No words

Originally Posted by Rod Kaufman

"Trespass and obstruction are both felonies."

"lethal force is officially authorized for individuals trespassing into restricted areas of Area 51. Warning signs surrounding the perimeter explicitly state "Use of Deadly Force Authorized..."
"While security forces are authorized to use deadly force, they often first use non-lethal methods to detain intruders. However, in situations where intruders threaten safety or ignore orders, the risk of lethal force is real." AI

Similarly, trespassing into certain areas of the pentagon can elicit a similar response.

Isn't Area 51 the air force base where they have space alien corpses?  Just kidding.  But seriously, are there "deadly force" signs around the Capital?  Are you sure that "Area 51" includes the Capital?

Originally Posted by James Brown

Isn't Area 51 the air force base where they have space alien corpses?  Just kidding.  But seriously, are there "deadly force" signs around the Capital?  Are you sure that "Area 51" includes the Capital?

No, I'm not stating that but the point is lethal force is sometimes authorized for security and trespassing reasons in certain areas and situations and are not only felonies punishable by lessor means.

In the case of the capitol, the security breach was  such that, " the group of lawmakers and security "were essentially trapped" and had "no way to retreat".
Thus:
"In August 2021, a Capitol Police review found that Mr Byrd's decision saved lives and was consistent with police training and procedures." 

PS: Wouldn't it be cool if they had the alien bodies locked up in a bunker in area 51?...

Originally Posted by Rod Kaufman

PS: Wouldn't it be cool if they had the alien bodies locked up in a bunker in area 51?...

You mean they don't!!!??? 

Originally Posted by Rod Kaufman

No, I'm not stating that but the point is lethal force is sometimes authorized for security and trespassing reasons in certain areas and situations and are not only felonies punishable by lessor means.

In the case of the capitol, the security breach was  such that, " the group of lawmakers and security "were essentially trapped" and had "no way to retreat".
Thus:
"In August 2021, a Capitol Police review found that Mr Byrd's decision saved lives and was consistent with police training and procedures." 

PS: Wouldn't it be cool if they had the alien bodies locked up in a bunker in area 51?...

You have twice now quoted the results of an official post-shooting investigation.   It was a partisan investigation for sure, done by the capital police themselves, and I’m not personally convinced that the officer in that case was justified in his use of deadly force.   I note that you’ve avoided posting your own personal opinion on the capital shooting.  But the investigation results are in, and the cop got cleared.  I’m Ok with the investigation results even though I’m not personally convinced.

No doubt when ICE or the Trump DOJ completes their investigation, the two Minnesota agents will be cleared of wrongdoing.  When that happens, I’ll not quote the results back to you because in my opinion the agent who shot Good might have a legal case, but was incompetently trigger happy at the bare minimum.   The agent who shot the ICU nurse is, in my opinion, a cold blooded murderer, no matter what the official investigation says six months from now.  I’m willing to admit that I don’t have all the facts in any of these cases, so my opinion is not worth much.

This post is just a long way to say “spare me” when you quote the capital police report exonerating their own guy.   This post is also intended to preemptively clarify that I do not consider these three police shootings to be morally equivalent, since someone may read carelessly and think that was my point.

Originally Posted by James Brown

You have twice now quoted the results of an official post-shooting investigation.   It was a partisan investigation for sure, done by the capital police themselves, and I’m not personally convinced that the officer in that case was justified in his use of deadly force.   I note that you’ve avoided posting your own personal opinion on the capital shooting.  But the investigation results are in, and the cop got cleared.  I’m Ok with the investigation results even though I’m not personally convinced.

No doubt when ICE or the Trump DOJ completes their investigation, the two Minnesota agents will be cleared of wrongdoing.  When that happens, I’ll not quote the results back to you because in my opinion the agent who shot Good might have a legal case, but was incompetently trigger happy at the bare minimum.   The agent who shot the ICU nurse is, in my opinion, a cold blooded murderer, no matter what the official investigation says six months from now.  I’m willing to admit that I don’t have all the facts in any of these cases, so my opinion is not worth much.

This post is just a long way to say “spare me” when you quote the capital police report exonerating their own guy.   This post is also intended to preemptively clarify that I do not consider these three police shootings to be morally equivalent, since someone may read carelessly and think that was my point.

I think the capitol police shooting on Jan 6th was justified. We see this differently because you don't think it was an insurrection. It was. Lethal force, therefore, was also justified. There's no such equivalent in Minneapolis.

Originally Posted by James Brown

You have twice now quoted the results of an official post-shooting investigation.   It was a partisan investigation for sure, done by the capital police themselves, and I’m not personally convinced that the officer in that case was justified in his use of deadly force.   I note that you’ve avoided posting your own personal opinion on the capital shooting.  But the investigation results are in, and the cop got cleared.  I’m Ok with the investigation results even though I’m not personally convinced.

No doubt when ICE or the Trump DOJ completes their investigation, the two Minnesota agents will be cleared of wrongdoing.  When that happens, I’ll not quote the results back to you because in my opinion the agent who shot Good might have a legal case, but was incompetently trigger happy at the bare minimum.   The agent who shot the ICU nurse is, in my opinion, a cold blooded murderer, no matter what the official investigation says six months from now.  I’m willing to admit that I don’t have all the facts in any of these cases, so my opinion is not worth much.

This post is just a long way to say “spare me” when you quote the capital police report exonerating their own guy.   This post is also intended to preemptively clarify that I do not consider these three police shootings to be morally equivalent, since someone may read carelessly and think that was my point.

Bovino said the officer's name will never be revealed, never mind him being investigated...
With Bovino's demotion/retirement/relocation I cannot see any successor changing this policy.  

Dave

Originally Posted by David Cotterell

Bovino said the officer's name will never be revealed, never mind him being investigated...
With Bovino's demotion/retirement/relocation I cannot see any successor changing this policy.  

Dave

I'm old enough (I guess we all are) to remember when DHS was created under Dubya, and how its critics feared it would become what it is today. There are lots of credible reports and videos showing that ICE agents are photographing and capturing all kinds of information about protestors so DHS can create a central database of so-called "domestic terrorists." I've seen more than one video where an ICE agent is asked why they are photographing protestors, bystanders, and their license plates, and such, and they say something like, "We have a database, and you are now a domestic terrorist." Bovino, Noem, Miller, etc., all need to be fired. I suppose if there is enough outrage and political blowback for Trump and Republicans, he will happily throw them away when it benefits him to do so.

Originally Posted by Rod Kaufman

I think the capitol police shooting on Jan 6th was justified. We see this differently because you don't think it was an insurrection. It was. Lethal force, therefore, was also justified. There's no such equivalent in Minneapolis.

Rod, this sentence proves how wrong you are about Jan 6 being an actual “insurrection”.  I fully agree that a military-type use of lethal force, i.e. shooting each and every combatant as they entered the capital, would be totally justified in the event of an actual insurrection.  On the contrary, Jan 6 was a riot, and different rules apply.  Virtually all of the Capital police showed appropriate restraint.  Good for them.

I suppose we’re just arguing about semantics now, but no sane person thinks the deluded Jan 6 rioters had any chance of overthrowing the government, or blocking the transfer of power to the Biden administration. If you want to water the word “insurrection“ down to mean something like a completely stupid politically motivated riot, have at it. But in that case, I think you forfeit the claim that lethal force is broadly justified ‘because an insurrection is occurring.’  Lethal force is of course justified in defense of the government from legit insurrectionist forces. In a riot, standard rules of police engagement apply.  Assuming you are correct, and the cop who shot Ashley Babbitt was in legitimate fear of his or other civilians safety, the shooting was justified. As I mentioned, I don’t buy that, but that is the official explanation, so I can live with it. I certainly don’t buy that any shooting was automatically justified because Jan 6 was an “insurrection.”

Originally Posted by James Brown

Rod, this sentence proves how wrong you are about Jan 6 being an actual “insurrection”.  I fully agree that a military-type use of lethal force, i.e. shooting each and every combatant as they entered the capital, would be totally justified in the event of an actual insurrection.  On the contrary, Jan 6 was a riot, and different rules apply.  Virtually all of the Capital police showed appropriate restraint.  Good for them.

I suppose we’re just arguing about semantics now, but no sane person thinks the deluded Jan 6 rioters had any chance of overthrowing the government, or blocking the transfer of power to the Biden administration. If you want to water the word “insurrection“ down to mean something like a completely stupid politically motivated riot, have at it. But in that case, I think you forfeit the claim that lethal force is broadly justified ‘because an insurrection is occurring.’  Lethal force is of course justified in defense of the government from legit insurrectionist forces. In a riot, standard rules of police engagement apply.  Assuming you are correct, and the cop who shot Ashley Babbitt was in legitimate fear of his or other civilians safety, the shooting was justified. As I mentioned, I don’t buy that, but that is the official explanation, so I can live with it. I certainly don’t buy that any shooting was automatically justified because Jan 6 was an “insurrection.”

Like I said, I think Jan 6th was an insurrection and I understand that you do not. It had at its core the intent and actions of those who participated to prevent the counting of the electoral votes of a free and fair election and to prevent those in congress, including the vice president, from doing the same, while concurrently blocking the peaceful transfer of power and did so in a violent manner. It was that and more and not simply a "riot."

That said, I agree the capitol officers acted with as much restraint as possible given the physical assault they endured. One can imagine, given the deaths we've seen, of how ICE officers might respond if the protesters of today attacked them in a similar manner. And these protesters would then be labeled, as they are now by the administration, as "domestic terrorists", after their deaths...

Originally Posted by James Brown

Rod, this sentence proves how wrong you are about Jan 6 being an actual “insurrection”.  I fully agree that a military-type use of lethal force, i.e. shooting each and every combatant as they entered the capital, would be totally justified in the event of an actual insurrection.  On the contrary, Jan 6 was a riot, and different rules apply.  Virtually all of the Capital police showed appropriate restraint.  Good for them.

I suppose we’re just arguing about semantics now, but no sane person thinks the deluded Jan 6 rioters had any chance of overthrowing the government, or blocking the transfer of power to the Biden administration. If you want to water the word “insurrection“ down to mean something like a completely stupid politically motivated riot, have at it. But in that case, I think you forfeit the claim that lethal force is broadly justified ‘because an insurrection is occurring.’  Lethal force is of course justified in defense of the government from legit insurrectionist forces. In a riot, standard rules of police engagement apply.  Assuming you are correct, and the cop who shot Ashley Babbitt was in legitimate fear of his or other civilians safety, the shooting was justified. As I mentioned, I don’t buy that, but that is the official explanation, so I can live with it. I certainly don’t buy that any shooting was automatically justified because Jan 6 was an “insurrection.”

I'm not a lawyer, but isn't the fact that the riot was intended to prevent the legal transfer of power by Congress make it an insurrection? I'm actually not even sure why you are trying to make a distinction here.