally stating my willingness to see more demonstrators face violent security resistance, I then discussed the absence of the mostly peaceful term to describe the demonstrators before the break in.
The difference in MSM terminology merits addressing, on a website of a respected, former journalist.
White House security is massive, always, and quick to react. Capitol security is well below the WH level. Amazing there is not more January 6 type violence The security in normal daily activity is not ready for a sudden surge of violence.
The same hypothetical WH reaction would have occurred if the hypothetical Gorsuch protestors had been against the nomination of any SC Justice.
I knew about the unauthorized removal and defacement of the Confederate statues at the time. I think I said on this website that the statues should be removed only at the behest of the appropriate political body - Conty, State or Federal - and only by authorized people. I said that those defacing or removing the statues without official authorization should be prosecuted.
I didn't ask you to prove anything. We were having a discussion about the riot in DC on 1/6/21 and about when the use of lethal force by the Capital police was warranted or even mandated. Seemingly out of the blue, you made some kind of reference to destruction of monuments. I thought you might be referring to the unauthorized removal of Confederate status, but that reference was not comparable to the mayhem and serious bodily harm in the riot on 1/6. So I asked you to explain what you were referring to, NOT for proof of anything.
As for the reference of "mostly peaceful," the protest at the DC ellipse on 1/6 was mostly peaceful. The protesters who broke away and stormed the Capital were part of a riot and were not, in my opinion, mostly peaceful - although I guess you could say that those who "merely" joined with the mob and "merely" entered the Capital and went along with the rioters were peaceful. The BLM demonstrations were mostly peaceful. But so what? The destruction and defacement needed to be addressed, and it was. Resulting were hundreds of arrests and convictions.
"I suspect I would have accepted more fatalities to the degree it would have deterred the violent actions."
Lethal force might have been warranted as deterrence, but it was definitely warranted to prevent the serious bodily harm rioters did the Capitol police.
You want proof that Congressmen and staff barely escaped physical harm? Did you see the footage of Congressmen scurrying or of the SS hurrying VP Pense and Speaker Pelosi away? Did you listen to the testimony of Capitol police officers?
"The same hypothetical WH reaction would have occurred if the hypothetical Gorsuch protestors had been against the nomination of any SC Justice."
Of course! The reaction would probably be much the same if a lone, unauthorized, armed, angry person breached the WH grounds and was racing toward the WH, esp. if the POTUS and VPOTUS were there at the time.
I was giving you a hypothetical that would be analogous to the riot on the 1/6 but involving Democrats and leftists. I though in that case you would see the issue or law and order differently.
I thought the Capital police performed at their very best. They were denied resources and national guard support for hours even though the chief reached out through his channels for support. It was surprising more people were not shot. Babbitt was the first to attempt entry into the chamber through a broken window. I have friends that say she just poked her head through a window which is bull. After watching the video, the officer was justified and stopped the insurgents in their tracks from entering the chamber.
The Tariff deals are coming thick and fast with so much winning from the President.
What do you think it will take for Trump to totally abandon the idea or at least drastically reverse course?
I've heard some political commentators say "when it starts to hurt big business and the average person in their wallet".
Well that is already happening, and there's no signs of them being dropped anytime soon.
So, will Americans just eat it and smile? After all, what can they do about it? it's what they voted for.
John: The left has moved from celebrating the accomplishments of actual black women of substance to erecting a large statue in New York's Central Park of a generic, overweight, angry black woman with her hands on her hips and attitude in her posture. This is what the progressive left has devolved into. Do they deserve all of the cultural relevance they are losing?
Correcting myself - The statue is actually in Times Square and not Central Park.
John, you seem to please, all the Trump haters.
Conrad, the great thing about having consistent principles, and just being honest with people, is that it doesn't matter which category or sub-category of people likes or dislikes what you're saying on any given day or topic.
I'm a conservative who's concerned about the country. You're a tribalist who's mostly concerned about Trump's feelings, and him getting whatever he wants, regardless of how leftist his agenda is, or what it does to our country. What I say will rarely please you.