|
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 14:25:15 -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?
|
Friend of Herring's?
|
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:48 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com