About Us

John[_6_]

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!

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Switch to Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
A friend of Herring and Just-An-Ass?	Keyser SÃ¶ze[_3_]	General	2	January 12th 21 03:43 PM
From my friend...	F.O.A.D.	General	2	October 9th 13 10:42 PM
A Friend of Herring's...	iBoaterer[_3_]	General	4	August 26th 13 04:44 PM
Friend of Herring	jps	General	17	December 1st 11 03:28 PM
Man's best friend. A little OT...	John H[_2_]	General	1	March 10th 11 01:25 AM

Menu

About Us