Friend of Herring's?
 

On Saturday, 16 January 2021 at 06:57:52 UTC-4, justan wrote:
Wrote in message:r
On Fri, 15 Jan 2021 23:02:31 -0000 (UTC), wrote:Keyser Söze wrote: On 1/15/21 3:53 PM, Bill wrote: Keyser Söze wrote: On 1/15/21 1:59 PM, Wayne B wrote: On Fri, 15 Jan 2021 18:25:15 -0000 (UTC), Bill wrote: Keyser Söze wrote: On 1/14/21 9:34 PM, Bill wrote: Keyser Söze wrote: CHESTER, Pennsylvania (WPVI) -- A retired firefighter from Chester, Pennsylvania is accused of being the man seen on video throwing a fire extinguisher that hit three police officers at the Capitol during the riot in Washington, D.C. last week. Robert Sanford, 55, was arrested Thursday morning on four federal charges, including knowingly entering a restricted building, disorderly conduct on Capitol grounds, civil disorder and assaulting officers engaging in their official duties. According to the charging documents, the extinguisher bounced off the heads of three officers, two of whom wore helmets. Sanford, 55, traveled by bus with other people to the Capitol, according to documents. He told a friend when he returned home that he had been on the grounds for 10 minutes before leaving but did not mention throwing anything at officers, authorities said. Sanford was identified after a longtime friend of his contacted the FBI in Pennsylvania and said they recognized Sanford from photos put out by the FBI. The fire extinguisher struck several police officers during the US Capitol riot. The friend said Sanford "had gone to the White House and listened to President Donald J. Trump's speech and then had followed the President's instructions and gone to the Capitol." Sanford appeared in a federal court in Pennsylvania for an initial appearance on Thursday afternoon. He was denied release and will remain in custody of the U.S. Marshals until he is transferred to Washington, D.C. The defense argued Sanford was not a flight risk or a danger to the community, noting that he has no prior arrests, is married, and has three children. The defense added that allegations that he traveled to D.C. to commit crimes are inaccurate and he is not part of any extremist groups. Prosecutors challenged that claim, saying authorities found a t-shirt associated with the far-right group Proud Boys at Sanford's home after executing a search warrant. Maybe he thought his life was in danger. Capital cops shooting protesters, just because they were protesting. If that is what you really think, you are even dumber than I had envisioned. Peaceful protesting is perfectly legal outside the Capitol building. That's not where he was and not what he was doing. And even in riot situations, the cops are not allowed to shoot looters and trespassers. So because they are in the Capital building, uninvited, they are allowed to be murdered? === Being shot by an armed guard who is being paid to protect members of congress is not exactly murder. And being "uninvited" is not exactly the same as being at the front of an unruly mob trying to break down a locked door leading to a congressional chamber. What do you suppose would have happened to a gang of thugs who crashed the gates around the White House, smashed into the White House, and were running through the halls looking to kill the POTUS? What happened at the Capitol was no different than that. Bull****. As usual, you are wrong. § 1047.7 Use of deadly force. (a) A protective force officer is authorized to use deadly force only when one or more of the following circumstances exists: (1) Self-Defense. When deadly force reasonably appears to be necessary to protect a protective force officer who reasonably believes himself or herself to be in imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm. (2) Serious offenses against persons. When deadly force reasonably appears to be necessary to prevent the commission of a serious offense against a person(s) in circumstances presenting an imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm. There are other conditions, but the above two apply to the overrunning of the Capitol. Oh, there is no requirement to fire warning shots. Which one of those covers killing an unarmed women stuck in a window?The first is I imminent danger. None here.The second. Where was the offense against a person?Yeah Harry and Wayne both seem to gloss over that "imminent danger"part.

You might want to drop in on Wayne and see how he's doing. He
doesn't seem to be as rational as he used to be.
--


----Android NewsGroup Reader----
https://piaohong.s3-us-west-2.amazon...net/index.html


Translation.....Wayne is expressing independent thought that doesn't line up with the orders and directives passed down from The John.

Friend of Herring's?
 

On Fri, 15 Jan 2021 23:46:56 -0500, wrote:

On Fri, 15 Jan 2021 14:04:22 -0500, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 1/15/21 1:59 PM, Wayne B wrote:
On Fri, 15 Jan 2021 18:25:15 -0000 (UTC), Bill
wrote:

Keyser Söze wrote:
On 1/14/21 9:34 PM, Bill wrote:
Keyser Söze wrote:


CHESTER, Pennsylvania (WPVI) -- A retired firefighter from Chester,
Pennsylvania is accused of being the man seen on video throwing a fire
extinguisher that hit three police officers at the Capitol during the
riot in Washington, D.C. last week.

Robert Sanford, 55, was arrested Thursday morning on four federal
charges, including knowingly entering a restricted building, disorderly
conduct on Capitol grounds, civil disorder and assaulting officers
engaging in their official duties.

According to the charging documents, the extinguisher bounced off the
heads of three officers, two of whom wore helmets.

Sanford, 55, traveled by bus with other people to the Capitol, according
to documents. He told a friend when he returned home that he had been on
the grounds for 10 minutes before leaving but did not mention throwing
anything at officers, authorities said.

Sanford was identified after a longtime friend of his contacted the FBI
in Pennsylvania and said they recognized Sanford from photos put out by
the FBI.

The fire extinguisher struck several police officers during the US
Capitol riot.

The friend said Sanford "had gone to the White House and listened to
President Donald J. Trump's speech and then had followed the President's
instructions and gone to the Capitol."

Sanford appeared in a federal court in Pennsylvania for an initial
appearance on Thursday afternoon. He was denied release and will remain
in custody of the U.S. Marshals until he is transferred to Washington, D.C.

The defense argued Sanford was not a flight risk or a danger to the
community, noting that he has no prior arrests, is married, and has
three children.

The defense added that allegations that he traveled to D.C. to commit
crimes are inaccurate and he is not part of any extremist groups.

Prosecutors challenged that claim, saying authorities found a t-shirt
associated with the far-right group Proud Boys at Sanford's home after
executing a search warrant.



Maybe he thought his life was in danger. Capital cops shooting protesters,
just because they were protesting.


If that is what you really think, you are even dumber than I had
envisioned. Peaceful protesting is perfectly legal outside the Capitol
building. That's not where he was and not what he was doing.


And even in riot situations, the cops are not allowed to shoot looters and
trespassers. So because they are in the Capital building, uninvited, they
are allowed to be murdered?

===

Being shot by an armed guard who is being paid to protect members of
congress is not exactly murder. And being "uninvited" is not exactly
the same as being at the front of an unruly mob trying to break down a
locked door leading to a congressional chamber.


What do you suppose would have happened to a gang of thugs who crashed
the gates around the White House, smashed into the White House, and were
running through the halls looking to kill the POTUS? What happened at
the Capitol was no different than that.

We don't have to suppose.
A guy did break into the White House and was running around with a
knife. (Omar J. Gonzales)The SS wrestled him to the floor and arrested
him.
It was the same as Hinkley, Sarah Jane Moore and "Squeeky".
They were all armed.
Squeeky just didn't know how to operate a 1911, Sarah got off a few
rounds at the president and Hinkley shot the president along with
Brady, an SS agent and a DC Cop.
The SS never shot anyone in any of those cases.
They did shoot one guy but he was threatening the SS agent WITH A GUN
when he was shot.
That was the first time I can think of in 70 years that the SS fired a
round in anger and the agent was only defending himself from a man
with a gun. No protectees were involved.

Sorry Harry, they write this **** down.

I'm sure Harry will come back with, "Oh yeah, you're right."
--

Freedom Isn't Free!

Friend of Herring's?
 

On Sat, 16 Jan 2021 02:10:29 -0500, Wayne B
wrote:

On Sat, 16 Jan 2021 00:02:18 -0500, wrote:

On Fri, 15 Jan 2021 23:02:31 -0000 (UTC), Bill
wrote:

Keyser Söze wrote:
On 1/15/21 3:53 PM, Bill wrote:
Keyser Söze wrote:
On 1/15/21 1:59 PM, Wayne B wrote:
On Fri, 15 Jan 2021 18:25:15 -0000 (UTC), Bill
wrote:

Keyser Söze wrote:
On 1/14/21 9:34 PM, Bill wrote:
Keyser Söze wrote:


CHESTER, Pennsylvania (WPVI) -- A retired firefighter from Chester,
Pennsylvania is accused of being the man seen on video throwing a fire
extinguisher that hit three police officers at the Capitol during the
riot in Washington, D.C. last week.

Robert Sanford, 55, was arrested Thursday morning on four federal
charges, including knowingly entering a restricted building, disorderly
conduct on Capitol grounds, civil disorder and assaulting officers
engaging in their official duties.

According to the charging documents, the extinguisher bounced off the
heads of three officers, two of whom wore helmets.

Sanford, 55, traveled by bus with other people to the Capitol, according
to documents. He told a friend when he returned home that he had been on
the grounds for 10 minutes before leaving but did not mention throwing
anything at officers, authorities said.

Sanford was identified after a longtime friend of his contacted the FBI
in Pennsylvania and said they recognized Sanford from photos put out by
the FBI.

The fire extinguisher struck several police officers during the US
Capitol riot.

The friend said Sanford "had gone to the White House and listened to
President Donald J. Trump's speech and then had followed the President's
instructions and gone to the Capitol."

Sanford appeared in a federal court in Pennsylvania for an initial
appearance on Thursday afternoon. He was denied release and will remain
in custody of the U.S. Marshals until he is transferred to Washington, D.C.

The defense argued Sanford was not a flight risk or a danger to the
community, noting that he has no prior arrests, is married, and has
three children.

The defense added that allegations that he traveled to D.C. to commit
crimes are inaccurate and he is not part of any extremist groups.

Prosecutors challenged that claim, saying authorities found a t-shirt
associated with the far-right group Proud Boys at Sanford's home after
executing a search warrant.



Maybe he thought his life was in danger. Capital cops shooting protesters,
just because they were protesting.


If that is what you really think, you are even dumber than I had
envisioned. Peaceful protesting is perfectly legal outside the Capitol
building. That's not where he was and not what he was doing.


And even in riot situations, the cops are not allowed to shoot looters and
trespassers. So because they are in the Capital building, uninvited, they
are allowed to be murdered?

===

Being shot by an armed guard who is being paid to protect members of
congress is not exactly murder. And being "uninvited" is not exactly
the same as being at the front of an unruly mob trying to break down a
locked door leading to a congressional chamber.


What do you suppose would have happened to a gang of thugs who crashed
the gates around the White House, smashed into the White House, and were
running through the halls looking to kill the POTUS? What happened at
the Capitol was no different than that.



Bull****.


As usual, you are wrong.

§ 1047.7 Use of deadly force.

(a) A protective force officer is authorized to use deadly force only
when one or more of the following circumstances exists:

(1) Self-Defense. When deadly force reasonably appears to be necessary
to protect a protective force officer who reasonably believes himself or
herself to be in imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm.

(2) Serious offenses against persons. When deadly force reasonably
appears to be necessary to prevent the commission of a serious offense
against a person(s) in circumstances presenting an imminent danger of
death or serious bodily harm.

There are other conditions, but the above two apply to the overrunning
of the Capitol. Oh, there is no requirement to fire warning shots.


Which one of those covers killing an unarmed women stuck in a window?
The first is I imminent danger. None here.

The second. Where was the offense against a person?

Yeah Harry and Wayne both seem to gloss over that "imminent danger"
part.

===

The "imminent danger" part seems self evident to me. You've got an
unruly mob of maybe 50 to 100 people, screaming for blood, and trying
to break down a locked door being defended by 3 or 4 cops. What could
possibly go wrong? Supposedly Pence narrowly escaped being caught up
in all that.

Please note that I did not lump you and Harry together.

The cop was not in imminent danger with a woman halfway thru a window. And folks
had started leaving the doors before the woman tried to climb through. At the
moment of the shot, the cop was *not* in imminent danger. Even if she'd gotten
through the window she'd have had to get through the barricade on the other side
of the door.
--

Freedom Isn't Free!

Friend of Herring's?
 

On Sat, 16 Jan 2021 07:49:50 -0000 (UTC), Bill
wrote:

Wayne B wrote:
On Sat, 16 Jan 2021 00:02:18 -0500, wrote:

On Fri, 15 Jan 2021 23:02:31 -0000 (UTC), Bill
wrote:

Keyser Söze wrote:
On 1/15/21 3:53 PM, Bill wrote:
Keyser Söze wrote:
On 1/15/21 1:59 PM, Wayne B wrote:
On Fri, 15 Jan 2021 18:25:15 -0000 (UTC), Bill
wrote:

Keyser Söze wrote:
On 1/14/21 9:34 PM, Bill wrote:
Keyser Söze wrote:


CHESTER, Pennsylvania (WPVI) -- A retired firefighter from Chester,
Pennsylvania is accused of being the man seen on video throwing a fire
extinguisher that hit three police officers at the Capitol during the
riot in Washington, D.C. last week.

Robert Sanford, 55, was arrested Thursday morning on four federal
charges, including knowingly entering a restricted building, disorderly
conduct on Capitol grounds, civil disorder and assaulting officers
engaging in their official duties.

According to the charging documents, the extinguisher bounced off the
heads of three officers, two of whom wore helmets.

Sanford, 55, traveled by bus with other people to the Capitol, according
to documents. He told a friend when he returned home that he had been on
the grounds for 10 minutes before leaving but did not mention throwing
anything at officers, authorities said.

Sanford was identified after a longtime friend of his contacted the FBI
in Pennsylvania and said they recognized Sanford from photos put out by
the FBI.

The fire extinguisher struck several police officers during the US
Capitol riot.

The friend said Sanford "had gone to the White House and listened to
President Donald J. Trump's speech and then had followed the President's
instructions and gone to the Capitol."

Sanford appeared in a federal court in Pennsylvania for an initial
appearance on Thursday afternoon. He was denied release and will remain
in custody of the U.S. Marshals until he is transferred to Washington, D.C.

The defense argued Sanford was not a flight risk or a danger to the
community, noting that he has no prior arrests, is married, and has
three children.

The defense added that allegations that he traveled to D.C. to commit
crimes are inaccurate and he is not part of any extremist groups.

Prosecutors challenged that claim, saying authorities found a t-shirt
associated with the far-right group Proud Boys at Sanford's home after
executing a search warrant.



Maybe he thought his life was in danger. Capital cops shooting protesters,
just because they were protesting.


If that is what you really think, you are even dumber than I had
envisioned. Peaceful protesting is perfectly legal outside the Capitol
building. That's not where he was and not what he was doing.


And even in riot situations, the cops are not allowed to shoot looters and
trespassers. So because they are in the Capital building, uninvited, they
are allowed to be murdered?

===

Being shot by an armed guard who is being paid to protect members of
congress is not exactly murder. And being "uninvited" is not exactly
the same as being at the front of an unruly mob trying to break down a
locked door leading to a congressional chamber.


What do you suppose would have happened to a gang of thugs who crashed
the gates around the White House, smashed into the White House, and were
running through the halls looking to kill the POTUS? What happened at
the Capitol was no different than that.



Bull****.


As usual, you are wrong.

§ 1047.7 Use of deadly force.

(a) A protective force officer is authorized to use deadly force only
when one or more of the following circumstances exists:

(1) Self-Defense. When deadly force reasonably appears to be necessary
to protect a protective force officer who reasonably believes himself or
herself to be in imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm.

(2) Serious offenses against persons. When deadly force reasonably
appears to be necessary to prevent the commission of a serious offense
against a person(s) in circumstances presenting an imminent danger of
death or serious bodily harm.

There are other conditions, but the above two apply to the overrunning
of the Capitol. Oh, there is no requirement to fire warning shots.


Which one of those covers killing an unarmed women stuck in a window?
The first is I imminent danger. None here.

The second. Where was the offense against a person?

Yeah Harry and Wayne both seem to gloss over that "imminent danger"
part.

===

The "imminent danger" part seems self evident to me. You've got an
unruly mob of maybe 50 to 100 people, screaming for blood, and trying
to break down a locked door being defended by 3 or 4 cops. What could
possibly go wrong? Supposedly Pence narrowly escaped being caught up
in all that.


Then with that thinking, a store owner in the BLM riots could have shot
bunches of people, with no legal problems afterwards.

Can't wait to see Wayne's answer.
--

Freedom Isn't Free!

Friend of Herring's?
 

On 1/15/21 11:46 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 15 Jan 2021 14:04:22 -0500, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 1/15/21 1:59 PM, Wayne B wrote:
On Fri, 15 Jan 2021 18:25:15 -0000 (UTC), Bill
wrote:

Keyser Söze wrote:
On 1/14/21 9:34 PM, Bill wrote:
Keyser Söze wrote:


CHESTER, Pennsylvania (WPVI) -- A retired firefighter from Chester,
Pennsylvania is accused of being the man seen on video throwing a fire
extinguisher that hit three police officers at the Capitol during the
riot in Washington, D.C. last week.

Robert Sanford, 55, was arrested Thursday morning on four federal
charges, including knowingly entering a restricted building, disorderly
conduct on Capitol grounds, civil disorder and assaulting officers
engaging in their official duties.

According to the charging documents, the extinguisher bounced off the
heads of three officers, two of whom wore helmets.

Sanford, 55, traveled by bus with other people to the Capitol, according
to documents. He told a friend when he returned home that he had been on
the grounds for 10 minutes before leaving but did not mention throwing
anything at officers, authorities said.

Sanford was identified after a longtime friend of his contacted the FBI
in Pennsylvania and said they recognized Sanford from photos put out by
the FBI.

The fire extinguisher struck several police officers during the US
Capitol riot.

The friend said Sanford "had gone to the White House and listened to
President Donald J. Trump's speech and then had followed the President's
instructions and gone to the Capitol."

Sanford appeared in a federal court in Pennsylvania for an initial
appearance on Thursday afternoon. He was denied release and will remain
in custody of the U.S. Marshals until he is transferred to Washington, D.C.

The defense argued Sanford was not a flight risk or a danger to the
community, noting that he has no prior arrests, is married, and has
three children.

The defense added that allegations that he traveled to D.C. to commit
crimes are inaccurate and he is not part of any extremist groups.

Prosecutors challenged that claim, saying authorities found a t-shirt
associated with the far-right group Proud Boys at Sanford's home after
executing a search warrant.



Maybe he thought his life was in danger. Capital cops shooting protesters,
just because they were protesting.


If that is what you really think, you are even dumber than I had
envisioned. Peaceful protesting is perfectly legal outside the Capitol
building. That's not where he was and not what he was doing.


And even in riot situations, the cops are not allowed to shoot looters and
trespassers. So because they are in the Capital building, uninvited, they
are allowed to be murdered?

===

Being shot by an armed guard who is being paid to protect members of
congress is not exactly murder. And being "uninvited" is not exactly
the same as being at the front of an unruly mob trying to break down a
locked door leading to a congressional chamber.


What do you suppose would have happened to a gang of thugs who crashed
the gates around the White House, smashed into the White House, and were
running through the halls looking to kill the POTUS? What happened at
the Capitol was no different than that.

We don't have to suppose.
A guy did break into the White House and was running around with a
knife. (Omar J. Gonzales)The SS wrestled him to the floor and arrested
him.
It was the same as Hinkley, Sarah Jane Moore and "Squeeky".
They were all armed.
Squeeky just didn't know how to operate a 1911, Sarah got off a few
rounds at the president and Hinkley shot the president along with
Brady, an SS agent and a DC Cop.
The SS never shot anyone in any of those cases.
They did shoot one guy but he was threatening the SS agent WITH A GUN
when he was shot.
That was the first time I can think of in 70 years that the SS fired a
round in anger and the agent was only defending himself from a man
with a gun. No protectees were involved.

Sorry Harry, they write this **** down.


None of the three you mentioned were part of a large, marauding gang of
secessionists trying to prevent a serious legitimate process and
breaking into the U.S. Capitol, some armed and some looking for members
of Congress to kill, and some wanting to hang the Vice President. It's
too made an announcement didn't come over the P.A. telling them if they
didn't leave immediately, they'd be shot.

It'll be interesting to see what the TrumpThugs do in D.C. this week if
they confront the 20,000 armed troops and others guarding the nation's
capitol.

--
Bozo Binned: Herring, Bert Robbins, JackGoff 452471atgmail.com,
Just-AN-Asshole, Tim, AMDX, and Gunboy Alex, aka the Gang of Dull,
Witless, Insult-Tossing Trumpsters. If you are on this list, I don't see
most of your posts and I don't read any of them.

Friend of Herring's?
 

Keyser Söze wrote:
On 1/15/21 11:46 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 15 Jan 2021 14:04:22 -0500, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 1/15/21 1:59 PM, Wayne B wrote:
On Fri, 15 Jan 2021 18:25:15 -0000 (UTC), Bill
wrote:

Keyser Söze wrote:
On 1/14/21 9:34 PM, Bill wrote:
Keyser Söze wrote:


CHESTER, Pennsylvania (WPVI) -- A retired firefighter from Chester,
Pennsylvania is accused of being the man seen on video throwing a fire
extinguisher that hit three police officers at the Capitol during the
riot in Washington, D.C. last week.

Robert Sanford, 55, was arrested Thursday morning on four federal
charges, including knowingly entering a restricted building, disorderly
conduct on Capitol grounds, civil disorder and assaulting officers
engaging in their official duties.

According to the charging documents, the extinguisher bounced off the
heads of three officers, two of whom wore helmets.

Sanford, 55, traveled by bus with other people to the Capitol, according
to documents. He told a friend when he returned home that he had been on
the grounds for 10 minutes before leaving but did not mention throwing
anything at officers, authorities said.

Sanford was identified after a longtime friend of his contacted the FBI
in Pennsylvania and said they recognized Sanford from photos put out by
the FBI.

The fire extinguisher struck several police officers during the US
Capitol riot.

The friend said Sanford "had gone to the White House and listened to
President Donald J. Trump's speech and then had followed the President's
instructions and gone to the Capitol."

Sanford appeared in a federal court in Pennsylvania for an initial
appearance on Thursday afternoon. He was denied release and will remain
in custody of the U.S. Marshals until he is transferred to Washington, D.C.

The defense argued Sanford was not a flight risk or a danger to the
community, noting that he has no prior arrests, is married, and has
three children.

The defense added that allegations that he traveled to D.C. to commit
crimes are inaccurate and he is not part of any extremist groups.

Prosecutors challenged that claim, saying authorities found a t-shirt
associated with the far-right group Proud Boys at Sanford's home after
executing a search warrant.



Maybe he thought his life was in danger. Capital cops shooting protesters,
just because they were protesting.


If that is what you really think, you are even dumber than I had
envisioned. Peaceful protesting is perfectly legal outside the Capitol
building. That's not where he was and not what he was doing.


And even in riot situations, the cops are not allowed to shoot looters and
trespassers. So because they are in the Capital building, uninvited, they
are allowed to be murdered?

===

Being shot by an armed guard who is being paid to protect members of
congress is not exactly murder. And being "uninvited" is not exactly
the same as being at the front of an unruly mob trying to break down a
locked door leading to a congressional chamber.


What do you suppose would have happened to a gang of thugs who crashed
the gates around the White House, smashed into the White House, and were
running through the halls looking to kill the POTUS? What happened at
the Capitol was no different than that.

We don't have to suppose.
A guy did break into the White House and was running around with a
knife. (Omar J. Gonzales)The SS wrestled him to the floor and arrested
him.
It was the same as Hinkley, Sarah Jane Moore and "Squeeky".
They were all armed.
Squeeky just didn't know how to operate a 1911, Sarah got off a few
rounds at the president and Hinkley shot the president along with
Brady, an SS agent and a DC Cop.
The SS never shot anyone in any of those cases.
They did shoot one guy but he was threatening the SS agent WITH A GUN
when he was shot.
That was the first time I can think of in 70 years that the SS fired a
round in anger and the agent was only defending himself from a man
with a gun. No protectees were involved.

Sorry Harry, they write this **** down.


None of the three you mentioned were part of a large, marauding gang of
secessionists trying to prevent a serious legitimate process and
breaking into the U.S. Capitol, some armed and some looking for members
of Congress to kill, and some wanting to hang the Vice President. It's
too made an announcement didn't come over the P.A. telling them if they
didn't leave immediately, they'd be shot.

It'll be interesting to see what the TrumpThugs do in D.C. this week if
they confront the 20,000 armed troops and others guarding the nation's
capitol.


You complain about my English?

“It's too made an announcement didn't come over the P.A. telling them if
they didn't leave immediately, they'd be shot.�

Friend of Herring's?
 

On Saturday, 16 January 2021 at 14:33:56 UTC-4, Bill wrote:
Keyser Söze wrote:
On 1/15/21 11:46 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 15 Jan 2021 14:04:22 -0500, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 1/15/21 1:59 PM, Wayne B wrote:
On Fri, 15 Jan 2021 18:25:15 -0000 (UTC), Bill
wrote:

Keyser Söze wrote:
On 1/14/21 9:34 PM, Bill wrote:
Keyser Söze wrote:


CHESTER, Pennsylvania (WPVI) -- A retired firefighter from Chester,
Pennsylvania is accused of being the man seen on video throwing a fire
extinguisher that hit three police officers at the Capitol during the
riot in Washington, D.C. last week.

Robert Sanford, 55, was arrested Thursday morning on four federal
charges, including knowingly entering a restricted building, disorderly
conduct on Capitol grounds, civil disorder and assaulting officers
engaging in their official duties.

According to the charging documents, the extinguisher bounced off the
heads of three officers, two of whom wore helmets.

Sanford, 55, traveled by bus with other people to the Capitol, according
to documents. He told a friend when he returned home that he had been on
the grounds for 10 minutes before leaving but did not mention throwing
anything at officers, authorities said.

Sanford was identified after a longtime friend of his contacted the FBI
in Pennsylvania and said they recognized Sanford from photos put out by
the FBI.

The fire extinguisher struck several police officers during the US
Capitol riot.

The friend said Sanford "had gone to the White House and listened to
President Donald J. Trump's speech and then had followed the President's
instructions and gone to the Capitol."

Sanford appeared in a federal court in Pennsylvania for an initial
appearance on Thursday afternoon. He was denied release and will remain
in custody of the U.S. Marshals until he is transferred to Washington, D.C.

The defense argued Sanford was not a flight risk or a danger to the
community, noting that he has no prior arrests, is married, and has
three children.

The defense added that allegations that he traveled to D.C. to commit
crimes are inaccurate and he is not part of any extremist groups..

Prosecutors challenged that claim, saying authorities found a t-shirt
associated with the far-right group Proud Boys at Sanford's home after
executing a search warrant.



Maybe he thought his life was in danger. Capital cops shooting protesters,
just because they were protesting.


If that is what you really think, you are even dumber than I had
envisioned. Peaceful protesting is perfectly legal outside the Capitol
building. That's not where he was and not what he was doing.


And even in riot situations, the cops are not allowed to shoot looters and
trespassers. So because they are in the Capital building, uninvited, they
are allowed to be murdered?

===

Being shot by an armed guard who is being paid to protect members of
congress is not exactly murder. And being "uninvited" is not exactly
the same as being at the front of an unruly mob trying to break down a
locked door leading to a congressional chamber.


What do you suppose would have happened to a gang of thugs who crashed
the gates around the White House, smashed into the White House, and were
running through the halls looking to kill the POTUS? What happened at
the Capitol was no different than that.

We don't have to suppose.
A guy did break into the White House and was running around with a
knife. (Omar J. Gonzales)The SS wrestled him to the floor and arrested
him.
It was the same as Hinkley, Sarah Jane Moore and "Squeeky".
They were all armed.
Squeeky just didn't know how to operate a 1911, Sarah got off a few
rounds at the president and Hinkley shot the president along with
Brady, an SS agent and a DC Cop.
The SS never shot anyone in any of those cases.
They did shoot one guy but he was threatening the SS agent WITH A GUN
when he was shot.
That was the first time I can think of in 70 years that the SS fired a
round in anger and the agent was only defending himself from a man
with a gun. No protectees were involved.

Sorry Harry, they write this **** down.


None of the three you mentioned were part of a large, marauding gang of
secessionists trying to prevent a serious legitimate process and
breaking into the U.S. Capitol, some armed and some looking for members
of Congress to kill, and some wanting to hang the Vice President. It's
too made an announcement didn't come over the P.A. telling them if they
didn't leave immediately, they'd be shot.

It'll be interesting to see what the TrumpThugs do in D.C. this week if
they confront the 20,000 armed troops and others guarding the nation's
capitol.

You complain about my English?

“It's too made an announcement didn't come over the P.A. telling them if
they didn't leave immediately, they'd be shot.�


Say what?
Please repeat in the Queens' English.

Friend of Herring's?
 

On Sat, 16 Jan 2021 12:10:34 -0500, John wrote:

On Sat, 16 Jan 2021 07:49:50 -0000 (UTC), Bill
wrote:

Wayne B wrote:
On Sat, 16 Jan 2021 00:02:18 -0500, wrote:

On Fri, 15 Jan 2021 23:02:31 -0000 (UTC), Bill
wrote:

Keyser Söze wrote:
On 1/15/21 3:53 PM, Bill wrote:
Keyser Söze wrote:
On 1/15/21 1:59 PM, Wayne B wrote:
On Fri, 15 Jan 2021 18:25:15 -0000 (UTC), Bill
wrote:

Keyser Söze wrote:
On 1/14/21 9:34 PM, Bill wrote:
Keyser Söze wrote:


CHESTER, Pennsylvania (WPVI) -- A retired firefighter from Chester,
Pennsylvania is accused of being the man seen on video throwing a fire
extinguisher that hit three police officers at the Capitol during the
riot in Washington, D.C. last week.

Robert Sanford, 55, was arrested Thursday morning on four federal
charges, including knowingly entering a restricted building, disorderly
conduct on Capitol grounds, civil disorder and assaulting officers
engaging in their official duties.

According to the charging documents, the extinguisher bounced off the
heads of three officers, two of whom wore helmets.

Sanford, 55, traveled by bus with other people to the Capitol, according
to documents. He told a friend when he returned home that he had been on
the grounds for 10 minutes before leaving but did not mention throwing
anything at officers, authorities said.

Sanford was identified after a longtime friend of his contacted the FBI
in Pennsylvania and said they recognized Sanford from photos put out by
the FBI.

The fire extinguisher struck several police officers during the US
Capitol riot.

The friend said Sanford "had gone to the White House and listened to
President Donald J. Trump's speech and then had followed the President's
instructions and gone to the Capitol."

Sanford appeared in a federal court in Pennsylvania for an initial
appearance on Thursday afternoon. He was denied release and will remain
in custody of the U.S. Marshals until he is transferred to Washington, D.C.

The defense argued Sanford was not a flight risk or a danger to the
community, noting that he has no prior arrests, is married, and has
three children.

The defense added that allegations that he traveled to D.C. to commit
crimes are inaccurate and he is not part of any extremist groups.

Prosecutors challenged that claim, saying authorities found a t-shirt
associated with the far-right group Proud Boys at Sanford's home after
executing a search warrant.



Maybe he thought his life was in danger. Capital cops shooting protesters,
just because they were protesting.


If that is what you really think, you are even dumber than I had
envisioned. Peaceful protesting is perfectly legal outside the Capitol
building. That's not where he was and not what he was doing.


And even in riot situations, the cops are not allowed to shoot looters and
trespassers. So because they are in the Capital building, uninvited, they
are allowed to be murdered?

===

Being shot by an armed guard who is being paid to protect members of
congress is not exactly murder. And being "uninvited" is not exactly
the same as being at the front of an unruly mob trying to break down a
locked door leading to a congressional chamber.


What do you suppose would have happened to a gang of thugs who crashed
the gates around the White House, smashed into the White House, and were
running through the halls looking to kill the POTUS? What happened at
the Capitol was no different than that.



Bull****.


As usual, you are wrong.

§ 1047.7 Use of deadly force.

(a) A protective force officer is authorized to use deadly force only
when one or more of the following circumstances exists:

(1) Self-Defense. When deadly force reasonably appears to be necessary
to protect a protective force officer who reasonably believes himself or
herself to be in imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm.

(2) Serious offenses against persons. When deadly force reasonably
appears to be necessary to prevent the commission of a serious offense
against a person(s) in circumstances presenting an imminent danger of
death or serious bodily harm.

There are other conditions, but the above two apply to the overrunning
of the Capitol. Oh, there is no requirement to fire warning shots.


Which one of those covers killing an unarmed women stuck in a window?
The first is I imminent danger. None here.

The second. Where was the offense against a person?

Yeah Harry and Wayne both seem to gloss over that "imminent danger"
part.

===

The "imminent danger" part seems self evident to me. You've got an
unruly mob of maybe 50 to 100 people, screaming for blood, and trying
to break down a locked door being defended by 3 or 4 cops. What could
possibly go wrong? Supposedly Pence narrowly escaped being caught up
in all that.


Then with that thinking, a store owner in the BLM riots could have shot
bunches of people, with no legal problems afterwards.

Can't wait to see Wayne's answer.

===

I'm honored. :-)

Everyone has the right to defend themselves if they are in imminent
danger. You may have to defend that assertion in court however, and
you may inadvertently run afoul of a firearms law.

Friend of Herring's?
 

On Sat, 16 Jan 2021 12:09:56 -0500, John wrote:

On Sat, 16 Jan 2021 02:10:29 -0500, Wayne B
wrote:

On Sat, 16 Jan 2021 00:02:18 -0500, wrote:

On Fri, 15 Jan 2021 23:02:31 -0000 (UTC), Bill
wrote:

Keyser Söze wrote:
On 1/15/21 3:53 PM, Bill wrote:
Keyser Söze wrote:
On 1/15/21 1:59 PM, Wayne B wrote:
On Fri, 15 Jan 2021 18:25:15 -0000 (UTC), Bill
wrote:

Keyser Söze wrote:
On 1/14/21 9:34 PM, Bill wrote:
Keyser Söze wrote:


CHESTER, Pennsylvania (WPVI) -- A retired firefighter from Chester,
Pennsylvania is accused of being the man seen on video throwing a fire
extinguisher that hit three police officers at the Capitol during the
riot in Washington, D.C. last week.

Robert Sanford, 55, was arrested Thursday morning on four federal
charges, including knowingly entering a restricted building, disorderly
conduct on Capitol grounds, civil disorder and assaulting officers
engaging in their official duties.

According to the charging documents, the extinguisher bounced off the
heads of three officers, two of whom wore helmets.

Sanford, 55, traveled by bus with other people to the Capitol, according
to documents. He told a friend when he returned home that he had been on
the grounds for 10 minutes before leaving but did not mention throwing
anything at officers, authorities said.

Sanford was identified after a longtime friend of his contacted the FBI
in Pennsylvania and said they recognized Sanford from photos put out by
the FBI.

The fire extinguisher struck several police officers during the US
Capitol riot.

The friend said Sanford "had gone to the White House and listened to
President Donald J. Trump's speech and then had followed the President's
instructions and gone to the Capitol."

Sanford appeared in a federal court in Pennsylvania for an initial
appearance on Thursday afternoon. He was denied release and will remain
in custody of the U.S. Marshals until he is transferred to Washington, D.C.

The defense argued Sanford was not a flight risk or a danger to the
community, noting that he has no prior arrests, is married, and has
three children.

The defense added that allegations that he traveled to D.C. to commit
crimes are inaccurate and he is not part of any extremist groups.

Prosecutors challenged that claim, saying authorities found a t-shirt
associated with the far-right group Proud Boys at Sanford's home after
executing a search warrant.



Maybe he thought his life was in danger. Capital cops shooting protesters,
just because they were protesting.


If that is what you really think, you are even dumber than I had
envisioned. Peaceful protesting is perfectly legal outside the Capitol
building. That's not where he was and not what he was doing.


And even in riot situations, the cops are not allowed to shoot looters and
trespassers. So because they are in the Capital building, uninvited, they
are allowed to be murdered?

===

Being shot by an armed guard who is being paid to protect members of
congress is not exactly murder. And being "uninvited" is not exactly
the same as being at the front of an unruly mob trying to break down a
locked door leading to a congressional chamber.


What do you suppose would have happened to a gang of thugs who crashed
the gates around the White House, smashed into the White House, and were
running through the halls looking to kill the POTUS? What happened at
the Capitol was no different than that.



Bull****.


As usual, you are wrong.

§ 1047.7 Use of deadly force.

(a) A protective force officer is authorized to use deadly force only
when one or more of the following circumstances exists:

(1) Self-Defense. When deadly force reasonably appears to be necessary
to protect a protective force officer who reasonably believes himself or
herself to be in imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm.

(2) Serious offenses against persons. When deadly force reasonably
appears to be necessary to prevent the commission of a serious offense
against a person(s) in circumstances presenting an imminent danger of
death or serious bodily harm.

There are other conditions, but the above two apply to the overrunning
of the Capitol. Oh, there is no requirement to fire warning shots.


Which one of those covers killing an unarmed women stuck in a window?
The first is I imminent danger. None here.

The second. Where was the offense against a person?

Yeah Harry and Wayne both seem to gloss over that "imminent danger"
part.

===

The "imminent danger" part seems self evident to me. You've got an
unruly mob of maybe 50 to 100 people, screaming for blood, and trying
to break down a locked door being defended by 3 or 4 cops. What could
possibly go wrong? Supposedly Pence narrowly escaped being caught up
in all that.

Please note that I did not lump you and Harry together.

The cop was not in imminent danger with a woman halfway thru a window. And folks
had started leaving the doors before the woman tried to climb through. At the
moment of the shot, the cop was *not* in imminent danger. Even if she'd gotten
through the window she'd have had to get through the barricade on the other side
of the door.

===

Ultimately it will be decisions by the legal system and the courts to
decide all that. Our internet opinions will carry little weight in
those proceedings. My late maternal grandmother would have had an
answer however: "If she hadn't been there it wouldn't have happened."
Her logic in such things was always irrefutable.

All that said, I'd be very surprised if the cop even gets a reprimand
let alone prosecuted or convicted.

Have any of you "law and order" types considered the irony of your
defense of this womans behavior?

Friend of Herring's?
 

On Sat, 16 Jan 2021 05:57:54 -0500 (EST), justan wrote:

Wrote in message:r
On Fri, 15 Jan 2021 23:02:31 -0000 (UTC), wrote:Keyser Söze wrote: On 1/15/21 3:53 PM, Bill wrote: Keyser Söze wrote: On 1/15/21 1:59 PM, Wayne B wrote: On Fri, 15 Jan 2021 18:25:15 -0000 (UTC), Bill wrote: Keyser Söze wrote: On 1/14/21 9:34 PM, Bill wrote: Keyser Söze wrote: CHESTER, Pennsylvania (WPVI) -- A retired firefighter from Chester, Pennsylvania is accused of being the man seen on video throwing a fire extinguisher that hit three police officers at the Capitol during the riot in Washington, D.C. last week. Robert Sanford, 55, was arrested Thursday morning on four federal charges, including knowingly entering a restricted building, disorderly conduct on
Capitol grounds, civil disorder and assaulting officers engaging in their official duties. According to the charging documents, the extinguisher bounced off the heads of three officers, two of whom wore helmets. Sanford, 55, traveled by bus with other people to the Capitol, according to documents. He told a friend when he returned home that he had been on the grounds for 10 minutes before leaving but did not mention throwing anything at officers, authorities said. Sanford was identified after a longtime friend of his contacted the FBI in Pennsylvania and said they recognized Sanford from photos put out by the FBI. The fire extinguisher struck several police officers during the US Capitol riot. The friend said Sanford "had gone to the White House and listened to President Donald J. Trump's speech and then had
followed the President's instructions and gone to the Capitol." Sanford appeared in a federal court in Pennsylvania for an initial appearance on Thursday afternoon. He was denied release and will remain in custody of the U.S. Marshals until he is transferred to Washington, D.C. The defense argued Sanford was not a flight risk or a danger to the community, noting that he has no prior arrests, is married, and has three children. The defense added that allegations that he traveled to D.C. to commit crimes are inaccurate and he is not part of any extremist groups. Prosecutors challenged that claim, saying authorities found a t-shirt associated with the far-right group Proud Boys at Sanford's home after executing a search warrant. Maybe he thought his life was in danger. Capital cops shooting
protesters, just because they were protesting. If that is what you really think, you are even dumber than I had envisioned. Peaceful protesting is perfectly legal outside the Capitol building. That's not where he was and not what he was doing. And even in riot situations, the cops are not allowed to shoot looters and trespassers. So because they are in the Capital building, uninvited, they are allowed to be murdered? === Being shot by an armed guard who is being paid to protect members of congress is not exactly murder. And being "uninvited" is not exactly the same as being at the front of an unruly mob trying to break down a locked door leading to a congressional chamber. What do you suppose would have happened to a gang of thugs who crashed the gates around the White House, smashed into the White House, and were running through the halls
looking to kill the POTUS? What happened at the Capitol was no different than that. Bull****. As usual, you are wrong. § 1047.7 Use of deadly force. (a) A protective force officer is authorized to use deadly force only when one or more of the following circumstances exists: (1) Self-Defense. When deadly force reasonably appears to be necessary to protect a protective force officer who reasonably believes himself or herself to be in imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm. (2) Serious offenses against persons. When deadly force reasonably appears to be necessary to prevent the commission of a serious offense against a person(s) in circumstances presenting an imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm. There are other conditions, but the above two apply to the overrunning of the Capitol. Oh, there is no requirement to fire warning shots. Which one of those covers killing an unarmed women
stuck
in a window?The first is I imminent danger. None here.The second. Where was the offense against a person?Yeah Harry and Wayne both seem to gloss over that "imminent danger"part.

You might want to drop in on Wayne and see how he's doing. He
doesn't seem to be as rational as he used to be.

===

I'm available for rationality testing with the offer of an adult
beverage or two. :-)

Friend of Herring's?
 

On Sat, 16 Jan 2021 11:09:23 -0800 (PST), True North
wrote:

On Saturday, 16 January 2021 at 14:33:56 UTC-4, Bill wrote:
Keyser Söze wrote:
On 1/15/21 11:46 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 15 Jan 2021 14:04:22 -0500, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 1/15/21 1:59 PM, Wayne B wrote:
On Fri, 15 Jan 2021 18:25:15 -0000 (UTC), Bill
wrote:

Keyser Söze wrote:
On 1/14/21 9:34 PM, Bill wrote:
Keyser Söze wrote:


CHESTER, Pennsylvania (WPVI) -- A retired firefighter from Chester,
Pennsylvania is accused of being the man seen on video throwing a fire
extinguisher that hit three police officers at the Capitol during the
riot in Washington, D.C. last week.

Robert Sanford, 55, was arrested Thursday morning on four federal
charges, including knowingly entering a restricted building, disorderly
conduct on Capitol grounds, civil disorder and assaulting officers
engaging in their official duties.

According to the charging documents, the extinguisher bounced off the
heads of three officers, two of whom wore helmets.

Sanford, 55, traveled by bus with other people to the Capitol, according
to documents. He told a friend when he returned home that he had been on
the grounds for 10 minutes before leaving but did not mention throwing
anything at officers, authorities said.

Sanford was identified after a longtime friend of his contacted the FBI
in Pennsylvania and said they recognized Sanford from photos put out by
the FBI.

The fire extinguisher struck several police officers during the US
Capitol riot.

The friend said Sanford "had gone to the White House and listened to
President Donald J. Trump's speech and then had followed the President's
instructions and gone to the Capitol."

Sanford appeared in a federal court in Pennsylvania for an initial
appearance on Thursday afternoon. He was denied release and will remain
in custody of the U.S. Marshals until he is transferred to Washington, D.C.

The defense argued Sanford was not a flight risk or a danger to the
community, noting that he has no prior arrests, is married, and has
three children.

The defense added that allegations that he traveled to D.C. to commit
crimes are inaccurate and he is not part of any extremist groups.

Prosecutors challenged that claim, saying authorities found a t-shirt
associated with the far-right group Proud Boys at Sanford's home after
executing a search warrant.



Maybe he thought his life was in danger. Capital cops shooting protesters,
just because they were protesting.


If that is what you really think, you are even dumber than I had
envisioned. Peaceful protesting is perfectly legal outside the Capitol
building. That's not where he was and not what he was doing.


And even in riot situations, the cops are not allowed to shoot looters and
trespassers. So because they are in the Capital building, uninvited, they
are allowed to be murdered?

===

Being shot by an armed guard who is being paid to protect members of
congress is not exactly murder. And being "uninvited" is not exactly
the same as being at the front of an unruly mob trying to break down a
locked door leading to a congressional chamber.


What do you suppose would have happened to a gang of thugs who crashed
the gates around the White House, smashed into the White House, and were
running through the halls looking to kill the POTUS? What happened at
the Capitol was no different than that.

We don't have to suppose.
A guy did break into the White House and was running around with a
knife. (Omar J. Gonzales)The SS wrestled him to the floor and arrested
him.
It was the same as Hinkley, Sarah Jane Moore and "Squeeky".
They were all armed.
Squeeky just didn't know how to operate a 1911, Sarah got off a few
rounds at the president and Hinkley shot the president along with
Brady, an SS agent and a DC Cop.
The SS never shot anyone in any of those cases.
They did shoot one guy but he was threatening the SS agent WITH A GUN
when he was shot.
That was the first time I can think of in 70 years that the SS fired a
round in anger and the agent was only defending himself from a man
with a gun. No protectees were involved.

Sorry Harry, they write this **** down.


None of the three you mentioned were part of a large, marauding gang of
secessionists trying to prevent a serious legitimate process and
breaking into the U.S. Capitol, some armed and some looking for members
of Congress to kill, and some wanting to hang the Vice President. It's
too made an announcement didn't come over the P.A. telling them if they
didn't leave immediately, they'd be shot.

It'll be interesting to see what the TrumpThugs do in D.C. this week if
they confront the 20,000 armed troops and others guarding the nation's
capitol.

You complain about my English?

“It's too made an announcement didn't come over the P.A. telling them if
they didn't leave immediately, they'd be shot.”


Say what?
Please repeat in the Queens' English.

It's a quote from he whom you trail like a puppy dog, donnie.

You'd better apologize to him.
--

Freedom Isn't Free!

Friend of Herring's?
 

On Sat, 16 Jan 2021 14:15:26 -0500, Wayne B
wrote:

On Sat, 16 Jan 2021 12:10:34 -0500, John wrote:

On Sat, 16 Jan 2021 07:49:50 -0000 (UTC), Bill
wrote:

Wayne B wrote:
On Sat, 16 Jan 2021 00:02:18 -0500, wrote:

On Fri, 15 Jan 2021 23:02:31 -0000 (UTC), Bill
wrote:

Keyser Söze wrote:
On 1/15/21 3:53 PM, Bill wrote:
Keyser Söze wrote:
On 1/15/21 1:59 PM, Wayne B wrote:
On Fri, 15 Jan 2021 18:25:15 -0000 (UTC), Bill
wrote:

Keyser Söze wrote:
On 1/14/21 9:34 PM, Bill wrote:
Keyser Söze wrote:


CHESTER, Pennsylvania (WPVI) -- A retired firefighter from Chester,
Pennsylvania is accused of being the man seen on video throwing a fire
extinguisher that hit three police officers at the Capitol during the
riot in Washington, D.C. last week.

Robert Sanford, 55, was arrested Thursday morning on four federal
charges, including knowingly entering a restricted building, disorderly
conduct on Capitol grounds, civil disorder and assaulting officers
engaging in their official duties.

According to the charging documents, the extinguisher bounced off the
heads of three officers, two of whom wore helmets.

Sanford, 55, traveled by bus with other people to the Capitol, according
to documents. He told a friend when he returned home that he had been on
the grounds for 10 minutes before leaving but did not mention throwing
anything at officers, authorities said.

Sanford was identified after a longtime friend of his contacted the FBI
in Pennsylvania and said they recognized Sanford from photos put out by
the FBI.

The fire extinguisher struck several police officers during the US
Capitol riot.

The friend said Sanford "had gone to the White House and listened to
President Donald J. Trump's speech and then had followed the President's
instructions and gone to the Capitol."

Sanford appeared in a federal court in Pennsylvania for an initial
appearance on Thursday afternoon. He was denied release and will remain
in custody of the U.S. Marshals until he is transferred to Washington, D.C.

The defense argued Sanford was not a flight risk or a danger to the
community, noting that he has no prior arrests, is married, and has
three children.

The defense added that allegations that he traveled to D.C. to commit
crimes are inaccurate and he is not part of any extremist groups.

Prosecutors challenged that claim, saying authorities found a t-shirt
associated with the far-right group Proud Boys at Sanford's home after
executing a search warrant.



Maybe he thought his life was in danger. Capital cops shooting protesters,
just because they were protesting.


If that is what you really think, you are even dumber than I had
envisioned. Peaceful protesting is perfectly legal outside the Capitol
building. That's not where he was and not what he was doing.


And even in riot situations, the cops are not allowed to shoot looters and
trespassers. So because they are in the Capital building, uninvited, they
are allowed to be murdered?

===

Being shot by an armed guard who is being paid to protect members of
congress is not exactly murder. And being "uninvited" is not exactly
the same as being at the front of an unruly mob trying to break down a
locked door leading to a congressional chamber.


What do you suppose would have happened to a gang of thugs who crashed
the gates around the White House, smashed into the White House, and were
running through the halls looking to kill the POTUS? What happened at
the Capitol was no different than that.



Bull****.


As usual, you are wrong.

§ 1047.7 Use of deadly force.

(a) A protective force officer is authorized to use deadly force only
when one or more of the following circumstances exists:

(1) Self-Defense. When deadly force reasonably appears to be necessary
to protect a protective force officer who reasonably believes himself or
herself to be in imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm.

(2) Serious offenses against persons. When deadly force reasonably
appears to be necessary to prevent the commission of a serious offense
against a person(s) in circumstances presenting an imminent danger of
death or serious bodily harm.

There are other conditions, but the above two apply to the overrunning
of the Capitol. Oh, there is no requirement to fire warning shots.


Which one of those covers killing an unarmed women stuck in a window?
The first is I imminent danger. None here.

The second. Where was the offense against a person?

Yeah Harry and Wayne both seem to gloss over that "imminent danger"
part.

===

The "imminent danger" part seems self evident to me. You've got an
unruly mob of maybe 50 to 100 people, screaming for blood, and trying
to break down a locked door being defended by 3 or 4 cops. What could
possibly go wrong? Supposedly Pence narrowly escaped being caught up
in all that.


Then with that thinking, a store owner in the BLM riots could have shot
bunches of people, with no legal problems afterwards.

Can't wait to see Wayne's answer.

===

I'm honored. :-)

Everyone has the right to defend themselves if they are in imminent
danger. You may have to defend that assertion in court however, and
you may inadvertently run afoul of a firearms law.

Those store owners were in danger much more imminent than that cop in the
Capitol. The BLM rioters were carry all kinds of weapons. The female in the
Capitol was not.
--

Freedom Isn't Free!

Friend of Herring's?
 

On Sat, 16 Jan 2021 14:25:15 -0500, Wayne B
wrote:

On Sat, 16 Jan 2021 12:09:56 -0500, John wrote:

On Sat, 16 Jan 2021 02:10:29 -0500, Wayne B
wrote:

On Sat, 16 Jan 2021 00:02:18 -0500, wrote:

On Fri, 15 Jan 2021 23:02:31 -0000 (UTC), Bill
wrote:

Keyser Söze wrote:
On 1/15/21 3:53 PM, Bill wrote:
Keyser Söze wrote:
On 1/15/21 1:59 PM, Wayne B wrote:
On Fri, 15 Jan 2021 18:25:15 -0000 (UTC), Bill
wrote:

Keyser Söze wrote:
On 1/14/21 9:34 PM, Bill wrote:
Keyser Söze wrote:


CHESTER, Pennsylvania (WPVI) -- A retired firefighter from Chester,
Pennsylvania is accused of being the man seen on video throwing a fire
extinguisher that hit three police officers at the Capitol during the
riot in Washington, D.C. last week.

Robert Sanford, 55, was arrested Thursday morning on four federal
charges, including knowingly entering a restricted building, disorderly
conduct on Capitol grounds, civil disorder and assaulting officers
engaging in their official duties.

According to the charging documents, the extinguisher bounced off the
heads of three officers, two of whom wore helmets.

Sanford, 55, traveled by bus with other people to the Capitol, according
to documents. He told a friend when he returned home that he had been on
the grounds for 10 minutes before leaving but did not mention throwing
anything at officers, authorities said.

Sanford was identified after a longtime friend of his contacted the FBI
in Pennsylvania and said they recognized Sanford from photos put out by
the FBI.

The fire extinguisher struck several police officers during the US
Capitol riot.

The friend said Sanford "had gone to the White House and listened to
President Donald J. Trump's speech and then had followed the President's
instructions and gone to the Capitol."

Sanford appeared in a federal court in Pennsylvania for an initial
appearance on Thursday afternoon. He was denied release and will remain
in custody of the U.S. Marshals until he is transferred to Washington, D.C.

The defense argued Sanford was not a flight risk or a danger to the
community, noting that he has no prior arrests, is married, and has
three children.

The defense added that allegations that he traveled to D.C. to commit
crimes are inaccurate and he is not part of any extremist groups.

Prosecutors challenged that claim, saying authorities found a t-shirt
associated with the far-right group Proud Boys at Sanford's home after
executing a search warrant.



Maybe he thought his life was in danger. Capital cops shooting protesters,
just because they were protesting.


If that is what you really think, you are even dumber than I had
envisioned. Peaceful protesting is perfectly legal outside the Capitol
building. That's not where he was and not what he was doing.


And even in riot situations, the cops are not allowed to shoot looters and
trespassers. So because they are in the Capital building, uninvited, they
are allowed to be murdered?

===

Being shot by an armed guard who is being paid to protect members of
congress is not exactly murder. And being "uninvited" is not exactly
the same as being at the front of an unruly mob trying to break down a
locked door leading to a congressional chamber.


What do you suppose would have happened to a gang of thugs who crashed
the gates around the White House, smashed into the White House, and were
running through the halls looking to kill the POTUS? What happened at
the Capitol was no different than that.



Bull****.


As usual, you are wrong.

§ 1047.7 Use of deadly force.

(a) A protective force officer is authorized to use deadly force only
when one or more of the following circumstances exists:

(1) Self-Defense. When deadly force reasonably appears to be necessary
to protect a protective force officer who reasonably believes himself or
herself to be in imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm.

(2) Serious offenses against persons. When deadly force reasonably
appears to be necessary to prevent the commission of a serious offense
against a person(s) in circumstances presenting an imminent danger of
death or serious bodily harm.

There are other conditions, but the above two apply to the overrunning
of the Capitol. Oh, there is no requirement to fire warning shots.


Which one of those covers killing an unarmed women stuck in a window?
The first is I imminent danger. None here.

The second. Where was the offense against a person?

Yeah Harry and Wayne both seem to gloss over that "imminent danger"
part.

===

The "imminent danger" part seems self evident to me. You've got an
unruly mob of maybe 50 to 100 people, screaming for blood, and trying
to break down a locked door being defended by 3 or 4 cops. What could
possibly go wrong? Supposedly Pence narrowly escaped being caught up
in all that.

Please note that I did not lump you and Harry together.

The cop was not in imminent danger with a woman halfway thru a window. And folks
had started leaving the doors before the woman tried to climb through. At the
moment of the shot, the cop was *not* in imminent danger. Even if she'd gotten
through the window she'd have had to get through the barricade on the other side
of the door.

===

Ultimately it will be decisions by the legal system and the courts to
decide all that. Our internet opinions will carry little weight in
those proceedings. My late maternal grandmother would have had an
answer however: "If she hadn't been there it wouldn't have happened."
Her logic in such things was always irrefutable.

All that said, I'd be very surprised if the cop even gets a reprimand
let alone prosecuted or convicted.

Have any of you "law and order" types considered the irony of your
defense of this womans behavior?

Who has defended the woman's behavior? The woman should have been left alive and
prosecuted to the full extent of the law, not killed for attemting to climb
through a window.

Funny, Harry must've heard your grandmother as he's been parroting her for ten
days now.
--

Freedom Isn't Free!

Friend of Herring's?
 

On Sat, 16 Jan 2021 15:04:40 -0500, John wrote:

On Sat, 16 Jan 2021 14:15:26 -0500, Wayne B
wrote:

On Sat, 16 Jan 2021 12:10:34 -0500, John wrote:

On Sat, 16 Jan 2021 07:49:50 -0000 (UTC), Bill
wrote:

Wayne B wrote:
On Sat, 16 Jan 2021 00:02:18 -0500, wrote:

On Fri, 15 Jan 2021 23:02:31 -0000 (UTC), Bill
wrote:

Keyser Söze wrote:
On 1/15/21 3:53 PM, Bill wrote:
Keyser Söze wrote:
On 1/15/21 1:59 PM, Wayne B wrote:
On Fri, 15 Jan 2021 18:25:15 -0000 (UTC), Bill
wrote:

Keyser Söze wrote:
On 1/14/21 9:34 PM, Bill wrote:
Keyser Söze wrote:


CHESTER, Pennsylvania (WPVI) -- A retired firefighter from Chester,
Pennsylvania is accused of being the man seen on video throwing a fire
extinguisher that hit three police officers at the Capitol during the
riot in Washington, D.C. last week.

Robert Sanford, 55, was arrested Thursday morning on four federal
charges, including knowingly entering a restricted building, disorderly
conduct on Capitol grounds, civil disorder and assaulting officers
engaging in their official duties.

According to the charging documents, the extinguisher bounced off the
heads of three officers, two of whom wore helmets.

Sanford, 55, traveled by bus with other people to the Capitol, according
to documents. He told a friend when he returned home that he had been on
the grounds for 10 minutes before leaving but did not mention throwing
anything at officers, authorities said.

Sanford was identified after a longtime friend of his contacted the FBI
in Pennsylvania and said they recognized Sanford from photos put out by
the FBI.

The fire extinguisher struck several police officers during the US
Capitol riot.

The friend said Sanford "had gone to the White House and listened to
President Donald J. Trump's speech and then had followed the President's
instructions and gone to the Capitol."

Sanford appeared in a federal court in Pennsylvania for an initial
appearance on Thursday afternoon. He was denied release and will remain
in custody of the U.S. Marshals until he is transferred to Washington, D.C.

The defense argued Sanford was not a flight risk or a danger to the
community, noting that he has no prior arrests, is married, and has
three children.

The defense added that allegations that he traveled to D.C. to commit
crimes are inaccurate and he is not part of any extremist groups.

Prosecutors challenged that claim, saying authorities found a t-shirt
associated with the far-right group Proud Boys at Sanford's home after
executing a search warrant.



Maybe he thought his life was in danger. Capital cops shooting protesters,
just because they were protesting.


If that is what you really think, you are even dumber than I had
envisioned. Peaceful protesting is perfectly legal outside the Capitol
building. That's not where he was and not what he was doing.


And even in riot situations, the cops are not allowed to shoot looters and
trespassers. So because they are in the Capital building, uninvited, they
are allowed to be murdered?

===

Being shot by an armed guard who is being paid to protect members of
congress is not exactly murder. And being "uninvited" is not exactly
the same as being at the front of an unruly mob trying to break down a
locked door leading to a congressional chamber.


What do you suppose would have happened to a gang of thugs who crashed
the gates around the White House, smashed into the White House, and were
running through the halls looking to kill the POTUS? What happened at
the Capitol was no different than that.



Bull****.


As usual, you are wrong.

§ 1047.7 Use of deadly force.

(a) A protective force officer is authorized to use deadly force only
when one or more of the following circumstances exists:

(1) Self-Defense. When deadly force reasonably appears to be necessary
to protect a protective force officer who reasonably believes himself or
herself to be in imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm.

(2) Serious offenses against persons. When deadly force reasonably
appears to be necessary to prevent the commission of a serious offense
against a person(s) in circumstances presenting an imminent danger of
death or serious bodily harm.

There are other conditions, but the above two apply to the overrunning
of the Capitol. Oh, there is no requirement to fire warning shots.


Which one of those covers killing an unarmed women stuck in a window?
The first is I imminent danger. None here.

The second. Where was the offense against a person?

Yeah Harry and Wayne both seem to gloss over that "imminent danger"
part.

===

The "imminent danger" part seems self evident to me. You've got an
unruly mob of maybe 50 to 100 people, screaming for blood, and trying
to break down a locked door being defended by 3 or 4 cops. What could
possibly go wrong? Supposedly Pence narrowly escaped being caught up
in all that.


Then with that thinking, a store owner in the BLM riots could have shot
bunches of people, with no legal problems afterwards.

Can't wait to see Wayne's answer.

===

I'm honored. :-)

Everyone has the right to defend themselves if they are in imminent
danger. You may have to defend that assertion in court however, and
you may inadvertently run afoul of a firearms law.

Those store owners were in danger much more imminent than that cop in the
Capitol. The BLM rioters were carry all kinds of weapons. The female in the
Capitol was not.

===

Did I say something you disagree with?

Everyone has the right to defend themselves if they are in imminent
danger. You may have to defend that assertion in court however, and
you may inadvertently run afoul of a firearms law.

The right to self defense is well established. It comes with some
caveats however.

Friend of Herring's?
 

On Sat, 16 Jan 2021 15:08:05 -0500, John wrote:

On Sat, 16 Jan 2021 14:25:15 -0500, Wayne B
wrote:

On Sat, 16 Jan 2021 12:09:56 -0500, John wrote:

On Sat, 16 Jan 2021 02:10:29 -0500, Wayne B
wrote:

On Sat, 16 Jan 2021 00:02:18 -0500, wrote:

On Fri, 15 Jan 2021 23:02:31 -0000 (UTC), Bill
wrote:

Keyser Söze wrote:
On 1/15/21 3:53 PM, Bill wrote:
Keyser Söze wrote:
On 1/15/21 1:59 PM, Wayne B wrote:
On Fri, 15 Jan 2021 18:25:15 -0000 (UTC), Bill
wrote:

Keyser Söze wrote:
On 1/14/21 9:34 PM, Bill wrote:
Keyser Söze wrote:


CHESTER, Pennsylvania (WPVI) -- A retired firefighter from Chester,
Pennsylvania is accused of being the man seen on video throwing a fire
extinguisher that hit three police officers at the Capitol during the
riot in Washington, D.C. last week.

Robert Sanford, 55, was arrested Thursday morning on four federal
charges, including knowingly entering a restricted building, disorderly
conduct on Capitol grounds, civil disorder and assaulting officers
engaging in their official duties.

According to the charging documents, the extinguisher bounced off the
heads of three officers, two of whom wore helmets.

Sanford, 55, traveled by bus with other people to the Capitol, according
to documents. He told a friend when he returned home that he had been on
the grounds for 10 minutes before leaving but did not mention throwing
anything at officers, authorities said.

Sanford was identified after a longtime friend of his contacted the FBI
in Pennsylvania and said they recognized Sanford from photos put out by
the FBI.

The fire extinguisher struck several police officers during the US
Capitol riot.

The friend said Sanford "had gone to the White House and listened to
President Donald J. Trump's speech and then had followed the President's
instructions and gone to the Capitol."

Sanford appeared in a federal court in Pennsylvania for an initial
appearance on Thursday afternoon. He was denied release and will remain
in custody of the U.S. Marshals until he is transferred to Washington, D.C.

The defense argued Sanford was not a flight risk or a danger to the
community, noting that he has no prior arrests, is married, and has
three children.

The defense added that allegations that he traveled to D.C. to commit
crimes are inaccurate and he is not part of any extremist groups.

Prosecutors challenged that claim, saying authorities found a t-shirt
associated with the far-right group Proud Boys at Sanford's home after
executing a search warrant.



Maybe he thought his life was in danger. Capital cops shooting protesters,
just because they were protesting.


If that is what you really think, you are even dumber than I had
envisioned. Peaceful protesting is perfectly legal outside the Capitol
building. That's not where he was and not what he was doing.


And even in riot situations, the cops are not allowed to shoot looters and
trespassers. So because they are in the Capital building, uninvited, they
are allowed to be murdered?

===

Being shot by an armed guard who is being paid to protect members of
congress is not exactly murder. And being "uninvited" is not exactly
the same as being at the front of an unruly mob trying to break down a
locked door leading to a congressional chamber.


What do you suppose would have happened to a gang of thugs who crashed
the gates around the White House, smashed into the White House, and were
running through the halls looking to kill the POTUS? What happened at
the Capitol was no different than that.



Bull****.


As usual, you are wrong.

§ 1047.7 Use of deadly force.

(a) A protective force officer is authorized to use deadly force only
when one or more of the following circumstances exists:

(1) Self-Defense. When deadly force reasonably appears to be necessary
to protect a protective force officer who reasonably believes himself or
herself to be in imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm.

(2) Serious offenses against persons. When deadly force reasonably
appears to be necessary to prevent the commission of a serious offense
against a person(s) in circumstances presenting an imminent danger of
death or serious bodily harm.

There are other conditions, but the above two apply to the overrunning
of the Capitol. Oh, there is no requirement to fire warning shots.


Which one of those covers killing an unarmed women stuck in a window?
The first is I imminent danger. None here.

The second. Where was the offense against a person?

Yeah Harry and Wayne both seem to gloss over that "imminent danger"
part.

===

The "imminent danger" part seems self evident to me. You've got an
unruly mob of maybe 50 to 100 people, screaming for blood, and trying
to break down a locked door being defended by 3 or 4 cops. What could
possibly go wrong? Supposedly Pence narrowly escaped being caught up
in all that.

Please note that I did not lump you and Harry together.

The cop was not in imminent danger with a woman halfway thru a window. And folks
had started leaving the doors before the woman tried to climb through. At the
moment of the shot, the cop was *not* in imminent danger. Even if she'd gotten
through the window she'd have had to get through the barricade on the other side
of the door.

===

Ultimately it will be decisions by the legal system and the courts to
decide all that. Our internet opinions will carry little weight in
those proceedings. My late maternal grandmother would have had an
answer however: "If she hadn't been there it wouldn't have happened."
Her logic in such things was always irrefutable.

All that said, I'd be very surprised if the cop even gets a reprimand
let alone prosecuted or convicted.

Have any of you "law and order" types considered the irony of your
defense of this womans behavior?

Who has defended the woman's behavior? The woman should have been left alive and
prosecuted to the full extent of the law, not killed for attemting to climb
through a window.

Funny, Harry must've heard your grandmother as he's been parroting her for ten
days now.

===

The inherent risks of participating in a riot are well understood by
everyone except the participants themselves.

https://people.howstuffworks.com/riot3.htm

Friend of Herring's?
 

On Sat, 16 Jan 2021 15:12:26 -0500, Wayne B
wrote:

On Sat, 16 Jan 2021 15:04:40 -0500, John wrote:

On Sat, 16 Jan 2021 14:15:26 -0500, Wayne B
wrote:

On Sat, 16 Jan 2021 12:10:34 -0500, John wrote:

On Sat, 16 Jan 2021 07:49:50 -0000 (UTC), Bill
wrote:

Wayne B wrote:
On Sat, 16 Jan 2021 00:02:18 -0500, wrote:

On Fri, 15 Jan 2021 23:02:31 -0000 (UTC), Bill
wrote:

Keyser Söze wrote:
On 1/15/21 3:53 PM, Bill wrote:
Keyser Söze wrote:
On 1/15/21 1:59 PM, Wayne B wrote:
On Fri, 15 Jan 2021 18:25:15 -0000 (UTC), Bill
wrote:

Keyser Söze wrote:
On 1/14/21 9:34 PM, Bill wrote:
Keyser Söze wrote:


CHESTER, Pennsylvania (WPVI) -- A retired firefighter from Chester,
Pennsylvania is accused of being the man seen on video throwing a fire
extinguisher that hit three police officers at the Capitol during the
riot in Washington, D.C. last week.

Robert Sanford, 55, was arrested Thursday morning on four federal
charges, including knowingly entering a restricted building, disorderly
conduct on Capitol grounds, civil disorder and assaulting officers
engaging in their official duties.

According to the charging documents, the extinguisher bounced off the
heads of three officers, two of whom wore helmets.

Sanford, 55, traveled by bus with other people to the Capitol, according
to documents. He told a friend when he returned home that he had been on
the grounds for 10 minutes before leaving but did not mention throwing
anything at officers, authorities said.

Sanford was identified after a longtime friend of his contacted the FBI
in Pennsylvania and said they recognized Sanford from photos put out by
the FBI.

The fire extinguisher struck several police officers during the US
Capitol riot.

The friend said Sanford "had gone to the White House and listened to
President Donald J. Trump's speech and then had followed the President's
instructions and gone to the Capitol."

Sanford appeared in a federal court in Pennsylvania for an initial
appearance on Thursday afternoon. He was denied release and will remain
in custody of the U.S. Marshals until he is transferred to Washington, D.C.

The defense argued Sanford was not a flight risk or a danger to the
community, noting that he has no prior arrests, is married, and has
three children.

The defense added that allegations that he traveled to D.C. to commit
crimes are inaccurate and he is not part of any extremist groups.

Prosecutors challenged that claim, saying authorities found a t-shirt
associated with the far-right group Proud Boys at Sanford's home after
executing a search warrant.



Maybe he thought his life was in danger. Capital cops shooting protesters,
just because they were protesting.


If that is what you really think, you are even dumber than I had
envisioned. Peaceful protesting is perfectly legal outside the Capitol
building. That's not where he was and not what he was doing.


And even in riot situations, the cops are not allowed to shoot looters and
trespassers. So because they are in the Capital building, uninvited, they
are allowed to be murdered?

===

Being shot by an armed guard who is being paid to protect members of
congress is not exactly murder. And being "uninvited" is not exactly
the same as being at the front of an unruly mob trying to break down a
locked door leading to a congressional chamber.


What do you suppose would have happened to a gang of thugs who crashed
the gates around the White House, smashed into the White House, and were
running through the halls looking to kill the POTUS? What happened at
the Capitol was no different than that.



Bull****.


As usual, you are wrong.

§ 1047.7 Use of deadly force.

(a) A protective force officer is authorized to use deadly force only
when one or more of the following circumstances exists:

(1) Self-Defense. When deadly force reasonably appears to be necessary
to protect a protective force officer who reasonably believes himself or
herself to be in imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm.

(2) Serious offenses against persons. When deadly force reasonably
appears to be necessary to prevent the commission of a serious offense
against a person(s) in circumstances presenting an imminent danger of
death or serious bodily harm.

There are other conditions, but the above two apply to the overrunning
of the Capitol. Oh, there is no requirement to fire warning shots.


Which one of those covers killing an unarmed women stuck in a window?
The first is I imminent danger. None here.

The second. Where was the offense against a person?

Yeah Harry and Wayne both seem to gloss over that "imminent danger"
part.

===

The "imminent danger" part seems self evident to me. You've got an
unruly mob of maybe 50 to 100 people, screaming for blood, and trying
to break down a locked door being defended by 3 or 4 cops. What could
possibly go wrong? Supposedly Pence narrowly escaped being caught up
in all that.


Then with that thinking, a store owner in the BLM riots could have shot
bunches of people, with no legal problems afterwards.

Can't wait to see Wayne's answer.

===

I'm honored. :-)

Everyone has the right to defend themselves if they are in imminent
danger. You may have to defend that assertion in court however, and
you may inadvertently run afoul of a firearms law.

Those store owners were in danger much more imminent than that cop in the
Capitol. The BLM rioters were carry all kinds of weapons. The female in the
Capitol was not.

===

Did I say something you disagree with?

Everyone has the right to defend themselves if they are in imminent
danger. You may have to defend that assertion in court however, and
you may inadvertently run afoul of a firearms law.

The right to self defense is well established. It comes with some
caveats however.


You 'implied' that the cop was in imminent danger. That was a bull****
implication.
--

Freedom Isn't Free!

Friend of Herring's?
 

On Sat, 16 Jan 2021 15:26:08 -0500, Wayne B
wrote:

On Sat, 16 Jan 2021 15:08:05 -0500, John wrote:

On Sat, 16 Jan 2021 14:25:15 -0500, Wayne B

Ultimately it will be decisions by the legal system and the courts to
decide all that. Our internet opinions will carry little weight in
those proceedings. My late maternal grandmother would have had an
answer however: "If she hadn't been there it wouldn't have happened."
Her logic in such things was always irrefutable.

All that said, I'd be very surprised if the cop even gets a reprimand
let alone prosecuted or convicted.

Have any of you "law and order" types considered the irony of your
defense of this womans behavior?

Who has defended the woman's behavior? The woman should have been left alive and
prosecuted to the full extent of the law, not killed for attemting to climb
through a window.

Funny, Harry must've heard your grandmother as he's been parroting her for ten
days now.

===

The inherent risks of participating in a riot are well understood by
everyone except the participants themselves.

https://people.howstuffworks.com/riot3.htm

Where were you with that this past summer? How many cops killed rioters?

I know, you believe I shouldn't compare, but you let Greg get away with it!
--

Freedom Isn't Free!

Friend of Herring's?
 

Wayne B Wrote in message:r
On Sat, 16 Jan 2021 05:57:54 -0500 (EST), justan Wrote in message:r On Fri, 15 Jan 2021 23:02:31 -0000 (UTC), wrote:Keyser Söze wrote: On 1/15/21 3:53 PM, Bill wrote: Keyser Söze wrote: On 1/15/21 1:59 PM, Wayne B wrote: On Fri, 15 Jan 2021 18:25:15 -0000 (UTC), Bill wrote: Keyser Söze wrote: On 1/14/21 9:34 PM, Bill wrote: Keyser Söze wrote: CHESTER, Pennsylvania (WPVI) -- A retired firefighter from Chester, Pennsylvania is accused of being the man seen on video throwing a fire extinguisher that hit three police officers at the Capitol during the riot in Washington, D.C. last week. Robert Sanford, 55, was arrested Thursday morning on four federal charges, including knowingly entering a restricted building, disorderly conduct onCapitol grounds, civil disorder and assaulting officers engaging in their official duties. According to the charging documents, the extinguisher bounced off the heads of three officers, two of whom wore helmets. Sanford, 55, traveled by bus with other people to the Capitol, according to documents. He told a friend when he returned home that he had been on the grounds for 10 minutes before leaving but did not mention throwing anything at officers, authorities said. Sanford was identified after a longtime friend of his contacted the FBI in Pennsylvania and said they recognized Sanford from photos put out by the FBI. The fire extinguisher struck several police officers during the US Capitol riot. The friend said Sanford "had gone to the White House and listened to President Donald J. Trump's speech and then hadfollowed the President's instructions and gone to the Capitol." Sanford appeared in a federal court in Pennsylvania for an initial appearance on Thursday afternoon. He was denied release and will remain in custody of the U.S. Marshals until he is transferred to Washington, D.C. The defense argued Sanford was not a flight risk or a danger to the community, noting that he has no prior arrests, is married, and has three children. The defense added that allegations that he traveled to D.C. to commit crimes are inaccurate and he is not part of any extremist groups. Prosecutors challenged that claim, saying authorities found a t-shirt associated with the far-right group Proud Boys at Sanford's home after executing a search warrant. Maybe he thought his life was in danger. Capital cops shootingprotesters, just because they were protesting. If that is what you really think, you are even dumber than I had envisioned. Peaceful protesting is perfectly legal outside the Capitol building. That's not where he was and not what he was doing. And even in riot situations, the cops are not allowed to shoot looters and trespassers. So because they are in the Capital building, uninvited, they are allowed to be murdered? === Being shot by an armed guard who is being paid to protect members of congress is not exactly murder. And being "uninvited" is not exactly the same as being at the front of an unruly mob trying to break down a locked door leading to a congressional chamber. What do you suppose would have happened to a gang of thugs who crashed the gates around the White House, smashed into the White House, and were running through the hallslooking to kill the POTUS? What happened at the Capitol was no different than that. Bull****. As usual, you are wrong. § 1047.7 Use of deadly force. (a) A protective force officer is authorized to use deadly force only when one or more of the following circumstances exists: (1) Self-Defense. When deadly force reasonably appears to be necessary to protect a protective force officer who reasonably believes himself or herself to be in imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm. (2) Serious offenses against persons. When deadly force reasonably appears to be necessary to prevent the commission of a serious offense against a person(s) in circumstances presenting an imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm. There are other conditions, but the above two apply to the overrunning of the Capitol. Oh, there is no requirement to fire warning shots. Which one of those covers killing an unarmed womenstuckin a window?The first is I imminent danger. None here.The second. Where was the offense against a person?Yeah Harry and Wayne both seem to gloss over that "imminent danger"part.You might want to drop in on Wayne and see how he's doing. He doesn't seem to be as rational as he used to be.===I'm available for rationality testing with the offer of an adultbeverage or two. :-)

Might be that could happen. We enjoyed the last visit.
--


----Android NewsGroup Reader----
https://piaohong.s3-us-west-2.amazon...net/index.html

Friend of Herring's?
 

On Sat, 16 Jan 2021 02:10:29 -0500, Wayne B
wrote:

On Sat, 16 Jan 2021 00:02:18 -0500, wrote:

On Fri, 15 Jan 2021 23:02:31 -0000 (UTC), Bill
wrote:

Keyser Söze wrote:
On 1/15/21 3:53 PM, Bill wrote:
Keyser Söze wrote:
On 1/15/21 1:59 PM, Wayne B wrote:
On Fri, 15 Jan 2021 18:25:15 -0000 (UTC), Bill
wrote:

Keyser Söze wrote:
On 1/14/21 9:34 PM, Bill wrote:
Keyser Söze wrote:


CHESTER, Pennsylvania (WPVI) -- A retired firefighter from Chester,
Pennsylvania is accused of being the man seen on video throwing a fire
extinguisher that hit three police officers at the Capitol during the
riot in Washington, D.C. last week.

Robert Sanford, 55, was arrested Thursday morning on four federal
charges, including knowingly entering a restricted building, disorderly
conduct on Capitol grounds, civil disorder and assaulting officers
engaging in their official duties.

According to the charging documents, the extinguisher bounced off the
heads of three officers, two of whom wore helmets.

Sanford, 55, traveled by bus with other people to the Capitol, according
to documents. He told a friend when he returned home that he had been on
the grounds for 10 minutes before leaving but did not mention throwing
anything at officers, authorities said.

Sanford was identified after a longtime friend of his contacted the FBI
in Pennsylvania and said they recognized Sanford from photos put out by
the FBI.

The fire extinguisher struck several police officers during the US
Capitol riot.

The friend said Sanford "had gone to the White House and listened to
President Donald J. Trump's speech and then had followed the President's
instructions and gone to the Capitol."

Sanford appeared in a federal court in Pennsylvania for an initial
appearance on Thursday afternoon. He was denied release and will remain
in custody of the U.S. Marshals until he is transferred to Washington, D.C.

The defense argued Sanford was not a flight risk or a danger to the
community, noting that he has no prior arrests, is married, and has
three children.

The defense added that allegations that he traveled to D.C. to commit
crimes are inaccurate and he is not part of any extremist groups.

Prosecutors challenged that claim, saying authorities found a t-shirt
associated with the far-right group Proud Boys at Sanford's home after
executing a search warrant.



Maybe he thought his life was in danger. Capital cops shooting protesters,
just because they were protesting.


If that is what you really think, you are even dumber than I had
envisioned. Peaceful protesting is perfectly legal outside the Capitol
building. That's not where he was and not what he was doing.


And even in riot situations, the cops are not allowed to shoot looters and
trespassers. So because they are in the Capital building, uninvited, they
are allowed to be murdered?

===

Being shot by an armed guard who is being paid to protect members of
congress is not exactly murder. And being "uninvited" is not exactly
the same as being at the front of an unruly mob trying to break down a
locked door leading to a congressional chamber.


What do you suppose would have happened to a gang of thugs who crashed
the gates around the White House, smashed into the White House, and were
running through the halls looking to kill the POTUS? What happened at
the Capitol was no different than that.



Bull****.


As usual, you are wrong.

§ 1047.7 Use of deadly force.

(a) A protective force officer is authorized to use deadly force only
when one or more of the following circumstances exists:

(1) Self-Defense. When deadly force reasonably appears to be necessary
to protect a protective force officer who reasonably believes himself or
herself to be in imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm.

(2) Serious offenses against persons. When deadly force reasonably
appears to be necessary to prevent the commission of a serious offense
against a person(s) in circumstances presenting an imminent danger of
death or serious bodily harm.

There are other conditions, but the above two apply to the overrunning
of the Capitol. Oh, there is no requirement to fire warning shots.


Which one of those covers killing an unarmed women stuck in a window?
The first is I imminent danger. None here.

The second. Where was the offense against a person?

Yeah Harry and Wayne both seem to gloss over that "imminent danger"
part.

===

The "imminent danger" part seems self evident to me. You've got an
unruly mob of maybe 50 to 100 people, screaming for blood, and trying
to break down a locked door being defended by 3 or 4 cops. What could
possibly go wrong? Supposedly Pence narrowly escaped being caught up
in all that.

That is a great story but the guys who shot Babbitt were defending
Nancy's office. (the window was in the Speaker's Lobby) That was empty
at the time.
This had been going on for close to 2 hours and if everyone was not
moved to a safe place by then we need more planning at the Capitol for
a REAL emergency.

Friend of Herring's?
 

On Sat, 16 Jan 2021 08:30:35 -0500, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 1/15/21 11:22 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 15 Jan 2021 07:15:38 -0500, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 1/14/21 9:34 PM, Bill wrote:
Keyser Söze wrote:


CHESTER, Pennsylvania (WPVI) -- A retired firefighter from Chester,
Pennsylvania is accused of being the man seen on video throwing a fire
extinguisher that hit three police officers at the Capitol during the
riot in Washington, D.C. last week.

Robert Sanford, 55, was arrested Thursday morning on four federal
charges, including knowingly entering a restricted building, disorderly
conduct on Capitol grounds, civil disorder and assaulting officers
engaging in their official duties.

According to the charging documents, the extinguisher bounced off the
heads of three officers, two of whom wore helmets.

Sanford, 55, traveled by bus with other people to the Capitol, according
to documents. He told a friend when he returned home that he had been on
the grounds for 10 minutes before leaving but did not mention throwing
anything at officers, authorities said.

Sanford was identified after a longtime friend of his contacted the FBI
in Pennsylvania and said they recognized Sanford from photos put out by
the FBI.

The fire extinguisher struck several police officers during the US
Capitol riot.

The friend said Sanford "had gone to the White House and listened to
President Donald J. Trump's speech and then had followed the President's
instructions and gone to the Capitol."

Sanford appeared in a federal court in Pennsylvania for an initial
appearance on Thursday afternoon. He was denied release and will remain
in custody of the U.S. Marshals until he is transferred to Washington, D.C.

The defense argued Sanford was not a flight risk or a danger to the
community, noting that he has no prior arrests, is married, and has
three children.

The defense added that allegations that he traveled to D.C. to commit
crimes are inaccurate and he is not part of any extremist groups.

Prosecutors challenged that claim, saying authorities found a t-shirt
associated with the far-right group Proud Boys at Sanford's home after
executing a search warrant.



Maybe he thought his life was in danger. Capital cops shooting protesters,
just because they were protesting.


If that is what you really think, you are even dumber than I had
envisioned. Peaceful protesting is perfectly legal outside the Capitol
building. That's not where he was and not what he was doing.

Nope, she was trespassing. That is worth the death penalty for sure,
without a trial, an appeal or any due process at all.


She was shot while part of an out of control gang of TrumpThugs
committing serious felonies on lives and sacred property.

Show me that in the statute you cited.
It is protecting property and you liberal whiners made it illegal to
use deadly force to protect property (except in Texas but the Betos
down there are "fixing" that).

Next?

Friend of Herring's?
 

On Sat, 16 Jan 2021 12:21:56 -0500, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 1/15/21 11:46 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 15 Jan 2021 14:04:22 -0500, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 1/15/21 1:59 PM, Wayne B wrote:
On Fri, 15 Jan 2021 18:25:15 -0000 (UTC), Bill
wrote:

Keyser Söze wrote:
On 1/14/21 9:34 PM, Bill wrote:
Keyser Söze wrote:


CHESTER, Pennsylvania (WPVI) -- A retired firefighter from Chester,
Pennsylvania is accused of being the man seen on video throwing a fire
extinguisher that hit three police officers at the Capitol during the
riot in Washington, D.C. last week.

Robert Sanford, 55, was arrested Thursday morning on four federal
charges, including knowingly entering a restricted building, disorderly
conduct on Capitol grounds, civil disorder and assaulting officers
engaging in their official duties.

According to the charging documents, the extinguisher bounced off the
heads of three officers, two of whom wore helmets.

Sanford, 55, traveled by bus with other people to the Capitol, according
to documents. He told a friend when he returned home that he had been on
the grounds for 10 minutes before leaving but did not mention throwing
anything at officers, authorities said.

Sanford was identified after a longtime friend of his contacted the FBI
in Pennsylvania and said they recognized Sanford from photos put out by
the FBI.

The fire extinguisher struck several police officers during the US
Capitol riot.

The friend said Sanford "had gone to the White House and listened to
President Donald J. Trump's speech and then had followed the President's
instructions and gone to the Capitol."

Sanford appeared in a federal court in Pennsylvania for an initial
appearance on Thursday afternoon. He was denied release and will remain
in custody of the U.S. Marshals until he is transferred to Washington, D.C.

The defense argued Sanford was not a flight risk or a danger to the
community, noting that he has no prior arrests, is married, and has
three children.

The defense added that allegations that he traveled to D.C. to commit
crimes are inaccurate and he is not part of any extremist groups.

Prosecutors challenged that claim, saying authorities found a t-shirt
associated with the far-right group Proud Boys at Sanford's home after
executing a search warrant.



Maybe he thought his life was in danger. Capital cops shooting protesters,
just because they were protesting.


If that is what you really think, you are even dumber than I had
envisioned. Peaceful protesting is perfectly legal outside the Capitol
building. That's not where he was and not what he was doing.


And even in riot situations, the cops are not allowed to shoot looters and
trespassers. So because they are in the Capital building, uninvited, they
are allowed to be murdered?

===

Being shot by an armed guard who is being paid to protect members of
congress is not exactly murder. And being "uninvited" is not exactly
the same as being at the front of an unruly mob trying to break down a
locked door leading to a congressional chamber.


What do you suppose would have happened to a gang of thugs who crashed
the gates around the White House, smashed into the White House, and were
running through the halls looking to kill the POTUS? What happened at
the Capitol was no different than that.

We don't have to suppose.
A guy did break into the White House and was running around with a
knife. (Omar J. Gonzales)The SS wrestled him to the floor and arrested
him.
It was the same as Hinkley, Sarah Jane Moore and "Squeeky".
They were all armed.
Squeeky just didn't know how to operate a 1911, Sarah got off a few
rounds at the president and Hinkley shot the president along with
Brady, an SS agent and a DC Cop.
The SS never shot anyone in any of those cases.
They did shoot one guy but he was threatening the SS agent WITH A GUN
when he was shot.
That was the first time I can think of in 70 years that the SS fired a
round in anger and the agent was only defending himself from a man
with a gun. No protectees were involved.

Sorry Harry, they write this **** down.


None of the three you mentioned were part of a large, marauding gang of
secessionists trying to prevent a serious legitimate process and
breaking into the U.S. Capitol, some armed and some looking for members
of Congress to kill, and some wanting to hang the Vice President. It's
too made an announcement didn't come over the P.A. telling them if they
didn't leave immediately, they'd be shot.

It'll be interesting to see what the TrumpThugs do in D.C. this week if
they confront the 20,000 armed troops and others guarding the nation's
capitol.

It is amazing how much worse these people keep getting with each
telling of the story. Most of them were not that much different than
your pussy hat posse.
Less than 1% of the people in that "mob" actually went into the
Capitol. The rest were doing pretty much what you said you did ...
protest.

Friend of Herring's?
 

On Sat, 16 Jan 2021 14:15:26 -0500, Wayne B
wrote:

On Sat, 16 Jan 2021 12:10:34 -0500, John wrote:

On Sat, 16 Jan 2021 07:49:50 -0000 (UTC), Bill
wrote:

Wayne B wrote:
On Sat, 16 Jan 2021 00:02:18 -0500, wrote:

On Fri, 15 Jan 2021 23:02:31 -0000 (UTC), Bill
wrote:

Keyser Söze wrote:
On 1/15/21 3:53 PM, Bill wrote:
Keyser Söze wrote:
On 1/15/21 1:59 PM, Wayne B wrote:
On Fri, 15 Jan 2021 18:25:15 -0000 (UTC), Bill
wrote:

Keyser Söze wrote:
On 1/14/21 9:34 PM, Bill wrote:
Keyser Söze wrote:


CHESTER, Pennsylvania (WPVI) -- A retired firefighter from Chester,
Pennsylvania is accused of being the man seen on video throwing a fire
extinguisher that hit three police officers at the Capitol during the
riot in Washington, D.C. last week.

Robert Sanford, 55, was arrested Thursday morning on four federal
charges, including knowingly entering a restricted building, disorderly
conduct on Capitol grounds, civil disorder and assaulting officers
engaging in their official duties.

According to the charging documents, the extinguisher bounced off the
heads of three officers, two of whom wore helmets.

Sanford, 55, traveled by bus with other people to the Capitol, according
to documents. He told a friend when he returned home that he had been on
the grounds for 10 minutes before leaving but did not mention throwing
anything at officers, authorities said.

Sanford was identified after a longtime friend of his contacted the FBI
in Pennsylvania and said they recognized Sanford from photos put out by
the FBI.

The fire extinguisher struck several police officers during the US
Capitol riot.

The friend said Sanford "had gone to the White House and listened to
President Donald J. Trump's speech and then had followed the President's
instructions and gone to the Capitol."

Sanford appeared in a federal court in Pennsylvania for an initial
appearance on Thursday afternoon. He was denied release and will remain
in custody of the U.S. Marshals until he is transferred to Washington, D.C.

The defense argued Sanford was not a flight risk or a danger to the
community, noting that he has no prior arrests, is married, and has
three children.

The defense added that allegations that he traveled to D.C. to commit
crimes are inaccurate and he is not part of any extremist groups.

Prosecutors challenged that claim, saying authorities found a t-shirt
associated with the far-right group Proud Boys at Sanford's home after
executing a search warrant.



Maybe he thought his life was in danger. Capital cops shooting protesters,
just because they were protesting.


If that is what you really think, you are even dumber than I had
envisioned. Peaceful protesting is perfectly legal outside the Capitol
building. That's not where he was and not what he was doing.


And even in riot situations, the cops are not allowed to shoot looters and
trespassers. So because they are in the Capital building, uninvited, they
are allowed to be murdered?

===

Being shot by an armed guard who is being paid to protect members of
congress is not exactly murder. And being "uninvited" is not exactly
the same as being at the front of an unruly mob trying to break down a
locked door leading to a congressional chamber.


What do you suppose would have happened to a gang of thugs who crashed
the gates around the White House, smashed into the White House, and were
running through the halls looking to kill the POTUS? What happened at
the Capitol was no different than that.



Bull****.


As usual, you are wrong.

§ 1047.7 Use of deadly force.

(a) A protective force officer is authorized to use deadly force only
when one or more of the following circumstances exists:

(1) Self-Defense. When deadly force reasonably appears to be necessary
to protect a protective force officer who reasonably believes himself or
herself to be in imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm.

(2) Serious offenses against persons. When deadly force reasonably
appears to be necessary to prevent the commission of a serious offense
against a person(s) in circumstances presenting an imminent danger of
death or serious bodily harm.

There are other conditions, but the above two apply to the overrunning
of the Capitol. Oh, there is no requirement to fire warning shots.


Which one of those covers killing an unarmed women stuck in a window?
The first is I imminent danger. None here.

The second. Where was the offense against a person?

Yeah Harry and Wayne both seem to gloss over that "imminent danger"
part.

===

The "imminent danger" part seems self evident to me. You've got an
unruly mob of maybe 50 to 100 people, screaming for blood, and trying
to break down a locked door being defended by 3 or 4 cops. What could
possibly go wrong? Supposedly Pence narrowly escaped being caught up
in all that.


Then with that thinking, a store owner in the BLM riots could have shot
bunches of people, with no legal problems afterwards.

Can't wait to see Wayne's answer.

===

I'm honored. :-)

Everyone has the right to defend themselves if they are in imminent
danger. You may have to defend that assertion in court however, and
you may inadvertently run afoul of a firearms law.

I am curious about how they find in the "excessive use of force"
investigation going on as we speak. I would feel better if it was an
independent investigation tho.

Friend of Herring's?
 

On Sat, 16 Jan 2021 14:25:15 -0500, Wayne B
wrote:

On Sat, 16 Jan 2021 12:09:56 -0500, John wrote:

On Sat, 16 Jan 2021 02:10:29 -0500, Wayne B
wrote:

On Sat, 16 Jan 2021 00:02:18 -0500, wrote:

On Fri, 15 Jan 2021 23:02:31 -0000 (UTC), Bill
wrote:

Keyser Söze wrote:
On 1/15/21 3:53 PM, Bill wrote:
Keyser Söze wrote:
On 1/15/21 1:59 PM, Wayne B wrote:
On Fri, 15 Jan 2021 18:25:15 -0000 (UTC), Bill
wrote:

Keyser Söze wrote:
On 1/14/21 9:34 PM, Bill wrote:
Keyser Söze wrote:


CHESTER, Pennsylvania (WPVI) -- A retired firefighter from Chester,
Pennsylvania is accused of being the man seen on video throwing a fire
extinguisher that hit three police officers at the Capitol during the
riot in Washington, D.C. last week.

Robert Sanford, 55, was arrested Thursday morning on four federal
charges, including knowingly entering a restricted building, disorderly
conduct on Capitol grounds, civil disorder and assaulting officers
engaging in their official duties.

According to the charging documents, the extinguisher bounced off the
heads of three officers, two of whom wore helmets.

Sanford, 55, traveled by bus with other people to the Capitol, according
to documents. He told a friend when he returned home that he had been on
the grounds for 10 minutes before leaving but did not mention throwing
anything at officers, authorities said.

Sanford was identified after a longtime friend of his contacted the FBI
in Pennsylvania and said they recognized Sanford from photos put out by
the FBI.

The fire extinguisher struck several police officers during the US
Capitol riot.

The friend said Sanford "had gone to the White House and listened to
President Donald J. Trump's speech and then had followed the President's
instructions and gone to the Capitol."

Sanford appeared in a federal court in Pennsylvania for an initial
appearance on Thursday afternoon. He was denied release and will remain
in custody of the U.S. Marshals until he is transferred to Washington, D.C.

The defense argued Sanford was not a flight risk or a danger to the
community, noting that he has no prior arrests, is married, and has
three children.

The defense added that allegations that he traveled to D.C. to commit
crimes are inaccurate and he is not part of any extremist groups.

Prosecutors challenged that claim, saying authorities found a t-shirt
associated with the far-right group Proud Boys at Sanford's home after
executing a search warrant.



Maybe he thought his life was in danger. Capital cops shooting protesters,
just because they were protesting.


If that is what you really think, you are even dumber than I had
envisioned. Peaceful protesting is perfectly legal outside the Capitol
building. That's not where he was and not what he was doing.


And even in riot situations, the cops are not allowed to shoot looters and
trespassers. So because they are in the Capital building, uninvited, they
are allowed to be murdered?

===

Being shot by an armed guard who is being paid to protect members of
congress is not exactly murder. And being "uninvited" is not exactly
the same as being at the front of an unruly mob trying to break down a
locked door leading to a congressional chamber.


What do you suppose would have happened to a gang of thugs who crashed
the gates around the White House, smashed into the White House, and were
running through the halls looking to kill the POTUS? What happened at
the Capitol was no different than that.



Bull****.


As usual, you are wrong.

§ 1047.7 Use of deadly force.

(a) A protective force officer is authorized to use deadly force only
when one or more of the following circumstances exists:

(1) Self-Defense. When deadly force reasonably appears to be necessary
to protect a protective force officer who reasonably believes himself or
herself to be in imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm.

(2) Serious offenses against persons. When deadly force reasonably
appears to be necessary to prevent the commission of a serious offense
against a person(s) in circumstances presenting an imminent danger of
death or serious bodily harm.

There are other conditions, but the above two apply to the overrunning
of the Capitol. Oh, there is no requirement to fire warning shots.


Which one of those covers killing an unarmed women stuck in a window?
The first is I imminent danger. None here.

The second. Where was the offense against a person?

Yeah Harry and Wayne both seem to gloss over that "imminent danger"
part.

===

The "imminent danger" part seems self evident to me. You've got an
unruly mob of maybe 50 to 100 people, screaming for blood, and trying
to break down a locked door being defended by 3 or 4 cops. What could
possibly go wrong? Supposedly Pence narrowly escaped being caught up
in all that.

Please note that I did not lump you and Harry together.

The cop was not in imminent danger with a woman halfway thru a window. And folks
had started leaving the doors before the woman tried to climb through. At the
moment of the shot, the cop was *not* in imminent danger. Even if she'd gotten
through the window she'd have had to get through the barricade on the other side
of the door.

===

Ultimately it will be decisions by the legal system and the courts to
decide all that. Our internet opinions will carry little weight in
those proceedings. My late maternal grandmother would have had an
answer however: "If she hadn't been there it wouldn't have happened."
Her logic in such things was always irrefutable.

I could say the same thing about Trayvonn, George Floyd, Michael Brown
and Freddie Gray.


All that said, I'd be very surprised if the cop even gets a reprimand
let alone prosecuted or convicted.

Have any of you "law and order" types considered the irony of your
defense of this womans behavior?

I just want the same standards to apply. If they can shoot a woman
trying to get into an empty office, shop owners should be able to
shoot looters.

Friend of Herring's?
 

On Sat, 16 Jan 2021 14:28:04 -0500, Wayne B
wrote:

On Sat, 16 Jan 2021 05:57:54 -0500 (EST), justan wrote:

Wrote in message:r
On Fri, 15 Jan 2021 23:02:31 -0000 (UTC), wrote:Keyser Söze wrote: On 1/15/21 3:53 PM, Bill wrote: Keyser Söze wrote: On 1/15/21 1:59 PM, Wayne B wrote: On Fri, 15 Jan 2021 18:25:15 -0000 (UTC), Bill
wrote: Keyser Söze wrote: On 1/14/21 9:34 PM, Bill wrote: Keyser Söze wrote: CHESTER, Pennsylvania (WPVI) -- A retired firefighter from Chester, Pennsylvania is accused of being
the man seen on video throwing a fire extinguisher that hit three police officers at the Capitol during the riot in Washington, D.C. last week. Robert Sanford, 55, was arrested Thursday morning on four federal charges, including knowingly entering a restricted building,
disorderly conduct on
Capitol grounds, civil disorder and assaulting officers engaging in their official duties. According to the charging documents, the extinguisher bounced off the heads of three officers, two of whom wore helmets. Sanford, 55, traveled by bus with other people to the Capitol,
according to documents. He told a friend when he returned home that he had been on the grounds for 10 minutes before leaving but did not mention throwing anything at officers, authorities said. Sanford was identified after a longtime friend of his contacted the FBI in
Pennsylvania and said they recognized Sanford from photos put out by the FBI. The fire extinguisher struck several police officers during the US Capitol riot. The friend said Sanford "had gone to the White House and listened to President Donald J. Trump's speech and
then had
followed the President's instructions and gone to the Capitol." Sanford appeared in a federal court in Pennsylvania for an initial appearance on Thursday afternoon. He was denied release and will remain in custody of the U.S. Marshals until he is transferred to Washington,
D.C. The defense argued Sanford was not a flight risk or a danger to the community, noting that he has no prior arrests, is married, and has three children. The defense added that allegations that he traveled to D.C. to commit crimes are inaccurate and he is not part
of any extremist groups. Prosecutors challenged that claim, saying authorities found a t-shirt associated with the far-right group Proud Boys at Sanford's home after executing a search warrant. Maybe he thought his life was in danger. Capital cops shooting
protesters, just because they were protesting. If that is what you really think, you are even dumber than I had envisioned. Peaceful protesting is perfectly legal outside the Capitol building. That's not where he was and not what he was doing. And even in riot
situations, the cops are not allowed to shoot looters and trespassers. So because they are in the Capital building, uninvited, they are allowed to be murdered? === Being shot by an armed guard who is being paid to protect members of congress is not exactly murder. And being "uninvited" is
not exactly the same as being at the front of an unruly mob trying to break down a locked door leading to a congressional chamber. What do you suppose would have happened to a gang of thugs who crashed the gates around the White House, smashed into the White House, and were running through the halls
looking to kill the POTUS? What happened at the Capitol was no different than that. Bull****. As usual, you are wrong. § 1047.7 Use of deadly force. (a) A protective force officer is authorized to use deadly force only when one or more of the following circumstances exists: (1)
Self-Defense. When deadly force reasonably appears to be necessary to protect a protective force officer who reasonably believes himself or herself to be in imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm. (2) Serious offenses against persons. When deadly force reasonably appears to be necessary to prevent the
commission of a serious offense against a person(s) in circumstances presenting an imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm. There are other conditions, but the above two apply to the overrunning of the Capitol. Oh, there is no requirement to fire warning shots. Which one of those covers killing an unarmed
women
stuck
in a window?The first is I imminent danger. None here.The second. Where was the offense against a person?Yeah Harry and Wayne both seem to gloss over that "imminent danger"part.

You might want to drop in on Wayne and see how he's doing. He
doesn't seem to be as rational as he used to be.

===

I'm available for rationality testing with the offer of an adult
beverage or two. :-)

I am always here. I have obligations that do not allow a lot of travel
or time away.

Friend of Herring's?
 

On Sat, 16 Jan 2021 15:26:08 -0500, Wayne B
wrote:

On Sat, 16 Jan 2021 15:08:05 -0500, John wrote:

On Sat, 16 Jan 2021 14:25:15 -0500, Wayne B
wrote:

On Sat, 16 Jan 2021 12:09:56 -0500, John wrote:

On Sat, 16 Jan 2021 02:10:29 -0500, Wayne B
wrote:

On Sat, 16 Jan 2021 00:02:18 -0500, wrote:

On Fri, 15 Jan 2021 23:02:31 -0000 (UTC), Bill
wrote:

Keyser Söze wrote:
On 1/15/21 3:53 PM, Bill wrote:
Keyser Söze wrote:
On 1/15/21 1:59 PM, Wayne B wrote:
On Fri, 15 Jan 2021 18:25:15 -0000 (UTC), Bill
wrote:

Keyser Söze wrote:
On 1/14/21 9:34 PM, Bill wrote:
Keyser Söze wrote:


CHESTER, Pennsylvania (WPVI) -- A retired firefighter from Chester,
Pennsylvania is accused of being the man seen on video throwing a fire
extinguisher that hit three police officers at the Capitol during the
riot in Washington, D.C. last week.

Robert Sanford, 55, was arrested Thursday morning on four federal
charges, including knowingly entering a restricted building, disorderly
conduct on Capitol grounds, civil disorder and assaulting officers
engaging in their official duties.

According to the charging documents, the extinguisher bounced off the
heads of three officers, two of whom wore helmets.

Sanford, 55, traveled by bus with other people to the Capitol, according
to documents. He told a friend when he returned home that he had been on
the grounds for 10 minutes before leaving but did not mention throwing
anything at officers, authorities said.

Sanford was identified after a longtime friend of his contacted the FBI
in Pennsylvania and said they recognized Sanford from photos put out by
the FBI.

The fire extinguisher struck several police officers during the US
Capitol riot.

The friend said Sanford "had gone to the White House and listened to
President Donald J. Trump's speech and then had followed the President's
instructions and gone to the Capitol."

Sanford appeared in a federal court in Pennsylvania for an initial
appearance on Thursday afternoon. He was denied release and will remain
in custody of the U.S. Marshals until he is transferred to Washington, D.C.

The defense argued Sanford was not a flight risk or a danger to the
community, noting that he has no prior arrests, is married, and has
three children.

The defense added that allegations that he traveled to D.C. to commit
crimes are inaccurate and he is not part of any extremist groups.

Prosecutors challenged that claim, saying authorities found a t-shirt
associated with the far-right group Proud Boys at Sanford's home after
executing a search warrant.



Maybe he thought his life was in danger. Capital cops shooting protesters,
just because they were protesting.


If that is what you really think, you are even dumber than I had
envisioned. Peaceful protesting is perfectly legal outside the Capitol
building. That's not where he was and not what he was doing.


And even in riot situations, the cops are not allowed to shoot looters and
trespassers. So because they are in the Capital building, uninvited, they
are allowed to be murdered?

===

Being shot by an armed guard who is being paid to protect members of
congress is not exactly murder. And being "uninvited" is not exactly
the same as being at the front of an unruly mob trying to break down a
locked door leading to a congressional chamber.


What do you suppose would have happened to a gang of thugs who crashed
the gates around the White House, smashed into the White House, and were
running through the halls looking to kill the POTUS? What happened at
the Capitol was no different than that.



Bull****.


As usual, you are wrong.

§ 1047.7 Use of deadly force.

(a) A protective force officer is authorized to use deadly force only
when one or more of the following circumstances exists:

(1) Self-Defense. When deadly force reasonably appears to be necessary
to protect a protective force officer who reasonably believes himself or
herself to be in imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm.

(2) Serious offenses against persons. When deadly force reasonably
appears to be necessary to prevent the commission of a serious offense
against a person(s) in circumstances presenting an imminent danger of
death or serious bodily harm.

There are other conditions, but the above two apply to the overrunning
of the Capitol. Oh, there is no requirement to fire warning shots.


Which one of those covers killing an unarmed women stuck in a window?
The first is I imminent danger. None here.

The second. Where was the offense against a person?

Yeah Harry and Wayne both seem to gloss over that "imminent danger"
part.

===

The "imminent danger" part seems self evident to me. You've got an
unruly mob of maybe 50 to 100 people, screaming for blood, and trying
to break down a locked door being defended by 3 or 4 cops. What could
possibly go wrong? Supposedly Pence narrowly escaped being caught up
in all that.

Please note that I did not lump you and Harry together.

The cop was not in imminent danger with a woman halfway thru a window. And folks
had started leaving the doors before the woman tried to climb through. At the
moment of the shot, the cop was *not* in imminent danger. Even if she'd gotten
through the window she'd have had to get through the barricade on the other side
of the door.

===

Ultimately it will be decisions by the legal system and the courts to
decide all that. Our internet opinions will carry little weight in
those proceedings. My late maternal grandmother would have had an
answer however: "If she hadn't been there it wouldn't have happened."
Her logic in such things was always irrefutable.

All that said, I'd be very surprised if the cop even gets a reprimand
let alone prosecuted or convicted.

Have any of you "law and order" types considered the irony of your
defense of this womans behavior?

Who has defended the woman's behavior? The woman should have been left alive and
prosecuted to the full extent of the law, not killed for attemting to climb
through a window.

Funny, Harry must've heard your grandmother as he's been parroting her for ten
days now.

===

The inherent risks of participating in a riot are well understood by
everyone except the participants themselves.

https://people.howstuffworks.com/riot3.htm

BLM, Antifa and the NWO loonies seem to be able to riot with impunity
and woe does befall any cop who shoots one.

Friend of Herring's?
 

True North wrote:
On Saturday, 16 January 2021 at 06:57:52 UTC-4, justan wrote:
Wrote in message:r
On Fri, 15 Jan 2021 23:02:31 -0000 (UTC), wrote:Keyser Söze wrote: On 1/15/21 3:53 PM, Bill wrote: Keyser Söze wrote: On 1/15/21 1:59 PM, Wayne B wrote: On Fri, 15 Jan 2021 18:25:15 -0000 (UTC), Bill wrote: Keyser Söze wrote: On 1/14/21 9:34 PM, Bill wrote: Keyser Söze wrote: CHESTER, Pennsylvania (WPVI) -- A retired firefighter from Chester, Pennsylvania is accused of being the man seen on video throwing a fire extinguisher that hit three police officers at the Capitol during the riot in Washington, D.C. last week. Robert Sanford, 55, was arrested Thursday morning on four federal charges, including knowingly entering a restricted building, disorderly conduct on Capitol grounds, civil disorder and assaulting officers engaging in their official duties. According to the charging documents, the extinguisher bounced off the heads of three officers, two of whom wore helmets. Sanford, 55, traveled by bus with other people to the Capitol, according to documents. He told a friend when he returned home that he had been on the grounds for 10 minutes before leaving but did not mention throwing anything at officers, authorities said. Sanford was identified after a longtime friend of his contacted the FBI in Pennsylvania and said they recognized Sanford from photos put out by the FBI. The fire extinguisher struck several police officers during the US Capitol riot. The friend said Sanford "had gone to the White House and listened to President Donald J. Trump's speech and then had followed the President's instructions and gone to the Capitol." Sanford appeared in a federal court in Pennsylvania for an initial appearance on Thursday afternoon. He was denied release and will remain in custody of the U.S. Marshals until he is transferred to Washington, D.C. The defense argued Sanford was not a flight risk or a danger to the community, noting that he has no prior arrests, is married, and has three children. The defense added that allegations that he traveled to D.C. to commit crimes are inaccurate and he is not part of any extremist groups. Prosecutors challenged that claim, saying authorities found a t-shirt associated with the far-right group Proud Boys at Sanford's home after executing a search warrant. Maybe he thought his life was in danger. Capital cops shooting protesters, just because they were protesting. If that is what you really think, you are even dumber than I had envisioned. Peaceful protesting is perfectly legal outside the Capitol building. That's not where he was and not what he was doing. And even in riot situations, the cops are not allowed to shoot looters and trespassers. So because they are in the Capital building, uninvited, they are allowed to be murdered? === Being shot by an armed guard who is being paid to protect members of congress is not exactly murder. And being "uninvited" is not exactly the same as being at the front of an unruly mob trying to break down a locked door leading to a congressional chamber. What do you suppose would have happened to a gang of thugs who crashed the gates around the White House, smashed into the White House, and were running through the halls looking to kill the POTUS? What happened at the Capitol was no different than that. Bull****. As usual, you are wrong. § 1047.7 Use of deadly force. (a) A protective force officer is authorized to use deadly force only when one or more of the following circumstances exists: (1) Self-Defense. When deadly force reasonably appears to be necessary to protect a protective force officer who reasonably believes himself or herself to be in imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm. (2) Serious offenses against persons. When deadly force reasonably appears to be necessary to prevent the commission of a serious offense against a person(s) in circumstances presenting an imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm. There are other conditions, but the above two apply to the overrunning of the Capitol. Oh, there is no requirement to fire warning shots. Which one of those covers killing an unarmed women stuck in a window?The first is I imminent danger. None here.The second. Where was the offense against a person?Yeah Harry and Wayne both seem to gloss over that "imminent danger"part.
You might want to drop in on Wayne and see how he's doing. He
doesn't seem to be as rational as he used to be.
--


----Android NewsGroup Reader----
https://piaohong.s3-us-west-2.amazon...net/index.html

Translation.....Wayne is expressing independent thought that doesn't line up with the orders and directives passed down from The John.

Did you run that dumb response by Harry before hitting "send"?

Friend of Herring's?
 

On Sat, 16 Jan 2021 17:15:54 -0500, John wrote:

On Sat, 16 Jan 2021 15:12:26 -0500, Wayne B
wrote:

On Sat, 16 Jan 2021 15:04:40 -0500, John wrote:

On Sat, 16 Jan 2021 14:15:26 -0500, Wayne B
wrote:

On Sat, 16 Jan 2021 12:10:34 -0500, John wrote:

On Sat, 16 Jan 2021 07:49:50 -0000 (UTC), Bill
wrote:

Wayne B wrote:
On Sat, 16 Jan 2021 00:02:18 -0500, wrote:

On Fri, 15 Jan 2021 23:02:31 -0000 (UTC), Bill
wrote:

Keyser Söze wrote:
On 1/15/21 3:53 PM, Bill wrote:
Keyser Söze wrote:
On 1/15/21 1:59 PM, Wayne B wrote:
On Fri, 15 Jan 2021 18:25:15 -0000 (UTC), Bill
wrote:

Keyser Söze wrote:
On 1/14/21 9:34 PM, Bill wrote:
Keyser Söze wrote:


CHESTER, Pennsylvania (WPVI) -- A retired firefighter from Chester,
Pennsylvania is accused of being the man seen on video throwing a fire
extinguisher that hit three police officers at the Capitol during the
riot in Washington, D.C. last week.

Robert Sanford, 55, was arrested Thursday morning on four federal
charges, including knowingly entering a restricted building, disorderly
conduct on Capitol grounds, civil disorder and assaulting officers
engaging in their official duties.

According to the charging documents, the extinguisher bounced off the
heads of three officers, two of whom wore helmets.

Sanford, 55, traveled by bus with other people to the Capitol, according
to documents. He told a friend when he returned home that he had been on
the grounds for 10 minutes before leaving but did not mention throwing
anything at officers, authorities said.

Sanford was identified after a longtime friend of his contacted the FBI
in Pennsylvania and said they recognized Sanford from photos put out by
the FBI.

The fire extinguisher struck several police officers during the US
Capitol riot.

The friend said Sanford "had gone to the White House and listened to
President Donald J. Trump's speech and then had followed the President's
instructions and gone to the Capitol."

Sanford appeared in a federal court in Pennsylvania for an initial
appearance on Thursday afternoon. He was denied release and will remain
in custody of the U.S. Marshals until he is transferred to Washington, D.C.

The defense argued Sanford was not a flight risk or a danger to the
community, noting that he has no prior arrests, is married, and has
three children.

The defense added that allegations that he traveled to D.C. to commit
crimes are inaccurate and he is not part of any extremist groups.

Prosecutors challenged that claim, saying authorities found a t-shirt
associated with the far-right group Proud Boys at Sanford's home after
executing a search warrant.



Maybe he thought his life was in danger. Capital cops shooting protesters,
just because they were protesting.


If that is what you really think, you are even dumber than I had
envisioned. Peaceful protesting is perfectly legal outside the Capitol
building. That's not where he was and not what he was doing.


And even in riot situations, the cops are not allowed to shoot looters and
trespassers. So because they are in the Capital building, uninvited, they
are allowed to be murdered?

===

Being shot by an armed guard who is being paid to protect members of
congress is not exactly murder. And being "uninvited" is not exactly
the same as being at the front of an unruly mob trying to break down a
locked door leading to a congressional chamber.


What do you suppose would have happened to a gang of thugs who crashed
the gates around the White House, smashed into the White House, and were
running through the halls looking to kill the POTUS? What happened at
the Capitol was no different than that.



Bull****.


As usual, you are wrong.

§ 1047.7 Use of deadly force.

(a) A protective force officer is authorized to use deadly force only
when one or more of the following circumstances exists:

(1) Self-Defense. When deadly force reasonably appears to be necessary
to protect a protective force officer who reasonably believes himself or
herself to be in imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm.

(2) Serious offenses against persons. When deadly force reasonably
appears to be necessary to prevent the commission of a serious offense
against a person(s) in circumstances presenting an imminent danger of
death or serious bodily harm.

There are other conditions, but the above two apply to the overrunning
of the Capitol. Oh, there is no requirement to fire warning shots.


Which one of those covers killing an unarmed women stuck in a window?
The first is I imminent danger. None here.

The second. Where was the offense against a person?

Yeah Harry and Wayne both seem to gloss over that "imminent danger"
part.

===

The "imminent danger" part seems self evident to me. You've got an
unruly mob of maybe 50 to 100 people, screaming for blood, and trying
to break down a locked door being defended by 3 or 4 cops. What could
possibly go wrong? Supposedly Pence narrowly escaped being caught up
in all that.


Then with that thinking, a store owner in the BLM riots could have shot
bunches of people, with no legal problems afterwards.

Can't wait to see Wayne's answer.

===

I'm honored. :-)

Everyone has the right to defend themselves if they are in imminent
danger. You may have to defend that assertion in court however, and
you may inadvertently run afoul of a firearms law.

Those store owners were in danger much more imminent than that cop in the
Capitol. The BLM rioters were carry all kinds of weapons. The female in the
Capitol was not.

===

Did I say something you disagree with?

Everyone has the right to defend themselves if they are in imminent
danger. You may have to defend that assertion in court however, and
you may inadvertently run afoul of a firearms law.

The right to self defense is well established. It comes with some
caveats however.


You 'implied' that the cop was in imminent danger. That was a bull****
implication.

===

Not at all, but you're free to believe what you want of course.

Friend of Herring's?
 

On Sat, 16 Jan 2021 22:35:26 -0500, wrote:

On Sat, 16 Jan 2021 14:25:15 -0500, Wayne B
wrote:

On Sat, 16 Jan 2021 12:09:56 -0500, John wrote:

On Sat, 16 Jan 2021 02:10:29 -0500, Wayne B
wrote:

On Sat, 16 Jan 2021 00:02:18 -0500, wrote:

On Fri, 15 Jan 2021 23:02:31 -0000 (UTC), Bill
wrote:

Keyser Söze wrote:
On 1/15/21 3:53 PM, Bill wrote:
Keyser Söze wrote:
On 1/15/21 1:59 PM, Wayne B wrote:
On Fri, 15 Jan 2021 18:25:15 -0000 (UTC), Bill
wrote:

Keyser Söze wrote:
On 1/14/21 9:34 PM, Bill wrote:
Keyser Söze wrote:


CHESTER, Pennsylvania (WPVI) -- A retired firefighter from Chester,
Pennsylvania is accused of being the man seen on video throwing a fire
extinguisher that hit three police officers at the Capitol during the
riot in Washington, D.C. last week.

Robert Sanford, 55, was arrested Thursday morning on four federal
charges, including knowingly entering a restricted building, disorderly
conduct on Capitol grounds, civil disorder and assaulting officers
engaging in their official duties.

According to the charging documents, the extinguisher bounced off the
heads of three officers, two of whom wore helmets.

Sanford, 55, traveled by bus with other people to the Capitol, according
to documents. He told a friend when he returned home that he had been on
the grounds for 10 minutes before leaving but did not mention throwing
anything at officers, authorities said.

Sanford was identified after a longtime friend of his contacted the FBI
in Pennsylvania and said they recognized Sanford from photos put out by
the FBI.

The fire extinguisher struck several police officers during the US
Capitol riot.

The friend said Sanford "had gone to the White House and listened to
President Donald J. Trump's speech and then had followed the President's
instructions and gone to the Capitol."

Sanford appeared in a federal court in Pennsylvania for an initial
appearance on Thursday afternoon. He was denied release and will remain
in custody of the U.S. Marshals until he is transferred to Washington, D.C.

The defense argued Sanford was not a flight risk or a danger to the
community, noting that he has no prior arrests, is married, and has
three children.

The defense added that allegations that he traveled to D.C. to commit
crimes are inaccurate and he is not part of any extremist groups.

Prosecutors challenged that claim, saying authorities found a t-shirt
associated with the far-right group Proud Boys at Sanford's home after
executing a search warrant.



Maybe he thought his life was in danger. Capital cops shooting protesters,
just because they were protesting.


If that is what you really think, you are even dumber than I had
envisioned. Peaceful protesting is perfectly legal outside the Capitol
building. That's not where he was and not what he was doing.


And even in riot situations, the cops are not allowed to shoot looters and
trespassers. So because they are in the Capital building, uninvited, they
are allowed to be murdered?

===

Being shot by an armed guard who is being paid to protect members of
congress is not exactly murder. And being "uninvited" is not exactly
the same as being at the front of an unruly mob trying to break down a
locked door leading to a congressional chamber.


What do you suppose would have happened to a gang of thugs who crashed
the gates around the White House, smashed into the White House, and were
running through the halls looking to kill the POTUS? What happened at
the Capitol was no different than that.



Bull****.


As usual, you are wrong.

§ 1047.7 Use of deadly force.

(a) A protective force officer is authorized to use deadly force only
when one or more of the following circumstances exists:

(1) Self-Defense. When deadly force reasonably appears to be necessary
to protect a protective force officer who reasonably believes himself or
herself to be in imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm.

(2) Serious offenses against persons. When deadly force reasonably
appears to be necessary to prevent the commission of a serious offense
against a person(s) in circumstances presenting an imminent danger of
death or serious bodily harm.

There are other conditions, but the above two apply to the overrunning
of the Capitol. Oh, there is no requirement to fire warning shots.


Which one of those covers killing an unarmed women stuck in a window?
The first is I imminent danger. None here.

The second. Where was the offense against a person?

Yeah Harry and Wayne both seem to gloss over that "imminent danger"
part.

===

The "imminent danger" part seems self evident to me. You've got an
unruly mob of maybe 50 to 100 people, screaming for blood, and trying
to break down a locked door being defended by 3 or 4 cops. What could
possibly go wrong? Supposedly Pence narrowly escaped being caught up
in all that.

Please note that I did not lump you and Harry together.

The cop was not in imminent danger with a woman halfway thru a window. And folks
had started leaving the doors before the woman tried to climb through. At the
moment of the shot, the cop was *not* in imminent danger. Even if she'd gotten
through the window she'd have had to get through the barricade on the other side
of the door.

===

Ultimately it will be decisions by the legal system and the courts to
decide all that. Our internet opinions will carry little weight in
those proceedings. My late maternal grandmother would have had an
answer however: "If she hadn't been there it wouldn't have happened."
Her logic in such things was always irrefutable.

I could say the same thing about Trayvonn, George Floyd, Michael Brown
and Freddie Gray.


All that said, I'd be very surprised if the cop even gets a reprimand
let alone prosecuted or convicted.

Have any of you "law and order" types considered the irony of your
defense of this womans behavior?

I just want the same standards to apply. If they can shoot a woman
trying to get into an empty office, shop owners should be able to
shoot looters.

===

In a "stand your ground" state you are allowed to use deadly force to
prevent a forcible felony. You may very well have to defend that
position in court however if the case becomes politicized or the facts
are in doubt.

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0700-0799/0776/Sections/0776.013.html

Friend of Herring's?
 

On Sat, 16 Jan 2021 18:00:21 -0500 (EST), justan wrote:

Wayne B Wrote in message:r
On Sat, 16 Jan 2021 05:57:54 -0500 (EST), justan Wrote in message:r On Fri, 15 Jan 2021 23:02:31 -0000 (UTC), wrote:Keyser Söze wrote: On 1/15/21 3:53 PM, Bill wrote: Keyser Söze wrote: On 1/15/21 1:59 PM, Wayne B wrote: On Fri, 15 Jan 2021 18:25:15 -0000 (UTC), Bill wrote: Keyser Söze wrote: On 1/14/21 9:34 PM, Bill wrote: Keyser Söze wrote: CHESTER, Pennsylvania (WPVI) -- A retired firefighter from Chester, Pennsylvania is accused of being the man seen on video throwing a fire extinguisher that hit three police officers at the Capitol during the riot in Washington, D.C. last week. Robert Sanford, 55, was arrested Thursday morning on four
federal charges, including knowingly entering a restricted building, disorderly conduct onCapitol grounds, civil disorder and assaulting officers engaging in their official duties. According to the charging documents, the extinguisher bounced off the heads of three officers, two of whom wore helmets. Sanford, 55, traveled by bus with other people to the Capitol, according to documents. He told a friend when he returned home that he had been on the grounds for 10 minutes before leaving but did not mention throwing anything at officers, authorities said. Sanford was identified after a longtime friend of his contacted the FBI in Pennsylvania and said they recognized Sanford from photos put out by the FBI. The fire extinguisher struck several police officers during the US Capitol riot. The friend said
Sanford "had gone to the White House and listened to President Donald J. Trump's speech and then hadfollowed the President's instructions and gone to the Capitol." Sanford appeared in a federal court in Pennsylvania for an initial appearance on Thursday afternoon. He was denied release and will remain in custody of the U.S. Marshals until he is transferred to Washington, D.C. The defense argued Sanford was not a flight risk or a danger to the community, noting that he has no prior arrests, is married, and has three children. The defense added that allegations that he traveled to D.C. to commit crimes are inaccurate and he is not part of any extremist groups. Prosecutors challenged that claim, saying authorities found a t-shirt associated with the far-right group Proud Boys at Sanford's home after executing a search
warrant. Maybe he thought his life was in danger. Capital cops shootingprotesters, just because they were protesting. If that is what you really think, you are even dumber than I had envisioned. Peaceful protesting is perfectly legal outside the Capitol building. That's not where he was and not what he was doing. And even in riot situations, the cops are not allowed to shoot looters and trespassers. So because they are in the Capital building, uninvited, they are allowed to be murdered? === Being shot by an armed guard who is being paid to protect members of congress is not exactly murder. And being "uninvited" is not exactly the same as being at the front of an unruly mob trying to break down a locked door leading to a congressional chamber. What do you suppose would have happened to a gang of thugs who
crashed the gates around the White House, smashed into the White House, and were running through the hallslooking to kill the POTUS? What happened at the Capitol was no different than that. Bull****. As usual, you are wrong. § 1047.7 Use of deadly force. (a) A protective force officer is authorized to use deadly force only when one or more of the following circumstances exists: (1) Self-Defense. When deadly force reasonably appears to be necessary to protect a protective force officer who reasonably believes himself or herself to be in imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm. (2) Serious offenses against persons. When deadly force reasonably appears to be necessary to prevent the commission of a serious offense against a person(s) in circumstances presenting an imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm. There are other conditions, but the above two apply to the overrunning of the
Capitol. Oh, there is no requirement to fire warning shots. Which one of those covers killing an unarmed womenstuckin a window?The first is I imminent danger. None here.The second. Where was the offense against a person?Yeah Harry and Wayne both seem to gloss over that "imminent danger"part.You might want to drop in on Wayne and see how he's doing. He doesn't seem to be as rational as he used to be.===I'm available for rationality testing with the offer of an adultbeverage or two. :-)

Might be that could happen. We enjoyed the last visit.

===

Any time.

Friend of Herring's?
 

True North wrote:
On Saturday, 16 January 2021 at 14:33:56 UTC-4, Bill wrote:
Keyser Söze wrote:
On 1/15/21 11:46 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 15 Jan 2021 14:04:22 -0500, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 1/15/21 1:59 PM, Wayne B wrote:
On Fri, 15 Jan 2021 18:25:15 -0000 (UTC), Bill
wrote:

Keyser Söze wrote:
On 1/14/21 9:34 PM, Bill wrote:
Keyser Söze wrote:


CHESTER, Pennsylvania (WPVI) -- A retired firefighter from Chester,
Pennsylvania is accused of being the man seen on video throwing a fire
extinguisher that hit three police officers at the Capitol during the
riot in Washington, D.C. last week.

Robert Sanford, 55, was arrested Thursday morning on four federal
charges, including knowingly entering a restricted building, disorderly
conduct on Capitol grounds, civil disorder and assaulting officers
engaging in their official duties.

According to the charging documents, the extinguisher bounced off the
heads of three officers, two of whom wore helmets.

Sanford, 55, traveled by bus with other people to the Capitol, according
to documents. He told a friend when he returned home that he had been on
the grounds for 10 minutes before leaving but did not mention throwing
anything at officers, authorities said.

Sanford was identified after a longtime friend of his contacted the FBI
in Pennsylvania and said they recognized Sanford from photos put out by
the FBI.

The fire extinguisher struck several police officers during the US
Capitol riot.

The friend said Sanford "had gone to the White House and listened to
President Donald J. Trump's speech and then had followed the President's
instructions and gone to the Capitol."

Sanford appeared in a federal court in Pennsylvania for an initial
appearance on Thursday afternoon. He was denied release and will remain
in custody of the U.S. Marshals until he is transferred to Washington, D.C.

The defense argued Sanford was not a flight risk or a danger to the
community, noting that he has no prior arrests, is married, and has
three children.

The defense added that allegations that he traveled to D.C. to commit
crimes are inaccurate and he is not part of any extremist groups.

Prosecutors challenged that claim, saying authorities found a t-shirt
associated with the far-right group Proud Boys at Sanford's home after
executing a search warrant.



Maybe he thought his life was in danger. Capital cops shooting protesters,
just because they were protesting.


If that is what you really think, you are even dumber than I had
envisioned. Peaceful protesting is perfectly legal outside the Capitol
building. That's not where he was and not what he was doing.


And even in riot situations, the cops are not allowed to shoot looters and
trespassers. So because they are in the Capital building, uninvited, they
are allowed to be murdered?

===

Being shot by an armed guard who is being paid to protect members of
congress is not exactly murder. And being "uninvited" is not exactly
the same as being at the front of an unruly mob trying to break down a
locked door leading to a congressional chamber.


What do you suppose would have happened to a gang of thugs who crashed
the gates around the White House, smashed into the White House, and were
running through the halls looking to kill the POTUS? What happened at
the Capitol was no different than that.

We don't have to suppose.
A guy did break into the White House and was running around with a
knife. (Omar J. Gonzales)The SS wrestled him to the floor and arrested
him.
It was the same as Hinkley, Sarah Jane Moore and "Squeeky".
They were all armed.
Squeeky just didn't know how to operate a 1911, Sarah got off a few
rounds at the president and Hinkley shot the president along with
Brady, an SS agent and a DC Cop.
The SS never shot anyone in any of those cases.
They did shoot one guy but he was threatening the SS agent WITH A GUN
when he was shot.
That was the first time I can think of in 70 years that the SS fired a
round in anger and the agent was only defending himself from a man
with a gun. No protectees were involved.

Sorry Harry, they write this **** down.


None of the three you mentioned were part of a large, marauding gang of
secessionists trying to prevent a serious legitimate process and
breaking into the U.S. Capitol, some armed and some looking for members
of Congress to kill, and some wanting to hang the Vice President. It's
too made an announcement didn't come over the P.A. telling them if they
didn't leave immediately, they'd be shot.

It'll be interesting to see what the TrumpThugs do in D.C. this week if
they confront the 20,000 armed troops and others guarding the nation's
capitol.

You complain about my English?

“It's too made an announcement didn't come over the P.A. telling them if
they didn't leave immediately, they'd be shot.�


Say what?
Please repeat in the Queens' English.


I was asking your butt buddy what did he mean. You stupid ass.

Friend of Herring's?
 

Wayne B wrote:
On Sat, 16 Jan 2021 12:09:56 -0500, John wrote:

On Sat, 16 Jan 2021 02:10:29 -0500, Wayne B
wrote:

On Sat, 16 Jan 2021 00:02:18 -0500, wrote:

On Fri, 15 Jan 2021 23:02:31 -0000 (UTC), Bill
wrote:

Keyser Söze wrote:
On 1/15/21 3:53 PM, Bill wrote:
Keyser Söze wrote:
On 1/15/21 1:59 PM, Wayne B wrote:
On Fri, 15 Jan 2021 18:25:15 -0000 (UTC), Bill
wrote:

Keyser Söze wrote:
On 1/14/21 9:34 PM, Bill wrote:
Keyser Söze wrote:


CHESTER, Pennsylvania (WPVI) -- A retired firefighter from Chester,
Pennsylvania is accused of being the man seen on video throwing a fire
extinguisher that hit three police officers at the Capitol during the
riot in Washington, D.C. last week.

Robert Sanford, 55, was arrested Thursday morning on four federal
charges, including knowingly entering a restricted building, disorderly
conduct on Capitol grounds, civil disorder and assaulting officers
engaging in their official duties.

According to the charging documents, the extinguisher bounced off the
heads of three officers, two of whom wore helmets.

Sanford, 55, traveled by bus with other people to the Capitol, according
to documents. He told a friend when he returned home that he had been on
the grounds for 10 minutes before leaving but did not mention throwing
anything at officers, authorities said.

Sanford was identified after a longtime friend of his contacted the FBI
in Pennsylvania and said they recognized Sanford from photos put out by
the FBI.

The fire extinguisher struck several police officers during the US
Capitol riot.

The friend said Sanford "had gone to the White House and listened to
President Donald J. Trump's speech and then had followed the President's
instructions and gone to the Capitol."

Sanford appeared in a federal court in Pennsylvania for an initial
appearance on Thursday afternoon. He was denied release and will remain
in custody of the U.S. Marshals until he is transferred to Washington, D.C.

The defense argued Sanford was not a flight risk or a danger to the
community, noting that he has no prior arrests, is married, and has
three children.

The defense added that allegations that he traveled to D.C. to commit
crimes are inaccurate and he is not part of any extremist groups.

Prosecutors challenged that claim, saying authorities found a t-shirt
associated with the far-right group Proud Boys at Sanford's home after
executing a search warrant.



Maybe he thought his life was in danger. Capital cops shooting protesters,
just because they were protesting.


If that is what you really think, you are even dumber than I had
envisioned. Peaceful protesting is perfectly legal outside the Capitol
building. That's not where he was and not what he was doing.


And even in riot situations, the cops are not allowed to shoot looters and
trespassers. So because they are in the Capital building, uninvited, they
are allowed to be murdered?

===

Being shot by an armed guard who is being paid to protect members of
congress is not exactly murder. And being "uninvited" is not exactly
the same as being at the front of an unruly mob trying to break down a
locked door leading to a congressional chamber.


What do you suppose would have happened to a gang of thugs who crashed
the gates around the White House, smashed into the White House, and were
running through the halls looking to kill the POTUS? What happened at
the Capitol was no different than that.



Bull****.


As usual, you are wrong.

§ 1047.7 Use of deadly force.

(a) A protective force officer is authorized to use deadly force only
when one or more of the following circumstances exists:

(1) Self-Defense. When deadly force reasonably appears to be necessary
to protect a protective force officer who reasonably believes himself or
herself to be in imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm.

(2) Serious offenses against persons. When deadly force reasonably
appears to be necessary to prevent the commission of a serious offense
against a person(s) in circumstances presenting an imminent danger of
death or serious bodily harm.

There are other conditions, but the above two apply to the overrunning
of the Capitol. Oh, there is no requirement to fire warning shots.


Which one of those covers killing an unarmed women stuck in a window?
The first is I imminent danger. None here.

The second. Where was the offense against a person?

Yeah Harry and Wayne both seem to gloss over that "imminent danger"
part.

===

The "imminent danger" part seems self evident to me. You've got an
unruly mob of maybe 50 to 100 people, screaming for blood, and trying
to break down a locked door being defended by 3 or 4 cops. What could
possibly go wrong? Supposedly Pence narrowly escaped being caught up
in all that.

Please note that I did not lump you and Harry together.

The cop was not in imminent danger with a woman halfway thru a window. And folks
had started leaving the doors before the woman tried to climb through. At the
moment of the shot, the cop was *not* in imminent danger. Even if she'd gotten
through the window she'd have had to get through the barricade on the other side
of the door.

===

Ultimately it will be decisions by the legal system and the courts to
decide all that. Our internet opinions will carry little weight in
those proceedings. My late maternal grandmother would have had an
answer however: "If she hadn't been there it wouldn't have happened."
Her logic in such things was always irrefutable.

All that said, I'd be very surprised if the cop even gets a reprimand
let alone prosecuted or convicted.

Have any of you "law and order" types considered the irony of your
defense of this womans behavior?


If she was black, DC would be burning.

Friend of Herring's?
 

On Sat, 16 Jan 2021 23:26:26 -0500, Wayne B
wrote:

On Sat, 16 Jan 2021 22:35:26 -0500, wrote:

On Sat, 16 Jan 2021 14:25:15 -0500, Wayne B
wrote:

On Sat, 16 Jan 2021 12:09:56 -0500, John wrote:



All that said, I'd be very surprised if the cop even gets a reprimand
let alone prosecuted or convicted.

Have any of you "law and order" types considered the irony of your
defense of this womans behavior?

I just want the same standards to apply. If they can shoot a woman
trying to get into an empty office, shop owners should be able to
shoot looters.

===

In a "stand your ground" state you are allowed to use deadly force to
prevent a forcible felony. You may very well have to defend that
position in court however if the case becomes politicized or the facts
are in doubt.

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0700-0799/0776/Sections/0776.013.html



Shame on you, Wayne. The phrase was "... imminent commission of a forcible
felony". That word 'imminent' keeps rearing it's ugly head.

There is another poster here who tends to quote only the parts he likes. I hope
your commission was just a mistake.
--

Freedom Isn't Free!

Friend of Herring's?
 

On Sun, 17 Jan 2021 09:01:17 -0500, John wrote:

On Sat, 16 Jan 2021 23:26:26 -0500, Wayne B
wrote:

On Sat, 16 Jan 2021 22:35:26 -0500, wrote:

On Sat, 16 Jan 2021 14:25:15 -0500, Wayne B
wrote:

On Sat, 16 Jan 2021 12:09:56 -0500, John wrote:



All that said, I'd be very surprised if the cop even gets a reprimand
let alone prosecuted or convicted.

Have any of you "law and order" types considered the irony of your
defense of this womans behavior?

I just want the same standards to apply. If they can shoot a woman
trying to get into an empty office, shop owners should be able to
shoot looters.

===

In a "stand your ground" state you are allowed to use deadly force to
prevent a forcible felony. You may very well have to defend that
position in court however if the case becomes politicized or the facts
are in doubt.

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0700-0799/0776/Sections/0776.013.html



Shame on you, Wayne. The phrase was "... imminent commission of a forcible
felony". That word 'imminent' keeps rearing it's ugly head.

There is another poster here who tends to quote only the parts he likes. I hope
your commission was just a mistake.

===

I think you meant omission rather than commission, and I feel no need
for shame whatsoever.

That said, here is the exact wording of the statute that I referenced:

(b) Deadly force if he or she reasonably believes that using or
threatening to use such force is necessary to prevent imminent death
or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent
the imminent commission of a forcible felony.

I'm not a lawyer, and I try to avoid playing one on the internet, but
I see nothing that conflicts with our previous discussion. To me
"imminent" means something that is likely about to happen. "Forcible
Felony" is also fairly clear and includes a broad range of activities
from assault to armed tresspass. Certainly assault on a federal law
enforcement officer falls into that category. Do you disagree?

Friend of Herring's?
 

On Sun, 17 Jan 2021 15:03:18 -0500, Wayne B
wrote:

On Sun, 17 Jan 2021 09:01:17 -0500, John wrote:

On Sat, 16 Jan 2021 23:26:26 -0500, Wayne B
wrote:

On Sat, 16 Jan 2021 22:35:26 -0500, wrote:

On Sat, 16 Jan 2021 14:25:15 -0500, Wayne B
wrote:

On Sat, 16 Jan 2021 12:09:56 -0500, John wrote:



All that said, I'd be very surprised if the cop even gets a reprimand
let alone prosecuted or convicted.

Have any of you "law and order" types considered the irony of your
defense of this womans behavior?

I just want the same standards to apply. If they can shoot a woman
trying to get into an empty office, shop owners should be able to
shoot looters.

===

In a "stand your ground" state you are allowed to use deadly force to
prevent a forcible felony. You may very well have to defend that
position in court however if the case becomes politicized or the facts
are in doubt.

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0700-0799/0776/Sections/0776.013.html



Shame on you, Wayne. The phrase was "... imminent commission of a forcible
felony". That word 'imminent' keeps rearing it's ugly head.

There is another poster here who tends to quote only the parts he likes. I hope
your commission was just a mistake.

===

I think you meant omission rather than commission, and I feel no need
for shame whatsoever.

That said, here is the exact wording of the statute that I referenced:

(b) Deadly force if he or she reasonably believes that using or
threatening to use such force is necessary to prevent imminent death
or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent
the imminent commission of a forcible felony.

I'm not a lawyer, and I try to avoid playing one on the internet, but
I see nothing that conflicts with our previous discussion. To me
"imminent" means something that is likely about to happen. "Forcible
Felony" is also fairly clear and includes a broad range of activities
from assault to armed tresspass. Certainly assault on a federal law
enforcement officer falls into that category. Do you disagree?


Yup, 'omission' is the correct word. If the assault was 'imminent', then I agree
to the use of deadly force.

In the case under discussion, there was no imminent expectation of death or
great bodily harm. The f'ing woman was only halfway through the window with a
barricade in front of her.
--

Freedom Isn't Free!

Friend of Herring's?
 

On Sat, 16 Jan 2021 23:26:26 -0500, Wayne B
wrote:

On Sat, 16 Jan 2021 22:35:26 -0500, wrote:

On Sat, 16 Jan 2021 14:25:15 -0500, Wayne B
wrote:

On Sat, 16 Jan 2021 12:09:56 -0500, John wrote:

On Sat, 16 Jan 2021 02:10:29 -0500, Wayne B
wrote:

On Sat, 16 Jan 2021 00:02:18 -0500, wrote:

On Fri, 15 Jan 2021 23:02:31 -0000 (UTC), Bill
wrote:

Keyser Söze wrote:
On 1/15/21 3:53 PM, Bill wrote:
Keyser Söze wrote:
On 1/15/21 1:59 PM, Wayne B wrote:
On Fri, 15 Jan 2021 18:25:15 -0000 (UTC), Bill
wrote:

Keyser Söze wrote:
On 1/14/21 9:34 PM, Bill wrote:
Keyser Söze wrote:


CHESTER, Pennsylvania (WPVI) -- A retired firefighter from Chester,
Pennsylvania is accused of being the man seen on video throwing a fire
extinguisher that hit three police officers at the Capitol during the
riot in Washington, D.C. last week.

Robert Sanford, 55, was arrested Thursday morning on four federal
charges, including knowingly entering a restricted building, disorderly
conduct on Capitol grounds, civil disorder and assaulting officers
engaging in their official duties.

According to the charging documents, the extinguisher bounced off the
heads of three officers, two of whom wore helmets.

Sanford, 55, traveled by bus with other people to the Capitol, according
to documents. He told a friend when he returned home that he had been on
the grounds for 10 minutes before leaving but did not mention throwing
anything at officers, authorities said.

Sanford was identified after a longtime friend of his contacted the FBI
in Pennsylvania and said they recognized Sanford from photos put out by
the FBI.

The fire extinguisher struck several police officers during the US
Capitol riot.

The friend said Sanford "had gone to the White House and listened to
President Donald J. Trump's speech and then had followed the President's
instructions and gone to the Capitol."

Sanford appeared in a federal court in Pennsylvania for an initial
appearance on Thursday afternoon. He was denied release and will remain
in custody of the U.S. Marshals until he is transferred to Washington, D.C.

The defense argued Sanford was not a flight risk or a danger to the
community, noting that he has no prior arrests, is married, and has
three children.

The defense added that allegations that he traveled to D.C. to commit
crimes are inaccurate and he is not part of any extremist groups.

Prosecutors challenged that claim, saying authorities found a t-shirt
associated with the far-right group Proud Boys at Sanford's home after
executing a search warrant.



Maybe he thought his life was in danger. Capital cops shooting protesters,
just because they were protesting.


If that is what you really think, you are even dumber than I had
envisioned. Peaceful protesting is perfectly legal outside the Capitol
building. That's not where he was and not what he was doing.


And even in riot situations, the cops are not allowed to shoot looters and
trespassers. So because they are in the Capital building, uninvited, they
are allowed to be murdered?

===

Being shot by an armed guard who is being paid to protect members of
congress is not exactly murder. And being "uninvited" is not exactly
the same as being at the front of an unruly mob trying to break down a
locked door leading to a congressional chamber.


What do you suppose would have happened to a gang of thugs who crashed
the gates around the White House, smashed into the White House, and were
running through the halls looking to kill the POTUS? What happened at
the Capitol was no different than that.



Bull****.


As usual, you are wrong.

§ 1047.7 Use of deadly force.

(a) A protective force officer is authorized to use deadly force only
when one or more of the following circumstances exists:

(1) Self-Defense. When deadly force reasonably appears to be necessary
to protect a protective force officer who reasonably believes himself or
herself to be in imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm.

(2) Serious offenses against persons. When deadly force reasonably
appears to be necessary to prevent the commission of a serious offense
against a person(s) in circumstances presenting an imminent danger of
death or serious bodily harm.

There are other conditions, but the above two apply to the overrunning
of the Capitol. Oh, there is no requirement to fire warning shots.


Which one of those covers killing an unarmed women stuck in a window?
The first is I imminent danger. None here.

The second. Where was the offense against a person?

Yeah Harry and Wayne both seem to gloss over that "imminent danger"
part.

===

The "imminent danger" part seems self evident to me. You've got an
unruly mob of maybe 50 to 100 people, screaming for blood, and trying
to break down a locked door being defended by 3 or 4 cops. What could
possibly go wrong? Supposedly Pence narrowly escaped being caught up
in all that.

Please note that I did not lump you and Harry together.

The cop was not in imminent danger with a woman halfway thru a window. And folks
had started leaving the doors before the woman tried to climb through. At the
moment of the shot, the cop was *not* in imminent danger. Even if she'd gotten
through the window she'd have had to get through the barricade on the other side
of the door.

===

Ultimately it will be decisions by the legal system and the courts to
decide all that. Our internet opinions will carry little weight in
those proceedings. My late maternal grandmother would have had an
answer however: "If she hadn't been there it wouldn't have happened."
Her logic in such things was always irrefutable.

I could say the same thing about Trayvonn, George Floyd, Michael Brown
and Freddie Gray.


All that said, I'd be very surprised if the cop even gets a reprimand
let alone prosecuted or convicted.

Have any of you "law and order" types considered the irony of your
defense of this womans behavior?

I just want the same standards to apply. If they can shoot a woman
trying to get into an empty office, shop owners should be able to
shoot looters.

===

In a "stand your ground" state you are allowed to use deadly force to
prevent a forcible felony. You may very well have to defend that
position in court however if the case becomes politicized or the facts
are in doubt.

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0700-0799/0776/Sections/0776.013.html




It didn't work for George Zimmermann. He spent a half million in
lawyer tax to exert that right.

BTW, quick geography lesson. The Capitol is in DC and that is an
"Obligation of Retreat" jurisdiction. Just a hint about how they feel,
there is a guy in the news who was charged with possessing
unregistered bullets.

Friend of Herring's?
 

On 1/17/21 5:45 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 16 Jan 2021 23:26:26 -0500, Wayne B
wrote:

On Sat, 16 Jan 2021 22:35:26 -0500, wrote:

On Sat, 16 Jan 2021 14:25:15 -0500, Wayne B
wrote:

On Sat, 16 Jan 2021 12:09:56 -0500, John wrote:

On Sat, 16 Jan 2021 02:10:29 -0500, Wayne B
wrote:

On Sat, 16 Jan 2021 00:02:18 -0500, wrote:

On Fri, 15 Jan 2021 23:02:31 -0000 (UTC), Bill
wrote:

Keyser Söze wrote:
On 1/15/21 3:53 PM, Bill wrote:
Keyser Söze wrote:
On 1/15/21 1:59 PM, Wayne B wrote:
On Fri, 15 Jan 2021 18:25:15 -0000 (UTC), Bill
wrote:

Keyser Söze wrote:
On 1/14/21 9:34 PM, Bill wrote:
Keyser Söze wrote:


CHESTER, Pennsylvania (WPVI) -- A retired firefighter from Chester,
Pennsylvania is accused of being the man seen on video throwing a fire
extinguisher that hit three police officers at the Capitol during the
riot in Washington, D.C. last week.

Robert Sanford, 55, was arrested Thursday morning on four federal
charges, including knowingly entering a restricted building, disorderly
conduct on Capitol grounds, civil disorder and assaulting officers
engaging in their official duties.

According to the charging documents, the extinguisher bounced off the
heads of three officers, two of whom wore helmets.

Sanford, 55, traveled by bus with other people to the Capitol, according
to documents. He told a friend when he returned home that he had been on
the grounds for 10 minutes before leaving but did not mention throwing
anything at officers, authorities said.

Sanford was identified after a longtime friend of his contacted the FBI
in Pennsylvania and said they recognized Sanford from photos put out by
the FBI.

The fire extinguisher struck several police officers during the US
Capitol riot.

The friend said Sanford "had gone to the White House and listened to
President Donald J. Trump's speech and then had followed the President's
instructions and gone to the Capitol."

Sanford appeared in a federal court in Pennsylvania for an initial
appearance on Thursday afternoon. He was denied release and will remain
in custody of the U.S. Marshals until he is transferred to Washington, D.C.

The defense argued Sanford was not a flight risk or a danger to the
community, noting that he has no prior arrests, is married, and has
three children.

The defense added that allegations that he traveled to D.C. to commit
crimes are inaccurate and he is not part of any extremist groups.

Prosecutors challenged that claim, saying authorities found a t-shirt
associated with the far-right group Proud Boys at Sanford's home after
executing a search warrant.



Maybe he thought his life was in danger. Capital cops shooting protesters,
just because they were protesting.


If that is what you really think, you are even dumber than I had
envisioned. Peaceful protesting is perfectly legal outside the Capitol
building. That's not where he was and not what he was doing.


And even in riot situations, the cops are not allowed to shoot looters and
trespassers. So because they are in the Capital building, uninvited, they
are allowed to be murdered?

===

Being shot by an armed guard who is being paid to protect members of
congress is not exactly murder. And being "uninvited" is not exactly
the same as being at the front of an unruly mob trying to break down a
locked door leading to a congressional chamber.


What do you suppose would have happened to a gang of thugs who crashed
the gates around the White House, smashed into the White House, and were
running through the halls looking to kill the POTUS? What happened at
the Capitol was no different than that.



Bull****.


As usual, you are wrong.

§ 1047.7 Use of deadly force.

(a) A protective force officer is authorized to use deadly force only
when one or more of the following circumstances exists:

(1) Self-Defense. When deadly force reasonably appears to be necessary
to protect a protective force officer who reasonably believes himself or
herself to be in imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm.

(2) Serious offenses against persons. When deadly force reasonably
appears to be necessary to prevent the commission of a serious offense
against a person(s) in circumstances presenting an imminent danger of
death or serious bodily harm.

There are other conditions, but the above two apply to the overrunning
of the Capitol. Oh, there is no requirement to fire warning shots.


Which one of those covers killing an unarmed women stuck in a window?
The first is I imminent danger. None here.

The second. Where was the offense against a person?

Yeah Harry and Wayne both seem to gloss over that "imminent danger"
part.

===

The "imminent danger" part seems self evident to me. You've got an
unruly mob of maybe 50 to 100 people, screaming for blood, and trying
to break down a locked door being defended by 3 or 4 cops. What could
possibly go wrong? Supposedly Pence narrowly escaped being caught up
in all that.

Please note that I did not lump you and Harry together.

The cop was not in imminent danger with a woman halfway thru a window. And folks
had started leaving the doors before the woman tried to climb through. At the
moment of the shot, the cop was *not* in imminent danger. Even if she'd gotten
through the window she'd have had to get through the barricade on the other side
of the door.

===

Ultimately it will be decisions by the legal system and the courts to
decide all that. Our internet opinions will carry little weight in
those proceedings. My late maternal grandmother would have had an
answer however: "If she hadn't been there it wouldn't have happened."
Her logic in such things was always irrefutable.

I could say the same thing about Trayvonn, George Floyd, Michael Brown
and Freddie Gray.


All that said, I'd be very surprised if the cop even gets a reprimand
let alone prosecuted or convicted.

Have any of you "law and order" types considered the irony of your
defense of this womans behavior?

I just want the same standards to apply. If they can shoot a woman
trying to get into an empty office, shop owners should be able to
shoot looters.

===

In a "stand your ground" state you are allowed to use deadly force to
prevent a forcible felony. You may very well have to defend that
position in court however if the case becomes politicized or the facts
are in doubt.

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0700-0799/0776/Sections/0776.013.html




It didn't work for George Zimmermann. He spent a half million in
lawyer tax to exert that right.

BTW, quick geography lesson. The Capitol is in DC and that is an
"Obligation of Retreat" jurisdiction. Just a hint about how they feel,
there is a guy in the news who was charged with possessing
unregistered bullets.

I doubt if that applies to federal buildings and federal cops, or even
District cops.

--
Bozo Binned: Herring, Bert Robbins, JackGoff 452471atgmail.com,
Just-AN-Asshole, Tim, AMDX, and Gunboy Alex, aka the Gang of Dull,
Witless, Insult-Tossing Trumpsters. If you are on this list, I don't see
most of your posts and I don't read any of them.

Friend of Herring's?
 

On Sun, 17 Jan 2021 19:08:36 -0500, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 1/17/21 5:45 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 16 Jan 2021 23:26:26 -0500, Wayne B
wrote:

On Sat, 16 Jan 2021 22:35:26 -0500, wrote:

On Sat, 16 Jan 2021 14:25:15 -0500, Wayne B
wrote:

On Sat, 16 Jan 2021 12:09:56 -0500, John wrote:

On Sat, 16 Jan 2021 02:10:29 -0500, Wayne B
wrote:

On Sat, 16 Jan 2021 00:02:18 -0500, wrote:

On Fri, 15 Jan 2021 23:02:31 -0000 (UTC), Bill
wrote:

Keyser Söze wrote:
On 1/15/21 3:53 PM, Bill wrote:
Keyser Söze wrote:
On 1/15/21 1:59 PM, Wayne B wrote:
On Fri, 15 Jan 2021 18:25:15 -0000 (UTC), Bill
wrote:

Keyser Söze wrote:
On 1/14/21 9:34 PM, Bill wrote:
Keyser Söze wrote:


CHESTER, Pennsylvania (WPVI) -- A retired firefighter from Chester,
Pennsylvania is accused of being the man seen on video throwing a fire
extinguisher that hit three police officers at the Capitol during the
riot in Washington, D.C. last week.

Robert Sanford, 55, was arrested Thursday morning on four federal
charges, including knowingly entering a restricted building, disorderly
conduct on Capitol grounds, civil disorder and assaulting officers
engaging in their official duties.

According to the charging documents, the extinguisher bounced off the
heads of three officers, two of whom wore helmets.

Sanford, 55, traveled by bus with other people to the Capitol, according
to documents. He told a friend when he returned home that he had been on
the grounds for 10 minutes before leaving but did not mention throwing
anything at officers, authorities said.

Sanford was identified after a longtime friend of his contacted the FBI
in Pennsylvania and said they recognized Sanford from photos put out by
the FBI.

The fire extinguisher struck several police officers during the US
Capitol riot.

The friend said Sanford "had gone to the White House and listened to
President Donald J. Trump's speech and then had followed the President's
instructions and gone to the Capitol."

Sanford appeared in a federal court in Pennsylvania for an initial
appearance on Thursday afternoon. He was denied release and will remain
in custody of the U.S. Marshals until he is transferred to Washington, D.C.

The defense argued Sanford was not a flight risk or a danger to the
community, noting that he has no prior arrests, is married, and has
three children.

The defense added that allegations that he traveled to D.C. to commit
crimes are inaccurate and he is not part of any extremist groups.

Prosecutors challenged that claim, saying authorities found a t-shirt
associated with the far-right group Proud Boys at Sanford's home after
executing a search warrant.



Maybe he thought his life was in danger. Capital cops shooting protesters,
just because they were protesting.


If that is what you really think, you are even dumber than I had
envisioned. Peaceful protesting is perfectly legal outside the Capitol
building. That's not where he was and not what he was doing.


And even in riot situations, the cops are not allowed to shoot looters and
trespassers. So because they are in the Capital building, uninvited, they
are allowed to be murdered?

===

Being shot by an armed guard who is being paid to protect members of
congress is not exactly murder. And being "uninvited" is not exactly
the same as being at the front of an unruly mob trying to break down a
locked door leading to a congressional chamber.


What do you suppose would have happened to a gang of thugs who crashed
the gates around the White House, smashed into the White House, and were
running through the halls looking to kill the POTUS? What happened at
the Capitol was no different than that.



Bull****.


As usual, you are wrong.

§ 1047.7 Use of deadly force.

(a) A protective force officer is authorized to use deadly force only
when one or more of the following circumstances exists:

(1) Self-Defense. When deadly force reasonably appears to be necessary
to protect a protective force officer who reasonably believes himself or
herself to be in imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm.

(2) Serious offenses against persons. When deadly force reasonably
appears to be necessary to prevent the commission of a serious offense
against a person(s) in circumstances presenting an imminent danger of
death or serious bodily harm.

There are other conditions, but the above two apply to the overrunning
of the Capitol. Oh, there is no requirement to fire warning shots.


Which one of those covers killing an unarmed women stuck in a window?
The first is I imminent danger. None here.

The second. Where was the offense against a person?

Yeah Harry and Wayne both seem to gloss over that "imminent danger"
part.

===

The "imminent danger" part seems self evident to me. You've got an
unruly mob of maybe 50 to 100 people, screaming for blood, and trying
to break down a locked door being defended by 3 or 4 cops. What could
possibly go wrong? Supposedly Pence narrowly escaped being caught up
in all that.

Please note that I did not lump you and Harry together.

The cop was not in imminent danger with a woman halfway thru a window. And folks
had started leaving the doors before the woman tried to climb through. At the
moment of the shot, the cop was *not* in imminent danger. Even if she'd gotten
through the window she'd have had to get through the barricade on the other side
of the door.

===

Ultimately it will be decisions by the legal system and the courts to
decide all that. Our internet opinions will carry little weight in
those proceedings. My late maternal grandmother would have had an
answer however: "If she hadn't been there it wouldn't have happened."
Her logic in such things was always irrefutable.

I could say the same thing about Trayvonn, George Floyd, Michael Brown
and Freddie Gray.


All that said, I'd be very surprised if the cop even gets a reprimand
let alone prosecuted or convicted.

Have any of you "law and order" types considered the irony of your
defense of this womans behavior?

I just want the same standards to apply. If they can shoot a woman
trying to get into an empty office, shop owners should be able to
shoot looters.

===

In a "stand your ground" state you are allowed to use deadly force to
prevent a forcible felony. You may very well have to defend that
position in court however if the case becomes politicized or the facts
are in doubt.

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0700-0799/0776/Sections/0776.013.html




It didn't work for George Zimmermann. He spent a half million in
lawyer tax to exert that right.

BTW, quick geography lesson. The Capitol is in DC and that is an
"Obligation of Retreat" jurisdiction. Just a hint about how they feel,
there is a guy in the news who was charged with possessing
unregistered bullets.

I doubt if that applies to federal buildings and federal cops, or even
District cops.

BLM has burned cities to demonstrate that cops have no more right to
shoot people than the average citizen and in a jurisdiction like DC,
that right is very limited.

For those of you who say it was justified because they were protecting
Nancy's empty office, I have to point out it didn't work. If anything,
seeing an unarmed woman killed made those people more enraged when
they entered that office.
It is also telling that only one cop believed the use of deadly force
was justified. The others held their fire.

Friend of Herring's?
 

On Sun, 17 Jan 2021 17:45:47 -0500, wrote:

On Sat, 16 Jan 2021 23:26:26 -0500, Wayne B
wrote:

On Sat, 16 Jan 2021 22:35:26 -0500, wrote:

On Sat, 16 Jan 2021 14:25:15 -0500, Wayne B
wrote:

On Sat, 16 Jan 2021 12:09:56 -0500, John wrote:

On Sat, 16 Jan 2021 02:10:29 -0500, Wayne B
wrote:

On Sat, 16 Jan 2021 00:02:18 -0500, wrote:

On Fri, 15 Jan 2021 23:02:31 -0000 (UTC), Bill
wrote:

Keyser Söze wrote:
On 1/15/21 3:53 PM, Bill wrote:
Keyser Söze wrote:
On 1/15/21 1:59 PM, Wayne B wrote:
On Fri, 15 Jan 2021 18:25:15 -0000 (UTC), Bill
wrote:

Keyser Söze wrote:
On 1/14/21 9:34 PM, Bill wrote:
Keyser Söze wrote:


CHESTER, Pennsylvania (WPVI) -- A retired firefighter from Chester,
Pennsylvania is accused of being the man seen on video throwing a fire
extinguisher that hit three police officers at the Capitol during the
riot in Washington, D.C. last week.

Robert Sanford, 55, was arrested Thursday morning on four federal
charges, including knowingly entering a restricted building, disorderly
conduct on Capitol grounds, civil disorder and assaulting officers
engaging in their official duties.

According to the charging documents, the extinguisher bounced off the
heads of three officers, two of whom wore helmets.

Sanford, 55, traveled by bus with other people to the Capitol, according
to documents. He told a friend when he returned home that he had been on
the grounds for 10 minutes before leaving but did not mention throwing
anything at officers, authorities said.

Sanford was identified after a longtime friend of his contacted the FBI
in Pennsylvania and said they recognized Sanford from photos put out by
the FBI.

The fire extinguisher struck several police officers during the US
Capitol riot.

The friend said Sanford "had gone to the White House and listened to
President Donald J. Trump's speech and then had followed the President's
instructions and gone to the Capitol."

Sanford appeared in a federal court in Pennsylvania for an initial
appearance on Thursday afternoon. He was denied release and will remain
in custody of the U.S. Marshals until he is transferred to Washington, D.C.

The defense argued Sanford was not a flight risk or a danger to the
community, noting that he has no prior arrests, is married, and has
three children.

The defense added that allegations that he traveled to D.C. to commit
crimes are inaccurate and he is not part of any extremist groups.

Prosecutors challenged that claim, saying authorities found a t-shirt
associated with the far-right group Proud Boys at Sanford's home after
executing a search warrant.



Maybe he thought his life was in danger. Capital cops shooting protesters,
just because they were protesting.


If that is what you really think, you are even dumber than I had
envisioned. Peaceful protesting is perfectly legal outside the Capitol
building. That's not where he was and not what he was doing.


And even in riot situations, the cops are not allowed to shoot looters and
trespassers. So because they are in the Capital building, uninvited, they
are allowed to be murdered?

===

Being shot by an armed guard who is being paid to protect members of
congress is not exactly murder. And being "uninvited" is not exactly
the same as being at the front of an unruly mob trying to break down a
locked door leading to a congressional chamber.


What do you suppose would have happened to a gang of thugs who crashed
the gates around the White House, smashed into the White House, and were
running through the halls looking to kill the POTUS? What happened at
the Capitol was no different than that.



Bull****.


As usual, you are wrong.

§ 1047.7 Use of deadly force.

(a) A protective force officer is authorized to use deadly force only
when one or more of the following circumstances exists:

(1) Self-Defense. When deadly force reasonably appears to be necessary
to protect a protective force officer who reasonably believes himself or
herself to be in imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm.

(2) Serious offenses against persons. When deadly force reasonably
appears to be necessary to prevent the commission of a serious offense
against a person(s) in circumstances presenting an imminent danger of
death or serious bodily harm.

There are other conditions, but the above two apply to the overrunning
of the Capitol. Oh, there is no requirement to fire warning shots.


Which one of those covers killing an unarmed women stuck in a window?
The first is I imminent danger. None here.

The second. Where was the offense against a person?

Yeah Harry and Wayne both seem to gloss over that "imminent danger"
part.

===

The "imminent danger" part seems self evident to me. You've got an
unruly mob of maybe 50 to 100 people, screaming for blood, and trying
to break down a locked door being defended by 3 or 4 cops. What could
possibly go wrong? Supposedly Pence narrowly escaped being caught up
in all that.

Please note that I did not lump you and Harry together.

The cop was not in imminent danger with a woman halfway thru a window. And folks
had started leaving the doors before the woman tried to climb through. At the
moment of the shot, the cop was *not* in imminent danger. Even if she'd gotten
through the window she'd have had to get through the barricade on the other side
of the door.

===

Ultimately it will be decisions by the legal system and the courts to
decide all that. Our internet opinions will carry little weight in
those proceedings. My late maternal grandmother would have had an
answer however: "If she hadn't been there it wouldn't have happened."
Her logic in such things was always irrefutable.

I could say the same thing about Trayvonn, George Floyd, Michael Brown
and Freddie Gray.


All that said, I'd be very surprised if the cop even gets a reprimand
let alone prosecuted or convicted.

Have any of you "law and order" types considered the irony of your
defense of this womans behavior?

I just want the same standards to apply. If they can shoot a woman
trying to get into an empty office, shop owners should be able to
shoot looters.

===

In a "stand your ground" state you are allowed to use deadly force to
prevent a forcible felony. You may very well have to defend that
position in court however if the case becomes politicized or the facts
are in doubt.

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0700-0799/0776/Sections/0776.013.html




It didn't work for George Zimmermann. He spent a half million in
lawyer tax to exert that right.

===

Zimmermann was a questionable case in my opinion. He was not exactly
a poster boy for responsible gun ownership, and in my opinion,
probably provoked the assault by Trayvon Martin. I think he was lucky
to have been acquitted but was glad to see "stand your ground"
ultimately upheld in court.

BTW, quick geography lesson. The Capitol is in DC and that is an
"Obligation of Retreat" jurisdiction. Just a hint about how they feel,
there is a guy in the news who was charged with possessing
unregistered bullets.

Friend of Herring's?
 

On Mon, 18 Jan 2021 08:55:26 -0500, wrote:

On Sun, 17 Jan 2021 19:08:36 -0500, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 1/17/21 5:45 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 16 Jan 2021 23:26:26 -0500, Wayne B
wrote:

On Sat, 16 Jan 2021 22:35:26 -0500, wrote:

On Sat, 16 Jan 2021 14:25:15 -0500, Wayne B
wrote:

On Sat, 16 Jan 2021 12:09:56 -0500, John wrote:

On Sat, 16 Jan 2021 02:10:29 -0500, Wayne B
wrote:

On Sat, 16 Jan 2021 00:02:18 -0500, wrote:

On Fri, 15 Jan 2021 23:02:31 -0000 (UTC), Bill
wrote:

Keyser Söze wrote:
On 1/15/21 3:53 PM, Bill wrote:
Keyser Söze wrote:
On 1/15/21 1:59 PM, Wayne B wrote:
On Fri, 15 Jan 2021 18:25:15 -0000 (UTC), Bill
wrote:

Keyser Söze wrote:
On 1/14/21 9:34 PM, Bill wrote:
Keyser Söze wrote:


CHESTER, Pennsylvania (WPVI) -- A retired firefighter from Chester,
Pennsylvania is accused of being the man seen on video throwing a fire
extinguisher that hit three police officers at the Capitol during the
riot in Washington, D.C. last week.

Robert Sanford, 55, was arrested Thursday morning on four federal
charges, including knowingly entering a restricted building, disorderly
conduct on Capitol grounds, civil disorder and assaulting officers
engaging in their official duties.

According to the charging documents, the extinguisher bounced off the
heads of three officers, two of whom wore helmets.

Sanford, 55, traveled by bus with other people to the Capitol, according
to documents. He told a friend when he returned home that he had been on
the grounds for 10 minutes before leaving but did not mention throwing
anything at officers, authorities said.

Sanford was identified after a longtime friend of his contacted the FBI
in Pennsylvania and said they recognized Sanford from photos put out by
the FBI.

The fire extinguisher struck several police officers during the US
Capitol riot.

The friend said Sanford "had gone to the White House and listened to
President Donald J. Trump's speech and then had followed the President's
instructions and gone to the Capitol."

Sanford appeared in a federal court in Pennsylvania for an initial
appearance on Thursday afternoon. He was denied release and will remain
in custody of the U.S. Marshals until he is transferred to Washington, D.C.

The defense argued Sanford was not a flight risk or a danger to the
community, noting that he has no prior arrests, is married, and has
three children.

The defense added that allegations that he traveled to D.C. to commit
crimes are inaccurate and he is not part of any extremist groups.

Prosecutors challenged that claim, saying authorities found a t-shirt
associated with the far-right group Proud Boys at Sanford's home after
executing a search warrant.



Maybe he thought his life was in danger. Capital cops shooting protesters,
just because they were protesting.


If that is what you really think, you are even dumber than I had
envisioned. Peaceful protesting is perfectly legal outside the Capitol
building. That's not where he was and not what he was doing.


And even in riot situations, the cops are not allowed to shoot looters and
trespassers. So because they are in the Capital building, uninvited, they
are allowed to be murdered?

===

Being shot by an armed guard who is being paid to protect members of
congress is not exactly murder. And being "uninvited" is not exactly
the same as being at the front of an unruly mob trying to break down a
locked door leading to a congressional chamber.


What do you suppose would have happened to a gang of thugs who crashed
the gates around the White House, smashed into the White House, and were
running through the halls looking to kill the POTUS? What happened at
the Capitol was no different than that.



Bull****.


As usual, you are wrong.

§ 1047.7 Use of deadly force.

(a) A protective force officer is authorized to use deadly force only
when one or more of the following circumstances exists:

(1) Self-Defense. When deadly force reasonably appears to be necessary
to protect a protective force officer who reasonably believes himself or
herself to be in imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm.

(2) Serious offenses against persons. When deadly force reasonably
appears to be necessary to prevent the commission of a serious offense
against a person(s) in circumstances presenting an imminent danger of
death or serious bodily harm.

There are other conditions, but the above two apply to the overrunning
of the Capitol. Oh, there is no requirement to fire warning shots.


Which one of those covers killing an unarmed women stuck in a window?
The first is I imminent danger. None here.

The second. Where was the offense against a person?

Yeah Harry and Wayne both seem to gloss over that "imminent danger"
part.

===

The "imminent danger" part seems self evident to me. You've got an
unruly mob of maybe 50 to 100 people, screaming for blood, and trying
to break down a locked door being defended by 3 or 4 cops. What could
possibly go wrong? Supposedly Pence narrowly escaped being caught up
in all that.

Please note that I did not lump you and Harry together.

The cop was not in imminent danger with a woman halfway thru a window. And folks
had started leaving the doors before the woman tried to climb through. At the
moment of the shot, the cop was *not* in imminent danger. Even if she'd gotten
through the window she'd have had to get through the barricade on the other side
of the door.

===

Ultimately it will be decisions by the legal system and the courts to
decide all that. Our internet opinions will carry little weight in
those proceedings. My late maternal grandmother would have had an
answer however: "If she hadn't been there it wouldn't have happened."
Her logic in such things was always irrefutable.

I could say the same thing about Trayvonn, George Floyd, Michael Brown
and Freddie Gray.


All that said, I'd be very surprised if the cop even gets a reprimand
let alone prosecuted or convicted.

Have any of you "law and order" types considered the irony of your
defense of this womans behavior?

I just want the same standards to apply. If they can shoot a woman
trying to get into an empty office, shop owners should be able to
shoot looters.

===

In a "stand your ground" state you are allowed to use deadly force to
prevent a forcible felony. You may very well have to defend that
position in court however if the case becomes politicized or the facts
are in doubt.

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0700-0799/0776/Sections/0776.013.html




It didn't work for George Zimmermann. He spent a half million in
lawyer tax to exert that right.

BTW, quick geography lesson. The Capitol is in DC and that is an
"Obligation of Retreat" jurisdiction. Just a hint about how they feel,
there is a guy in the news who was charged with possessing
unregistered bullets.

I doubt if that applies to federal buildings and federal cops, or even
District cops.

BLM has burned cities to demonstrate that cops have no more right to
shoot people than the average citizen and in a jurisdiction like DC,
that right is very limited.

For those of you who say it was justified because they were protecting
Nancy's empty office, I have to point out it didn't work. If anything,
seeing an unarmed woman killed made those people more enraged when
they entered that office.
It is also telling that only one cop believed the use of deadly force
was justified. The others held their fire.

Well, obviously, according to the logic of Wayne and Harry, all those other cops
were wrong!
--

Freedom Isn't Free!

Friend of Herring's?
 

On Mon, 18 Jan 2021 09:15:18 -0500, Wayne B
wrote:

On Sun, 17 Jan 2021 17:45:47 -0500, wrote:

On Sat, 16 Jan 2021 23:26:26 -0500, Wayne B
wrote:

On Sat, 16 Jan 2021 22:35:26 -0500, wrote:

On Sat, 16 Jan 2021 14:25:15 -0500, Wayne B
wrote:

On Sat, 16 Jan 2021 12:09:56 -0500, John wrote:

On Sat, 16 Jan 2021 02:10:29 -0500, Wayne B
wrote:

On Sat, 16 Jan 2021 00:02:18 -0500, wrote:

On Fri, 15 Jan 2021 23:02:31 -0000 (UTC), Bill
wrote:

Keyser Söze wrote:
On 1/15/21 3:53 PM, Bill wrote:
Keyser Söze wrote:
On 1/15/21 1:59 PM, Wayne B wrote:
On Fri, 15 Jan 2021 18:25:15 -0000 (UTC), Bill
wrote:

Keyser Söze wrote:
On 1/14/21 9:34 PM, Bill wrote:
Keyser Söze wrote:


CHESTER, Pennsylvania (WPVI) -- A retired firefighter from Chester,
Pennsylvania is accused of being the man seen on video throwing a fire
extinguisher that hit three police officers at the Capitol during the
riot in Washington, D.C. last week.

Robert Sanford, 55, was arrested Thursday morning on four federal
charges, including knowingly entering a restricted building, disorderly
conduct on Capitol grounds, civil disorder and assaulting officers
engaging in their official duties.

According to the charging documents, the extinguisher bounced off the
heads of three officers, two of whom wore helmets.

Sanford, 55, traveled by bus with other people to the Capitol, according
to documents. He told a friend when he returned home that he had been on
the grounds for 10 minutes before leaving but did not mention throwing
anything at officers, authorities said.

Sanford was identified after a longtime friend of his contacted the FBI
in Pennsylvania and said they recognized Sanford from photos put out by
the FBI.

The fire extinguisher struck several police officers during the US
Capitol riot.

The friend said Sanford "had gone to the White House and listened to
President Donald J. Trump's speech and then had followed the President's
instructions and gone to the Capitol."

Sanford appeared in a federal court in Pennsylvania for an initial
appearance on Thursday afternoon. He was denied release and will remain
in custody of the U.S. Marshals until he is transferred to Washington, D.C.

The defense argued Sanford was not a flight risk or a danger to the
community, noting that he has no prior arrests, is married, and has
three children.

The defense added that allegations that he traveled to D.C. to commit
crimes are inaccurate and he is not part of any extremist groups.

Prosecutors challenged that claim, saying authorities found a t-shirt
associated with the far-right group Proud Boys at Sanford's home after
executing a search warrant.



Maybe he thought his life was in danger. Capital cops shooting protesters,
just because they were protesting.


If that is what you really think, you are even dumber than I had
envisioned. Peaceful protesting is perfectly legal outside the Capitol
building. That's not where he was and not what he was doing.


And even in riot situations, the cops are not allowed to shoot looters and
trespassers. So because they are in the Capital building, uninvited, they
are allowed to be murdered?

===

Being shot by an armed guard who is being paid to protect members of
congress is not exactly murder. And being "uninvited" is not exactly
the same as being at the front of an unruly mob trying to break down a
locked door leading to a congressional chamber.


What do you suppose would have happened to a gang of thugs who crashed
the gates around the White House, smashed into the White House, and were
running through the halls looking to kill the POTUS? What happened at
the Capitol was no different than that.



Bull****.


As usual, you are wrong.

§ 1047.7 Use of deadly force.

(a) A protective force officer is authorized to use deadly force only
when one or more of the following circumstances exists:

(1) Self-Defense. When deadly force reasonably appears to be necessary
to protect a protective force officer who reasonably believes himself or
herself to be in imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm.

(2) Serious offenses against persons. When deadly force reasonably
appears to be necessary to prevent the commission of a serious offense
against a person(s) in circumstances presenting an imminent danger of
death or serious bodily harm.

There are other conditions, but the above two apply to the overrunning
of the Capitol. Oh, there is no requirement to fire warning shots.


Which one of those covers killing an unarmed women stuck in a window?
The first is I imminent danger. None here.

The second. Where was the offense against a person?

Yeah Harry and Wayne both seem to gloss over that "imminent danger"
part.

===

The "imminent danger" part seems self evident to me. You've got an
unruly mob of maybe 50 to 100 people, screaming for blood, and trying
to break down a locked door being defended by 3 or 4 cops. What could
possibly go wrong? Supposedly Pence narrowly escaped being caught up
in all that.

Please note that I did not lump you and Harry together.

The cop was not in imminent danger with a woman halfway thru a window. And folks
had started leaving the doors before the woman tried to climb through. At the
moment of the shot, the cop was *not* in imminent danger. Even if she'd gotten
through the window she'd have had to get through the barricade on the other side
of the door.

===

Ultimately it will be decisions by the legal system and the courts to
decide all that. Our internet opinions will carry little weight in
those proceedings. My late maternal grandmother would have had an
answer however: "If she hadn't been there it wouldn't have happened."
Her logic in such things was always irrefutable.

I could say the same thing about Trayvonn, George Floyd, Michael Brown
and Freddie Gray.


All that said, I'd be very surprised if the cop even gets a reprimand
let alone prosecuted or convicted.

Have any of you "law and order" types considered the irony of your
defense of this womans behavior?

I just want the same standards to apply. If they can shoot a woman
trying to get into an empty office, shop owners should be able to
shoot looters.

===

In a "stand your ground" state you are allowed to use deadly force to
prevent a forcible felony. You may very well have to defend that
position in court however if the case becomes politicized or the facts
are in doubt.

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0700-0799/0776/Sections/0776.013.html




It didn't work for George Zimmermann. He spent a half million in
lawyer tax to exert that right.

===

Zimmermann was a questionable case in my opinion. He was not exactly
a poster boy for responsible gun ownership, and in my opinion,
probably provoked the assault by Trayvon Martin. I think he was lucky
to have been acquitted but was glad to see "stand your ground"
ultimately upheld in court.

BTW, quick geography lesson. The Capitol is in DC and that is an
"Obligation of Retreat" jurisdiction. Just a hint about how they feel,
there is a guy in the news who was charged with possessing
unregistered bullets.

Wayne, this line, "...probably provoked the assault..." sounds like it came
right from CNN!
--

Freedom Isn't Free!