Posts Made By: James Brown

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 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

I just posted that I think Trump will back down in MN. (P.S in response to the latest video) I hope I’m right.

Why does he TACO on tariffs?   Because he figures out after the markets tank that his strategy is making him look bad.   I pray that happens here, especially before escalation in PA.   

Maybe I was right for once…. I hope so.

Originally Posted by James Brown

I just posted that I think Trump will back down in MN. (P.S in response to the latest video) I hope I’m right.

Why does he TACO on tariffs?   Because he figures out after the markets tank that his strategy is making him look bad.   I pray that happens here, especially before escalation in PA.   

Maybe I was right for once…. I hope 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 Russ Carroll

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.

I’m not a lawyer either, not anymore. I’m a retired electrical engineer with a law degree. Also, you don’t enjoy nit-picky debate over semantic nuances like Rod and I do. Good for you. 😀

My definition of insurrection is not a legalistic definition. It is a practical definition. To me, an insurrection involves a coordinated and armed attempt to overthrow the government with at least some minimal chance of success. In my view, a government facing a legitimate insurrection has the right to engage in a military response.  By military response I mean that the government forces, typically the army,  can shoot to kill the entirety of the insurrectionist force in defense of the government.

Except for the proud boy type exceptions, I don’t think the average January 6 rioter was coordinated, armed, or even intended to over throw the government. These were deluded fools who bought into Trump‘s BS about the election being stolen. So they rioted.  Under the circumstances, I don’t think it would’ve been justified for the capital police to shoot them all as they crossed the threshold of the capital.  The semantic nuance they got me spun up, was that Rod used “insurrection” as a stand-alone reason for the capital cop to shoot Ashley Babbitt.   I don’t think “insurrection”  is a legit reason for that shooting. I agree with Rod that the shooting was justified if the cop thought his or other civilians lives were in danger, which is the normal standard for the use of deadly force in a riot situation.

Originally Posted by David Cotterell

Doesn't matter if we call it an insurrection or a riot or the Annual Christmas Bird Count.  Armed people were using force to gain entry to the building with quite a bit of success  and to the chamber where the Pence ballot procedure thing was supposed to happen (sorry, I can't remember the accurate name for this...). 

Officers inside were seeing a mob that wasn't going to back down and they could only imagine how many of the people cowering inside would be injured or even killed by the mob.  People the cops are sworn to protect.  Remember the 'Hang Pence' folks? What might have ensued if they won entry to the chamber? 

If you advance on a cop, armed or not, who tells you to stop and you just keep advancing - you're gonna get shot and it would be a righteous shoot every time.

I doubt the cops were having a wee debate among themselves.  "Gee Bob do you think this is a riot or an insurrection?"  "Why are you asking such a question?"  "Well, if it is a riot then I don't think we can shoot them but if it is an insurrection we will have to shoot."  "I dunno -- hey, they've broken the window and someone is trying to climb through............."

Dave

I don't think you guys understand that I agree with what you Rod and Russ are saying here, outside of the unimportant recreational issue of semantic quibbling.  By and large law enforcement shows remarkable restraint when a shooting might have been justified during a riot.  I think Ashlee Babbott's shooting was approximately as justified as the shooting of Renee Good.  Unless some compelling new evidence comes out, I think Pretti's shooting is in a different class altogether.

Originally Posted by David Cotterell

Doesn't matter if we call it an insurrection or a riot or the Annual Christmas Bird Count.  Armed people were using force to gain entry to the building with quite a bit of success  and to the chamber where the Pence ballot procedure thing was supposed to happen (sorry, I can't remember the accurate name for this...). 

Officers inside were seeing a mob that wasn't going to back down and they could only imagine how many of the people cowering inside would be injured or even killed by the mob.  People the cops are sworn to protect.  Remember the 'Hang Pence' folks? What might have ensued if they won entry to the chamber? 

If you advance on a cop, armed or not, who tells you to stop and you just keep advancing - you're gonna get shot and it would be a righteous shoot every time.

I doubt the cops were having a wee debate among themselves.  "Gee Bob do you think this is a riot or an insurrection?"  "Why are you asking such a question?"  "Well, if it is a riot then I don't think we can shoot them but if it is an insurrection we will have to shoot."  "I dunno -- hey, they've broken the window and someone is trying to climb through............."

Dave

Ok, we agree on that.  What, in your opinion, about a driver who has been told multiple times by I think multiple cops to get out of the car, but who chooses to accelerate instead?

I'm mixed on this one by the way - the overall circumstances matter a lot.

Originally Posted by Rod Kaufman

"Except for the proud boy type exceptions, I don’t think the average January 6 rioter was coordinated, armed, or even intended to over throw the government."

Actually, the participants, to a large extent, were being controlled by Trump in doing what they did. When Trump finally issued a withdrawal tweet, they left. 

Steve Bannon had posted a day or two before that it was going to be "wild." In defying the congressional subpoena to explain it, he chose jail instead.

Jack Smith testified before congress that the evidence he accumulated showed Trump was responsible for the violence on that day. It was a coordinated effort:

"The evidence here made clear that President Trump was, by a large measure, the most culpable and most responsible person in this conspiracy," Smith said about the election interference case."


"Crimes committed on 6 January were for Trump's benefit, Smith contended."

"The attack that happened at the Capitol, part of this case, does not happen without him,” he said. “The other co-conspirators were doing this for his benefit."

Key words: "co-conspirators"

David and Russ - ignore the following, this comment does not matter as to whether or not a shooting is justified.  This is for Rod alone.  

Smith's actions contradict his testimony and demonstrate that with a minor exception no insurrection occurred under federal law.  About 1500 rioters were charged, most with minor crimes.  Smith only charged 18 men with Seditious Conspiracy and convicted 14.  (According to Wiki).  Most all were Oathkeepers or Proud Boy gang members.   Exactly 0 people were charged with Treason of course.   

Seditious Conspiracy is the closest crime leveled at the Jan 6 rioters for a coordinated attempt at insurrection.  He did not press this charge against 99% of the rioters because even attack dog Smith knew that the vast majority of the rioters were not guilty of Seditious Conspiracy.  So, except for the proud boys and oathkeepers, there was no conspiracy, no coordination, and no insurrection.

18 U.S. Code § 2384 - Seditious Conspiracy  If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.

Originally Posted by James Brown

David and Russ - ignore the following, this comment does not matter as to whether or not a shooting is justified.  This is for Rod alone.  

Smith's actions contradict his testimony and demonstrate that with a minor exception no insurrection occurred under federal law.  About 1500 rioters were charged, most with minor crimes.  Smith only charged 18 men with Seditious Conspiracy and convicted 14.  (According to Wiki).  Most all were Oathkeepers or Proud Boy gang members.   Exactly 0 people were charged with Treason of course.   

Seditious Conspiracy is the closest crime leveled at the Jan 6 rioters for a coordinated attempt at insurrection.  He did not press this charge against 99% of the rioters because even attack dog Smith knew that the vast majority of the rioters were not guilty of Seditious Conspiracy.  So, except for the proud boys and oathkeepers, there was no conspiracy, no coordination, and no insurrection.

18 U.S. Code § 2384 - Seditious Conspiracy  If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.

p.s. It is reprehensible that the men convicted of Seditious Conspiracy were pardoned.  If Trump had any integrity at all, he would have had his people go through the list of 1500 and maybe pardoned those who claimed to have been over-charged by attack dog Smith.  But under any circumstance Trump should have let the actual insurrectionists, convicted of Seditious Conspiracy, rot in jail for the full 20 years.