Not ONE Democratic protester - anywhere - not storming and taking over a capital, not looting, not committing arson, not committing assault, not trying to smash in and destroy federal buildings - has been shot and killed. Merely using tear gas was condemned by the MSM and Democratic Party - even outlawed by Democratic federal judges. But kill the unarmed Republican female protester. The Vice President declaring of her death "YOU LOST!" Democrats - every I've read on this forum - asserting gunning down THAT unarmed protester was entirely justified - and literally trying to blame the president. Trump didn't shoot her. A Capital cop did - with absolutely NO need to do so. Why am I the only person condemning her being killed and pointing out the extreme double standard of do nothing to Democrats forcibly taking over a Capital building - and killing a Republican merely for trying to? She was UNARMED. She poised a deadly threat to NO ONE. She has not and was not attacking anyone. The Capital is NOT a home. None of those protesters had firearms. The Capital police had access to tasers, tear gas and rubber bullets. Shooting the unarmed 14 year female veteran protester was NOT self defense of the office. Shooting the unarmed 14 year female veteran protester was not protecting a home. No looter breaking thru a window or door was ever shot by police. No one of the mob trying to breaking federal buildings was shot. In fact, there was radical outrage at even arresting them and a federal court ruled even just tear gas couldn't be used. I see NO legal justification for shooting her. NONE. It was outright minimally manslaughter. If not, what law allowed using certain deadly force against her? What law allowed just gunning down that unarmed protester? Cite that law. Cite the statute allowing police to skip all non-lethal options to outright gun down someone trying to break into an area of a government facility. Why couldn't shop owners shoot looters coming thru a broken window? Why didn't police shoot those looters? Why didn't police shot those trying to smash into a federal building? Why was it declared illegal to even use tear gas to break up that mob, but just fine to gun down a Republican protester. SERIOUSLY, explain the legal defense to shooting that unarmed protester.
Legal defense? If you're not trying to overthrow the government of the United States don't participate in a coup. What was she looking for, a photo op with trump grabbing her -----?
Talk to Trump, his DOJ is in charge of security for the Capitol Building. I think the cops were fairly good about holding fire in general, and I’m sure the shooting will be investigated because Trump is in charge of the DOJ, right?
So if the police believe anyone is engaging in a "coup" against the government should be gunned down? Do you claim that applies to the police learning someone cast a fraudulent ballot too - go gun them down? That's your claim, isn't it? What about a mob of Democratic protesters mobbing a state capital shutting down the capital to block legislation for days - because they want a pay raise (greed)? That's definitely a coup trying to overthrow state government, isn't it? What about trying to break into and burn down a federal courthouse? You think they all should have been shot too? But ok, if an attempted "coup" - cite the law stating it is legal to summarily kill someone attempting a non-violent coup against the government? That is the question of this thread - cite the law legally justifying shooting her to death for engaging in an unarmed coup attempt.
Here, check this out. Let us know how you enjoy being labeled a puppet. [/QUOTE]https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/you-evolving/202011/can-trumps-followers-be-called-cult[/QUOTE]
And again - being as this occurred in the DC Metro area, it's Trump's DOJ who is responsible for security and prosecuting major crimes. Talk to him if you got a problem with this. He's in charge.
1- We don't know if she was armed or not. She was part of a mob so any weapons she may have could've been picked up and lost in the crowed. 2- You don't know that 3- You don't know that 4- Doesn't need to be. A bank isn't a home but you may get shot if your force entry into it. 5- There are reports of hand guns, axe handle, a pitch fork and a few baseball bat. All can kill you. 6- Lethal force is sometime the best the cops can do to save those they protect. 7- You don't know that 8- Being a home isn't the only requirement to shoot an invader, see Banks, Military installation etc... 9- They could've been. No two situation is the same, and since you can't prove she wasn't a threat... 10- They could've been. No two situation is the same, and since you can't prove she wasn't a threat...
Yeah we don’t know why she was shot. And I hope that justice was done. Which is exactly what people around the us have been saying for years now about cops. The only difference is you care about a terrorist who died.
The guy who has killed her is now "on administrative leave" [it seems it's the rule in this case for Capital Hill Police ... it's not the first time they kill someone]. Usually [also in Italy we have seen something similar] authorities tend to blame the policeman because of an excess, but it's rare that there are serious consequences. "He was wrong, he's not possible to justify him, we blame him, he has exaggerated ... bla, bla, bla ..."
