International Skeptics Forum

International Skeptics Forum (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumindex.php)
-   USA Politics (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=6)
-   -   Continuation Trumpís Coup - Part 2 (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=348820)

timhau 8th January 2021 02:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by acbytesla (Post 13353234)
It might be. But this I think might be an impractical application of that law. You want hundreds of people to face felony murder charges? Where then does the application of that law stop?

Capitol front door?

Distracted1 8th January 2021 02:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darat (Post 13353221)
You are simply lying

Thats very "meta".

Planigale 8th January 2021 02:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Silly Green Monkey (Post 13353236)
They were, that's why they shot the lawbreaker threatening the people they were sworn to protect.

That is where we have a difference. You think breaking the law sufficient reason to kill someone. I do not.

acbytesla 8th January 2021 02:07 PM

I see that Pelosi is determined to start impeachment process on Monday if the 25th Amendment isn't invoked or if Trump doesn't resign. Kevin McCarthy is desperately trying to prevent that. He says that is too divisive.

Meadmaker 8th January 2021 02:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dr. Keith (Post 13353231)
I've got good money on "Molotov Cocktails are not bombs" so you people better not get lazy on the pedantry I've come to expect from your lot.

I forgot about those. You're right.

I wish to revise and extend my previous remarks.

Molotov cocktails were found in the Capitol. They were not ignited or thrown.


To answer a previous quesiton, sealioning is the act of pretending to argue in good faith. A common form of sealioning is demanding answers to a long series of questions without ever addressing the primary issues of the argument.

Paul2 8th January 2021 02:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue (Post 13353222)
Oh... oh that's perfect. Bravo. *Chef's kiss*

Yes, you gotta respect that, right? Well done!

Dr. Keith 8th January 2021 02:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Planigale (Post 13353237)
I would accept Molotov cocktails as bombs. Were there Molotov cocktails thrown in the capitol? (I'd better go and google that before darat sends me another helpful link.)

ETA
No Molotov cocktails thrown in or at the capitol?

Your google is weak.

Probably just a man out walking his dogma.

JoeMorgue 8th January 2021 02:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Planigale (Post 13353245)
That is where we have a difference. You think breaking the law sufficient reason to kill someone. I do not.

Then go start a thread about your trolley problem and stop trolling this one.
\

Planigale 8th January 2021 02:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Babbylonian (Post 13353241)
Yes, they were protecting all such people behind them against a violent mob. Would you suggest they just stand aside, maybe hand out visitor badges to the mob trying to reach the legislators and their staffs?

"Come on through, ma'am. You'll find most of Congress down the hall on the right. If you turn left, Vice President Pence will be behind the third door on the right. Be careful of the Secret Service agents! Have a nice day!"

No I would say pepper spray, taser, strike with a baton, hand cuff.

Distracted1 8th January 2021 02:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Planigale (Post 13353245)
That is where we have a difference. You think breaking the law sufficient reason to kill someone (who has a different political or philosophical outlook) I do not.

That is what you are observing.

Silly Green Monkey 8th January 2021 02:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Planigale (Post 13353245)
That is where we have a difference. You think breaking the law sufficient reason to kill someone. I do not.

And you think shooting at someone automatically kills them. I know better. The assault on Congress was halted at the choke point, the very last chance to stop the mob that PUT A GALLOWS ON THE CAPITOL LAWN. You'd be condemning death either way, whether it's of the mob finding out their targets are defended, or that mob finding their targets are undefended and stringing up as many as they please.

acbytesla 8th January 2021 02:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Planigale (Post 13353245)
That is where we have a difference. You think breaking the law sufficient reason to kill someone. I do not.

Depends on the law. Attacking our democratic institutions?

It is sufficient.

Planigale 8th January 2021 02:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dr. Keith (Post 13353250)
Your google is weak.

Probably just a man out walking his dogma.

Well i have to give you that that is quite a good pun.

JoeMorgue 8th January 2021 02:12 PM

Did someone get water on Bob and make him multiply?

jimbob 8th January 2021 02:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Planigale (Post 13353219)
What is sealioning?

Might is the operative word. Still miss the significance of the backpack. I may be ignorant or naive or stupid but you could still explain the facts as you see them.

Inner sanctum is an interesting term. It is just a room. A room with people in. People who are the same as any other people. Actually the same as the person trying to climb in. Fundamentally her life is as valuable as any senator or congressman. In general killing people to suppress a riot is not regarded as good policing.

OKAY...

THERE... WERE... PIPE... BOMBS... AND... MOLOTOV... COCKTAILS... DEPOSITED.... DURING... THE... ACTUAL... ATTEMPT... TO... OVERTURN... A... DEMOCRATIC... DECISION


You don't need to give terrorists the benefit of the doubt when they are engaged in a violent attack.

If she was a suicide bomber, do you wait until you are sure?
When she's already demonstrated that she is engaging in a terrorist attack?

Dr. Keith 8th January 2021 02:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Meadmaker (Post 13353247)
I forgot about those. You're right.

I wish to revise and extend my previous remarks.

Molotov cocktails were found in the Capitol. They were not ignited or thrown.


To answer a previous quesiton, sealioning is the act of pretending to argue in good faith. A common form of sealioning is demanding answers to a long series of questions without ever addressing the primary issues of the argument.

Expect a correction that the protestor with the Cocktails was merely among the protestors near the capitol building and had not yet entered the building. Also, the cocktails were not yet assembled, but since assembly and deployment seem tightly connected, I don't see why that matters much. But offer you this glimpse into your future . . . free of charge.

Resume 8th January 2021 02:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Planigale (Post 13353225)
I would hope they are sworn to uphold the law, and protect all people regardless of race, sex, religion or job.

Yes, and protection sometimes means using deadly force in self-defense and in defense of those whom they are sworn to protect. If you don't want to get shot, don't violently storm a govt building with hundreds of others, then attempt to access a chamber even though you were warned against it; inside are number of armed men pointing guns at you, completely unsure of your intent, because, you know, riot. She brought violence with her, and it was returned. Such things occur in an insurrection. This is a sad fact.

Paul2 8th January 2021 02:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Planigale (Post 13353225)
I would hope they are sworn to uphold the law, and protect all people regardless of race, sex, religion or job.

Except those people who pose some level of risk of being a danger to some person or persons. You're *not* going to to protect a person if, by doing so, that person may well wind up harming another.

Resume 8th January 2021 02:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Planigale (Post 13353245)
That is where we have a difference. You think breaking the law sufficient reason to kill someone. I do not.

The law disagrees with you.

Meadmaker 8th January 2021 02:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Planigale (Post 13353245)
That is where we have a difference. You think breaking the law sufficient reason to kill someone. I do not.

That is a complete misreading of SGM's statement.

Her statement:
Quote:

They were, that's why they shot the lawbreaker threatening the people they were sworn to protect.
The key word in the sentence is not "lawbreaker". The key word is "threatening". Ashli Babbit was not killed because she broke the law. She was killed because she, and the mob behind her, presented a real threat to the Congressmen inside the House chamber.

Using the "reasonable person" standard of self defense and justification of the use of deadly force, a reasonable person would conclude that the Congressmen were in danger of death or great bodily harm. Under those circumstances, lethal force is justified in self defense or the defense of others.

I'm not happy that she's dead, but, based on the evidence available to us, killing her was justified.

JoeMorgue 8th January 2021 02:14 PM

Reality also disagrees with them.

And reality disagrees with you and you keep not taking reality's side on purpose in an argument, there's a term for that.

Lying.

jimbob 8th January 2021 02:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Planigale (Post 13353245)
That is where we have a difference. You think breaking the law sufficient reason to kill someone. I do not.

Did you see the photo of the terrorist I showed? I can't remember which chamber he was in.

Darat 8th January 2021 02:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Planigale (Post 13353233)
Tried there. No bombs in capitol, no info on shots fired, numbers not known, no information on mechanism of injury. But thank you for your informative post.

No you havenít, why lie?

Paul2 8th January 2021 02:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by acbytesla (Post 13353246)
I see that Pelosi is determined to start impeachment process on Monday if the 25th Amendment isn't invoked or if Trump doesn't resign. Kevin McCarthy is desperately trying to prevent that. He says that is too divisive.

There's something even worse than riling up Trump's base (which is what McCarthy really means by "divisive"), and that is having a further breakdown of democracy by not holding those responsible accountable for what we saw Wednesday.

McCarthy can go shove it. *He's* the one responsible for divisiveness for supporting Trump for the last 4 years. Christ, gimme a break.

The country is done with this crap. Dems move on impeachment within a week; Mitt Romney tells off his fellow Repubs on the floor of the Senate. Enough certainly is enough.

Meadmaker 8th January 2021 02:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimbob (Post 13353272)
Did you see the photo of the terrorist I showed? I can't remember which chamber he was in.

That one was from the Senate.

Darat 8th January 2021 02:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Distracted1 (Post 13353243)
Thats very "meta".

No, it is simply calling out your lies.

Paul2 8th January 2021 02:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Planigale (Post 13353254)
No I would say pepper spray, taser, strike with a baton, hand cuff.

While the rest of the mob rushes right past you, or, worse, tries to prevent you from doing what you suggest?

Darat 8th January 2021 02:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Planigale (Post 13353245)
That is where we have a difference. You think breaking the law sufficient reason to kill someone. I do not.

Wow - I canít even see the goalposts with my telescope that can see the rings of Saturn!

Darat 8th January 2021 02:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Distracted1 (Post 13353256)
That is what you are observing.

Another lie.

Distracted1 8th January 2021 02:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Meadmaker (Post 13353270)
That is a complete misreading of SGM's statement.

Her statement:

The key word in the sentence is not "lawbreaker". The key word is "threatening". Ashli Babbit was not killed because she broke the law. She was killed because she, and the mob behind her, presented a real threat to the Congressmen inside the House chamber.

Using the "reasonable person" standard of self defense and justification of the use of deadly force, a reasonable person would conclude that the Congressmen were in danger of death or great bodily harm. Under those circumstances, lethal force is justified in self defense or the defense of others.

I'm not happy that she's dead, but, based on the evidence available to us, killing her was justified.

You are arguing that she was summarily executed as an example!.

Bravo!

Planigale 8th January 2021 02:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Silly Green Monkey (Post 13353258)
And you think shooting at someone automatically kills them. I know better. The assault on Congress was halted at the choke point, the very last chance to stop the mob that PUT A GALLOWS ON THE CAPITOL LAWN. You'd be condemning death either way, whether it's of the mob finding out their targets are defended, or that mob finding their targets are undefended and stringing up as many as they please.

I know that shooting some one does not necessarily kill them. I do accept that if you open fire on someone, you should shoot to kill. That shooting to wound is a Hollywood fantasy. i had wondered whether someone climbing through a window could have been shot in the arm, but I think that if you shoot you shoot to kill.

Did this murdering mob open fire through the window? Were any shots fired by the rioters? The only shots fired I can find by limited googling (Thanks Darat for the advice, ever helpful), were by the police. Of course this officer might not know that other shots were fired by police, and that would be a reason for believing violence was occurring.

Meadmaker 8th January 2021 02:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dr. Keith (Post 13353231)
I've got good money on "Molotov Cocktails are not bombs" so you people better not get lazy on the pedantry I've come to expect from your lot.

To be fair, I think Planigale is seriously wrong on this point, but I'm not sure she's part of a "lot".

Babbylonian 8th January 2021 02:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Planigale (Post 13353254)
No I would say pepper spray, taser, strike with a baton, hand cuff.

Cool story. And what do you propose they do with the dozens coming in after she gets treated so sweetly?

I'm more against law enforcement overreactions than most people, but this was a mob that was already inside a building illegally, directly attacking our elected government. Deadly force was more than appropriate under the circumstances.

acbytesla 8th January 2021 02:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Planigale (Post 13353285)
I know that shooting some one does not necessarily kill them. I do accept that if you open fire on someone, you should shoot to kill. That shooting to wound is a Hollywood fantasy. i had wondered whether someone climbing through a window could have been shot in the arm, but I think that if you shoot you shoot to kill.

Did this murdering mob open fire through the window? Were any shots fired by the rioters? The only shots fired I can find by limited googling (Thanks Darat for the advice, ever helpful), were by the police. Of course this officer might not know that other shots were fired by police, and that would be a reason for believing violence was occurring.

Please stop.

Planigale 8th January 2021 02:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul2 (Post 13353279)
While the rest of the mob rushes right past you, or, worse, tries to prevent you from doing what you suggest?

I think the window was only big enough for one person, (with a large back pack), pepper spraying her or tasering her halfway through effectively blocks the hole?

Meadmaker 8th January 2021 02:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dr. Keith (Post 13353263)
Expect a correction that the protestor with the Cocktails was merely among the protestors near the capitol building and had not yet entered the building. Also, the cocktails were not yet assembled, but since assembly and deployment seem tightly connected, I don't see why that matters much. But offer you this glimpse into your future . . . free of charge.

What's an unassembled Molotov cocktail? A bottle of gasoline that has a cap instead of a wick?

Darat 8th January 2021 02:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Meadmaker (Post 13353270)
That is a complete misreading of SGM's statement.

Her statement:

The key word in the sentence is not "lawbreaker". The key word is "threatening". Ashli Babbit was not killed because she broke the law. She was killed because she, and the mob behind her, presented a real threat to the Congressmen inside the House chamber.

Using the "reasonable person" standard of self defense and justification of the use of deadly force, a reasonable person would conclude that the Congressmen were in danger of death or great bodily harm. Under those circumstances, lethal force is justified in self defense or the defense of others.

I'm not happy that she's dead, but, based on the evidence available to us, killing her was justified.

And even in gun-shy UK such a shooting would be totally acceptable, it would be lawful, and of course only my opinion would have been accepted as morally OK.

JoeMorgue 8th January 2021 02:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Planigale (Post 13353292)
I think the window was only big enough for one person, (with a large back pack), pepper spraying her or tasering her halfway through effectively blocks the hole?


You are literally embarrassing yourself.

Planigale 8th January 2021 02:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by acbytesla (Post 13353291)
Please stop.

OK.

Thank you for the advice.

Off to work.

Meadmaker 8th January 2021 02:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Distracted1 (Post 13353284)
You are arguing that she was summarily executed as an example!.

Bravo!

Learn to read.


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:53 AM.

Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2015-20, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.